4 ms·

The best answer to this question is actually provided by Ouss which is only at 1 up vote. Showing the 1d case for frequency of an image is far more illuminating

by zbobet2012 7y ago

The best answer to this question is actually provided by Ouss which is only at 1 up vote. Showing the 1d case for frequency of an image is far more illuminating than showing the 2d case. Most people with a mathematics, or music background of any level understand frequency in terms "hertz". Aka speed of vibration. Translating it to speed of change of pixel value per pixels is difficult without the 1d case.

microcolonel 7y ago
> The best answer to this question is actually provided by Ouss Could you share a direct link? I don't see any such comment here.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Yeah, got me too. Ouss is actually a respondent in the linked StackOverflow article.
- takeda 7y ago
  https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702 https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702
- sidpatil 7y ago
  https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702 https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702
- OldManAndTheCpp 7y ago
  It was the second post by the time I got there, but the rankings are fluid so here's a permalink: https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702 https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
Yeah, I don't know. Ouss' answer doesn't quite spell out what the repeating event is in the context of the image. He shows a formula that calculates pixel intensities with an "f" cosntant, but doesn't explain what that "f" is and what it does to the pixel intensities. I mean, it's so easy to say "frequency in an image is the rate of change of pixel intensity". Sometimes when someone asks a question about something simple you have to just spell it out as simple as possible. (Another thing that works for me given a 2d image like Ouss' example is "think of looking at a sine wave from above" much as this makes no real sense).
rmetzler 7y ago
Yes, I really liked this, because it was well structured and has the style I understand best. What was interesting to me, was the irritating effect the high frequency image has to my eyes. It's like I need to move my eyes very fast when I look at that picture.

microcolonel 7y ago

> The best answer to this question is actually provided by Ouss Could you share a direct link? I don't see any such comment here.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Yeah, got me too. Ouss is actually a respondent in the linked StackOverflow article.
takeda 7y ago
https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702 https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702
sidpatil 7y ago
https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702 https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702
OldManAndTheCpp 7y ago
It was the second post by the time I got there, but the rankings are fluid so here's a permalink: https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702 https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/112702

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

Yeah, I don't know. Ouss' answer doesn't quite spell out what the repeating event is in the context of the image. He shows a formula that calculates pixel intensities with an "f" cosntant, but doesn't explain what that "f" is and what it does to the pixel intensities. I mean, it's so easy to say "frequency in an image is the rate of change of pixel intensity". Sometimes when someone asks a question about something simple you have to just spell it out as simple as possible. (Another thing that works for me given a 2d image like Ouss' example is "think of looking at a sine wave from above" much as this makes no real sense).

rmetzler 7y ago

Yes, I really liked this, because it was well structured and has the style I understand best. What was interesting to me, was the irritating effect the high frequency image has to my eyes. It's like I need to move my eyes very fast when I look at that picture.