The closest thing I do related to the golden ratio is using the harmonic armature as a grid for my paintings.
The closest thing I do related to the golden ratio is using the harmonic armature as a grid for my paintings.
I find the aesthetic arguments for it very overrated, though. A clear case of a guy says a thing, and some other people say it too, and before you know it it's "received wisdom" even though it really isn't particularly true. Many examples of how important the "golden ratio" are are often simply wrong; it's not actually a golden ratio when actually measured, or it's nowhere near as important as presented. You can also squeeze more things into being a "golden ratio" if you are willing to let it be off by, say, 15%. That creates an awfully wide band.
Personally I think it's more a matter of, there is a range of useful and aesthetic ratios, and the "golden ratio" happens to fall in that range, but whether it's the "optimum" just because it's the golden ratio is often more an imposition on the data than something that comes from it.
It definitely does show up in nature, though. There are solid mathematical and engineering reasons why it is the optimal angle for growing leafs and other patterns, for instance. But there are other cases where people "find" it in nature where it clearly isn't there... one of my favorites is the sheer number of diagrams of the Nautilus shell, which allegedly is following the "golden ratio", where the diagram itself disproves the claim by clearly being nowhere near an optimal fit to the shell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BqnN72OlqA
or the older black-and-white film which I was shown in school when I was young.
.sidebar { flex: 1; }
.not-sidebar { flex: 1.618; }
But imo using thirds would've worked fine. Hard to tell the difference, at least in this case. 67% vs 62%.(https://wonger.dev/enjoyables on desktop / wide viewport)
And yes, for the people who get hung up on what the Old Masters did, it’s mostly armature grids and not the golden ratio!
But if your units follow a golden ratio progression, you just need to "concatenate" 2 consecutive units (2 measuring sticks) in order to find the third. And so on.
It's probably no longer "Commercial In Confidence" ... I should probably write it up sometime.
This was a long time ago, so we didn't have GPUs or fancy rendering h/ware. We addressed every pixel individually.
So a radar image was painted to the screen, and then the next update was painted on top of that. But that just gives the live radar image ... we wanted moving objects to leave "snail trails".
So what you do for each update is:
* Decrement the existing pixel;
* Update the pixel with the max of the incoming value and the decremented value.
This then leaves stationary targets in place, and anything that's moving leaves a trail behind it so when you look at the screen it's instantly obvious where everything is, and how fast they're moving.
Ideally you'd want to decrement every pixel by one every tenth of a second or so, but that wasn't possible with the h/ware speed we had. So instead we decremented every Nth pixel by D and cycled through the pixels.
But that created stripes, so we needed to access the pixels in a pseudo-random fashion without leaving stripes. The area we were painting was 1024x1024, so what we did was start at the zeroth pixel and step by a prime number size, wrapping around. But what prime number?
We chose a prime close to (2^20)/phi. (Actually we didn't, but that was the starting point for a more complex calculation)
Since phi has no good rational approximation, this didn't leave stripes. It created an evenly spread speckle pattern. The rate of fade was controlled by changing D, and it was very effective.
Worked a treat on our limited hardware (ARM7 on a RiscPC) and easy enough to program directly in ARM assembler.
What's decrementing a pixel ?
I(x,y,t+1) = I(x,y,t) - c ?
I was stepping out with my wife for a day out and had read your reply very cursorily. That reading had left me quite puzzled -- "I would have done exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) over time for trails. Why is \phi important here in any form. Is \phi the weight of the EWMA ?".
Now I get it, decrementing the pixels were quite peripheral to the main story.
The main story is that of finding a scan sequence that (a) cycles through a set of points without repetition and (b) without obvious patterns discernible to the eye.
In this, the use \phi is indeed neat. I don't think it would have occurred to me. I would have gone with some shift register sequence with cycle length 1024 * 1024 or a space filling curve on such a grid.
This becomes even more interesting if you include the desiderata that the minimum distance between any two temporally adjacent pixels must not be small (to avoid temporal hot spots).
Finding MiniMax, min over temporal adjacency, max over all 1024* 1024! sequences, might be intractable.
Another interesting formulation could be, that for any fixed kxk sized disc that could be drawn on the grid, the temporal interval between any two "revisit" events need to be independent of the disk's position on the grid.
I think this is the road to small discrepancy sequences of quasi Monte Carlo.