5 ms·

> "...vision occurred through beams of light emitted from the eyes, interacting with the environment" How did they explain lanterns and torches in this theory?

SapThePixelFox 2y ago
That's why the lessons are online. You can read through them and everything is explained there. In ray-tracing light most often travels from the eyes to the surface and from the surface to the lights (direct illumination). Various laws (such as as the inverse square and lambert-cosine laws) are applied to simulate reality.
penteract 2y ago
Until you can observe that light doesn't travel instantaneously, it would be consistent to believe that a beam leaves your eyes, bounces off a surface, and informs you (as though it were a limb, perhaps) when it hits a light source.
- adamhartenz 2y ago
  Except that would never explain shadows. Why does my eye beam not let me see what is in shadow, if there is no such thing as light beams coming from a light source?
  - penteract 2y ago
    Because the beam coming from your eyes and hitting a shadow would never reach a light source (you could say it gets absorbed before it reaches a light source).
- jagged-chisel 2y ago
  The more I think about it the weirder it gets. It’s day time, the sun is up, it’s a cloudless day. Ambient light is bouncing all over, including into a south facing window (i.e. no direct sunlight.) How does the Eye Light Emitter do its job in this case? Now, I don’t mean “this concept is impossible” because that’s clear. I’m genuinely curious how this would have been explained by someone at the time.
  - SapThePixelFox 2y ago
    You should read scratchapixel really) https://www.scratchapixel.com/lessons/3d-basic-rendering/introduction-to-ray-tracing/how-does-it-work.html https://www.scratchapixel.com/lessons/3d-basic-rendering/int... In the real world light travels from the light source to the eye. But this lesson xplains that simulating this with a computer is not efficient. A more efficient technique is to follow the path of light but in reverse, starting from the eye and waking back to the lights making up the scene. Again read the lesson(s) it's all explained and that's why the lessons are there in the first place.
  - meindnoch 2y ago
    Vision rays emanate from your retina, get refracted by the lens, exit the pupil, go outside the window, get scattered in the air, and - some of them - end up hitting the sun.
meindnoch 2y ago
What do you mean lanterns and torches? On the macroscopic scale, light rays can be replaced with vision rays, and everything works out the same. That's how ray tracing works. People thought eyes were doing ray tracing.
- Keyframe 2y ago
  That's how we still do (simulation of) ray tracing (Whitted).
- _a_a_a_ 2y ago
  What do you think he means? It's a good question.
HideousKojima 2y ago
I remember a guy who had a novel theory (mostly as a joke, I think) that light bulbs don't emit light, they simply suck away the darkness. He literally called lightbulbs "darksuckers."
- lupire 2y ago
  Roger Wilcox, from the 1990s? http://www.rogermwilcox.com/darksucker.html http://www.rogermwilcox.com/darksucker.html
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    It was someone I knew IRL but I guess that's where they got it from
Phrodo_00 2y ago
A far as I know, in raytracing, you bounce your ray from the surface's normal and if it hits a "light source" then it's brighter (by the inverse square distance to the source). Maybe they explained the same way, except they used a different name?
- jagged-chisel 2y ago
  I think this is plausible. I guess they thought unlimited ray bounces were a thing.

SapThePixelFox 2y ago

That's why the lessons are online. You can read through them and everything is explained there. In ray-tracing light most often travels from the eyes to the surface and from the surface to the lights (direct illumination). Various laws (such as as the inverse square and lambert-cosine laws) are applied to simulate reality.

penteract 2y ago

Until you can observe that light doesn't travel instantaneously, it would be consistent to believe that a beam leaves your eyes, bounces off a surface, and informs you (as though it were a limb, perhaps) when it hits a light source.

adamhartenz 2y ago
Except that would never explain shadows. Why does my eye beam not let me see what is in shadow, if there is no such thing as light beams coming from a light source?
- penteract 2y ago
  Because the beam coming from your eyes and hitting a shadow would never reach a light source (you could say it gets absorbed before it reaches a light source).
jagged-chisel 2y ago
The more I think about it the weirder it gets. It’s day time, the sun is up, it’s a cloudless day. Ambient light is bouncing all over, including into a south facing window (i.e. no direct sunlight.) How does the Eye Light Emitter do its job in this case? Now, I don’t mean “this concept is impossible” because that’s clear. I’m genuinely curious how this would have been explained by someone at the time.
- SapThePixelFox 2y ago
  You should read scratchapixel really) https://www.scratchapixel.com/lessons/3d-basic-rendering/introduction-to-ray-tracing/how-does-it-work.html https://www.scratchapixel.com/lessons/3d-basic-rendering/int... In the real world light travels from the light source to the eye. But this lesson xplains that simulating this with a computer is not efficient. A more efficient technique is to follow the path of light but in reverse, starting from the eye and waking back to the lights making up the scene. Again read the lesson(s) it's all explained and that's why the lessons are there in the first place.
- meindnoch 2y ago
  Vision rays emanate from your retina, get refracted by the lens, exit the pupil, go outside the window, get scattered in the air, and - some of them - end up hitting the sun.

meindnoch 2y ago

What do you mean lanterns and torches? On the macroscopic scale, light rays can be replaced with vision rays, and everything works out the same. That's how ray tracing works. People thought eyes were doing ray tracing.

Keyframe 2y ago
That's how we still do (simulation of) ray tracing (Whitted).
_a_a_a_ 2y ago
What do you think he means? It's a good question.

HideousKojima 2y ago

I remember a guy who had a novel theory (mostly as a joke, I think) that light bulbs don't emit light, they simply suck away the darkness. He literally called lightbulbs "darksuckers."

lupire 2y ago
Roger Wilcox, from the 1990s? http://www.rogermwilcox.com/darksucker.html http://www.rogermwilcox.com/darksucker.html
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  It was someone I knew IRL but I guess that's where they got it from

Phrodo_00 2y ago

A far as I know, in raytracing, you bounce your ray from the surface's normal and if it hits a "light source" then it's brighter (by the inverse square distance to the source). Maybe they explained the same way, except they used a different name?

jagged-chisel 2y ago
I think this is plausible. I guess they thought unlimited ray bounces were a thing.