Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#71

Post by bd »

agumonkey wrote: post #69
bd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a suspicion you may not even need scattering to achieve similar psychological effects. In computer graphics, if you want to get "daylight" illumination for cheap, you simply use two lights - one white-to-yellowish directional and one bluish hemispherical: http://threejs.org/examples/webgl_lights_hemisphere.html You only compute expensive scattering if you need volumetric effects (e.g. god rays or atmospheric f…

Could you send me a screenshot, my IGP has no love for webgl.

Sure, here are screenshots of that WebGL demo (final result, plus broken into lighting components):

http://imgur.com/a/2fUmE

Real physical double-light would look better - this demo lacks ambient occlusion for hemispheric component (soft shadows in real world are free, in rendering they are expensive).

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#72

Post by _0w8t »

jrapdx3 wrote: post #67
_0w8t wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unfortunate that "vitamin D" is called "vitamin" since it is in fact a hormone. As with most hormones, their effect depends on many factors including the number of receptors on target cells that can change significantly increasing or decreasing sensitivity to D. That itself is poorly understood and it is unknown how long-term consumption of D supplements in what ever form with little exposure to real Sun affect…

Vitamin D (for lack of better official term) indeed has an apparent role in an amazingly broad array of body systems. I suppose calling it a "vitamin" is appropriate in environments with insufficient sunlight which includes northerly latitudes, say above the 45th parallel (where I happen to live). Presumed deficiency of D (per lab studies) is quite common here and supplementation is usually recommended for optimum he…

The recommendation to avoid UV exposure at all is just wrong indeed. The harm from UV is highly non-linear function of dose. It could be that in low doses when the body can quickly and fully recover it decreases the risk of melanoma through compensatory mechanisms. And even if this is not the case, one needs very short exposure to high Sun to get daily dose of D when risk of melanoma is significantly lower than most other risk factors one constantly meets throughout the life.

As for D supplements, one really should very careful even in cases of high latitudes (and this is the reason I avoid D supplements despite living at 61th parallel). Quoting Paul Albert , http://bacteriality.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Albert_IO... :

So are we really facing an epidemic of vitamin D "deficiency" or are we simply beginning to note more signs of an imminent epidemic of chronic disease – an epidemic which would be exacerbated by increasing the amount of vitamin D added to our food supply?

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#73

Post by scotty79 »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #13
ogig wrote: post #6

67.000$ for a great looking light source seems too much. You can buy small houses at that price point where I live. With real windows, you know.

It’s also a 660-pound object installed in a drop ceiling nearly a meter thick. You’d need very high ceilings to start with, and you’d better hope it’s installed well. Not to mention that it consumes up to 300W of power.

I wonder if they could glue their magic scattering pane to a mirror and lit it with a lamp from underneath (from inside the room that's being lit.

... or even make el cheapo version with just bluish tinted mirror.

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#74

Post by kirk21 »

In this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ4TJ4-kkDw ) they talk about the usage for underground buildings. It could be for underground buildings what the lift is for high buildings (eg make it practical).

This was on Product Hunt a while ago: https://www.producthunt.com/tech/coelux

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#75

Post by visarga »

jamespitts wrote: post #12

Artificial sunlight could be revolutionary if applied with scale in cities. It could enable new, far denser forms of architecture "built for people", mitigating the ill psychological effects of being without natural surroundings. The energy use would be heavy, but it might be worth the cost given the transportation energy savings and higher productivity and happiness of the city population.

If many people are going to live close together maybe we also need sound proofing to match the artificial skylight.

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#76

Post by ethanbond »

mappu wrote: post #64
mentos wrote: post #45

I'm looking up at my square white ceiling wondering what it would be like if the entire surface was this CoeLux panel. Imagine a vibrant blue sky with a beautiful sun tracking its way across your ceiling all day. I think it could be breathtaking. This is the type of 'simple' invention that you could never really anticipate but changes the future profoundly.

VR headsets will accomplish this for many people. Well, maybe in one more generation once the resolution becomes higher.. and adding hand tracking.. and a UV lamp on a servo..

And all you've gotta do is lie in bed with a VR headset on!

Let's hope you don't have a significant other that you're supposed to be spending time with.

Come on, this isn't a solution.

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#77

Post by upofadown »

jamespitts wrote: post #12

Artificial sunlight could be revolutionary if applied with scale in cities. It could enable new, far denser forms of architecture "built for people", mitigating the ill psychological effects of being without natural surroundings. The energy use would be heavy, but it might be worth the cost given the transportation energy savings and higher productivity and happiness of the city population.

That presumes that artificial sunlight is actually desirable. One of the important functions of a building is to block the sun. Very few people would want to live/work in direct sunlight.

For circadian light you just need something that is sufficiently bright and blue. ... or just blue for that matter, blue LEDs are cheap and efficient.

None of this can improve surroundings that are otherwise unpleasant...

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#78

Post by madaxe_again »

bd wrote: post #25
ipsum2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is is nice, the main breakthrough of CoeLux is the simulation of Rayleigh scattering, not just a bright diffused light.

Lot of things scatter. There is probably something cheaper than $35,000 per light. Maybe milk could be used? :) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wyj6iHUndhg/UXpUk6HxfLI/AAAAAAAACu... http://thestandardmodel.blogspot.com/2013/04/when-i-was-chil... It feels like they charge so much not because there would be some principal engineering / technical obstacle but simply because they can. They have been the first who realized some…

Maybe milk could be used?

Worst smelling light ever. You could even say that that idea stinks!

OTOH a colloidal solution of silver could potentially do the job.

Re: CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That’s Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain

#80

Post by kefka »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #13
ogig wrote: post #6

67.000$ for a great looking light source seems too much. You can buy small houses at that price point where I live. With real windows, you know.

It’s also a 660-pound object installed in a drop ceiling nearly a meter thick. You’d need very high ceilings to start with, and you’d better hope it’s installed well. Not to mention that it consumes up to 300W of power.

Well sunlight is around 1kW per square meter energy density, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that this takes .3kW to simulate sunlight.
Post reply on HN