There is a lot of image processing that happens to whatever is focused on your retina to what you think you see. Here are soem visual demonstration of this.
The animation making the text look like it's going between "more bold" and "less bold" without any actual change in boldness is a nifty optical illusion.
The way the blurry mess became clear as it went smaller is surprising. We seldom think about how our brains interpret everything around us, and that it's not just clear data that enters our brains.
I was already aware of this phenomenon, but only because I had played around making pixel art ages ago, and this is a significant thing that comes up. What I hadn't considered is how this shows up in other contexts.
Many of the observations in this video are the basis for good typography. For anyone interested, I can recommend 'The Elements of Typographic Style' by Robert Bringhurst.
Another interesting thing is the high integration of vision with reflexive eye movement and memory. We only see the very center of our field of vision in any detail, while our brains paint the rest from memory. you can see people's eyes dart around reflexively whenever they go somewhere new, because their brain wants to create the illusion of a field of view. Since the peripheral resolution is so bad, you'll sometimes end up painting the wrong object e.g. when someone sets something next to you while you're reading. It seems like you can't find waldo until you're looking right at him, because it's true. Your brain is constantly filling in the gaps.
The illusion of field of view Or Mapping the environment. "you have entered a room" "to the north there is a door" "to the south there is a door" "in the middle of the room there is a table" Go north, go south, inspect table?
I was thinking about that too. If you keep your eyes fixed on an object or word and try to read or describe something to the side of where you're looking, anything beyond a few degrees from centre is a fuzzy mess. But our brains trick us into thinking the whole image is in HD. Some VR headsets like the Quest use "foveal" rendering to exploit this -- basically the centre of the image is rendered in better quality than the edges. A researcher named George Sperling theorised that smoothing over visual glitches like that and the gaps caused by saccades (automatic eye movements) is the purpose of our "iconic" memory system; that it serves as a temporary buffer for stitching together our noisy visual inputs into one seemingly clear video stream.
makes sense to me what i noticed is that peripheral vision seems to process things even before we are conscious of them i had occasions were i reflexively jerked away from something without immediately knowing why, only to realise that it was something ive seen from the corner of my eyes, usually movement of some object or animal of sorts
Ok, Matthias! You filled in the blank for me with this one. I always wondered about "Stage Hypnosis" It's something that fascinates me. But when you said at 00:20 that the brain fills in the rest and can give the impression of better vision, it was an aha moment! The hypnotist told someone who wears glasses that they could actually see very well, the subject removed her glasses and he handed her some text that she had not been able to read prior to being hypnotized. Wallah, she could read, and it was accurate. Power of the mind, who knew... Thanks for keeping so many of us sharper than we otherwise would be :) Thumbs up!
well, the eye does that all the time, not just when the hypnotist suggests they should. But it could also be that the hypnotist saw her glasses, estimated their power, and inferred that she should be able to read without, even if she said otherwise.
Eye contact is body language. It involves a lot more than just the eyes. A common example is a stranger waving to thier friend that is behind you. How many people feel confusion / embarrassment / excitement that they can't remember this stranger that obviously knows them?
Absolutely spot on. And it's certainly like any other human ability with some people far more effective than others. I was recently having an impromptu vision contest with my wife, seeing who could read book names from the library from across the room. Her with her glasses and me without. A lot of factors played into it of course. Dimly lit room. She knows the books and I generally don't. She had her glasses on - and I didn't. And all considered, I had an easier time reading the book titles than her. After carefully examining the books I could read and those that I couldn't, it came down to two things that impacted my ability to read more than size. Contrast between the text/background and how much room there were around the letters. Among those titles with best case attributes, I still had a higher success rate which I could only really boil down to my brain being able to denoise slightly better, or maybe it primarily an inference process that can be trained to improve? Highly interesting subject!
Reminds me of an experiment trick reading newspaper headlines. Get a bunch of random headlines on print of various font sizes, sort them largest to smallest and stand some distance away from a partner. Show them the headlines one at a time, starting with the largest and get them to read it. Once it is just too small for them to read, read it to them and ask if they can now see the headline - if so, their brain has "filled in the gaps".
