| |
Main
Date: 14 Jun 2007 20:04:00
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
By Gisela Telis
ScienceNOW Daily News
13 June 2007
The next time you miss the forest for the trees, blame your jittery
eyeballs. The small, involuntary movements our eyes make when they
focus help the brain discern the finer details of an image, according
to new research. Although the findings leave several questions
unanswered, they mark an important step toward settling a 50-year-old
controversy.
Most animals with sharp central vision, such as humans, monkeys, and
cats, make microscopic eye adjustments when they fix their gaze.
These jitters wiggle the image on the retina, and scientists know
surprisingly little about why this happens. In the 1950s, vision
researchers used cumbersome techniques involving rotating mirrors to
negate the jitter when volunteers stared at an image. The volunteers
began to see a featureless gray field rather than the image at hand,
so scientists concluded that jittering kept the image from fading.
But it wasn't clear how, or if, the jitters served other functions.
See: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 18:03:56
From: Richard Herring
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
In message <f5bjld$kh7$1@news.datemas.de >, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com > writes
>On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:51:28 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
><junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in <xOgWG+SA0UeGFwVQ@baesystems.com>:
>
>>I am wondering why the tower cleared the second 707 for takeoff when
>>they were aware of an ongoing infringement and couldn't guarantee
>>separation.
>
>I think it is possible they were blind (the radar) because he was too low,
>they simply did not see him in time.
>
>>>he must know by now he should
>>>not be there- tower gets hold of little plane @!@!@!@!@! 90 degrees,
>>
>>"Which way?"
>
>Left
>
>>Now they've cleared a *third* takeoff while there's still a UFO in
>>controlled airspace? Why am I having a hard time believing this
>>narrative?
>
>No no, the Boeings were already in the air, about one each 2 minutes,
>you just cannot put the breaks on and park on the side of the road: -)
Make your mind up. The first time you told it, the first 707 reported
the UFO to the tower, *then* the second one took off, *then* the third
one. Granted, they might have been too late to stop the second, but not
the third.
>
>>>You'd be amazed and never fly again if you knew about all the near misses :-)
>>>
>>You don't know what I know.
>
>True:-)
>
>Altough.....
>LOL
--
Richard Herring
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 17:48:15
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:03:56 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1] > wrote in <LMP42Zd83VeGFwjv@baesystems.com>:
>>No no, the Boeings were already in the air, about one each 2 minutes,
>>you just cannot put the breaks on and park on the side of the road: -)
>
>Make your mind up. The first time you told it, the first 707 reported
>the UFO to the tower, *then* the second one took off, *then* the third
>one. Granted, they might have been too late to stop the second, but not
>the third.
Well, I was not in the tower at that moment.
But the third was indeed on the way.
Have you ever worked in a hotspot like that?
2 minutes and sx
When I was much younger I did... they thought I could handle the stress,
I never felt any, some people ended up in the madhouse though.
I did wake up one night hearing the intercom tough....
But to stay on topic: Have you ever been to mars?
;-)
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 16:51:28
From: Richard Herring
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
In message <f5beka$c5i$1@news.datemas.de >, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com > writes
>On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:48:52 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
><junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in <WQd$RtB0nOeGFwRJ@baesystems.com>:
>
>>>>>Not much time to react really.
>>>
>>>I cannot give you vertical separation in meters, but not more then 50
>>>I'd say,
>>>was standing right under it.....
>>
>>Bystanders are notoriously unable to estimate the heights of aircraft.
>
>Not professional bystanders..
Indeed. Professionals are aware of the difficulties and don't make
claims they can't substantiate.
>It was amazing to watch, I knew the processes that happened ( I worked
>at that airport)
Right.
>pilot of first 707 taking of shits the pants, calls tower 'some idiot
>is ghostflying'..
>tower immediately tries to (if they not already did) contact the little
>plane by radio,
>hope he has it on...
