I can't see any movement, at any distance. How likely is it something weird with my vision vs. something weird with my monitor/computer? I'm on a 360hz monitor at 2k.
koolala 7 minutes ago [-]
The sizing and distance to you your face is important so you can play with that and change #define scale at the top.
imcritic 58 minutes ago [-]
The site is unavailable, because it is infected with cloudflare.
MintPaw 48 minutes ago [-]
Seem iquilezles has finally given in. He's been complaining about crawler attacks a lot in the last months/years.
Hi, I don't know what this is supposed to do, but I get pretty bad migraines and loading the page made me feel extremely strange almost immediately so I closed it.
I would check to make sure this can't trigger migraines or seizures. Maybe it's just me, but also, please double check.
lloeki 24 minutes ago [-]
I don't usually have headache migraines but do have strong visual auras from time to time.
Looking at this it first looked fun: "whoa, that's cool, this fovea thing is really smaller than I imagined"
After a minute or so playing around I closed the window and then I noticed a form
of retina persistence that looked eerily similar to an onset of a visual
aura, as well as some faint but clear ear ringing, both typical symptoms of the migraines I experience.
I immediately walked away from the computer and although dwindling it's still in effect 10min out.
irilesscent 6 hours ago [-]
Its supposed to show you how big of a radius your eye can focus on at a time, as we age the radius shrinks.
Edit: seems like there isn't enough research to suggest the latter. Apologies
Fabricio20 2 hours ago [-]
Interesting, I wonder.. have you ever tried a VR headset? Does that cause you migraines as well? or maybe any other discomfort that'd prevent you from using it?
thenthenthen 2 hours ago [-]
Not op but, VR is no problem, but this microsoft ar/mr glasses gave me an instant crazy headache in places I did not even know I had matter (back of the head), apparently thats the visual processing part of your brain. Terrible experience that lasted an hour or so.
sho_hn 3 hours ago [-]
I don't know why you got downvoted. This seems like a very useful contribution.
xfz 33 minutes ago [-]
I have nystagmus (rapid, uncontrollable, rhythmic eye movements), so I couldn't see anything at first, just lots of small dots.
I had to zoom in (Mac accessibility tool) but then I could see the effect briefly. My eyes go everywhere, but I could see patches of moving shapes with stationary shapes further away, only that the patch moved around a lot!
Taterr 1 hours ago [-]
Shadertoy got hugged to death by this shader a few years ago and it had a custom "please go away" banner for a little while. Funny seeing it show up again on HN front page.
Most of what you think you are seeing at any moment is only imagined.
The retina is not uniform. Most photosensitive cells (cones) are near the centre of vision. Peripheral vision has little resolving power. Can't make out fine details. The reality of this is much more extreme than it subjectively feels like. The eye doesn't actually have pixels but if it did they'd all be focused at the centre. Like an image where 10% of the area in the middle had 80% of the pixels.
At the centre of vision the eye has enough resolving power to make out the tiny star shapes and see that they are rotating. Outside of that narrow zone in the peripheral vision they're perceived as coloured blobs, at best. Normally your brain would make this transparent to you. But this is an unusual pattern. Your visual cortex doesn't realize all the stars should be rotating. So only the ones you can actually see at any one instant seem to rotate.
Try to look at an object in the room with you, such as a lamp, without looking at it directly. Observe it out of the corner of your eye. The more you try, the less sharply defined it will seem. At the very edge of your vision you're only getting a handful of pixels worth of colour information. But because you know it is a lamp, it has the sharpness of a lamp's definition even though you cannot actually see that definition without directly looking at it. That's a related illusion.
This is why the eye scans constantly in those micro-jerking motions known as saccades. If a face were to pop up on your display, it would feel like a single instant recognition of a person. But before you experience that the eye would scan over the eyes, mouth, nose and so on, several times, in sharp flicking motions, over about 100 milliseconds, and these dozen or so little snapshots, as it were, would be stitched together into the whole image of a face. Even though only a tiny slice of the eye, or the nose, etc. can actually be seen at any one time, you perceive the whole face.
This illusion hacks that and reveals how narrow our high-resolution vision really is. The whole visual field feels rather high resolution. But only that tiny spot where they rotate actually is.
dotancohen 29 minutes ago [-]
Is it a problem if the shape that I see rising stars in is not round? I get an upside down L shaped mass of rotating stars, no matter where I look in the image.
AlecSchueler 1 minutes ago [-]
It's like an upside down egg for me.
shrinks99 3 hours ago [-]
You can see everything in your field of vision, but the area DIRECTLY in the centre has the highest level of detail. This image has high frequency animated details that are not cognisized equally by your entire FOV. The animated bit right in the middle at any given time is where your brain processes the most detail and also where you are looking.
Peteragain 1 hours ago [-]
I had to think about it, but are you saying all the stars are animated to rotate, but the amount they move between frames is too small for you to see unless it's in your fovea?
