121–130 of 219 posts
There are various people speculating on the economic significance of this solution, which, to me, is rather missing the point. It's like measuring the significance of the excavation of Tutankhamen's† tomb by the tourist revenues of museums. The point of economics is that it keeps us alive so we can do math and also think in other ways; the point of consciousness is not to make money. I don't think there is any econom…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really natural, on first mention, to refer to something using a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? From that point on, to avoid repetition, mix in antecedents or generic names. Brands exploit this mechanic in language so that any time a, thereto unknown, good has to be addressed, that identification become advertising. It shifts from being a unique identification of an object/item…
Hazelnut spread is one of those things that is much more commonly referred to as the brand name. No one says "Reynolds wrap" they say "aluminum foil". No one says "hazelnut spread", they say Nutella. No one says "resealable sandwich bags", they say ziploc bags.
For one thing, Nutella is chocolate flavored. No one would ever even consider calling it "hazelnut spread".
It's an interesting mathematical result, but note that gives a solution for the problem of the spherical aberration, but real lens have also chromatic aberration. I.E. the speed of light for each color inside the glass is slightly different, so the value n (refraction index) in the equation is different, so in the equation you get a different surface for each color. In the real lens you must pick one surface, so the…
wouldn’t this be simply stacking SA free lenses, with the remaining aberrations being alignment related?
I’m questioning my sense of humor because everyone here seemed to have enjoyed the tone of the article, while I was quite put off by it.
It's a good article if you enjoy jokes and references about photographers and how they behave. It's not a good article if you want a minimum of fluff and just want to understand what the discovery is and why it might be significant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It's really natural, when first mentioning it, to call something using by a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? Huh? ‘degenerate set’ being what, the brand placement? I likes me some Semiotics, though not sure what this passage refers to. In the context of a photography site, brand mentions must be a hazard. The author has no problem name dropping an Ancient Greek, Newton, Leibniz, H…
I don't know any Semiotics! But, in an effort to drive the conversation, I can be more precise with what I'm trying to say. I'm working with this informal idea that there is always a relationship between the audience and the speaker. That relationship define a shared knowledge space. If I am speaking to a group of my friends and need to refer to my brother the set of identifiers that uniquely conveys his identify to…
From your original comment: “...contextualizes that good as being different from all the others (un)like it.”
This is textbook Semiotics. Meaning is not derived from the designation (‘apple’ is the red fruit with the thin skin and firm ...eh flesh. Rather, Apple is not a banana; not a kiwi; not a tomato; not beef; ad infinitum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hazelnut spread is one of those things that is much more commonly referred to as the brand name. No one says "Reynolds wrap" they say "aluminum foil". No one says "hazelnut spread", they say Nutella. No one says "resealable sandwich bags", they say ziploc bags.
> No one says "resealable sandwich bags", they say ziploc bags. Everyone says resealable bags. I've never even heard the word ziploc. In New Zealand.
> After months of working on solving the problem, Rafael González recalls, “I remember one morning I was making myself a slice of bread with Nutella, when suddenly, I said out loud: Mothers! It is there!” > He then ran to his computer and started programming the idea. When he executed the solution and saw that it worked, he says he jumped all over the place. It is unclear whether he finished eating the Nutella bread.…
The fact that there is an analytical solution to the problem is a really nice achievement, but I have to wonder: solving this problem numerically has surely been within reach of computers for a long time, and should therefore have made actually manufacturing such lenses somewhat straightforward. What am i missing?
There are various people speculating on the economic significance of this solution, which, to me, is rather missing the point. It's like measuring the significance of the excavation of Tutankhamen's† tomb by the tourist revenues of museums. The point of economics is that it keeps us alive so we can do math and also think in other ways; the point of consciousness is not to make money. I don't think there is any econom…
Couldn't you use the formula to create a correction algorithm?
A single image also won't technically contain enough information to even allow you to reconstruct the image, but with sparse reconstruction you might be able to get it done.
In fact I'm fairly sure people have tried to do exactly that, and phone manufacturers seem pretty willing to throw software at the problem as well, although the latter don't really care much for the method as long as it looks nice.
I have not checked the actual paper, but according to the article itself: > Moreover, the solution involved aspherical elements , which are harder to manufacture in a precise way and are thus more costly. > Their findings were published in the article General Formula for Bi-Aspheric Singlet Lens Design Free of Spherical Aberration, in the journal Applied Optics. I’m no expert in optics, but that does not sound like t…
It also doesn't sound like the kind of advancement that makes camera lenses play mp3 files, but then: neither of those two things are even remotely relevant to the article? These people solved optical abberation. Even if their work leads to lenses that are twice as expensive as they are today, people whose research, or jobs, rely on perfect optics will be more than happy to pay what it costs to work with those. Anyon…
How is it not? The article actually makes that claim:
It would help make better and cheaper to manufacture optical systems in all areas, be it telescopes, microscopes, and everything in between.