I hope they tried Approach or Radar, before Tower...
> second 707 taking of just 2 minutes after the first one also shits
>pants -I am wondering why does the idiot not turn?
I am wondering why the tower cleared the second 707 for takeoff when
they were aware of an ongoing infringement and couldn't guarantee
separation.
>he must know by now he should
>not be there- tower gets hold of little plane @!@!@!@!@! 90 degrees,
"Which way?"
>he turns, third
>plane takes of just past him.
Now they've cleared a *third* takeoff while there's still a UFO in
controlled airspace? Why am I having a hard time believing this
narrative?
>So what timescale? maybe 2 minutes 10 seconds.
>Not much you can do.
"<callsign > hold position, cancel take-off I say again cancel take-off,
acknowledge" or "<callsign > stop immediately I say again <callsign> stop
immediately, acknowledge" (addressed to the aircraft about to take off)
is usually pretty effective.
(http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF section 1.7.12)
>
>>>If you think about it - it is the accuracy of radio beacons that
>>>allows flights
>>>in opposite directions to hit each other - :-)
>
>>Flights in opposite directions should (thanks to the accuracy of
>>altimeters) be at least 700 feet apart vertically.
>
>YoYo, right, SHALL, but his barometer uche altimeter was probably not
>even properly set
If he's that scatterbrained, do you really think his proximity to the
beacon was anything more than a coincidence?
>what do I know.
No comment.
>
>You'd be amazed and never fly again if you knew about all the near misses :-)
>
You don't know what I know.
--
Richard Herring
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 16:12:25
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:51:28 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1] > wrote in <xOgWG+SA0UeGFwVQ@baesystems.com>:
>I am wondering why the tower cleared the second 707 for takeoff when
>they were aware of an ongoing infringement and couldn't guarantee
>separation.
I think it is possible they were blind (the radar) because he was too low,
they simply did not see him in time.
>>he must know by now he should
>>not be there- tower gets hold of little plane @!@!@!@!@! 90 degrees,
>
>"Which way?"
Left
>Now they've cleared a *third* takeoff while there's still a UFO in
>controlled airspace? Why am I having a hard time believing this
>narrative?
No no, the Boeings were already in the air, about one each 2 minutes,
you just cannot put the breaks on and park on the side of the road: -)
>>You'd be amazed and never fly again if you knew about all the near misses :-)
>>
>You don't know what I know.
True:-)
Altough.....
LOL
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 09:48:52
From: Richard Herring
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
In message <f595t5$ruc$1@news.datemas.de >, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com > writes
>On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:52:32 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
><junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in <mWUTAviQnAeGFw3I@baesystems.com>:
>
>>In message <f590eh$ini$1@news.datemas.de>, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> writes
>>>On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:17:22 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
>>><junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in <B5kqL3eSGAeGFwQK@baesystems.com>:
>>>
>>>>>Pilots have been taught for a long time now to continuously shift
>>>>>their eyeballs least important objects fade into the haze.
>>>>>
>>>>.. especially because the most important object out there is the one
>>>>with a constant relative bearing.
>>>
>>>Eh, depends... I did see that small piper heading the wrong way towards
>>>the beacon.
>>>Radar got him in the end, he was ordered to turn... must have scared
>>>the shit out of
>>>some pilots taking off.
>>
>>What, no vertical separation? Holds are normally safely above the visual
>>circuit, and even that should be comfortably above the normal climb
>>path, unless they were piloting rockets.
>>
>>>Not much time to react really.
>
>I cannot give you vertical separation in meters, but not more then 50 I'd say,
>was standing right under it.....
Bystanders are notoriously unable to estimate the heights of aircraft.
