/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5586829]

If a person that required corrective lenses, took a picture with a camera by focusing it to be clear to his imperfect vision and printed it out, would it be clear to him only and blurry to everyone else?

Maybe i'm retarded.. maybe.

[Anonymous No.5586845]

Dude...

[Anonymous No.5586854]

[Anonymous No.5586859]

Wonder the same thing about microscopes sometimes. Like...if I focus on something on my microscope and then say "hey, come look at this," does that other person have to refocus/adjust?

[Anonymous No.5586860]

[Anonymous No.5586861]

[Anonymous No.5586863]

holy...........

[Anonymous No.5586866]

Holy shit.
I just tried this with my iPhone and it fucking works! I can read the numbers on the clock when before I could barely tell there were numbers. OP here +100000 karma

[Anonymous No.5586869]

>>5586859
Yes sir! We all have different eyes. It's not going to be a major adjust, but it will be necessary; had to collab with another guy for using a microscope.

[Anonymous No.5586874]

My mind is totally boggled

[Anonymous No.5586880]

Sure is samefag in here.
If you take a picture out of focus, you'll have a blurry picture. Nothing will change that

[Anonymous No.5586881]

>>5586859
Yea except this is complete different from op.

[Anonymous No.5586886]

yes it would be magnetized/shrunk to their vision. So if a 10/20 person took a clear picture it would seem magnified and out of focus to a 20/20 person

[Anonymous No.5586898]

Try using a phone camera. Picture is focused to me with and without glasses, and I can see all the details I can't see without glasses

[Anonymous No.5586905]

Not, it would be blurry to everyone. The reason is that the image captures the blurriness and you can never add back information to an image destroyed by blurriness.

[Anonymous No.5586909]

ITT: sci is just now figuring out what lenses do

Is this just a giant troll thread?

[Anonymous No.5586919]

What if the yellow I see isn't the yellow you see? What if my yellow is your blue?

[Anonymous No.5586922]

>>5586919
that just makes you racist

[Anonymous No.5586950]

>>5586919
the wavelength of light doesn't give a shit what color you think you see.

[Anonymous No.5586974]

>>5586950
if it weren't for the retina in our eyes, we wouldn't see shit anyway, just like gamma and x-rays.


boom checkmate skeptic.

[Anonymous No.5586976]

>>5586950
What is satire?

[Anonymous No.5586980]

>>5586976
Forgot my sage.

[Anonymous No.5587008]

This is actually a really good question. If you could reconstruct the light wavefront at the imaging plane, then you can focus the image after the fact (the reconstructed wavefront is indistinguishable from the original light reaching the camera sensor, and you could refocus the image with subsequent lenses). To do this, you would need to record both the amplitude AND phase of the light reaching the sensor, for every wavelength of interest. Unfortunately, a standard imaging sensor (CCD) only measures the average amplitude over a broad band (corresponding to red, blue, or green) at each pixel, and you lose most of information in the light reaching the sensor. So with a standard camera, nope, you can't refocus after the fact.

However, if you record both the amplitude AND the phase reaching the sensor, you can refocus the image after the fact. This is the principle behind synthetic aperture radar (this has been around for decades), and this principle is also used in making holographs. The recently developed Lytro camera does this in the optical regime: you can change the focus of photos taken by this camera after the fact, on your computer!

[Anonymous No.5587017]

>>5586905
That's not quite correct; you can reconstruct (to some degree) a blurred image in post processing if
you know the point spread function of the camera when it's out of focus.

>>5586909
This isn't actually only a questionn about how lenses work: there are considerable subtleties involved.

[Anonymous No.5587021]

>>5586829
Camera Camera, yes

Digital, No.

Solid troll though, throw it at /b/

[Anonymous No.5587030]

>>5587021
No, a film camera is just as bad as a normal digital camera... are you a troll???

[Anonymous No.5587045]

Note: OP's logic doesn't apply to myopians.

Other than that, intersting question.

[Anonymous No.5587050]

if becoming myopic is just us getting slightly crosseyed due to staring at the screen too long, would manually uncrossing them with our fingers help.

would training help refocus the eyes?

[Anonymous No.5587059]

>>5587008
Nobody cares about my thorough, well thought out answer... *sob* What is wrong with /sci/???

[Anonymous No.5587067]

>>5587050
squinting can help with far sightedness as it deforms the cornea.

[Anonymous No.5587073]

>>5587067
Squinting helps because you're approximating a pinhole camera. It has nothing to do with deforming the eye (and any such deformation is minor in any case)

[Anonymous No.5587074]

>>5587059
Because this is a troll thread. You should make a thread about your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.5587075]

OP, the person with inferior vision is simply going to focus on the best he can; he cannot get it better than sharp -- what he sees (the best) is going to be totally in-focus.
So everyone should only see what is in-focus.

the person with inferior vision is just not going to see it quite as clearly.

There is no way for the result to be different for other people -- they will all see what the can at best.

However, cameras can focus on a broader range of distances than human eyes can, so people will have lots of ranges of perception.

[Anonymous No.5587079]

>>5587008
A well thought answer? On my 4chan?
>golly

[Anonymous No.5587080]

An SLR focuses the image on a ground glass screen. The focused image forms on the screen, so whether or not your wearing lenses when you look at the screen, focus is the same. Same applies for digital screens. I'm not sure if glasses would mess with a rangefinder focus, but I'm going to guess that it wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.5587082]

Film Camera=Defacto Glasses

Digital -> Blind fags be blind

[Anonymous No.5587084]

>>5587082
Unless the Digital is a Bioptic with 3D screen

[Anonymous No.5587089]

Not at first, but velocirotational density will cause it to degrade faster over time than an image taken by a normalsighted person.

[Anonymous No.5587091]

>>5587084
See now that's a plausible premise

Assuming it printed to some holographic material as well correct?

[Anonymous No.5587094]

wouldnt the screen just be blurry no matter what, if you had blurry vision

[Anonymous No.5587155]

>>5587089
>velocirotational density
The fuck? Stop making up ridiculous words on /sci/ just to sound pretentious.

[Anonymous No.5587159]

>>5587155
>Velocirotational
I can only picture flying, spinning, velociraptors

[Anonymous No.5587184]

>>5586859
Yes.
Happens to me all the time.