← Back to context

Comment by Dylan16807

5 days ago

> And outputs what? Just because the input is an area does not mean the output is an area.

> What it if it outputs the peak of the distribution across the area?

It outputs a voltage proportional to the (filtered) photon count across the entire area.

> If we look at a camera sensor and do not see a uniform grid of packed area elements would that convince you?

Non-uniformity won't convince me points are a better fit, but if the median camera doesn't use a grid I'll be interested in what you have to show.

> I notice you haven’t shared any criticism of the point model - widely understood by the field.

This whole comment line is a criticism of the input being modeled as points, and my criticism of the output is implied by my pixel art comment above (because point-like upscaling causes a giant blur) and also exists in other comments like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43777957

> It outputs a voltage proportional to the (filtered) photon count across the entire area.

This is not true. And it’s even debunked in the original article.

  • > And it’s even debunked in the original article.

    No, it's not. That article does not mention digital cameras anywhere. It briefly says that scanners give a gaussian, and I don't want to do enough research to see how accurate that is, but that's the only input device that gets detailed.

    It also gives the impression that computer rendering uses boxes, when usually it's the opposite and rendering uses points.