Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/04/watch-man-use-japanese-knife-t.html
…
22 Likes
So it’s a kind of kitchen microtome. I’m guessing that video is a collection edited to remove all the unsuccessful attempts.
5 Likes
5 Likes
so much for dirty fingernails
1 Like
Um, yeah, all that editing and still… portrait.
1 Like
Hey guys! It’s only the tenth day of Christmas, and I could really use one of those!
So… How much is “skill”, and how much is just having a really good knife?
From the YouTube video description:
While Giacomo admits that a sharp Japanese knife can help to obtain such a thin cut, he says that much of his ability is down to years and years of practice.
“Years and years of practice will save you hours and hours of attempts in front of a video camera.” - Me
1 Like
What about coloured objects that you can otherwise see clearly though. Are they transparent or translucent?
(this is actually a serious question, but one that I never felt was important enough to ask)
Toilet paper so thin it’s translucent:
Amtrak Station, La Plata, MO by Glenn Rice, on Flickr
1 Like
The picture is wrong. It suggests that translucent is just half-(ish) transparent. There is no percentage cut-off between transparent (<5% opaque?) and translucent (>5% and <95% opaque?). I think transparent is letting through photons with wavelengths throughout the visible spectrum more or less evenly distributed, whereas translucency filters out certain wavelengths more than others.
1 Like
I think translucency kicks each transmitter light ray in a new direction. Close to no kick beyond the ordinary, refraction that Snells Law would dictate - organized transmission - is transparent. A totally random kick - highly disorganized transmission - is frosted glass translucent.
Opaque is no transmission. Only reflection. Organized reflection is mirrorlike. Disorganized reflection is matte.
That would be my guess.
1 Like
I think translucency implies some cloudiness. A strong red-looking filter (which actually filters everything BUT red) might be opaque to green, but I wouldn’t call it translucent unless it was impossible to perceive detail through it due to frostiness.
Again that’s just my take. Not a physicist, But it’s consistent with how I understand and use a piece of software called the Maxwell Renderer.
1 Like
This would be a much more effective video if it had links on where to buy one of these knives, and a series of related videos showing how to maintain the blade.
Maybe some videos showing how to learn some knife skills too.
From the caption to the video:
While Giacomo admits that a sharp Japanese knife can help to obtain such a thin cut, he says that much of his ability is down to years and years of practice.
So maybe a better title than ‘look at this Japanese thing! just look at it!’ would be ‘watch expert chef make…’
I think translucency implies some cloudiness.
That sounds more like subsurface scattering to me. But then again, there’s a whole lot of confusing terminology in the graphics world. Some say diffuse map, other say albedo map and mean the same thing. Some say height, others say bump. Etc.
1 Like
Subsurface scattering (SSS) is a form of disorganized transmission. But the disorganization tends to be more constant throughout the volume of thing. You could have thin surface frosting on otherwise clear glass but it still would entail some thin SSS. So they go hand in hand.
If the transmission dominates the absorption it’s translucent. If absorption dominates it gets glowy opaque like backlit ears. I’m not sure what I’d call that. I suppose you could call it translucent as well.
A diffuse white object (say 95% reflection in all wavelengths) with highly disorganized reflection is like a sheet of paper. When the reflection is highly organized we call it a mirror. There is a range of possibilities between “perfectly organized” and”completely disorganized” and those represent degrees of frostiness in the mirror. That’s why I wouldn’t call it a diffuse map. It’s really just an albedo map. Diffuse and specular are different ends of the same continuum.
Anyway. Again. This is just how I think of it.
2 Likes