>If you think about it - it is the accuracy of radio beacons that allows flights
>in opposite directions to hit each other - :-)
Flights in opposite directions should (thanks to the accuracy of
altimeters) be at least 700 feet apart vertically. (that's 1000 from the
semicircular rule, minus 2*100 for pilot error minus 2*50 for altimeter
inaccuracy.) Holds typically step down 1000 feet at a time, with only
one aircraft at each level in the hold, and the final holding level
something like to 1000 feet above the visual circuit pattern, if there
is one.
>The guy 'missed' 2 707s ...
>
--
Richard Herring
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 14:46:30
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:48:52 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1] > wrote in <WQd$RtB0nOeGFwRJ@baesystems.com>:
>>>>Not much time to react really.
>>
>>I cannot give you vertical separation in meters, but not more then 50 I'd say,
>>was standing right under it.....
>
>Bystanders are notoriously unable to estimate the heights of aircraft.
Not professional bystanders..
It was amazing to watch, I knew the processes that happened ( I worked at that airport)
pilot of first 707 taking of shits the pants, calls tower 'some idiot is ghostflying'..
tower immediately tries to (if they not already did) contact the little plane by radio,
hope he has it on... second 707 taking of just 2 minutes after the first one also shits
pants -I am wondering why does the idiot not turn? he must know by now he should
not be there- tower gets hold of little plane @!@!@!@!@! 90 degrees, he turns, third
plane takes of just past him.
So what timescale? maybe 2 minutes 10 seconds.
Not much you can do.
>>If you think about it - it is the accuracy of radio beacons that allows flights
>>in opposite directions to hit each other - :-)
>Flights in opposite directions should (thanks to the accuracy of
>altimeters) be at least 700 feet apart vertically.
YoYo, right, SHALL, but his barometer uche altimeter was probably not even properly set
what do I know.
You'd be amazed and never fly again if you knew about all the near misses :-)
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 16:29:35
From: Chris.B
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
Our ancestors developed vision in a green, uniform jungle where the
detection of movement and distance was probably vital to survival.
Staring at a uniform, monochromatic jungle may require rapid eye
movements to detect subtle variation and access 3D vision
Keen birdwatchers (and probably hunters too) develop improved
detection of small movement under difficult visual circumstances.
Perhaps somebody should study experienced birdwatchers eye movements
to see how they vary from the norm?
Long practice at the telescope eyepiece seems to improve visual acuity
in low contrast, narrow field conditions.
Add experienced astronomers to the list of those whose eyes might vary
from the norm.
Galway, the flautist, seems to have very unusual, rapid eye movements.
Perhaps someone should ask what he sees?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 14:48:37
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:29:35 -0700) it happened "Chris.B"
<chris.b@mail.dk > wrote in
<1182295775.074907.53270@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com >:
>Our ancestors developed vision in a green, uniform jungle where the
>detection of movement and distance was probably vital to survival.
>Staring at a uniform, monochromatic jungle may require rapid eye
>movements to detect subtle variation and access 3D vision
>Keen birdwatchers
My detection for parrots has increase considerably since reading sci.physics
> (and probably hunters too) develop improved
>detection
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 12:00:05
From: galathaea
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On Jun 14, 1:09 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
> > http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
> > By Gisela Telis
> > ScienceNOW Daily News
> > 13 June 2007
>
> > The next time you miss the forest for the trees, blame your jittery
> > eyeballs. The small, involuntary movements our eyes make when they
> > focus help the brain discern the finer details of an image, according
> > to new research. Although the findings leave several questions
> > unanswered, they mark an important step toward settling a 50-year-old
> > controversy.
>
> > Most animals with sharp central vision, such as humans, monkeys, and
> > cats, make microscopic eye adjustments when they fix their gaze.
> > These jitters wiggle the image on the retina, and scientists know
> > surprisingly little about why this happens. In the 1950s, vision
> > researchers used cumbersome techniques involving rotating mirrors to
> > negate the jitter when volunteers stared at an image. The volunteers
> > began to see a featureless gray field rather than the image at hand,
> > so scientists concluded that jittering kept the image from fading.
