4 ms·
I don't think you know what the word 'lens' means I'm not really interested in having a semantic argument about the meaning of lens, but what the heck... To b
by crusso 9y ago
I don't think you know what the word 'lens' means
I'm not really interested in having a semantic argument about the meaning of lens, but what the heck...
To be a lens the object has to focus or disperse light via refraction, the objects used in the paper and then referenced in the article diffuse[1] light
What do you think the "bumpy piece of plastic" in the article does, if not focus and disperse light using refraction? There's no separate optical effect called "diffusion" that isn't based upon dispersion. As a matter of fact, often a diffuser is referred to as a "diffuser lens":
https://www.ylighting.com/element-lighting-accessory-lenses.html https://www.ylighting.com/element-lighting-accessory-lenses....
the diffusion filters referenced in the article weren't designed but chosen arbitrarily
Nothing I said indicated that the specific bumpy plastic patterns needed to be designed. See my related thoughts on decoding images seen through privacy glass. It's the same concept, except they use the refracted images to specifically select for multiple incoming light angles to create 3D images (when they're doing the 3D image part). I actually understand how they did what they did fairly well. I read the first couple of lines in the article and knew that they had implemented the same concept that I had thought about years ago.
Now, the lenticular lens you referenced is a lens because of how it operates, but the referenced in the article technique definitively does not require a lens because lenses aren't diffusers. Does that make sense?
I think maybe you're coming at this subject from photography terminology? Perhaps that's why you think there's some kind of distinction between a "lens" and a "diffuser". I'm coming at it from a physics perspective where these are really the same thing.
- iaw 9y agoSemantics is important when you're trying to change the definition of a word that is rigorously defined. Your assertion that the bumpy piece of plastic in the article focus's or disperse's light is false because it does neither, it diffuses light. Focus and disperse have very specific meanings in physics that are not met by an arbitrary piece of material. If you're confident that a diffuser meets the physical definition of a lens could you point me to reference material that is from something a bit more rigorous than ylighting's webpage? I have yet to see any physics source refer to a diffuser as a lens, Edmund Optics [0] is very precise in their aversion to using that term for a diffuser. I have yet to find any physics texts that indicate a diffuser is a lens. Please correct me if you have a source because ylighting looks like a commercial supplier using the same imprecise language that you were. I am happy to stand corrected but I'm not okay with the top comment on a science article undermining scientific definitions. [0] https://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/optics/diffuser-selection-guide/ https://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/opt...
- crusso 9y agoSemantics is important when you're trying to change the definition of a word that is rigorously defined I'm not changing the meaning of "lens". First-of-all, I don't have that kind of authority. Second-of-all, the bumpy plastic is clearly being used as a lens. The bumpy plastic is used to focus light onto the sensor array in a novel way that allows the resulting sensor image to be used to construct 2D and 3D images. A lens focuses or disperses light, normally to form an image. That's what is happening here in this device. Just because the lens shape is irregular, unplanned, and not a standard one you'd find in a camera shop doesn't mean it's not a lens. reference material that is from something a bit more rigorous than ylighting's webpage That was just one of many examples of references to "diffuser lens". Feel free to do some googling.