4 ms·
That's incredible! Is it fair to say that the image is always there, but lost in a wash of additional light, and that a camera obscura filters out the other li
by beaner 6y ago
That's incredible!
Is it fair to say that the image is always there, but lost in a wash of additional light, and that a camera obscura filters out the other light, revealing the image that is already there? Or does a camera obscura somehow shape the light in a new way to produce the image?
- jholman 6y agoI might say that there are an infinite number of copies of the image always there, all washing each other out. Each is a slightly different image (each has a slightly different centre of projection, in the jargon). If your pinhole is infinitely small, you get an infinitely-weak shot of a single one of those images. As you enlarge the pinhole, you get a larger collection of images, all added together, so you get more total light, but a bit of blurriness (because the images you're adding are all just a touch different).
- DanBC 6y agoI think a useful term is "circle of confusion". http://fslashd.com/2015/04/circles-of-confusion/ http://fslashd.com/2015/04/circles-of-confusion/ http://www.villageinframe.com/how-big-should-the-hole-be-in-a-pinhole-projector http://www.villageinframe.com/how-big-should-the-hole-be-in-... This is a useful image. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e92438d691243116d52f9945c3fdff17 https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e92438d691243116d52f99...
- taneq 6y agoIt’s always there in the same way the Mona Lisa is always there on a wire sheet of paper, and just needs the extra spectrum masked out with paint.