Artificial neural networks (aka AI) can do this too and incredibly well. The connections in our brains learn the statistics of everything we experience so with enough training we become very good at predicting things we have seen before.
Super interesting!! I’ve had a significant visual impairment my whole life and I can absolutely attest to the fact that we see with our brains as much of not more than we do with our eyes.
Information density has a lot to do with my ability to comprehend diagrams and charts. I developed a "cheat sheet" to save me re-calculating the same crap every day at work, and seeing this video helped me understand why I intuitively knew it needed to be large print. Hahaha
The text getting smaller feels more clear at a brief look, but actually trying to resolve words, there's at best only a small difference between my ability when it's giant vs tiny. I feel about the same with the eye chart thing. I can make out one line lower when it's spaced out, but it feels like it's marginal in either case... like I just barely can't read the next line and then I can just barely read it when it's spaced out I also imagine this is training-related, because in the real world, things aren't made up of pixels apparent when right next to something, so when we do try to resolve detail close up to something, it's just as smooth as it is at a distance, where pixels begin to smush together to form an image.
Neat! I've noticed this from time to time in videogames, where low resolution textures makes sense from far away, but when you move closer, at some point it just becomes a mess.
Another anecdote - I get (fortunately very infrequently, and never any pain) ocular migraines. When the shimmer/sparkles settle down, there is a "blind" spot in the detail part of my vision. If I'm looking broadly at something (say a scenic vista), I cannot tell that I'm missing anything. But if I try to read something, I cannot see the words in front of me! (I can sometimes see them be looking a little to the side until it clears up). The fact that broad scenes do not appear to be missing anything suggests again that my brain is (over)error correcting and filling in missing details.
Very interesting Matthias, I first watched your video while I was on the phone and the sound was turned down. At first I thought you were actually increasing and decreasing the size of the text.
He speaks truth. I have terrible eyesight but my optic nerve and brain are fine. Sometimes I call out the the correct letter on sight tests even though I cant "see" them. Neither me nor my optician knows what is going on, or what this process is. I dont claim to know what is going, all I am saying is that sometimes I cant "see" what the letter is, but I know my "brain" does, and I call it correctly. I guess the brain processing power is doing more than I realised.
That's interesting... are your eyes blinking or moving, during this? Perhaps your brain gets the information quicker than you can visualize it, during some kind of rapid movement of the eyes.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 Actually my eyes are perfectly still and Im just looking normally. I have no clue what is going on but the classic thing I say at the time is "I cant really see that but I think its and "X"". Its almost like the letter is too blurred for my eyes to resolve, but my minds eye somehow has just enough information about the tones of the blur to make out what it is. It is a very odd sensation tbh mate.
0:51 or dithering a native image isn't the same thing as outright erasing it. just because the letter cannot be resolved in pixels doesn't mean sub-pixels suddenly stopped being a thing
I think one point worth making on the blurry text is if you scaled that down on the computer, part of the clarity would come from the computer redrawing the pixels, i.e. how it utilises and merges the item to the now available pixels, as it scales. The true way to test this would be to move further away from the screen. Which did you do Matthias?
When I was a kid I noticed that it is hard to catch a ball at twilight. You feel like you can see it just fine. But if someone throws it toward you, you can't catch it. Later, I came up with the idea that there is probably signal processing going on in your brain, and it introduces lag, so when the ball is thrown it is much harder to track. Not sure if that explanation is correct.
yes, there is indeed lag for darker objects. So if you have a dark and a bright object moving, you see lag for the dark one. If the objects are attached together, that can look a bit unsettling
I wonder if this can be explained with spacial frequency/bandwidth? Like the pixelated text has too low a frequency to distinguish, and the small text has too much high frequency noise when the spacing is small. It also reminds me of that Einstein/Marlyn Monroe illusion.