BriggyDwiggs42 3 hours ago [-]
Oh cool so it’s about the frequency?
leeoniya 4 hours ago [-]
ok, i dont get it.
on my phone at typical distance and 90 scale i only see about an asprin tablet size area spinning. but at 180 scale i see almost everything spinning at same distance.
i think peripheral vision is quite sensitive to movement/contrast changes, but the moving shapes have to be large enough to trigger those receptors?
not sure what to conclude from this.
hekkle 3 hours ago [-]
I don't get it, all I see is:
"Bad request"
am I missing the joke?
gpm 3 hours ago [-]
No, there should be a shader (think video) rendered showing a bunch of tiny spinning things. Something went wrong when you tried to load the page. It's an optical illusion where only things close to the centre of your vision look like they are spinning and everything else looks still.
hekkle 3 hours ago [-]
Okay, thanks.
willbicks 5 hours ago [-]
This is a truly incredible demo.
altairprime 6 hours ago [-]
What’s the correct scale for 210dpi?
avidiax 1 hours ago [-]
You can also increase the "lengt". Doubling it works well on my Macbook, and the pattern is more dense so you can see your fovea better.
jchw 5 hours ago [-]
180 worked pretty well on my Framework 16.
zellyn 5 hours ago [-]
Ditto on my MacBook Air
keyle 4 hours ago [-]
TL;DR it helps you identify the true diameter of your visual focus, which is said to shrink with old age (mine shrinks more in terms of _time_ dimension but that's a different issue!)
For best results, use it _fullscreen_, change the #define `90` values to a higher value if you're on a high dpi screen.
Stare at a few places on the screen and you'll get the effect of appearing to rotate only where you stare.
It's pretty neat.
VeritySage07 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
herodotus 7 hours ago [-]
Amazing - but iPhone screen is too small. Works on my iPad.
https://x.com/iquilezles/status/1977172864785957340 https://x.com/iquilezles/status/1976866381099679817 https://x.com/iquilezles/status/1838858759336267842
I would check to make sure this can't trigger migraines or seizures. Maybe it's just me, but also, please double check.
Looking at this it first looked fun: "whoa, that's cool, this fovea thing is really smaller than I imagined"
After a minute or so playing around I closed the window and then I noticed a form of retina persistence that looked eerily similar to an onset of a visual aura, as well as some faint but clear ear ringing, both typical symptoms of the migraines I experience.
I immediately walked away from the computer and although dwindling it's still in effect 10min out.
Edit: seems like there isn't enough research to suggest the latter. Apologies
I had to zoom in (Mac accessibility tool) but then I could see the effect briefly. My eyes go everywhere, but I could see patches of moving shapes with stationary shapes further away, only that the patch moved around a lot!
https://web.archive.org/web/20210430091013/https://www.shade...
The retina is not uniform. Most photosensitive cells (cones) are near the centre of vision. Peripheral vision has little resolving power. Can't make out fine details. The reality of this is much more extreme than it subjectively feels like. The eye doesn't actually have pixels but if it did they'd all be focused at the centre. Like an image where 10% of the area in the middle had 80% of the pixels.
At the centre of vision the eye has enough resolving power to make out the tiny star shapes and see that they are rotating. Outside of that narrow zone in the peripheral vision they're perceived as coloured blobs, at best. Normally your brain would make this transparent to you. But this is an unusual pattern. Your visual cortex doesn't realize all the stars should be rotating. So only the ones you can actually see at any one instant seem to rotate.
Try to look at an object in the room with you, such as a lamp, without looking at it directly. Observe it out of the corner of your eye. The more you try, the less sharply defined it will seem. At the very edge of your vision you're only getting a handful of pixels worth of colour information. But because you know it is a lamp, it has the sharpness of a lamp's definition even though you cannot actually see that definition without directly looking at it. That's a related illusion.
This is why the eye scans constantly in those micro-jerking motions known as saccades. If a face were to pop up on your display, it would feel like a single instant recognition of a person. But before you experience that the eye would scan over the eyes, mouth, nose and so on, several times, in sharp flicking motions, over about 100 milliseconds, and these dozen or so little snapshots, as it were, would be stitched together into the whole image of a face. Even though only a tiny slice of the eye, or the nose, etc. can actually be seen at any one time, you perceive the whole face.
This illusion hacks that and reveals how narrow our high-resolution vision really is. The whole visual field feels rather high resolution. But only that tiny spot where they rotate actually is.
on my phone at typical distance and 90 scale i only see about an asprin tablet size area spinning. but at 180 scale i see almost everything spinning at same distance.
i think peripheral vision is quite sensitive to movement/contrast changes, but the moving shapes have to be large enough to trigger those receptors?
not sure what to conclude from this.
"Bad request"
am I missing the joke?
For best results, use it _fullscreen_, change the #define `90` values to a higher value if you're on a high dpi screen.
Stare at a few places on the screen and you'll get the effect of appearing to rotate only where you stare.
It's pretty neat.