> > But it wasn't clear how, or if, the jitters served other functions.
>
> > See:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
> Is this news? I remember hearing about these movements,
> called "saccades", in the early 70s. I thought it was fairly
> well-established that:
> - the visual cortex (the low-level processing center in
> the brain) is change-sensitive, so saccades are important
> to keep the neurons firing, and
> - only a very small part of the retina called the fovea is
> high-resolution (the same part that has the color receptors) so the
> perception of larger, colored high-resolution areas is
> synthesized by moving the fovea around. As I recall the
> visual field of the fovea is only on the order of a degree
> or two. But it's been a long time since I saw this stuff.
its not a new idea
but there has been a large amount of mathematical work since the
late 80s
in neuroarchitectonic simulations
proposing various information discernment advantages to saccadic
movement
this team has apparently been validating some of these simulations
so although the results have been known possible
these are verifications that the proposed mechanisms are there
there have been other verifications in the literature
for a number of these mechanisms
but as with all research
these guys are promoting their work as much newer and more relevant
as they need the grant funds like any other group
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 17:52:32
From: Richard Herring
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
In message <f590eh$ini$1@news.datemas.de >, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com > writes
>On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:17:22 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
><junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in <B5kqL3eSGAeGFwQK@baesystems.com>:
>
>>>Pilots have been taught for a long time now to continuously shift
>>>their eyeballs least important objects fade into the haze.
>>>
>>.. especially because the most important object out there is the one
>>with a constant relative bearing.
>
>Eh, depends... I did see that small piper heading the wrong way towards
>the beacon.
>Radar got him in the end, he was ordered to turn... must have scared
>the shit out of
>some pilots taking off.
What, no vertical separation? Holds are normally safely above the visual
circuit, and even that should be comfortably above the normal climb
path, unless they were piloting rockets.
>Not much time to react really.
--
Richard Herring
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 18:05:20
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:52:32 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1] > wrote in <mWUTAviQnAeGFw3I@baesystems.com>:
>In message <f590eh$ini$1@news.datemas.de>, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> writes
>>On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:17:22 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
>><junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in <B5kqL3eSGAeGFwQK@baesystems.com>:
>>
>>>>Pilots have been taught for a long time now to continuously shift
>>>>their eyeballs least important objects fade into the haze.
>>>>
>>>.. especially because the most important object out there is the one
>>>with a constant relative bearing.
>>
>>Eh, depends... I did see that small piper heading the wrong way towards
>>the beacon.
>>Radar got him in the end, he was ordered to turn... must have scared
>>the shit out of
>>some pilots taking off.
>
>What, no vertical separation? Holds are normally safely above the visual
>circuit, and even that should be comfortably above the normal climb
>path, unless they were piloting rockets.
>
>>Not much time to react really.
I cannot give you vertical separation in meters, but not more then 50 I'd say,
was standing right under it.....
If you think about it - it is the accuracy of radio beacons that allows flights
in opposite directions to hit each other - :-)
The guy 'missed' 2 707s ...
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 17:17:22
From: Richard Herring
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
In message <1r49k4-13d.ln1@mail.specsol.com >, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
writes
>In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
>> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
>> By Gisela Telis
>> ScienceNOW Daily News
>> 13 June 2007
>
>> The next time you miss the forest for the trees, blame your jittery
>> eyeballs. The small, involuntary movements our eyes make when they
>> focus help the brain discern the finer details of an image, according
>> to new research. Although the findings leave several questions
>> unanswered, they mark an important step toward settling a 50-year-old
>> controversy.
>
>> Most animals with sharp central vision, such as humans, monkeys, and
>> cats, make microscopic eye adjustments when they fix their gaze.
>> These jitters wiggle the image on the retina, and scientists know
>> surprisingly little about why this happens. In the 1950s, vision
>> researchers used cumbersome techniques involving rotating mirrors to
>> negate the jitter when volunteers stared at an image. The volunteers
>> began to see a featureless gray field rather than the image at hand,
>> so scientists concluded that jittering kept the image from fading.