"These [he points to some plastic cows on the table] are small, but those [pointing at some cows out of the window] are far away... Small, far away." (From the TV show Father Ted) 😂
A bunch of the processing happens in the eye. Optical illusions are a neat way of probing what happens after the rods and cones. (What goes to the brain is more like the output of a bunch of convolutions of the various rods and cones)
I wonder how much is in the eye. But you can see better with both eyes than you can with either eye, so some of the processing has to happen in the brain
Wow, that's some nice corporate/economic history neatly explained without the "hero" shit that's so annoying on American or YT documentaries. Thank you.
I have my computer also hooked up to my living room TV. My computer and its monitor, are just off to the side at my computer table and thus can be seen even when I am watching the TV. When watching, I can have both the computer monitor and the TV both showing the same image/video, etc. What is interesting, is that when a sudden extreme change occurs, I also see this in my peripheral vision at the computer monitor, but there is a delay. In other words, the brains processing of what is seen in the peripheral vision, is slightly delayed.
For reference, I was standing 10' back from this 24" monitor, and was still able to read the bottom line at all times. Quite interesting how that works actually. There's a LOT of "filling in" that our brains do for pattern recognition. It's the same phenomenon that happens when you misread a word as a different word that "looks the same" which i cannot thing of examples of at the moment. I wonder if it happens more with "speed readers" than it does with people who don't.
I heard that highway signs have to use lowercase letters because it is faster to recognize words than if they were all capital letters (because brain predicts words).
Actually, I ran into this by accident but thought it was just me. I ran into this when dealing with foreign languages that don't use the Latin alphabet. For example, trying to identify a very blurry word in Japanese, Sanskrit, or Hebrew... nearly impossible for me.
Hmm, I wonder if this can be explained by directional edge detection in the brain. Large pixelated text is hard to read but large vector or simply large letters can be read more easily. Close spacing of letters makes detection of individual letters more difficult because eyes and brain have to see where one curve might lead into another curve and thus it take mental effort to spot the gaps and resolve the individual curves to individual letters?
also, the worse someones vision is the better the decoding. I never use reading glasses, someone gave me a blurred image of some text that they couldn't decipher and it looked normal to me.
I don't think it's just to do with the brain. I think that when you scale down the image, you are putting more of it within the fovea (high resolution area of the retina)
My favorite is to find your blind spot. With both arms straight ahead make 2 thumbs up and hold your thumbs next to each other. Close your left eye and stay focused on your left thumb. Slowly move your right thumb to the right until your thumb disappears into your blind spot (about 15 degrees). It works for the other eye (just switch thumbs). This area of your eye is completely blind yet your brain fills in what 'should' be there and mostly gets it right (minus your missing thumb). Of course I have to give a 'thumbs up' to this video :)
@@matthiasrandomstuff2221 yupp, it's being rounded to 1,2589 from whatever else comes after it when you put it in a calculator, thanks for asking It's important because we're measuring in 20th mm accuracy :)
I think the type of image compression that you choose plays a oversized role at the small resolutions too. jpeg for example is notoriously bad for compressing images with text. It's not very noticeable at high resolutions but at lower resolutions the artifacts are prominent. png compression will I think give a better example for those images.
Philosopher of mind Dan Dennett wrote a lot about visual perception / processing. I'd recommend “Filling In versus Finding Out: A Ubiquitous Confusion in Cognitive Science” which is linked among his "recent works".
Sounds to me that you are feeling Father Time creeping up on you. Better get used to it! From a purely selfish angle, I'm looking forward to your further insights.
Would you agree that using upper and lower case when displaying text also gives your brain more clues when reading text rather than all caps that many people use when projecting text for larger groups of people
Now I'm wondering how the letter spacing can effect your ability to read/understanding. If the spacing is too much you no longer see a word, but individual letters.
Took a speed reading class in college and one fascinating the instructor did, she had a machine that could block the bottom half of the letters - yet we could still read what was there.
My favorite effect is the brain’s ability to zero in on the point of interest - essentially eliminating “clutter”. Shows up when you take a photo and the subject is just a tiny element in the picture.
