Steve'sDigicams

ßillcollector · Oct 27, 2003, 9:37 PM

Well, just been thinking about if digital cameras will come close to mimic eyes in the near future. Given a sufficient amount of light & close distance, modern cameras produce fairly decent shots.

Do you think camera alone would be able to mimic human eyes? Any comments?

BillDrew · Oct 27, 2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ßillcollector

...Do you think camera alone would be able to mimic human eyes?

I am sure no such camera will ever be built. Even neglecting issues like nearsightedness, the human eye is not a good model. A blind spot near the middle, highly variable resolution with only the center having a chance of being clear, no chance of changing focal length, lack of color in low light, ...

The eye alone is a really bad instrument, but works well conected to the brain. When an object of interest falls on the blind spot, the eye is moved very quickly to get the image onto a different area. Same for anything outside of the high resolution area.

tkmckay · Oct 27, 2003, 10:25 PM

According to this source the human eye has an effective resolution of around 74 megapixels.

Now if you looks at it from the standpoint of just the number of photoreceptors the average eye has which could be like a pixels on a digicams sensor you would end up with about 125million rods and cones.... or what could be called 125 megapixels.

As for if I think technology will eventually be able to equil what most of use have...I think given enough time anything is possible. Although I don't think we will see it anytime really soon at least at a price anyone could actually afford.

DarkThrone · Oct 27, 2003, 10:50 PM

Now if I were to print a 125 Megapixel image, I wonder up to how many inches would it go before the quality would start to degrade... :lol:

BillDrew · Oct 27, 2003, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkmckay

According to this source the human eye has an effective resolution of around 74 megapixels. ...

That is based on a measurement using the highest resolution part of the eye, then assuming the resolution is the same over the entire retina. That assumption is flat out wrong.

Look at some point on your screen, then without moving your eyes try to read something just a few inces/cms away. The human eye has a very small area of high resolution with very low resolution around it. Not the charactoristic I would ever want in a camera.

koruvs · Oct 27, 2003, 11:36 PM

I wonder where the optics come into the equation, which is far more important than MP. The optics of the eye are incredible. Granted, the eye has no zoom without assistance and we can't directly 'print' memories (yet). That is why we created the camera to come as close as we can to the human eye and memory.

A healthy eye has no pixelation, grain or noise (cataract, etc.) and can see in true color...or should I say True Raw Color

Our memory brings the view into place very fast with low write times and can recall the situation without having to worry about format changes (negatives, CD-R, DVD-R, etc.).

No batteries required (unless you take the red pill)

DarkThrone · Oct 27, 2003, 11:41 PM

Let's try putting sound into the equation... Like how good a quality do our ears hear? This is getting interesting... I wonder if memories are stored in our brains with a concept of being more signifiant, the more storage space it consumes....

BillDrew · Oct 28, 2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkmckay

According to this source the human eye has an effective resolution of around 74 megapixels. ...

That is based on a measurement using the highest resolution part of the eye, then assuming the resolution is the same over the entire retina. That assumption is flat out wrong.

Look at some point on your screen, then without moving your eyes try to read something just a few inces/cms away. The human eye has a very small area of high resolution with very low resolution around it. Not a charactoristic I would ever want in a camera.

Mike_PEAT · Oct 28, 2003, 3:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koruvs

A healthy eye has no pixelation, grain or noise (cataract, etc.) and can see in true color...or should I say True Raw Color

Actually, the human eye can have a lot of noise in low light. Because the cells sensitive to colour need a certain amount of light, in very low light (say a moonless night with no street light out in the country) you only see with the light sensitive cells so you're seeing almost black and white, and because the cells responsible for colour aren't getting any information, what you see appears to look like a B&W high grain film or even a video camera in low light (at least from my experience, but it has to be the right light level).

And before you make any judgements, my eyes have been recently tested.

DarkThrone · Oct 28, 2003, 5:40 AM

So what's the ISO range for our eyes then? I wonder if sometime in the future we'd be able to implant optics to have our eyes with zoom capabilities... :lol:

Oct 27, 2003, 9:37 PM	#1
ßillcollector Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 31	Human eye -- how many mega pixel ? Well, just been thinking about if digital cameras will come close to mimic eyes in the near future. Given a sufficient amount of light & close distance, modern cameras produce fairly decent shots. Do you think camera alone would be able to mimic human eyes? Any comments?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Oct 27, 2003, 10:25 PM	#3
tkmckay Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 259	According to this source the human eye has an effective resolution of around 74 megapixels. Now if you looks at it from the standpoint of just the number of photoreceptors the average eye has which could be like a pixels on a digicams sensor you would end up with about 125million rods and cones.... or what could be called 125 megapixels. As for if I think technology will eventually be able to equil what most of use have...I think given enough time anything is possible. Although I don't think we will see it anytime really soon at least at a price anyone could actually afford.

Oct 27, 2003, 10:50 PM	#4
DarkThrone Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 143	Now if I were to print a 125 Megapixel image, I wonder up to how many inches would it go before the quality would start to degrade... :lol:

Oct 27, 2003, 11:36 PM	#6
koruvs Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 439	I wonder where the optics come into the equation, which is far more important than MP. The optics of the eye are incredible. Granted, the eye has no zoom without assistance and we can't directly 'print' memories (yet). That is why we created the camera to come as close as we can to the human eye and memory. A healthy eye has no pixelation, grain or noise (cataract, etc.) and can see in true color...or should I say True Raw Color Our memory brings the view into place very fast with low write times and can recall the situation without having to worry about format changes (negatives, CD-R, DVD-R, etc.). No batteries required (unless you take the red pill)

Oct 27, 2003, 11:41 PM	#7
DarkThrone Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 143	Let's try putting sound into the equation... Like how good a quality do our ears hear? This is getting interesting... I wonder if memories are stored in our brains with a concept of being more signifiant, the more storage space it consumes....

Oct 28, 2003, 5:40 AM	#10
DarkThrone Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 143	So what's the ISO range for our eyes then? I wonder if sometime in the future we'd be able to implant optics to have our eyes with zoom capabilities... :lol: