this doesn't really fit in 'funny', just kind of odd. (the finder itself is hilarious, how bad it still is, but that's another story).
right click desktop in the finder and you not only can change your desktop background from there, you can change the background of the 'folder' window....weird.
this doesn't really fit in 'funny', just kind of odd. (the finder itself is hilarious, how bad it still is, but that's another story).
right click desktop in the finder and you not only can change your desktop background from there, you can change the background of the 'folder' window....weird.
That makes sense though. The desktop folder is the desktop with the exact same function and features except it dosn't have the background and it doesn't have the Macintosh HD icon, because that icon is not in the user account desktop folder.
I also noticed this odd sight... someone explain to me how the reflection of that Mac Book screen got all the way down there.
It is the simple Law of Reflection:
Angle of reflection = angle of incidence.
The MacBook sits on a reflective dark surface. Light from the LCD screen reflects from the support surface into the lens of the camera. Because we expect light to travel in a straight line, the reflected light is perceived to originate beneath the MacBook. This also explains why the reflection of a tree on the bank of a lake appears to be directly beneath the tree.
The MacBook sits on a reflective dark surface. Light from the LCD screen reflects from the support surface into the lens of the camera. Because we expect light to travel in a straight line, the reflected light is perceived to originate beneath the MacBook. This also explains why the reflection of a tree on the bank of a lake appears to be directly beneath the tree.
The picture seems to be down right at the moment, but no, that you said does not explain it. Sorry.
I also noticed this odd sight... someone explain to me how the reflection of that Mac Book screen got all the way down there.
That reflection is accurate. The light doesn't travel down there as Mr Me said. You have to think about how the mirror is working. Although it would seem that what you are seeing beneath the machine is the laptop reflected vertically - this perception would arise from seeing your own reflection in a mirror - what you are actually seeing is the laptop reflected at an angle relative to your own position or that of the camera, which just virtually appears to be vertically beneath the actual laptop. You can see the effect yourself if you take a book and a torch and place the book on a mirror and then shine the torch away from the book. You can still see the torch in the reflection even though it logically seems that the book should block the torch completely. This is why Physics is best left for mad people 'cos it messes with your head.
That reflection is accurate. The light doesn't travel down there as Mr Me said. You have to think about how the mirror is working. Although it would seem that what you are seeing beneath the machine is the laptop reflected vertically - this perception would arise from seeing your own reflection in a mirror - what you are actually seeing is the laptop reflected at an angle relative to your own position or that of the camera, which just virtually appears to be vertically beneath the actual laptop. You can see the effect yourself if you take a book and a torch and place the book on a mirror and then shine the torch away from the book. You can still see the torch in the reflection even though it logically seems that the book should block the torch completely. This is why Physics is best left for mad people 'cos it messes with your head.
You might be able to see some of the screen's reflection but not the amount presented there at that angle.
You might be able to see some of the screen's reflection but not the amount presented there at that angle.
You don't get reflections.
What you're seeing as "below" the surface, is actually light that radiated from the object, hit the surface/floor somewhere between you and the computer, and then bounced back up and hit your eye.
While it "seems" like the nega-laptop is below the floor, what you're actually seeing is light bouncing off of the floor way in front of the laptop, which is why you can see the screen.
You know what's funny to me about this, is when I first saw the image it looked "fake" to me to because of the reflection. I understand and agree that technically the reflection is not incorrect. But for some reason it really jumped out at me as well. Maybe it is too bright compared to the other reflection.
I don't know what's more ridiculous, the fact that we are analyzing an image this much, or that I am contributing to the conversation
I don't know what's more ridiculous, the fact that we are analyzing an image this much, or that I am contributing to the conversation
One of my professors said, "There are no dumb questions; there are only dumb answers." You learned something from this exchange. It was physics, not about Britney Spears and Tom Cruise. This is a very good thing.
The clock in the menubar on the iMac box is the same as the OS, i.e. if the time on your box reads 10:40, then you have OS X 10.4 install disks inside, and if it reads 10:43 (as mine does), you have OS X 10.4.3 install disks
Can someone explain why the iMac reflection is unreal? I understand the MacBook, but not why the iMac can't be real.
Actually both reflections are unreal as neither follows angle/incidence. Not to worry though it is most likely just a simple core graphics filter that does a direct mirror image reflection on shiny surfaces, not an optically correct reflection. It looks exactly like the results from the filter that is used for iWeb photo reflections. No big deal.
Because you can't see reflection of surface that is 180 degrees away from mirror (red dots). There's no way those rays will reach mirror (unless there's another mirror somewhere).