I’m guessing the low-res text is related to how our eyes only have high resolution in the very centre of where we’re looking? When I read text, I don’t study each letter or even word - I pass pretty casually over them at a glance - my brain must be filling in a lot of low-resolution data all the time (when reading).
As someone wanting to get into software development, it would be an interesting (albeit a bit niche) video to know what tips and advice current day Matthias would give to younger Matthias about coding and the industry. I know you've mentioned you worked at Blackberry, but don't think you've ever said much more about coding in general -- apart from occasionally low-key flexing your skills.
Derek Muller can easily make half a million just by copying this verbatim and putting a sponsor before and after. Michael Stevens would also spice it up with facial expressions.
This clue has lot of potential especially in the retail shopping, advertisement, print media and book printing space. I'm personally gonna use this knowledge to better print my business cards.
Now do how detail vision is better under incandescent or sunlight rather than fluorescent lighting. I don't know what LED fixtures usually do, straight or pulsed.
The realization that what I consciously perceive is literally all in my head was such an eye opener for me, hehehe. What the brain does with visual stimuli is absolutely whacky, bordering on bullshit; clock hands moving backwards, filling in blind spots, making up colors, motion smoothing, and that's just a fraction of what the brain does in vision alone.
Then there are people still convinced that we exist out of evolution. Religious or not. Every time I learn and study I become more scared and fascinated about what made us, how and why.
The animation making the text look like it's going between "more bold" and "less bold" without any actual change in boldness is a nifty optical illusion.
It’s bizarre to me that people perceive it that way
The way the blurry mess became clear as it went smaller is surprising. We seldom think about how our brains interpret everything around us, and that it's not just clear data that enters our brains.
I was already aware of this phenomenon, but only because I had played around making pixel art ages ago, and this is a significant thing that comes up.
What I hadn't considered is how this shows up in other contexts.
Many of the observations in this video are the basis for good typography. For anyone interested, I can recommend 'The Elements of Typographic Style' by Robert Bringhurst.
I studied typography in school. 100% true
Another interesting thing is the high integration of vision with reflexive eye movement and memory. We only see the very center of our field of vision in any detail, while our brains paint the rest from memory. you can see people's eyes dart around reflexively whenever they go somewhere new, because their brain wants to create the illusion of a field of view.
Since the peripheral resolution is so bad, you'll sometimes end up painting the wrong object e.g. when someone sets something next to you while you're reading. It seems like you can't find waldo until you're looking right at him, because it's true. Your brain is constantly filling in the gaps.
The illusion of field of view
Or
Mapping the environment.
"you have entered a room"
"to the north there is a door"
"to the south there is a door"
"in the middle of the room there is a table"
Go north, go south, inspect table?
I was thinking about that too. If you keep your eyes fixed on an object or word and try to read or describe something to the side of where you're looking, anything beyond a few degrees from centre is a fuzzy mess. But our brains trick us into thinking the whole image is in HD. Some VR headsets like the Quest use "foveal" rendering to exploit this -- basically the centre of the image is rendered in better quality than the edges.
A researcher named George Sperling theorised that smoothing over visual glitches like that and the gaps caused by saccades (automatic eye movements) is the purpose of our "iconic" memory system; that it serves as a temporary buffer for stitching together our noisy visual inputs into one seemingly clear video stream.
I stubbed my toe on that damned table !
Do you have citations for that? That sounds amazing.
makes sense to me
what i noticed is that peripheral vision seems to process things even before we are conscious of them
i had occasions were i reflexively jerked away from something without immediately knowing why, only to realise that it was something ive seen from the corner of my eyes, usually movement of some object or animal of sorts
Ok, Matthias! You filled in the blank for me with this one. I always wondered about "Stage Hypnosis" It's something that fascinates me. But when you said at 00:20 that the brain fills in the rest and can give the impression of better vision, it was an aha moment! The hypnotist told someone who wears glasses that they could actually see very well, the subject removed her glasses and he handed her some text that she had not been able to read prior to being hypnotized. Wallah, she could read, and it was accurate. Power of the mind, who knew... Thanks for keeping so many of us sharper than we otherwise would be :) Thumbs up!
