part 1 276 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The attached 2KB jpeg is represents the putative image
seen by such as Alice's pet snail. Unfortuantely, it is in
a format that my one and only jpeg reader/converter will
not handle.
Could anyone possibly convert this to gif or bmp for me?
Thanks to everyone who responded - I received a slew of
converted images.
I was interested in what the snail might be seeing, so I put
up some doctored images. The edge-enhanced and edge-detected
images are based upon the possible transforms that might occur
due to the [presumed] universal presence of lateral inhibition
within the visual system of animals - high and low.
Not sure if the snail has lateral inhibition mechanisms, but
it was first detected in the horsehoe crab by Ratliff [IIRC]
- known as Mach bands. Snail probably has it.
>
>The attached 2KB jpeg is represents the putative image
>seen by such as Alice's pet snail. Unfortuantely, it is in
>a format that my one and only jpeg reader/converter will
>not handle.
>
>Could anyone possibly convert this to gif or bmp for me?
>
>thanks,
>- dan
>=================
At 10:03 AM 9/8/01 +1200, you wrote:
>> Could anyone possibly convert this to gif or bmp for me?
>>
>> thanks,
>> - dan
>
>Using that image and Paint Shop Pro 6 increases the size
>from 3k jpg to 8k gif or 98k bmp
>
As I discovered from several images I received from others.
jpg = small.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Dan Michaels
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 18:09
> To: PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT]: Alice's Snail
>
>
> At 10:03 AM 9/8/01 +1200, you wrote:
> >> Could anyone possibly convert this to gif or bmp for me?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> - dan
> >
> >Using that image and Paint Shop Pro 6 increases the size
> >from 3k jpg to 8k gif or 98k bmp
> >
>
> As I discovered from several images I received from others.
> jpg = small.
And as I demonstrated to a colleage today JPEG does NOT always mean small,
it depends on the type of image. If you have a picture with thousands of
colours and lots of grandually changing colours then JPEG is the smallest of
the more popular formats. HOWEVER, if you have a pciture with a limited
number of colours and very high contrast (ie. lines or blocks of solid
colour) then GIF is far superior. For example, today we took a few screen
shots and he selected JPG, since we were going to email them I suggested he
use GIF since it would be smaller. The result? The GIF was ~5 times smaller!
17k in GIF format and 90k in JPG format. One can't just say that one format
will be smaller then another, it depends on what is being compressed. TTYL
Your request has been sent directly.
I hope it is what you wanted, it looks useless to me.
John Ferrell
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606
Dixie Competition Products
NSRCA 479 AMA 4190 W8CCW
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"
>Interesting pictures, but I think that you way overstated
>what the snail can see. The original article said that
>the snail's resolution is around 44 pixels. That's not
>44x44, instead it's about 6x7.
>
Karl, you may be correct - on the Apple Snail website they state
the following:
"... The spatial resolution of an apple snail eye is estimated
(SEYER, J.O. et al. 1998) to be around 44 pixels".
I assumed this meant 44x44, but may actually be 6x7 as you say
- in which case I would not have even bothered to do the figures.
6x7 res is so low as be pretty much uninteresting. If only 6x7,
then Alice's snail is even smarter than she thinks.
I looked around some but could not find any other info on other
sites, so ?????
> Karl Seibert wrote:
>
> >Interesting pictures, but I think that you way overstated
> >what the snail can see. The original article said that
> >the snail's resolution is around 44 pixels. That's not
> >44x44, instead it's about 6x7.
> >
>
> Karl, you may be correct - on the Apple Snail website they state
> the following:
>
> "... The spatial resolution of an apple snail eye is estimated
> (SEYER, J.O. et al. 1998) to be around 44 pixels".
>
> I assumed this meant 44x44, but may actually be 6x7 as you say
> - in which case I would not have even bothered to do the figures.
> 6x7 res is so low as be pretty much uninteresting. If only 6x7,
> then Alice's snail is even smarter than she thinks.
>
> I looked around some but could not find any other info on other
> sites, so ?????
Interestingly, for people at least, very small pixel count displays can
reportedly be adequate to convey FACIAL information as opposed to other
sorts of information. I read something within the last 6 months or so where
a "talking head" display was being used as part AFAIR of a videophone
system. They reported that for facial images the users reported perceived
image qualities far in excess of what could be expected from the very very
limited display resolution. The perceived quality dropped to what would have
been expected for other images. In this case the familiarity with the
features of the person concerned (if known) and the general similarities in
nature and behaviour of "talking heads" allowed the brain to "fill in the
gaps" (or the pheromones perhaps ? :-) ).
Maybe snails have extremely advanced facial interpolation capability ? :-)
In Dan's 44^2 pixel rendition of Alice, is that a fur coat draped over her
shoulders or a lettuce leaf ? (inquiring snail's minds want to know).
