I try to do what everybody does. Since we are a technical civilisation
we convert signals. Sounds get recorded. We found out that the color
of a picture is a frequenz of light. Material and energy seems to be
the same.

We found out that other frequences are easier to transport. Voice get
changed to a radio signal and back to a voice. The voice effects our
ears and gets changed to - no, it starts a electronical signal to our
brain. This brain seems to make the picture. And so on, and so on ...

When we will start traveling in space (very soon may be) we have to
able to feel the wind of the sun, to feel the pain of gamma ray and to
feel the form of magnetic fields. *talking in pictures, sorry*

Since some time we are able to listen to the sound of a batman, an
earthquake and even a cell, the symbol of live. We build machines for
everything that could made perceptible.

So why not generate pictures of anything around us. We know there are
many things we dont need to percept, like our own heardbeat or our
breathing.

If you would make sound visible in the air, how it needs to look like?
What would be real. Sound is a mechanical wave. Transportet by the
collisions of atoms in the air. If you would make air a little bit
visible and put an algorithm in the setting of the atoms of the air
you could put them closer to each other and in the other area not so
close. A wave could be seen.

... There are much more ideas on my mind. Need to hear more? But then
we should work on it, or not? :-)

Thanks for your time and listening to me. Some things I think about
could sound a bit weird, but ... I dont mind about my thoughts. I
believe everything is worth to think about. Nothing is fixed. It is
all evolving. So why not our thinking and our views, too? :-)

--

Sincerely yours

Fred Rathke
ComRat - Communication Rational
60316 Frankfurt
Germany










"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
In article <3ca0b2f7$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Fred Rathke" <com### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> You said: "...those things are already perceivable."
>
> Do you have some samples, or names of applications, or some words
for
> my google? I would appreciate a lot.

Well, I generally use my eyes, ears, etc... ;-)

You seem to have some interesting ideas, though I'm still not really
sure what you want to do. You seem to want to extend human senses to
ranges outside what we normally perceive, not translate from one sense
to another...but is the source of this data synthesized (a
computer-generated environment) or coming from real-world sensors?
POV would only have any application to the visual portion, and it
wouldn't be useful for simulating vision in other portions of the
spectrum. POV-Ray (and most pieces of graphics software) are designed
to
make results that look realistic using RGB representation of color. It
would have to be modified heavily to use spectral color (color
represented by wavelength), and you would have to do a lot of work and
take lots of measurements to get realistic textures for the different
parts of the spectrum. You would probably need to simulate florescence
as well, and things like absorption and emission of heat, and effects
like diffraction that are caused by the wave nature of light would be
a
lot more important at the longer wavelengths. And you would still need
data from real world sensors to make sure the simulation is correct.

Translating things like roughness, hardness, etc to surface color
would
be a lot easier.

--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message