Spent some (most of today’s) time with Matlab. Basically, number crunching, plotting, added some functionality to the tests, and tested myself properly. Found an anomaly in the parameter randomisation method, which will give me a headache later on. They are randomised, but I need to make sure that I have precise control of the ratio of the parameters used. Because right now, as far as the parameter generation algorithm is concerned, I could have 200 tests of the same type and none of the one that I would be interested in.
Why do I need to test for something I don’t really need? I need a reference. My front paw (a.k.a hand) is not a precise instrument. I may slip the mouse, not manipulate keys properly, make typos basically all the time. It’s really like military technology: we don’t care how good/bad it is as long as we precisely know how good/bad it is. (for those who don’t speak English as a main language – like myself there is a difference in the qualitative and quantitative use of the word ‘how’)
The results were a lot less vague than yesterday. Also, a lot more consistent, which is a plus. In addition to that, I need to do very little manual work on the results, so the process is largely automated.
However, my visual pathway still doesn’t know how to do integration, and is being consistently fooled at the same luminance levels. I wonder if that is the case with others.
Well, time to call in a few favours, let them stare at the glass through two periscopes for some time (as well)!