You must log in or register to comment.
Disappointed. But didn’t the have receptors for differently polarized light? What about that?
Color me appointed, at least we’re not missing out on fresh new colors!
Polarization filters on retinal photoreceptor won’t make light wavelength (color) be perceived different, it just changes the conditions in which it’s detected. If those polarized cells would cover unique colors compared to the rest, it would kinda resemble the highlight effect in Mirror’s Edge, where something with a different angle than the surroundings stand out (sudden color gradient)
Imagine how OP their colour perception would be if they did have that mental processing power
Oh that explains this scene
Makes me feel better about being a human. Our eyes are not deficient. Humans are superior!
deleted by creator
Some hugely detailed and really certain knowledge from neurology…
“In short, I am superior to any other species, race, or creed. And especially femoids, fuck them.”
PussSlayer666, CoD Clan Leader.
Reminds me a little of CD digital audio. The original Red Book audio standard hasn’t really been improved upon because it’s uncompressed audio which covers basically all of the range of human hearing within the capabilities of any speaker we could build. It’s uncompressed because in the early 80’s when the tech hit the market, it was completely unfeasible to include the CPU and RAM needed to decompress audio in real time.
Shrimp has more color receptors because he doesn’t have enough neurons to run trichromacy, so he sees in EGA.
Oh man.
12 year old me waiting for hours to rip mp3s from cds always wondered about this.
Like why isn’t it already compressed?
The answer is that storage was available but processing wasn’t. Amaze.
Mp3 is already compressed, as is the MP2 CDs use.
If it wasn’t conpressed, you’d be looking at CDs per track, instead of tracks per CD.
What are you on about? CD-DA, aka audio CD, aka red book audio, is uncompressed 16-bit PCM sampled at 44100Hz. It is lossless.
MP3 (MPEG-1/2 Audio Layer III) is a lossy encoding standard commonly used for online audio distribution and steaming. MP2 usually refers to MPEG-1 Audio Layer 2, which was most commonly used in Digital Audio Broadcast.
Neither are used in ‘regular’ CD audio.
I’d like to subscribe to the format facts newsletter. Can you do VHS next?
Each frame of video on VHS actually occupies a diagonal section of the tape. That allows the width of the tape to be effectively longer which means it can store more information. It’s also why the image will jitter a bit when the tape is paused since there’s multiple frames of data under the read head at any given time.
It is lossless.
I’m not sure that’s the right word for uncompressed digital audio, because it’s lossless compared to what? Presumably an analog recording or the original input signal? Because Shannon-Nyquist, with CD audio you can’t get anything higher than what? 16kHz out of it, but within that limitation you can reproduce any arbitrary waveform within a speaker’s ability to produce given the laws of physics regarding inductance and inertia.
MP3 does use a lossy compression, but you can maintain listenable quality while cramming about 10 times as much audio into a given space. You can get just over an hour of Red Book audio on a CD, and about 11 hours of mp3s, give or take. You might get lower audio bandwidth or various kinds of artifacts but it’ll still sound pretty good, it’s way more practical to store and transmit over the internet. We didn’t Napster no .wav files.
FLAC and similar formats use lossless compression, kind of like a .zip file. If you rip a CD to FLAC, and you were to then burn a CD from that FLAC, the data on the new CD would be identical to the old one. So you get as-perfect-as-we-can-do digital audio, but only 5 or 6 hours worth would fit on a CD. Someone somewhere on this earth has filled a compact disc with FLAC files, I’m sure.
Shrimp has more color receptors because he doesn’t have enough neurons to run trichromacy, so he sees in EGA.
love this. nice job :)
I remember experiencing the EGA to VGA graphics evolution when I was growing up. I remember thinking the VGA almost seemed too real.
In my mind, this was a game that felt like it was pretend:
But this felt entirely too real:
Have you played The Crimson Diamond? EGA is back, baby!
If you love the old murder mystery games like the Laura Bow Mystery Series, you will enjoy this game
Oh man, I had completely forgotten about the old Laura Bow games! Might have to check this out!
Is moral of your story that adults having frequency detection limited to 16khz, with older adults lower, might still be able to detect music well enough?
Shrimp photoreceptor situation is crazy
The shrimp are holier than we are because they cannot see the devil’s color (it’s pink 🩷)
You mean light red?
That is clearly embarrassed white
But compared with human eyesight, they could still see more ‘colors’ - As we see (almost) the same white in incandescent bulbs as LEDs and fluorescents, they might actually see the component colors and their intensities.
Not unlike how we may hear a combination tone when multiple other tones are played, and hear the difference (or sum) of them.
How would you suggest they do that. White light near equally activates our 3 cones because all spectrums of light are in it.
White light near equally activates all 12 shrimp cones because all spectrums of light are in it.
Which spectrum of color is left out of white light that wouldn’t light up a cone associated with it?
6500k vs 5000k is noticeable for humans
I think this speaks to a significant misunderstanding that most people hold of the way vision actually works.
Most people imagine that vision is a relatively simple process by which our eyes detect and transmit to us the nature of the world. Not so.
Eyes are complex and interesting organs in their own right but fundamentally what they do is relatively simple. They are able to detect and report to the brain certain qualities of the light that hits them. Primarily these are: intensity, direction, and proximity to three points on the frequency spectrum (what we perceive as red, green, and blue). But this data alone is not vision. Vision is a conscious experience our brains create by interpreting and processing this data into the visual field before us—basically, a full scale 3D model of the world in front of us, including the blended information on reflection and emission that color entails.
Quite amazing! Most of this takes place in the human brain, and not the eyes. From this perspective, it is not terribly surprising that an organism with more complex eyes but a much simpler brain might have worse vision than we do.
It’s amazing and crazy to think, too, that the “theater” our brains create is an equilibrium point of laziness (to save energy) and usefulness (to help survival). So, surely, there are things we are just unable to see. But also, probably, there are different things that get mapped to the same things in the “theater.” I’m just speculating though but it makes sense.
Ha! I read the following Science new article just today about how Purple Only Exists In Our Brains. It’s written for a younger audience (I think), but it lays out how our sight works, and how our brains trick us into seeing purple (a red-blue colour, as opposed to violet).
Poor shrimpos, no purple for them, I bet.
We don’t really detect direction of light exactly. Instead we detect the location in the eye where the light landed, and have lenses to focus the light onto our retina. That relationship does imply some of the directionality of the light, by ignoring light that goes in certain directions and relating the direction of light that does get detected to the location it ends up.
Yeah I was trying to avoid those details. I think it’s fair to summarize that as a system that detects the direction light is coming from.
By the same logic, we don’t detect light, just the change in shape of certain proteins. The sky isn’t blue, it’s a subset of sunlight. We don’t really touch things, we transmit forces with tiny magnets. Computers don’t really do math, they just arrange states in certain ways.
The world
is beautifulmakes my brain release endorphins
*we detect the direction of light by the location in the eye…ect.
There fixed it for you.
ect.
etc. It stands for the Latin words et cetera.
You haven’t been saying ectcetera have you? Oh no.
Correctors better come correct.
Isn’t it amazing how birds reverse engineered airplanes?
That’s silly thinking. Everyone knows birds aren’t real, so they’re just late-stage planes created by engineers forced to follow certain constraints.
Did a shit job of it too, got the wings all flapping around like a bunch of idiots.
I want to see a bird swing around its break as a propeller.
Shrimply*
My whole world is crumbling
They mean mantis shrimp… this non technical language bothers me so much…
