Yes my literary comprehension skills are quite lacking. I read it wrong
and realized this quickly after sending my post. Sorry for wasting
bandwidth, and wouldn't have done so again if it weren't for a little
comment on the responses.
We cannot resolve anything visually to atomic levels. The human eye is
sensitive down to about 15 photons resolution, and only in a really dark
atmosphere. Albiet this probably doesn't matter if the computer screen
analogy holds with larger than pixel objects at large distances which was
referred to in a different response.
I know a few particularly useless artists that I am currently setting to
work on verifying this with paint, and if there's any surprising results,
we'll get digital photos of it.
Cory
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, denis bider wrote:
> Michael Lorrey writes:
>
> > I was under the impression they were squares of color, not actual
> >
> > Ifrit wrote:
> > > Take the proportion of size of H to O and those are the
>
> Michael is right that the squares are meant to be *solid color*, not letters
> H, O and X. The letters were meant for illustration purposes only. (Review
> the original message if confused)
>
> Also, to state the question more clearly: the question is whether or not the
> two canvases would seem to have the same color, when watched from a large
> distance; or would they obviously differ in color.
>
>
> [Again, a short summary of the problem: we have two big square canvases, and
> two colors (actual colors, not black and white). The colors are in contrast.
> Then we paint one of the canvases with a 1:1 mixture of color1 and color2.
> We divide the other canvas into very small squares, and we paint each square
> so that its non-diagonal neighbours all have the 'other' color. Now, should
> the overall perceived color of the canvases be the same - or even similar -
> when viewed from afar, or not?]
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:23 MDT