[Challenge] If you could right-click the sky...

[Streetboat]

hey did you guys know that you actually can save the whole sky as your desktop background

its called going outside

[Daemian]

@Googolplex
@BAndrew
Again; if you could measure the sky as an image.

Think of it as a texture. What size the image should be to texture it all? To cover the whole sky.

[eliasfrost]

Pretty damn big

[Froge]

What resolution does the eye see?

[The chaser]

@Googolplex
@BAndrew
Again; if you could measure the sky as an image.

Think of it as a texture. What size the image should be to texture it all? To cover the whole sky.

I'd say, if we put it as a dome, 12,000 X 3000, or similar.

[Daemian]

I only came out with this imaginary idea;

Assuming the sky texture is up at a distance of 9,000 meters (average height planes fly) from the ground,
we could use the earth's circumference (at its biggest location) to multiply it by the 9,000 mt (no?) and then convert meters to square meters, and square meters to pixels to get the result.


I know, it's all an absurd assumption, but help me get a better formula just for fun. :]

[Acies]

hey did you guys know that you actually can save the whole sky as your desktop background



its called going outside

But.. But I have a desktop, not a laptop..

@Googolplex

@BAndrew

Again; if you could measure the sky as an image.



Think of it as a texture. What size the image should be to texture it all? To cover the whole sky.

Every image seen on a monitor uses pixel blending. Let's say that you are looking at a red ball in real life. Using the 'color picker' from photoshop in real life you pick a color from it. That is 53% red. Next you pick another speck next by it. That is 56% red. Assuming that these are 'true color values'; ergo they are the color of an atom-sized area, a computer monitor would blend those two spots together into a 54,5% red because there isn't enough pixels on your screen to have two small areas of 53% red and 56% red.

Obviously there isn't a computer monitor which can do the above - it was merely a bad example of me trying to describe it.

Your question becomes diffuse, because there is a difference in what kind of colors exist in the real world/how well can a computer monitor mimic that to fool the eye/how well do we percieve the 'real colors' of the world. Consider this for you question:

- At what resolution does the human eye see the sky? Is it enough to show the sky at the same resolution of a human viewing the sky, or are you asking for a computer monitor to behave like the real world.
- Can pixel blending be used to fool the eye

[WALP]

hey did you guys know that you actually can save the whole sky as your desktop background

its called going outside

wrong, thats called viewing the image.
To set it as a desktop background place your desktop by the window.

[Nice]

His question makes sense if he means atoms instead of pixels. This could be almost the same.
But the problem is that the human eye doesn't have a 360° view of the sky and we don't know our position in the universe.

The universe is 13,7 billion years old, that means a space of

299792,458 x 60 x 60 x 23,94 x 365,24 x 13700000000 = 129284437743762600000000 km (129,28 sextillion)

And then you have to know how many atoms per km are. This amount is very different and you also should know that an atom is not the smallest piece.

The number of atoms in the universe is 10^78.

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

10^100 would mean 1 Googol
10^Googol would mean 1 Googolplex

wat the fuk man

[Red]

I wonder, what antialising method does human eye use?