As someone who has seen this effect before, but was unclear how it was done, this article is very "and now draw the rest of the owl". They define a basic equation, it's about what I expected, but the end shader code doesn't use it in that form, and I found it pretty difficult to parse, I can't say I'm much better off in the end.
Isolate each of the additive sine functions by commenting out all but one and view the different elements. Sine wave left to right, Sine wave up to down, Sine wave diagonal, Sine wave circular - and then observe the resulting pattern is just the sum of the atomic parts. Play with it to learn.
Hi, I’m the author of the article. Thanks for the feedback.
I’ve pushed an update to the post with more implementation details, and I also cleaned up the shader code to make it easier to read/follow. If anything’s still unclear, feel free to comment on the post and I’ll try to clarify.
The article sums up quite well which principles are at play here. The fun part it's suggesting (without words), is either to pick it apart and see what each part does, play around with the constants in there, or start from scratch and roll your own... (all with the Shadertoy linked below the article maybe?)
I would say most interesting texts (articles, books, school, ...) should leave stuff up to the reader's mind to figure out. That's how someone really learns. Versus pre-baked stuff like television etc.
If something does not resonate at first that's pretty normal. You could still take it apart and start investigating words or concepts that ring no bell, for example: waves, interference, demoscene, owls, Feynman.
but I cannot hold authors that I've never met accountable, and it is not a job, when you do it in your blog. it is utter nonsense to call writing personal notes in public a job. it is as much a job (and bears similiar responsibility) as is the opensource work, and we've had hundreds of discussions reg. how the author should not be responsible for shortcomings of his public work, when it is done without contract or other formal agreement to do it (even for free).
work != job
so really, what are you talking about? I'm discussing the means to expound on given knowledge - limited, or oversaturated - and you are changing the topic to "is the author responsible for work done in his spare time".
It’s early February. Have you really read so many articles you couldn’t understand in one month that you have a “usual” way of dealing with it? You should consider whether you would benefit from curating your sources better, or if use of AI as a crutch has already decayed your ability to understand stuff on your own unrecoverably…
try curating the hacker news commentary when there are 800+ texts. no, really, what the hell are you talking about? having someone figure the insights that are relevant to oneself, among 800 texts, DOES solve a problem, which otherwise is unsolved unless you do it manually. which, the manual thing, as we all know, does not necessarily result in significantly better insights.
and yes, my job is to read technical slop dusk till dawn, and I care very little who wrote it, but whether it is relevant to my research. its a lot of reading, it causes me pain, so OF COURSE I would love to short cut it somehow, given most of it is slop anyway - no matter if its human or synthetic slop.
