NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Sextant accuracy (was : Plumb-line horizon vs. geocentric horizon)
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2005 Feb 23, 14:28 EST
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2005 Feb 23, 14:28 EST
Jared you wrote:
"Post-processing to generate sharpness in
excess of the image sensor's ability is standard today. We know the job can
be done in software.
So, why shouldn't a processor like the human brain also be able to run a
similar program?"
excess of the image sensor's ability is standard today. We know the job can
be done in software.
So, why shouldn't a processor like the human brain also be able to run a
similar program?"
Yes, sure. Definitely. An interesting point for your analogy: our brains
don't have to download that software. It's been crafted by evolution over
millions of years. But apparently it takes some time for the software to boot
up. They say that infants don't have hyperacuity (make up your own joke about
how they're tested --I've previousy contributed mine <g>). An indication
that this is a software or "brain" task is the fact that it apparently works
just as well among people with poor vision.
By the way, you would agree, I am sure, that increasing sharpness doesn't
increase resolution (although it may make some patterns clearer). For example,
if you have a photo of the Full Moon, and you sharpen it, you don't see craters
that were previously invisible.
-FER
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars