Idle thought:
Jan. 9th, 2009 03:12 pmColour is (badly) defined as the relative amount of one three frequencies of light waves reflected off a visible point.
Could you make a false colour ultrasound image by using three different frequencies of ultrasound? If so would they be of any use?
Could you make a false colour ultrasound image by using three different frequencies of ultrasound? If so would they be of any use?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:20 pm (UTC)And that doesn't necessarily need different frequencies if you can use two transmitters and time slice between then and combine the two to build a three d virtual image ...
Now it may be that different frequencies penetrate differently so you might be able to do the "looking under the skin" bit ... but I have no knowledge of that.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:28 pm (UTC)But it just still just shows a monochrome image of how the much of the ultrasound signal is reflected by boundaries between different organs.
What I was envisioning was that different boundries, may reflect with the same intensity at one frequency, and thus have the same brightness in the monochrome. But at different intensities in other frequencies, thus appearing as a different colour in the composite false colour image.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:40 pm (UTC)But the receptors aren't only tuned to a single wavelength, or we would be nearly blind, only able to see things in a three single frequencies. The cells have a bell shaped curve (iirc) response to light around the red, green and blue frequency, and it's the relative levels where they overlap that "defines" the qualia.
Other animals have often have a different range of frequencies that their receptor cells are tuned too. Imagine a creature which can see into the infra-red watching a human TV. Stomatopods would need a twelve colour TV rather than three.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:51 pm (UTC)Hmm - one type of cone gives you a single dimension of colour - (bright/dark)- two cones would give you two dimensions (a plane) - three cones gives you three dimensions of it. I wonder if a fourth dimension of colour would feel qualitatively different, or would simply feel like our current colour perception with more detail.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:04 pm (UTC)(Jakab Z, Wenzel K, 2004, "Detecting tetrachromacy in human subjects" Perception 33 ECVP Abstract Supplement, Wikipedia article on tetrachromacy)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:14 pm (UTC)You can see in 2D, because you have a 2D retina. You can see in 3D because you have binocular vision and ... hang on. This is a metaphorical dimensions of colour isn't it?
Hmm. Interesting. Talking to someone who has gone colour blind later in life is the only test I can think of.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 10:41 pm (UTC)_C_ones for _C_olour
_R_ods for ... erm ... _R_unning about in the woods at night without a gamekeeper seeing your torch.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 03:54 pm (UTC)The ultrasound approach is more like the astronomical approach of viewing something through multiple filters and then shifting the wavelengths to the visible. Astronomical images are often false-coloured because they are made up of a set of particular wavelengths - Hα comes immediately to mind.
Of course, ultrasound is a longitudinal wave form, not a transverse waveform. How about thinking of a multi-frequency ultrasound as a polyphonic piece of music instead of a single tone?
Hmm... there's an art idea - transforming your ultrasound baby scans into orchestral pieces.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 04:08 pm (UTC)As for turning it into sound, Reminds me of an idea Douglas Adams had.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 11:00 am (UTC)