I love this, but I thought that the sprinkles need to be the same length in order for the calculation to work? Looking at the image in the article, the length of the sprinkles seem to vary with some being just dots and the others are of a similar length. I wonder if it would work if you discounted those smaller dot sprinkles?
I'm just imagining that someone really did this and after all that effort realized how spectacularly off the value they got is, then proceeded to doubt and redo their calculations, only to later realize that the method is at fault...
1) use sprinkles of all one color shade (other than frosting color).
2) take picture with filter color of sprinkles.
3) either a or b
a) print out the picture so that sprinkle spots allow light to shine through & non-sprinkle area blocks light shinning through.
b) show picture full screen.
4) Use lens to focus light from 3a or 3b onto photo diode (generate sound or light intensity)
5) Figure out a chart showing the average size / number of sprinkles based on light intensity / generated sound.
chart calibration test case: use tape/paper to block more and more of a cake size screen holes in order to calibrate the light reduction ratio.
aka 3 meters of sprinkles gives 90% reduction in light for given cake size. ~1 screen hole (1mm average sprinkle size) over 3m -> 3000 sprinkles.
So, if the article was serving up on a raspberry pi instead of sprinkles on frosting, that would make things more rigourous/formal? aka rasberry pi has been put through some rigorous/formal testing methods.
Or per ' I don't think they strove for rigour and formality.', what was done to rule out the article being baked & served using a qem rasberry pi?[0]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNiRzZ66YN0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S26_O2B8h8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZbUyS2IRMo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYAdXm69l8g