*Voila
well, the eye does that all the time, not just when the hypnotist suggests they should. But it could also be that the hypnotist saw her glasses, estimated their power, and inferred that she should be able to read without, even if she said otherwise.
What's also amazing is how we can make eye contact with someone over great distances. Much further than regular eyesight should allow.
Eye contact is body language. It involves a lot more than just the eyes.
A common example is a stranger waving to thier friend that is behind you. How many people feel confusion / embarrassment / excitement that they can't remember this stranger that obviously knows them?
Absolutely spot on. And it's certainly like any other human ability with some people far more effective than others. I was recently having an impromptu vision contest with my wife, seeing who could read book names from the library from across the room. Her with her glasses and me without. A lot of factors played into it of course. Dimly lit room. She knows the books and I generally don't. She had her glasses on - and I didn't. And all considered, I had an easier time reading the book titles than her.
After carefully examining the books I could read and those that I couldn't, it came down to two things that impacted my ability to read more than size. Contrast between the text/background and how much room there were around the letters. Among those titles with best case attributes, I still had a higher success rate which I could only really boil down to my brain being able to denoise slightly better, or maybe it primarily an inference process that can be trained to improve?
Highly interesting subject!
0:48 If you squint your eyes, that also helps with legibility.
Reminds me of an experiment trick reading newspaper headlines. Get a bunch of random headlines on print of various font sizes, sort them largest to smallest and stand some distance away from a partner. Show them the headlines one at a time, starting with the largest and get them to read it. Once it is just too small for them to read, read it to them and ask if they can now see the headline - if so, their brain has "filled in the gaps".
Artificial neural networks (aka AI) can do this too and incredibly well. The connections in our brains learn the statistics of everything we experience so with enough training we become very good at predicting things we have seen before.
the pixelated text would be easier to read if it was English for that same reason
Pretty curious indeed! Thanks, Matthias! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Super interesting!! I’ve had a significant visual impairment my whole life and I can absolutely attest to the fact that we see with our brains as much of not more than we do with our eyes.
Information density has a lot to do with my ability to comprehend diagrams and charts. I developed a "cheat sheet" to save me re-calculating the same crap every day at work, and seeing this video helped me understand why I intuitively knew it needed to be large print. Hahaha
The text getting smaller feels more clear at a brief look, but actually trying to resolve words, there's at best only a small difference between my ability when it's giant vs tiny. I feel about the same with the eye chart thing. I can make out one line lower when it's spaced out, but it feels like it's marginal in either case... like I just barely can't read the next line and then I can just barely read it when it's spaced out
I also imagine this is training-related, because in the real world, things aren't made up of pixels apparent when right next to something, so when we do try to resolve detail close up to something, it's just as smooth as it is at a distance, where pixels begin to smush together to form an image.
the being able to resolve better when things are spaced out is known to optometrists, and its something that they know needs to be taken into account.
Fascinating.
Neat! I've noticed this from time to time in videogames, where low resolution textures makes sense from far away, but when you move closer, at some point it just becomes a mess.
I've got a smooth brain. No ridges or lumps, or valleys or bumps. All ideas slide right off, like a water slide. Smooooooothhh brainnnnn
Your optometry arc is so kino
The knowledge you have is awesome. Need neighbors like you around. Never be bored that's for sure.
Very interesting video, great animation too
Another anecdote - I get (fortunately very infrequently, and never any pain) ocular migraines. When the shimmer/sparkles settle down, there is a "blind" spot in the detail part of my vision. If I'm looking broadly at something (say a scenic vista), I cannot tell that I'm missing anything. But if I try to read something, I cannot see the words in front of me! (I can sometimes see them be looking a little to the side until it clears up). The fact that broad scenes do not appear to be missing anything suggests again that my brain is (over)error correcting and filling in missing details.
Very interesting Matthias, I first watched your video while I was on the phone and the sound was turned down.
At first I thought you were actually increasing and decreasing the size of the text.
He speaks truth.
I have terrible eyesight but my optic nerve and brain are fine.
Sometimes I call out the the correct letter on sight tests even though I cant "see" them.
Neither me nor my optician knows what is going on, or what this process is.
I dont claim to know what is going, all I am saying is that sometimes I cant "see" what the letter is, but I know my "brain" does, and I call it correctly.
I guess the brain processing power is doing more than I realised.
That's interesting... are your eyes blinking or moving, during this? Perhaps your brain gets the information quicker than you can visualize it, during some kind of rapid movement of the eyes.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 Actually my eyes are perfectly still and Im just looking normally. I have no clue what is going on but the classic thing I say at the time is "I cant really see that but I think its and "X"". Its almost like the letter is too blurred for my eyes to resolve, but my minds eye somehow has just enough information about the tones of the blur to make out what it is. It is a very odd sensation tbh mate.
0:51 or dithering a native image isn't the same thing as outright erasing it. just because the letter cannot be resolved in pixels doesn't mean sub-pixels suddenly stopped being a thing
Yep! This just reaffirms that I'm blind as a bat!
I think one point worth making on the blurry text is if you scaled that down on the computer, part of the clarity would come from the computer redrawing the pixels, i.e. how it utilises and merges the item to the now available pixels, as it scales. The true way to test this would be to move further away from the screen. Which did you do Matthias?
If the small text is rendered correctly (bandlimiting the signal before resampling), both methods should result in the same image on your retina
I tried walking further away from the paused screen and the results were the same as Matthias' generated images. I was surprised at that.
👀💥😂👍 cool vid Matthias
Nice video
Oh sure, I see this video _right after_ my eye doctor appointment.
When I was a kid I noticed that it is hard to catch a ball at twilight. You feel like you can see it just fine. But if someone throws it toward you, you can't catch it. Later, I came up with the idea that there is probably signal processing going on in your brain, and it introduces lag, so when the ball is thrown it is much harder to track. Not sure if that explanation is correct.
yes, there is indeed lag for darker objects. So if you have a dark and a bright object moving, you see lag for the dark one. If the objects are attached together, that can look a bit unsettling
I wonder if this can be explained with spacial frequency/bandwidth? Like the pixelated text has too low a frequency to distinguish, and the small text has too much high frequency noise when the spacing is small. It also reminds me of that Einstein/Marlyn Monroe illusion.
"These [he points to some plastic cows on the table] are small, but those [pointing at some cows out of the window] are far away... Small, far away." (From the TV show Father Ted) 😂
A bunch of the processing happens in the eye. Optical illusions are a neat way of probing what happens after the rods and cones. (What goes to the brain is more like the output of a bunch of convolutions of the various rods and cones)
I wonder how much is in the eye. But you can see better with both eyes than you can with either eye, so some of the processing has to happen in the brain
Wow, that's some nice corporate/economic history neatly explained without the "hero" shit that's so annoying on American or YT documentaries. Thank you.
I have my computer also hooked up to my living room TV. My computer and its monitor, are just off to the side at my computer table and thus can be seen even when I am watching the TV. When watching, I can have both the computer monitor and the TV both showing the same image/video, etc. What is interesting, is that when a sudden extreme change occurs, I also see this in my peripheral vision at the computer monitor, but there is a delay. In other words, the brains processing of what is seen in the peripheral vision, is slightly delayed.
Normally, you react very quickly to unexpected things in your peripheral vision, as a safety reflex. It's interesting, to be the other way round.
This have a huge impact on stuff like bird watching, mushroom finding etc. Experience is depending on theory sort of...
I think the flicker effect of screens and lighting on vision is in need of much more consideration to peoples vision.
Nice
I like that PODLFCKR.
Nice to see a cubing reference at 1:32! :D
For reference, I was standing 10' back from this 24" monitor, and was still able to read the bottom line at all times.
Quite interesting how that works actually. There's a LOT of "filling in" that our brains do for pattern recognition.
