This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Iris is both Latin and Greek. From what I've seen, it seems that the sense of "rainbow", which lead to "iridescence" in English is Latin; I don't think the earlier Greek word quite had this meaning. So to me it makes more sense to say that iridescence is derived from Latin, although sure ultimately it's Greek. Not knowing either language or their histories with any authority, this is only what I glean from etymological dictionaries, but I think it's the best we can do right now. -- Chinasaur 07:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says:
Sense 1 given by OED says:
Sense 2 says;
Sense 4 says:
Sense 5 says:
Note that it explictly said "The senses, (except 3 and 6) correspond to those of the Gr. word." Michael Hardy 20:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The article on Holography states that holograms do not record phase information, contrary to what this article on Iridescence claims. I'm not a specialist in this area of Physics, so I won't touch it. -- AndreFillipe 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I Thought the "dubious" refered to irridescence not being able to be photographed in a "normal" photo. After all there ara two photos of irridescent colours accompanying the article :-) Ddcorp2000 08:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Holography does record phase information (see for instance Eugene Hecht's book on optics). Iridescence cannot be photographed in the "normal" way in the sense that the picture will not change if you change its orientation. The original object's colours would depend on angle of observation.
I posted the templates proposing the merge. Cloud iridescence is an example of iridescence and should be a section in the iridescence article. The cloud iridescence article should then be redirected to the apropriate section of the iridescence article. If someone agrees, feel free to merge the pages. If someone disagrees, discuss here. If no one cares, I'll merge them in a couple weeks when I find the time. Garvin Talk 16:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merger. There are many sources of cloud color and iridescence is a specific mechanism. It is a sky optical phenomenon and deserves to be treated separately as such. -- Halos25 ( talk) 12:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Halos25 ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The tapetum lucidum is often described as iridescent, but it is principally a retroreflector; would iridescence indicate sub-optimal retroreflection? Or, is the iridescence due not to the tapetum lucidum but to the choroid in which the tapetum lucidum is embedded? -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
pearlescent=finely divided reflective white or grey (as of a pearl)
iridescent=finely divided reflective monochromic (one color, like a pupillary iris)
opalescent=finely divided reflective polychromic (many colors, like an opal)
These words are often used interchangeably, but do offer a distinction. That distinction provides a means to explore perhaps three different categories of structure and effect: pan/achromatic, monochromatic and polychromatic.
The lovely but complex effects which are implied under these three words (and some others) are based on similar effects, but multiple processes in a wide variety of materials. I believe all reflect the effects on light of structure rather than pigments.
That said, many such materials also include pigments which can add or detract from the visual effect, but the effects of pigments should be considered separately. To complicate this effort, it is possible to produce an approximation of some of these effects with finely divided domains of pigment in a clear medium.
The structure of certain natural and artificial materials affects incident and reflected light based on the dimensions and orientation of those structures. Therefor, the angle of incidence, and angle(s) of observation (with respect to the material orientation) can strongly affect the effect. Therefor, when compared to a photo, the effect is enhanced by stereoscopic (observing 2 angles at once, causing apparent scintillation because of the difference perceived by each eye) and dynamic observation (moving source, object, or eye, provides a sequence of angles, causing true scintillation (visible changes with time)).
{More later?}
Wikidity (
talk)
01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Tachinidae.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 28, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Iris is both Latin and Greek. From what I've seen, it seems that the sense of "rainbow", which lead to "iridescence" in English is Latin; I don't think the earlier Greek word quite had this meaning. So to me it makes more sense to say that iridescence is derived from Latin, although sure ultimately it's Greek. Not knowing either language or their histories with any authority, this is only what I glean from etymological dictionaries, but I think it's the best we can do right now. -- Chinasaur 07:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says:
Sense 1 given by OED says:
Sense 2 says;
Sense 4 says:
Sense 5 says:
Note that it explictly said "The senses, (except 3 and 6) correspond to those of the Gr. word." Michael Hardy 20:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The article on Holography states that holograms do not record phase information, contrary to what this article on Iridescence claims. I'm not a specialist in this area of Physics, so I won't touch it. -- AndreFillipe 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I Thought the "dubious" refered to irridescence not being able to be photographed in a "normal" photo. After all there ara two photos of irridescent colours accompanying the article :-) Ddcorp2000 08:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Holography does record phase information (see for instance Eugene Hecht's book on optics). Iridescence cannot be photographed in the "normal" way in the sense that the picture will not change if you change its orientation. The original object's colours would depend on angle of observation.
I posted the templates proposing the merge. Cloud iridescence is an example of iridescence and should be a section in the iridescence article. The cloud iridescence article should then be redirected to the apropriate section of the iridescence article. If someone agrees, feel free to merge the pages. If someone disagrees, discuss here. If no one cares, I'll merge them in a couple weeks when I find the time. Garvin Talk 16:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merger. There are many sources of cloud color and iridescence is a specific mechanism. It is a sky optical phenomenon and deserves to be treated separately as such. -- Halos25 ( talk) 12:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Halos25 ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The tapetum lucidum is often described as iridescent, but it is principally a retroreflector; would iridescence indicate sub-optimal retroreflection? Or, is the iridescence due not to the tapetum lucidum but to the choroid in which the tapetum lucidum is embedded? -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
pearlescent=finely divided reflective white or grey (as of a pearl)
iridescent=finely divided reflective monochromic (one color, like a pupillary iris)
opalescent=finely divided reflective polychromic (many colors, like an opal)
These words are often used interchangeably, but do offer a distinction. That distinction provides a means to explore perhaps three different categories of structure and effect: pan/achromatic, monochromatic and polychromatic.
The lovely but complex effects which are implied under these three words (and some others) are based on similar effects, but multiple processes in a wide variety of materials. I believe all reflect the effects on light of structure rather than pigments.
That said, many such materials also include pigments which can add or detract from the visual effect, but the effects of pigments should be considered separately. To complicate this effort, it is possible to produce an approximation of some of these effects with finely divided domains of pigment in a clear medium.
The structure of certain natural and artificial materials affects incident and reflected light based on the dimensions and orientation of those structures. Therefor, the angle of incidence, and angle(s) of observation (with respect to the material orientation) can strongly affect the effect. Therefor, when compared to a photo, the effect is enhanced by stereoscopic (observing 2 angles at once, causing apparent scintillation because of the difference perceived by each eye) and dynamic observation (moving source, object, or eye, provides a sequence of angles, causing true scintillation (visible changes with time)).
{More later?}
Wikidity (
talk)
01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Tachinidae.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 28, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)