Oh, NOW i get it. You guys think that, by recognition, I ment 'facial recognition by means of visual system'. Silly me. What i MEANT was, the snail, by whatever means available to it, including but not limited to vibration, smell, electrical potentials, fuzzy blob visual, or whatever, could tell that its meal ticket was back.
Dogs can recognize people by scent, their owner's car by the distinctive klunk of the loose front axle bearing, and incidently by seeing them. It never occured to me that visual was the snail's primary modality, its eyes arent big enough.
> Karl Seibert wrote:
>
> >Interesting pictures, but I think that you way overstated
> >what the snail can see. The original article said that
> >the snail's resolution is around 44 pixels. That's not
> >44x44, instead it's about 6x7.
> >
>
> Karl, you may be correct - on the Apple Snail website they state
> the following:
>
> "... The spatial resolution of an apple snail eye is estimated
> (SEYER, J.O. et al. 1998) to be around 44 pixels".
>
> I assumed this meant 44x44, but may actually be 6x7 as you say
> - in which case I would not have even bothered to do the figures.
> 6x7 res is so low as be pretty much uninteresting. If only 6x7,
> then Alice's snail is even smarter than she thinks.
>
> I looked around some but could not find any other info on other
> sites, so ?????
>
> - dan
> =============
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu
>
>
>
Russell.M wrote:
>> Karl Seibert wrote:
>>
>> >Interesting pictures, but I think that you way overstated
>> >what the snail can see. The original article said that
>> >the snail's resolution is around 44 pixels. That's not
>> >44x44, instead it's about 6x7.
............
>>
>> I assumed this meant 44x44, but may actually be 6x7 as you say
>> - in which case I would not have even bothered to do the figures.
>> 6x7 res is so low as be pretty much uninteresting. If only 6x7,
>> then Alice's snail is even smarter than she thinks.
........
>Interestingly, for people at least, very small pixel count displays can
>reportedly be adequate to convey FACIAL information as opposed to other
>sorts of information. I read something within the last 6 months or so where
>a "talking head" display was being used as part AFAIR of a videophone
>system.
........
>In Dan's 44^2 pixel rendition of Alice, is that a fur coat draped over her
>shoulders or a lettuce leaf ? (inquiring snail's minds want to know).
>
I have read about this too, but I don't think that pixel count as
low as 6x7 would be very successful.
OTOH, if you look at the last image on my page, you see it is
fairly easy to recognize a discernible face at 40x40 res, even
without shading - basically face shape, plus eye/nose/mouth
characteristics are easy to discern - [at least for a cartoon].
BTW, I also added images to the page resampled at 6x6 - for
comparison purposes. These are basically indiscernible for any
purpose - whereas with res increased to 40x40, it would seem
you can do a fairly reasonable job.
[BTW, Russell, you guys downunder may be a little deficient in
knowledge american cartoon characters - the face is Calvin from
Calvin & Hobbes, not Alice from the infamous Gang of 3
Anecdotellers].
>Oh, NOW i get it. You guys think that, by recognition, I ment 'facial
recognition by means of visual system'. Silly me. What i MEANT was,
the snail, by whatever means available to it, including but not limited
to vibration, smell, electrical potentials, fuzzy blob visual, or whatever,
could tell that its meal ticket was back.
>
>Dogs can recognize people by scent, their owner's car by the distinctive
klunk of the loose front axle bearing, and incidently by seeing them.
It never occured to me that visual was the snail's primary modality,
its eyes arent big enough.
>
Sorry, kiddo, ya can't get out of it that easily - here is an excerpt
from your original description of snail behavior from 2 days ago ...
[ya didna put enuf qualifiers in for easy escape ... :)]:
"....If a certain dark loomy shape is associated with crumbs, happy
bit is set. More happy, stronger response. See loomy shape, happy,
come over. Likewise, light loomy shape hits creature, fear bit set,
see light loomy shape, flee...."
Nuttin here about multimodals ... and I really really like the use
of scientific terms here, like "happy bit" and "happy, come over",
etc. However, your bringing the description down to the actual
machinations of internal snail logic totally wins the day ... <G>
> >Interestingly, for people at least, very small pixel count displays can
> >reportedly be adequate to convey FACIAL information as opposed to other
> >sorts of information. I read something within the last 6 months or so
where
> >a "talking head" display was being used as part AFAIR of a videophone
> >system.
For those interested, you should do a search on "Mechanical TV".
There are many groups working on low-resolution video systems
(as distinct from slow-scan TV).
They achieve quite amazing results with only 32x32 pixels...
Graeme Zimmer wrote:
..........
