 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> wrote:
> And if we could see into the infrared, then Traci would be looking *oh* so much
> nicer. ;-P
You might say she'd be looking even hotter.
;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Le Forgeron
Subject: Re: Very interesting color resolution examples
Date: 28 Apr 2009 16:29:18
Message: <49f7671e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 28/04/2009 18:14, Darren New nous fit lire :
> Warp wrote:
>> No, it's because of the surface temperature of the Sun. Both leaves and
>> best vision is at the green amplitude for a common reason.
>
> If green was the best color for light absorbtion, the leaves wouldn't be
> *reflecting* green. :-)
>
In fact... leaves are not reflecting green... they are reflecting light which YOU
perceive
as green.
Not the same thing.
Take any satellite view in IR or UV, and you will see (in false colors) that all
plants
are not the same "green" (as well as providing information about water-need, it's also
changing from species to species: some smart agency detects drugs-fields that way).
As leaves in autumns show, they have various pigments to react with the light.
Chlorophyll (the whole family) works less with green. Hence the green of leaves.
But in the family, some are more efficient on different red/IR/blue/UV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron wrote:
> In fact... leaves are not reflecting green... they are reflecting light
> which YOU perceive as green.
Well, true. Green, amongst others. :-)
> As leaves in autumns show, they have various pigments to react with the
> light.
Is that really where the colors come from? Other cholorphyll-related chemicals?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2009 10:02 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> Being a closet cosmologist at heart, the issue should keep me fascinated for weeks!
Dude, did you just come out of the closet on the POV-Ray newsgroups? :o
:)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 4/28/2009 10:02 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> > Being a closet cosmologist at heart, the issue should keep me fascinated for
weeks!
>
> Dude, did you just come out of the closet on the POV-Ray newsgroups? :o
>
> :)
Yes, it's true, I can finally admit it: I AM a wanna-be cosmologist!!
Ah, that felt good. Now I don't have to hide my true feelings from my friends
any longer.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Very interesting color resolution examples
Date: 30 Apr 2009 13:07:32
Message: <49f9dad4@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth wrote:
> I wonder why WE can't see into the ultraviolet (and the infrared?) That
> SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article points out that some existing creatures can see at
> least somewhat into the UV spectrum. So their retinas(?) must have developed
> some kind of protection that we don't (currently!) have. "Man is the superior
> being.": Bah, humbug.
Well, they can detect UVA, yes, which is mostly harmless. It's UVB that
causes burns and cancer.
And some people can see just barely into the IR band. I'm one that on
certain IR remotes, I can just barely see the die light up. It's
probably very long wave red that I'm actually seeing, though.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
