• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Image bandwidth

#1
I recall someone (Ed May?) doing research that suggested images were better or worse for ARV based on their "bandwidth". I assume this is a measure of how "busy" the image is, like one of these images is simple and one has a lot going on. Does anyone have info on this? Was the conclusion that "busy" images were worse because there are too many observations that are valid? Or was the conclusion that you a pair of images should have differing bandwidths?

I am assuming the images below would be examples of different bandwidths. Thoughts?
 

Attachments

#3
Here is the 1994 article on target pool band width by May, Spottiswoode and James

http://www.jsasoc.com/docs/Target-bandwidth.pdf

I don't recall Ed May writing or talking about how "busy" an image is. He does talk about change in the gradient of the Shannon entropy as an important factor - in an image or in physical change of entropy. And in the article they talk about "dynamic" vs. "static" targets. I haven't read it in some time and don't recall the specific conclusions at the moment.

However, this research and other research did lead Ed May to what Ed allows us to call the Computer Assisted Scoring (CAS) methodology. (There wasn't a prior name for it.) And that methodology does use photos which have a good many static targets. There are targets with some motion but generally the target set would not be characterized as consisting of dynamic targets. E.g. no rockets blasting off, no vehicles of any kind (in motion or not), no volcanic eruptions, etc. Many viewers have characterized these targets as not very interesting, but that is what Ed May was heading toward from the research they did. And Ed May has had very good results with CAS, albeit with lots of passes (no prediction).

Jon
 

Mycroft

Active Member
#4
I've had some experiences and read 16 of the more popular RV books. From what I've gleaned it is emotion over motion, color can be a detraction and your ability to empathize with what you are viewing.

I've become a shark, watched a woman be stabbed 34 times, from a Native American video described 8 scenes in sequence and provided an answer to the queue question. I've witnessed bombs exploding in two different sessions. And have corroborated seeing the North Korean nuclear test from three different people who were in session at the time.

There are no boundaries, no bandwidth limitations, the experience is only limited by your ability to interpret what you are seeing. I have learned the hard way to give myself queues to observe and return. I have worked with people so good at what they do, in the queue I tell them not to sense their surroundings. Had one gal get a double lung full of water while RVing the world's deepest training pool.

Tricking an unsuspecting person into viewing the thoughts of a person in a coma may screw them up for life. All safety mechanisms of the mind are bypassed the limbic system does not rationalize whether the threat is real or not.

In Lyn Buchanan's book he describes the difficulty of RVing the KGB in the basement of a building housing a brothel. I can't imagine why? ;D

Mycroft