Let the ranting begin…
Oct 28, 2022 16:15:01 #
Oct 28, 2022 16:38:14 #
But (1) they're not equally spaced; (2) they don't have a Bayer filter (nor an antialiasing filter); (3) they're not arranged in a rectilinear grid for convenient output formatting.
And some people have better lenses than others.
The shutter speed is limited.
Dynamic range is good, but of course it gets smaller in dim light.
And some people have better lenses than others.
The shutter speed is limited.
Dynamic range is good, but of course it gets smaller in dim light.
Oct 28, 2022 16:43:00 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
But (1) they're not equally spaced; (2) they don't have a Bayer filter (nor an antialiasing filter); (3) they're not arranged in a rectilinear grid for convenient output formatting.
And some people have better lenses than others.
The shutter speed is limited.
Dynamic range is good, but of course it gets smaller in dim light.
And some people have better lenses than others.
The shutter speed is limited.
Dynamic range is good, but of course it gets smaller in dim light.
But they are stereoscopic... Does that mean combined they are 1,152 MP?
Oct 28, 2022 17:00:36 #
However impressive the MP count may be, its not a fixed quantity from moment to moment cuz there is constant multi directional scanning. The final result is akin to a stitched pano of verrrrrry many lesser images. IOW, the "sensor" isnt all that impressive compared to the amount of processing going on ... and its in real time, not in "post" !
For an amazing technological mimic of human vision, check out "360 Cities".
For an amazing technological mimic of human vision, check out "360 Cities".
Oct 28, 2022 17:14:51 #
A camera sees the world differently than the human eye, so who cares what the camera saw?
Oct 28, 2022 17:20:45 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
A camera sees the world differently than the human eye, so who cares what the camera saw?
Wait until the AI in cameras says
"Wow, nice shot." OR "No, not worth it." ...
Oct 28, 2022 18:32:25 #
Cany143
Loc: SE Utah
Uh huh. And I have two --'cuz I have two eyeses-- of those lens cap stringy things semi-permanently (I can remove them, but I have the hardest time remembering how I've tied them [slip knot? square knot? granny knot? sheep shank? bowline? gordian knot? oh, krikey!] and it does get a tad pinchy now and then if I've tied 'em too tight) attached (helps bigly if you're into body piercing like I am [wanna see the bone I've got poked through the septum of my nose???) on the inner parts of my cheeks next to my nose so I never lose (or even misplace!) a lens (eyeses?) cap. And I never ever NEVER go outside unless I've got a cpl screwed onto the threads I had affixed to the lid outside one eye and a graduated ND filter firmly affixed into the 72mm square filter holder I've got KrazyGlued onto the outsides of my other eye.
B&H is rumored to be running a special Third Eye filter attachment system pretty soon, and as soon as that comes up, I'm gonna wait a little, read the reviews, wait a little more, and probably be able to pick one up for cheap off eBay.
Only thing that ticks me off is that the eye on the back of my head is only 283 meggaPixels, and the selfies I'm perfessionally famous for are, in truth, sorta sucky. Can anyone advise me how I can up that paltry back-of-the-head-camera-eye pixel count to something more in keeping with my UltraHiDef aesthetic? I'm on the verge of desperation, and my clients are beginning to grumble!
B&H is rumored to be running a special Third Eye filter attachment system pretty soon, and as soon as that comes up, I'm gonna wait a little, read the reviews, wait a little more, and probably be able to pick one up for cheap off eBay.
Only thing that ticks me off is that the eye on the back of my head is only 283 meggaPixels, and the selfies I'm perfessionally famous for are, in truth, sorta sucky. Can anyone advise me how I can up that paltry back-of-the-head-camera-eye pixel count to something more in keeping with my UltraHiDef aesthetic? I'm on the verge of desperation, and my clients are beginning to grumble!
Oct 28, 2022 18:37:21 #
Oct 29, 2022 00:05:08 #
Oct 29, 2022 06:58:57 #
Each human eye is the equivalent of a fisheye lens with a very small sweet spot. The sweet spot is just large enough to include the area that we focus on when we want to concentrate our attention in a specific area, but outside the sweet spot the resolution (detail detection), focus and colour detection fall away rapidly, diminishing to almost nothing at the periphery of our field of vision. Within the sweet spot the eye's resolution is impressively high but it constitutes only a small area of our total field of vision. I suspect that 576 MP is an exaggeration.
Oct 29, 2022 07:59:53 #
Don’t forget the massive super-fast post processor attached to the sensor! Raw data doesn’t last long compared to processed!
Oct 29, 2022 08:19:14 #
fhayes wrote:
Always controversial
Additionally, the eye is connected to a brain which interprets the light coming through - the camera's sensor is connected to a processor which interprets the light based on a computer algorithm which is minuscule compared to a living brain.
Oct 29, 2022 08:35:33 #
I had cataracts replaced last year. When they did the first one, I could clearly see a difference between the two eyes in terms of white balance. During the week between the procedures, by the time they did the other eye, the difference had faded. My post processor had modified the white balance of the old eye to match the new eye.
The eye is only the sensor. It's the post processor that does the 'seeing'.
Fortunately, even at my advanced age, the post processor is still capable of learning.
The eye is only the sensor. It's the post processor that does the 'seeing'.
Fortunately, even at my advanced age, the post processor is still capable of learning.
Oct 29, 2022 09:10:31 #
Oct 29, 2022 09:24:22 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.