>> But it wasn't clear how, or if, the jitters served other functions.
>
>> See: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
>Pilots have been taught for a long time now to continuously shift
>their eyeballs least important objects fade into the haze.
>
.. especially because the most important object out there is the one
with a constant relative bearing.
--
Richard Herring
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2007 16:32:12
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:17:22 +0100) it happened Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1] > wrote in <B5kqL3eSGAeGFwQK@baesystems.com>:
>>Pilots have been taught for a long time now to continuously shift
>>their eyeballs least important objects fade into the haze.
>>
>.. especially because the most important object out there is the one
>with a constant relative bearing.
Eh, depends... I did see that small piper heading the wrong way towards the beacon.
Radar got him in the end, he was ordered to turn... must have scared the shit out of
some pilots taking off.
Not much time to react really.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2007 09:23:18
From: Andy Resnick
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
<snip >
The human eye is incredibly complex, even though it faces backwards
("God is a lobster"). The retina is perperly considered part of the
brain, the only part directly visible. The lens is fully formed before
birth, and there is constant fluid flow in the vitreous humor from front
(the iris) to the back.
The image at the retina is horribly abberrated, and there are about 7
processing layers at the retina from the rods/cones to the optic nerve.
The fovea contains mostly cones, while the rods are more sensitive and
perform an incredible amount of rhodopsin transport from the inner to
outer segment. The tips of rods are constantly sloughed off (about 1
micron/day) into the overlaying epithelial pigment layer.
Some of the processing layers perform subtraction from neighboring rods,
while others perform larger-area averaging. There's processing designed
to detect movement rather than imaging, which occurs at the outer region
of the retina. There's also long-term attenuation which you can
experience- try staring at a single spot for about 30 seconds, and the
fine detail will quickly wash out.
There's a lot of work (mostly military) trying to understand how birds
capture insects- that visual process would also be useful for guided
munitions.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2007 13:37:36
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
>> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
> <snip>
>
> The human eye is incredibly complex, even though it faces backwards
> ("God is a lobster"). The retina is perperly considered part of the
> brain, the only part directly visible. The lens is fully formed before
> birth, and there is constant fluid flow in the vitreous humor from front
> (the iris) to the back.
>
> The image at the retina is horribly abberrated, and there are about 7
> processing layers at the retina from the rods/cones to the optic nerve.
> The fovea contains mostly cones, while the rods are more sensitive and
> perform an incredible amount of rhodopsin transport from the inner to
> outer segment. The tips of rods are constantly sloughed off (about 1
> micron/day) into the overlaying epithelial pigment layer.
>
> Some of the processing layers perform subtraction from neighboring rods,
> while others perform larger-area averaging. There's processing designed
> to detect movement rather than imaging, which occurs at the outer region
> of the retina. There's also long-term attenuation which you can
> experience- try staring at a single spot for about 30 seconds, and the
> fine detail will quickly wash out.
>
> There's a lot of work (mostly military) trying to understand how birds
> capture insects- that visual process would also be useful for guided
> munitions.
>
I was watching a small bird do a dance with a flying insect just
yesterday... what gyrations! Insect got eaten in mid flight, btw.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 19:28:44
From: hhc314@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
John, I learned the essence of this effect in a most unuaual way, from
a cat. A small black, female cat that evidently likes a companion when
whe is out hunting for mice and (sadly including Chipmunks). About
twice a week she comes to my front door and meows until I come
outside. Then she lead me to the top of a hill where we both lie in
wait for the game.
I would not believe this story if someone told it to me, but it is
absolutely true. The rules from this cat are quite clear, and she
corrects me if I vary. We sit on the top of a hill overlooking the
forest floor, motionless. with eyes glued straight aheard. The amazing
thing is that anything at all MOVES in out field of view, it stands
out so clearly that nothing can miss it. Usually it is a small animal
that she catches in a single leap, then proudly displays to me hanging
from her mouth. Then, after waving it around in front of me, she takes
it back to her home and deposits it on her ower's doorstep.
Why I bring this up in this newsgroup, it is amazing to me how much
motion you can readily see when you remain perfectly still and keep
your eyes focused on a single fixed object. but the constant scanning
of your eyes reveals absolutely nothing. A cat taught me this silly
trick, and now using it I can spot deer when they visit in the woods
in back of our yard, when nobody else is about to see them until I
point them out. That little black cat gave me this ability.
I suppose from a physiology viewpoint, the explanation is simply that
our sensitivity to detect moving objects is not so much scanning of
the eyes, but an optical field moving across the retina, when the eyes
are held as near to perefectly constant and fixed on an non-moving
object like a tree as closely as is possible. They eye and the brain
now register on what has changed. Scan your eyeballs around and you
will miss everything.
Damn cat, and I am not a cat lover, but that damn taught me a lot.
Using this method I can easily spot deer in the brush, mice and
Chipmunks on the forest floor doint their thing, and an occasional
Fox, Muskrat, or Skunk when visiting. Our Possums are more dificult,
but occasionally you can spot a family too. Skunks are the most
incredible little guys to watch, particularly when eating. They enjoy
spaghetti, and eat it one strand at a time for sometime an hour. This
sometimes strains the Rule of the Cat, and it is really hard to remain
motionless for an hour. Skunks eat very slowly.
Still, I have to close this with a recount of the story of the
rcoons. Now these are rather resourful little chaps, and can open a
garbage can for food like the lid did not exist...very smart and
clever creatures. So we bribed them every week by placing food out for
them on garbage night (Raccoons love peanut butter coated bread more
than garbage.) So, in return, they left our garbage cans alone...
Then one dark and stormy night garbage night, as the story goes,
Sandra, the wife went out to place a dish of peanut butter toast toast
cubes and a disk of water (which you always leave for Raccoons because
they always wash their food in water... I happended to be lazing out
on the porch at that time, and watching the wildlife scatter around as
Sandra came out of the house. As it happened, Sandra in her loving way
was in the yard placing peanut buttered toast and water dishes for the
critters, but what I saw were several families of Racoons scampering
up into the tree beneath which she deposited the treats and the water.
She had absolutely no idea that in the tree immediately over her head,
more than 25 large and baby raccoons were clustered. I watched the
entire scene, but didn]t tell here until later. That said, withing 2-
minites, there was a great feast enjoyed by all.
Now for you people that don't live in the county or the burbs, I
should share with you that if it came down to a struggle between a a
40-lb adult racoon and a human, that racoon would win every time.
Still, in my neighborhood, the racoons simply want to have something
to eat, and not an encounter.
OK, enough of this wildlife stuff, except for this one last comment.
Being a physicist, I could have lived in Manhattan, Boston, Miami, Las
Vegas, or LA, but I chose to live in the suburbs of Boston, 30 miles
away from center city. I like natures creatures roaming around my
backyard here, and somtimes the dogs, chikens, horses, and cows that
over the 30 years that I have lived here. I enjoy sitting in a a lawn
chair and experiencing the beauty that surrounds me, unlike looking
at the side of a neighbors home. I ej\njoy wandering around my
fstreet or in my yard. I chose to live in this area because of its
moderate climate, beauty. proximity to mountains and the Atlantic
Ocean. Here, the ocean sailing is really great. Still, this will not
continue for long.
Harry C.
On Jun 14, 5:53 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:04:00 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
> > http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
> > By Gisela Telis
> > ScienceNOW Daily News
> > 13 June 2007
>
> > The next time you miss the forest for the trees, blame your jittery
> > eyeballs. The small, involuntary movements our eyes make when they
> > focus help the brain discern the finer details of an image, according
> > to new research. Although the findings leave several questions
> > unanswered, they mark an important step toward settling a 50-year-old
> > controversy.
>
> > Most animals with sharp central vision, such as humans, monkeys, and
> > cats, make microscopic eye adjustments when they fix their gaze.
> > These jitters wiggle the image on the retina, and scientists know
> > surprisingly little about why this happens. In the 1950s, vision
> > researchers used cumbersome techniques involving rotating mirrors to
> > negate the jitter when volunteers stared at an image. The volunteers
> > began to see a featureless gray field rather than the image at hand,
> > so scientists concluded that jittering kept the image from fading.
> > But it wasn't clear how, or if, the jitters served other functions.
>
> > See:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
> The retina is discretized with rods and cones. The jiggle lets them
> bring those fine details across a receptor that might have been lost
> in the "cracks". The scenery looks completely continuous, yet the
> instantaneous image is like the old halftone picture. It's natures
> fast Fourier transform. Yippee.
> John Polasek- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2007 01:05:03
From:
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote:
> Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
> By Gisela Telis
> ScienceNOW Daily News
> 13 June 2007
> The next time you miss the forest for the trees, blame your jittery
> eyeballs. The small, involuntary movements our eyes make when they
> focus help the brain discern the finer details of an image, according
> to new research. Although the findings leave several questions
> unanswered, they mark an important step toward settling a 50-year-old
> controversy.
> Most animals with sharp central vision, such as humans, monkeys, and
> cats, make microscopic eye adjustments when they fix their gaze.
> These jitters wiggle the image on the retina, and scientists know
> surprisingly little about why this happens. In the 1950s, vision
> researchers used cumbersome techniques involving rotating mirrors to
> negate the jitter when volunteers stared at an image. The volunteers
> began to see a featureless gray field rather than the image at hand,
> so scientists concluded that jittering kept the image from fading.
> But it wasn't clear how, or if, the jitters served other functions.
> See: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
Pilots have been taught for a long time now to continuously shift
their eyeballs least important objects fade into the haze.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 17:53:31
From: John C. Polasek
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:04:00 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com >
wrote:
>Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
> By Gisela Telis
> ScienceNOW Daily News
> 13 June 2007
>
> The next time you miss the forest for the trees, blame your jittery
> eyeballs. The small, involuntary movements our eyes make when they
> focus help the brain discern the finer details of an image, according
> to new research. Although the findings leave several questions
> unanswered, they mark an important step toward settling a 50-year-old
> controversy.
>
> Most animals with sharp central vision, such as humans, monkeys, and
> cats, make microscopic eye adjustments when they fix their gaze.
> These jitters wiggle the image on the retina, and scientists know
> surprisingly little about why this happens. In the 1950s, vision
> researchers used cumbersome techniques involving rotating mirrors to
> negate the jitter when volunteers stared at an image. The volunteers
> began to see a featureless gray field rather than the image at hand,
> so scientists concluded that jittering kept the image from fading.
> But it wasn't clear how, or if, the jitters served other functions.
>
> See: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
The retina is discretized with rods and cones. The jiggle lets them
bring those fine details across a receptor that might have been lost
in the "cracks". The scenery looks completely continuous, yet the
instantaneous image is like the old halftone picture. It's natures
fast Fourier transform. Yippee.
John Polasek
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 21:14:16
From: Jan Panteltje
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:04:00 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in <Qahci.102487$n_.50544@attbi_s21>:
>Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
> By Gisela Telis
> ScienceNOW Daily News
> 13 June 2007
Well, let's see, 20 years ago there was a German prof who came with a CCD camera
that increased horizontal resolution by moving sidewards half a pixel using piezzo elements.
Some month ago I explained why this is so in rec.video:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/96e655d8c7ee86ba/881885796857a43d?lnk=st&q=panteltje+pixels+resolution&rnum=2#881885796857a43d
So, the eye does it better by moving in 2 dimensions.....
BURB.
No News
Well, at least that were playing.
Wheel will be reinvented many times, and even patented.
If they had thought for a minute, given the fixed number of receptors in the eye,
they could have figured this out all without a million$ lab.
Reminds me of MIT remote powered lightbulbs, ITER, LIGO, ISS, hey their computers
are down... poor computers. Could it have anything
to do with the solar panels they changed??????
Or do we need to send up a rescue mission (with a volt meter): I'd say BUMMER.
so add NASA.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 13:09:42
From: Randy Poe
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
On Jun 14, 4:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
> By Gisela Telis
> ScienceNOW Daily News
> 13 June 2007
>
> The next time you miss the forest for the trees, blame your jittery
> eyeballs. The small, involuntary movements our eyes make when they
> focus help the brain discern the finer details of an image, according
> to new research. Although the findings leave several questions
> unanswered, they mark an important step toward settling a 50-year-old
> controversy.
>
> Most animals with sharp central vision, such as humans, monkeys, and
> cats, make microscopic eye adjustments when they fix their gaze.
> These jitters wiggle the image on the retina, and scientists know
> surprisingly little about why this happens. In the 1950s, vision
> researchers used cumbersome techniques involving rotating mirrors to
> negate the jitter when volunteers stared at an image. The volunteers
> began to see a featureless gray field rather than the image at hand,
> so scientists concluded that jittering kept the image from fading.
> But it wasn't clear how, or if, the jitters served other functions.
>
> See:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
Is this news? I remember hearing about these movements,
called "saccades", in the early 70s. I thought it was fairly
well-established that:
- the visual cortex (the low-level processing center in
the brain) is change-sensitive, so saccades are important
to keep the neurons firing, and
- only a very small part of the retina called the fovea is
high-resolution (the same part that has the color receptors) so the
perception of larger, colored high-resolution areas is
synthesized by moving the fovea around. As I recall the
visual field of the fovea is only on the order of a degree
or two. But it's been a long time since I saw this stuff.
- Randy
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2007 20:25:05
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
|
Randy Poe wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Shifty Eyes See Finer Details
>> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>>
>> By Gisela Telis
>> ScienceNOW Daily News
>> 13 June 2007
>>
>> The next time you miss the forest for the trees, blame your jittery
>> eyeballs. The small, involuntary movements our eyes make when they
>> focus help the brain discern the finer details of an image, according
>> to new research. Although the findings leave several questions
>> unanswered, they mark an important step toward settling a 50-year-old
>> controversy.
>>
>> Most animals with sharp central vision, such as humans, monkeys, and
>> cats, make microscopic eye adjustments when they fix their gaze.
>> These jitters wiggle the image on the retina, and scientists know
>> surprisingly little about why this happens. In the 1950s, vision
>> researchers used cumbersome techniques involving rotating mirrors to
>> negate the jitter when volunteers stared at an image. The volunteers
>> began to see a featureless gray field rather than the image at hand,
>> so scientists concluded that jittering kept the image from fading.
>> But it wasn't clear how, or if, the jitters served other functions.
>>
>> See:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/613/2
>
> Is this news? I remember hearing about these movements,
> called "saccades", in the early 70s. I thought it was fairly
> well-established that:
> - the visual cortex (the low-level processing center in
> the brain) is change-sensitive, so saccades are important
> to keep the neurons firing, and
> - only a very small part of the retina called the fovea is
> high-resolution (the same part that has the color receptors) so the
> perception of larger, colored high-resolution areas is
> synthesized by moving the fovea around. As I recall the
> visual field of the fovea is only on the order of a degree
> or two. But it's been a long time since I saw this stuff.
>
> - Randy
>
You will likely enjoy this related book:
Foundations of Cyclopean Perception by Bela Julesz
http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Cyclopean-Perception-Bela-Julesz/dp/0226415279
|
|