It's the same phenomenon that happens when you misread a word as a different word that "looks the same" which i cannot thing of examples of at the moment. I wonder if it happens more with "speed readers" than it does with people who don't.
don’t need 20/20 for that. at 10’ away 2.7 mm tall letters would be 20/20
You're lucky you can still program! After 30 years in Silicon Valley, I can barely stand to touch a computer.
Ha, I got out of doing it professionally 15 years ago
I heard that highway signs have to use lowercase letters because it is faster to recognize words than if they were all capital letters (because brain predicts words).
I was thinking man my eyes are good, then I realised I was on my phone with my glasses on 😅😂
I have this odd thing where small text is much easier for me to read than large text.
We’re you zoom in and out of text or a picture? Because browser also uses gpu to clear up the text.
Cool trick: squint your eyes when something is blurry/pixelated, you'll see.
The bury one worked for me but the size and spacing had no affect. I could read all lines equally.
you need to go far enough away from the computer so that you can't read all the lines
Actually, I ran into this by accident but thought it was just me.
I ran into this when dealing with foreign languages that don't use the Latin alphabet.
For example, trying to identify a very blurry word in Japanese, Sanskrit, or Hebrew... nearly impossible for me.
Hmm, I wonder if this can be explained by directional edge detection in the brain. Large pixelated text is hard to read but large vector or simply large letters can be read more easily. Close spacing of letters makes detection of individual letters more difficult because eyes and brain have to see where one curve might lead into another curve and thus it take mental effort to spot the gaps and resolve the individual curves to individual letters?
I never feel confident at the eye dr when they say which is clearer. It depends how i squint.
also, the worse someones vision is the better the decoding. I never use reading glasses, someone gave me a blurred image of some text that they couldn't decipher and it looked normal to me.
yes, its called "blur adaptation", but there are limits to hwo much you can get out of a blurred image.
In medicine, the world of optics is very fascinating, but few people actually want to twach it.
I don't think it's just to do with the brain. I think that when you scale down the image, you are putting more of it within the fovea (high resolution area of the retina)
very cool. Why the choice of JavaScript specifically ?
Cause that's what the browser knows
@matthiasrandomstuff2221 Great, but Martthias where is the wood?
I moved to the USA from Canada thirty years ago.
Do I lose points reading the charts if I say 'ZEE' instead of 'ZED"?
I have a hard enough time with Latin when it is IN focus...
seems like food ingredient labels are using this so they are almost impossible to read ,or they printed in non contrasting colour
Did you try printing this? Might just be display processing
My favorite is to find your blind spot. With both arms straight ahead make 2 thumbs up and hold your thumbs next to each other. Close your left eye and stay focused on your left thumb. Slowly move your right thumb to the right until your thumb disappears into your blind spot (about 15 degrees). It works for the other eye (just switch thumbs). This area of your eye is completely blind yet your brain fills in what 'should' be there and mostly gets it right (minus your missing thumb). Of course I have to give a 'thumbs up' to this video :)
1.26, also known as the cube root of 2.
tenth root of 10. logMAR charts divide 10x into 10 identical ratios.
@@matthiasrandomstuff2221 Interesting. Wow, the two values are insanely close, the cube root only .08% larger then the 10th root of 10.
Would you be willing to give us the Java script? Thanks.
1:46 make it 1,2589 times in size instead of 1,26 (10^0,1)
ever heard of rounding? for non pedantic people only.
@@matthiasrandomstuff2221 yupp, it's being rounded to 1,2589 from whatever else comes after it when you put it in a calculator, thanks for asking
It's important because we're measuring in 20th mm accuracy :)
@@TheLiVeR96 actually I think you meant to timestamp at 1.45732921
It's like Nvidia dlss but for the human eye?
What was that all about?
I think that I am better than average at this and it kind of makes the drivers eye test a bit too easy.
the driving test isn't meant to test that you have 20/20. It just makes sure you have at least 20/40. So for most its easy.
