3 ms·
I believe it'd be pretty wonky coloring, or at least it could be, since it'd be capturing snapshots of individual frequency responses. If something is visibly g
by jdiff 1y ago
I believe it'd be pretty wonky coloring, or at least it could be, since it'd be capturing snapshots of individual frequency responses. If something is visibly green, reflecting across most of the greenish areas of spectrum, but happens to absorb the exact frequency of the laser, it'd appear black when imaged this way. Or at least not green.
- echoangle 1y agoI think that’s the case for regular cameras too though, the filter for the pixels doesn’t exactly replicate the response of the cones in the eyes either, right? So you have things where the camera sees a different color than a human eye.
- jofer 1y agoRegular cameras respond to a wide range of wavelenghts, and they do actually reasonably mimic the response of the human eye. Either way, it's the "range" vs "single wavelength" that's key here. The green band (or blue band or red band) isn't one wavelength. It's an average over a fairly broad range. Single-wavelength (or very narrow range) images are quite different.
- pfdietz 1y agoA fun example of these effects is "black fire". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LWtieip9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LWtieip9E
- ccgreg 1y agoTake a photo of the sun setting behind clouds, and then marvel that the camera still sees a big red Sun, when your eye barely sees it. That's because the camera goes way farther into the red than your eye, and the clouds let that sub-red through.