What looks good -- and what sounds bad?

Uber-geek David Pogue has completed a Casual-Friday-worthy study of the human perceptual system. He wanted to test the "megapixel myth" -- the idea that buying a higher megapixel camera doesn't necessarily mean that you will take better pictures. He made poster-size prints of the same photo at different pixel resolutions: 5, 8, and 13 megapixels, then asked passersby to judge which was which. Ninety-five percent didn't even try, and only one of those who attempted was able to correctly identify the photos.

But doesn't the human eye have a full 576 megapixels of resolution? Something must be wrong with either Pogue's design or Clarkvision's computation. One possibility: The limiting factor wasn't the resolution of the human eye, but the printer Pogue used to make the posters.

A related but different topic: What sound is most irritating? Now you can participate in an experiment to find out, and compare your results to others. Study designer Trevor Cox describes the project:

The idea behind the project is to get people thinking about the complex way we listen to and interpret sounds. For instance, you can find out why we find the sound of retching horrible.

By examining people's voting patterns we will learn more about people's perception of horrible sounds. We hope to learn about what is the worst sound in the world, and maybe why it is the worst sound.

It has been a lot of fun putting together the website, but I'm glad I no longer have to edit horrible things like the sound of my snotty nose!

In other news:


More like this

If the human eye was a digital camera, how many megapixels would it have? Clarkvision does the calculations. The answer: 576 megapixels. Impressive job -- I wish I had thought to do that. Note that their calculations require a bit of fudging: the fovea actually covers just a tiny bit of the visual…
Another week, another fascinating seminar over at Mind Matters. The paper in question concerns a topic near and dear to me: decision making. Here's the abstract: Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not always advantageous to engage in thorough conscious deliberation before choosing. On the basis…
Lott has an interview on strike-the-root.com. He repeats some of the false claims discussed here earlier, such as his claim of a 440% increase in handgun crime in Sydney. He also claims: Ninety-five percent or so of the time, simply brandishing a gun was sufficient to stop an attack…
It's one of those tired cliches: Bush makes decisions with his irrational "gut instincts," instead of relying on "careful analysis". Paul Krugman, in today's Times, end his columns by repeating this cliche: Luckily, we've got good leadership for the coming storm: the White House is occupied by a…

Perhaps the printer was the limiting factor, although that doesn't weaken Pogue's argument that digital camera buyers are wasting their money on higher-resolution cameras that do little but increase visible noise and put a cap on possible ISO values.

My opinion is this:

Yes, the eye has many, many photoreceptors. However, your experience of sight isn't the sum of all the photoreceptors; perception is a secondary process, separate from sensation. The brain could create an identical perception out of multiple different patterns of photoreceptor information by automatically interpolating information. All of our visual perceptions are to some degree the result of interpolation and interpretation. So yes, the eye might be able to tell the difference between the different resolutions, but the mind still might not be able to.