Re:What Little Babies See That We No Longer Can
by tominous on Thursday February 11, 2016 @04:49AM
(#11079218)
I came here to make the same comment. Overlaying the images with crossed eyes, you can easily see that snails A and C share the most similar pixels. The mistake is in Figure 1 of the original paper and has been copied to the article.
Re:What Little Babies See That We No Longer Can
by 542458 on Thursday February 11, 2016 @09:09AM
(#11080164)
No need to guess! You're right, A and C are closest - (A-C) shows fewer differences than (B-C). Here are the diffs for the images (with C-C as a sanity check):
http://i.imgur.com/GQGLE61.jpg
As other commenters have said, C is just the highlight-free version of A, which the diffs fairly clearly show.
EDIT: For reference, here's A-B.
Re:What Little Babies See That We No Longer Can
by dsjoerg on Thursday February 11, 2016 @08:45AM
(#11080038)
If the paper makes these kinds of errors, how can we be sure they didn't make similar errors when conducting the experiment?
Re:What Little Babies See That We No Longer Can
by charlieflowers on Thursday February 11, 2016 @08:54AM
(#11080081)
Really, for this kind of paper, the only reasonable approach would be to figure out how to get actual babies to proofread it. Tricky.
EDIT: the closer I look the more I'm convinced. C is the matte rendering of A; B is the different environment map. Figure 2 in the paper bears me out; I think the authors managed to fool themselves while editing :(.
EDIT#2: make that figure 2A & 2B that bear me out ... 2C they seem to have used the same image twice in the bottom row. Am I mad? I know these errors are easy to make in the rush to publication, but my senses disagreeing with the text in so many places is starting to freak me out!