Holy crap this is cool. Apparently the Human eye is capable of "seeing" UV light directly. That is really cool. I wonder how it affects being able to distinguish other colors.
This was used in WW2 by the British. They would send their troops ashore. When they wanted to come back onto the ship they would flash a UV light that was visible only to people who have had their lens removed, one of whom would be on board ship.
Really interesting. I didn't know the human eye can internally capture UV. I know some birds have been found to be able to see UV. The question I'd like to know though, is how does the brain interpret that information? Does it actually look like a different type of signal or color that we can perceive? Or is it just some modified version of what we see already?
Since I cant see UV I wouldn't know. But I assume it would be a variation of blue or purple, since it occupies the upper end of the spectrum where blue is. It is probably "kinda blue" in the way that magenta is "kinda red".
Yeah, that's pretty cool, all right. Why do you suppose the human eye's lens filters out UV that is otherwise captured due to an implant? Why wouldn't it be a "good idea" to be able to see the UV spectrum naturally? Or why would it be a good idea? I suppose because you can't eat it. But then too, I think there are some detrimental critters that are apparent in the UV spectrum. Pretty cool, all right.
Because UV radiation damages the retina. Which I already knew. I had no idea that humans could actually "see" UV light though. Its like the Chronicles of Riddick...its like science fiction. Other animals can see UV without damage, but they cant see UV and the full color spectrum at the same time. So maybe there is a biological reason for this. That there is a limit to how much of the spectrum you can see without damage. Definitely. Insects use UV to find food sources and breeding partners, so it is used for passive communication. The weird thing about this is that the retina can see UV at all. It might just be a freak coincidence. But you would think that the retina, not the lens, would become resistant to UV damage.
Yes, but I'm postulating that the retina would have "evolved", as it were, at the same pace as the UV accepting lens. Yeah, it's pretty cool, like I said. So why don't they?? Do dogs? Do fish? WTF? I'll guess that they can't see in the UV range if there isn't any food there. Ya think?
Probably because there is more to see in the visible light spectrum. Animals that see in UV basically have mono-chromatic vision. It would be as if the only color you could see was yellow. It isnt necessarily about food...we use vision for other things, like finding mates or avoiding predators.
Riddick didn't have any implants to my knowledge. I thought he simply had his cornea shaved. People actually do this for one reason or another, and the effect is that they can see much much better at night. But ofcourse they need sunglasses to see during the day. Imagine one of these aphakia dudes with a shaved cornea, he'd be a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ninja. As for evolutionarily why... didn't you see the part where 30% of our focusing ability comes from the lens? We need the lens which blocks out UV that's why. Some animals have a thinner lens because UV is needed more.
Naw, riddick's retina was enhanced somehow. Thats why his eyes glow like a dog's...human eyes do this too but it is usually not noticeable because our retinas do not have a lot of rods (used for night vision), while dogs and cats have a lot. I dont think it was his lens, because even completely removing the lens would not make the eyes look like that.
Makes sense, in the article it mentioned Claude Monet's color palette seems to changed after cataract surgery. "An illustration of how ultraviolet appears is provided by the Impressionist painter Claude Monet. Following cataract surgery in 1923, his colour palette changed significantly; after the operation he painted water lilies with more blue than before." We probably couldn't see all the subtle differences that he was able to see.
Well, being able to see a broader part of the spectrum doesnt necessarily mean that you have better color resolution. There are people that have literally superhuman color resolution but see the same actual spectrum as everyone else. I saw a story a while back about a British woman who had this ability. She is not able to see colors we dont, but she can distinguish shades of colors much easier than we can. Things that look uniform to us are not uniform to her.
As someone who had their lenses taken out at 7 months old, I can verify this. If I look at a blacklight with glasses on, it is a deep purple color, and the illumination doesnt go far from the bulb. without my glasses, it's a very bright color somewhere between a neon purple and blue, and i can see clearly in a room if the blacklight is the only thing on as the light travels far.