I'm sick of all these "AI upgrades" that apparently have even been installed into my brain without me noticing....
That's what happens when you inject gene therapy that crosses the blood/brain barrier.
I like wood work
I think the type of image compression that you choose plays a oversized role at the small resolutions too. jpeg for example is notoriously bad for compressing images with text. It's not very noticeable at high resolutions but at lower resolutions the artifacts are prominent. png compression will I think give a better example for those images.
getting set for a new career as an Optician? 🤓😉
being an optometrist would be fun for a while, but not an optician - not much science in that.
I see said the blind man
Looks like our brain is equipped with some AI image enhancing algorithms like DLSS
No wait it's natural intelligence
Philosopher of mind Dan Dennett wrote a lot about visual perception / processing. I'd recommend “Filling In versus Finding Out: A Ubiquitous Confusion in Cognitive Science” which is linked among his "recent works".
Did my brain or yours make it say PODLFCKR at 1:19 ?
Are you TRYING to give me a headache?!
Was happy I could read the “eye test” section regardless of size on my iPhone screen :).
More programming! Maybe you'll get into artificial intelligence one day
Sounds to me that you are feeling Father Time creeping up on you. Better get used to it! From a purely selfish angle, I'm looking forward to your further insights.
Are you sure that the computer is not adding some (scaling) optimization/sharpening to the equation? To verify I would use print outs.
The change in perceived fidelity for smaller fuzzy text is wild. I've never thought about that. Thanks!
You never fail to make fascinating videos!
Would you agree that using upper and lower case when displaying text also gives your brain more clues when reading text rather than all caps that many people use when projecting text for larger groups of people
Another genius episode. ♥️
Wow! Very impressive. Thank you for the lesson
Now I'm wondering how the letter spacing can effect your ability to read/understanding.
If the spacing is too much you no longer see a word, but individual letters.
Nothing personal, but you can say the complete word "processing"... just please. Let the teeny boppers do that. Our brain is not prosing anything.
Took a speed reading class in college and one fascinating the instructor did, she had a machine that could block the bottom half of the letters - yet we could still read what was there.
My favorite effect is the brain’s ability to zero in on the point of interest - essentially eliminating “clutter”. Shows up when you take a photo and the subject is just a tiny element in the picture.
I’m guessing the low-res text is related to how our eyes only have high resolution in the very centre of where we’re looking? When I read text, I don’t study each letter or even word - I pass pretty casually over them at a glance - my brain must be filling in a lot of low-resolution data all the time (when reading).
Thanks man!
Absolutely! People born blind, who have their vision restored, have to learn how to see. Apparently they have real difficulty with depth perception.
As someone wanting to get into software development, it would be an interesting (albeit a bit niche) video to know what tips and advice current day Matthias would give to younger Matthias about coding and the industry.
I know you've mentioned you worked at Blackberry, but don't think you've ever said much more about coding in general -- apart from occasionally low-key flexing your skills.
Very cool.
I can't wait for the even bigger channels to take this and dig deeper
personally not so fond of that happening.
Derek Muller can easily make half a million just by copying this verbatim and putting a sponsor before and after. Michael Stevens would also spice it up with facial expressions.
This clue has lot of potential especially in the retail shopping, advertisement, print media and book printing space. I'm personally gonna use this knowledge to better print my business cards.
@@1schwererziehbar1I don't know who these people are and don't really care, but this is the problem with youtube.
Amsler Grid.
Now do how detail vision is better under incandescent or sunlight rather than fluorescent lighting. I don't know what LED fixtures usually do, straight or pulsed.
His videos make me feel stupid!
The realization that what I consciously perceive is literally all in my head was such an eye opener for me, hehehe. What the brain does with visual stimuli is absolutely whacky, bordering on bullshit; clock hands moving backwards, filling in blind spots, making up colors, motion smoothing, and that's just a fraction of what the brain does in vision alone.
Then there are people still convinced that we exist out of evolution.
Religious or not.
Every time I learn and study I become more scared and fascinated about what made us, how and why.