Oh ok that makes sense now. I can also see where the MacBook is wrong. You can see the top left corner in the reflection when you shouldn't be able to. Correct?
Comments
right click desktop in the finder and you not only can change your desktop background from there, you can change the background of the 'folder' window....weird.
this doesn't really fit in 'funny', just kind of odd. (the finder itself is hilarious, how bad it still is, but that's another story).
right click desktop in the finder and you not only can change your desktop background from there, you can change the background of the 'folder' window....weird.
That makes sense though. The desktop folder is the desktop with the exact same function and features except it dosn't have the background and it doesn't have the Macintosh HD icon, because that icon is not in the user account desktop folder.
I also noticed this odd sight... someone explain to me how the reflection of that Mac Book screen got all the way down there.
It is the simple Law of Reflection:
Angle of reflection = angle of incidence.
The MacBook sits on a reflective dark surface. Light from the LCD screen reflects from the support surface into the lens of the camera. Because we expect light to travel in a straight line, the reflected light is perceived to originate beneath the MacBook. This also explains why the reflection of a tree on the bank of a lake appears to be directly beneath the tree.
That and the light passing through the MacBook somehow.
It is the simple Law of Reflection:
Angle of reflection = angle of incidence.
The MacBook sits on a reflective dark surface. Light from the LCD screen reflects from the support surface into the lens of the camera. Because we expect light to travel in a straight line, the reflected light is perceived to originate beneath the MacBook. This also explains why the reflection of a tree on the bank of a lake appears to be directly beneath the tree.
The picture seems to be down right at the moment, but no, that you said does not explain it. Sorry.
Light don't go thru MacBook, look, red dot (and surrounding reflection) placed near notebook, not under it. You cannot see table under MacBook.
But reflection of iMac is totally fake.
I also noticed this odd sight... someone explain to me how the reflection of that Mac Book screen got all the way down there.
That reflection is accurate. The light doesn't travel down there as Mr Me said. You have to think about how the mirror is working. Although it would seem that what you are seeing beneath the machine is the laptop reflected vertically - this perception would arise from seeing your own reflection in a mirror - what you are actually seeing is the laptop reflected at an angle relative to your own position or that of the camera, which just virtually appears to be vertically beneath the actual laptop. You can see the effect yourself if you take a book and a torch and place the book on a mirror and then shine the torch away from the book. You can still see the torch in the reflection even though it logically seems that the book should block the torch completely. This is why Physics is best left for mad people 'cos it messes with your head.
That reflection is accurate. The light doesn't travel down there as Mr Me said. You have to think about how the mirror is working. Although it would seem that what you are seeing beneath the machine is the laptop reflected vertically - this perception would arise from seeing your own reflection in a mirror - what you are actually seeing is the laptop reflected at an angle relative to your own position or that of the camera, which just virtually appears to be vertically beneath the actual laptop. You can see the effect yourself if you take a book and a torch and place the book on a mirror and then shine the torch away from the book. You can still see the torch in the reflection even though it logically seems that the book should block the torch completely. This is why Physics is best left for mad people 'cos it messes with your head.
You might be able to see some of the screen's reflection but not the amount presented there at that angle.
You might be able to see some of the screen's reflection but not the amount presented there at that angle.
You don't get reflections.
What you're seeing as "below" the surface, is actually light that radiated from the object, hit the surface/floor somewhere between you and the computer, and then bounced back up and hit your eye.
While it "seems" like the nega-laptop is below the floor, what you're actually seeing is light bouncing off of the floor way in front of the laptop, which is why you can see the screen.
Look at ALM's picture.
I don't know what's more ridiculous, the fact that we are analyzing an image this much, or that I am contributing to the conversation
...
I don't know what's more ridiculous, the fact that we are analyzing an image this much, or that I am contributing to the conversation
One of my professors said, "There are no dumb questions; there are only dumb answers." You learned something from this exchange. It was physics, not about Britney Spears and Tom Cruise. This is a very good thing.
Can someone explain why the iMac reflection is unreal? I understand the MacBook, but not why the iMac can't be real.
That's interesting. I have 10:44.
Can someone explain why the iMac reflection is unreal? I understand the MacBook, but not why the iMac can't be real.
Actually both reflections are unreal as neither follows angle/incidence. Not to worry though it is most likely just a simple core graphics filter that does a direct mirror image reflection on shiny surfaces, not an optically correct reflection. It looks exactly like the results from the filter that is used for iWeb photo reflections. No big deal.