>
>For those interested, you should do a search on "Mechanical TV".
>There are many groups working on low-resolution video systems
>(as distinct from slow-scan TV).
>
>They achieve quite amazing results with only 32x32 pixels...
>
>see especially..
>http://www.nbtv.wyenet.co.uk/mcvoy30.html
>http://www.nbtv.wyenet.co.uk/movgif.html
>
Graeme, It's not clear how they are doing this, but comparing
this image to my 40x40x8-bit snail image, it is "very" clear
that their vertical res is much greater than 32 pixels. Possibly
they are doing interpolation/smoothing to 128 pixels or so at
the receive end.
I just wanted to say thanks again to all those who sent me
converted jpeg images of the shell.
I now have all that I can use - thanks.
Results are on my snail page regarding some transforms that
may take place in the snail visual system at 40x40 res. I also
put up a couple of 6x6 res pictures for comparison. 40x40 res
is quite usable for a low-vision system, as might be found in
a small bot. 6x6 res is pretty useless as far as I can see.
To anyone who has been following this, I put up a few more images
on my page - about 150 KBytes now.
I was interested in what low-res vision would be like when a
blurry [de-focussed] image is captured.
It would appear it might actually take "less" downstream processing
to extract the usual features from a low-res image if it is actually
de-focussed prior to capture. Basically, less noise to deal with
after transformations.
Dan Michaels wrote:
>
> To anyone who has been following this, I put up a few more images
> on my page - about 150 KBytes now.
>
> I was interested in what low-res vision would be like when a
> blurry [de-focussed] image is captured.
>
> It would appear it might actually take "less" downstream processing
> to extract the usual features from a low-res image if it is actually
> de-focussed prior to capture. Basically, less noise to deal with
> after transformations.
>
> http://www.oricomtech.com/snail.htm
Hi Dan, I have watched this thread, but seen nothing
on the visual benefits of a moving image or moving
matrix.
One of the reasons a telephone system can use a very
low res video image is that the person's face MOVES,
this increases the level of detail by an enormous
amount when viewed by a human at least. :o)
You might be surprised, if you moved your hi-res
snail image a couple of pixels to the right each
frame, then reduced it to 10x10 pixels, then
join these images together into an animation.
As the picture moves right and left you will see
all the fine details come to life in your 10x10
animated image.
This works pretty good looking at faces on TV that
have been "pixelated out", to hide their identity,
especially if their face is moving, squint your eyes
and you can see them pretty good. I noticed now
some programs are starting to use VERY coarse
pixels for this face masking...
-Roman
I have done some research concerning image resolution through a
periscope. By my reconing in order to tell a speedboat from a
fishingboat, or to tell a car from a truck, you need at least 100 pixels
(10x10 or 7x14) on the target.
> Interestingly, for people at least, very small pixel count displays can
> reportedly be adequate to convey FACIAL information as opposed to other
> sorts of information. I read something within the last 6 months or so
where
> a "talking head" display was being used as part AFAIR of a videophone
> system. They reported that for facial images the users reported perceived
> image qualities far in excess of what could be expected from the very very
> limited display resolution. The perceived quality dropped to what would
have
> been expected for other images. In this case the familiarity with the
> features of the person concerned (if known) and the general similarities
in
> nature and behaviour of "talking heads" allowed the brain to "fill in the
> gaps" (or the pheromones perhaps ? :-) ).
Isn't it just that our brains have a seperate part for facial recognition.
That's why we see faces in all kinds of things (crisps, cork flooring, the
moon [oops! better not get onto that OT threat again]). I cannot remember
the books name but I read one (true story too) about someone who had a
stroke which meant he could not recognise peoples faces anymore (even his
own!). However he could perceive normal everyday objects. Similarly there
was another stroke victim who had the opposite, he could perceive faces but
not objects. They had marked differences on PET scanning (positron emmision
tomography). So our brain is excedingly keen to extract faces from poor
resolution images. Add in our brains amazing capacity to "see" (ie perceive)
things that aren't there and voila.
It all gives some hope for the designers of artifical retinas. Currently the
resolution is very poor but in ten years... Of course the problem with them
is that there is an age after which you stop learning to perceive. I cannot
remember the exact number (6 months seems to ring a bell but it was the
first year of my MD, and that was a while ago...). If you haven't "seen"
before that age you will not learn to perceive. So as nice as it would be if
S.Wonder had the operation (which he was planning on) his perception of
vision would be very poor.
I remember being told of an experiment whereby they got two groups of mice.
One lot had an environment with horizontal and vertical lines on the walls
whilst one had an environment with only horizontal lines it it. They found
that after a certain age, the second lot of mice became totally unable to
perceive vertical lines even after compensating for the "head start" that
the other mice had had.
Ben
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
