YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Ever watched an ordinary clock, the sort with hands on? you can see the second hand moveing quite easily, MAYBE sometimes the minutes hand if they`re long enough, but certainly not the Hour hand, and yet it clearly DOES move I was wondering, what is the smallest movement that the eye (or brain) can detect and what factors govorn it? I use the term "smallest" but slowest may apply too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 http://people.brandeis.edu/~sekuler/papers/SWBchapterJune2001.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 Damn .pdf files... still can`t get em to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:5en18ppguAgJ:people.brandeis.edu/~sekuler/papers/SWBchapterJune2001.pdf+minarc+definition&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 That's a HTML version, so you miss out on the pictures By the way, it's forty-odd pages long, that's why I didn't even try to give a short answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 Thnx, I`ll take a peek when I have a free hour meantime if anyone else wants to share ideas, Shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 - I would take the 1/'viewfrequenty' about 1/20sec ? (freq when a wheel seems to rotate backward, I think) -And the distance of the smallest noticable resolution. speed=disctance*20 (v=ds/dt) BTW there are no pics in the PDF, but I'm to lazy to read it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 well I know such things as visual accuity apply, I guess it`s more like RATE of movement perhaps? because when there`s an ant crawling alont the floor at say 1 foot every 2 seconds I can see it move when I stand above it, but if I were to see it from maybe 100 foot high, it would seem to maybe not even move, a bit like white peak waves in the ocean as seen from an aircraft, so a standard would need to be set I should imagine? based upon certain constants, and then experimented with, I dunno, it just something that was bugging me while watching a clock I`de made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 You do the testing for one distance later when you have al the data you can easely recalculate for further or closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 well I`m also part wondering if EYES work on a basis similar to Pixels (obviously on an analogue level). but then one must also take into acount body to head to eyes movement as the heart beats and we breathe etc... if we move, then the brain has to try and remember the last position the slow moving item was at, and that in itself can be tricky! :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 I can imagine a way to to calculate it based on the distance and diameter of photorecptive pigments in the eye and wavelength of light and the angle it comes through the cornea and the focal distance... but I've got no definite numbers, but if a small object was an inch away from your eye you should be able to detect movement of around 0.22mm/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Now that we are on the level of quantum science everything you see happened a long time span before it reached your eye. We have mechanical and biological which in this case are more efficient limits. Soon we should be able to build super eyes through electronics. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 erm ok,,, thats nice dear ... errr YT2095 smiles at Aman and backs away slowly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 well, if i look for minute hand movement on an analogue watch, i can see it up to about half a foot away, so i'd say fafalone is right, and maybe even less than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now