If the human eye where a....

[RicanJoe]

If the human eye where a functioning camera lens, what do you the specs would be? EX:cost?optics?zooming?aperture? what ever YOU think.
Just a random/funny thread :).

[chuck colburn]

Around about 38mm in focal length. Hard to say about the f stop with all that brain activity going on.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Open your eyes. :)

[Frank Weeks]

God only knows.

[Justin K Phillips]

Literally speaking, its focal length is about 17mm, max aperture is f/2.125.

[NateWeaver]

Apparently um3k is God. Whoodathunk?

[J. Bernard Vallon]

anyone know how big our 'sensor footprint' is? Are we shooting S16?

and um3k, doest he 17mm refer to FOV or actual focal length?

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Jokes aside but I've noticed something interesting.

When you try to pan, either moving just the eyez or the head with eyes fixed, or both - the visuals come in a bit jerky, making very small jumps, like stroboscopic. The sight just jumps a few times on a full pan - from one clear and focused "frame" to another.

Try it - make a full pan, just with the eyes, or head + eyes and you'll see that you'll never have a perfectly smooth pan.

It seems that even the eyes have some side effects and skew :). So, in this case, the RED is doing pretty well :).

I wonder what is this? Anyone know?

I guess it's more of a "brain" thing - the way that our brain processes data from the eyez.

It's funny that actually what we see and hear, isn't what is, but more like - the mental projection, which the brain makes, based on data from the senses.

It exists also as a philosophical concept - Immanuel Kant [one of the greatest minds of humanity, IMO] makes the clear distinction between the "noumena" [things as themselves] and "phenomena" [things as we perceive them].

Later science proves that on a purely physiological level. What you see isn't what actually is, but more like - what your senses and brain let you see.

It's funny just thinking about it - look around, trying to realize that what you see isn't what actually is. :) Really weird and even spooky.

Maybe this proves that what we see isn't [I]all that can be seen.

Reminds me of The Matrix somehow.

Funny.

[chuck colburn]

dialetiriccal maliteriaisiem sorry havveing a speiining errom prob;\lem problem here.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Dialectical materialism?!

You could say that what I wrote is actually on the contrary!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

[chuck colburn]

Sorry, I had a philosophy teacher in school who if you spelled the name of a philosophers name wrong you failed the course.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Sorry, I had a philosophy teacher in school who if you spelled the name of a philosophers name wrong you failed the course.

Ah, I see. Me too. :)

But this isn't Kant's fault.

And dial. materialism comes just a bit later.

Kant was a star-gazer in his own way :sorcerer:.

[My thread on piracy's got you guys thinking that I'm Lenin's grandson or something. "I knew that I'd f*ck myself by posting this..."] :tongue:

[Andrew McCarrick]

The human eye is 9,000 x 9000 "pixels" of resolution. Static contrast ratio is 6 1/2 stops, Dynamic contrast ratio 20 stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Equivalent_resolution

The maximum aperture of a human eye is about f/2.1
The minimum aperture of a human eye is about f/11 or f/8.6
The focal length of a human eye is about 17.2mm (It varies from person to person like all information given here)

http://www.photosig.com/articles/585/article;jsessionid=aJ_te3c-WQb8eQKM8o

[RicanJoe]

Jokes aside but I've noticed something interesting.

When you try to pan, either moving just the eyez or the head with eyes fixed, or both - the visuals come in a bit jerky, making very small jumps, like stroboscopic. The sight just jumps a few times on a full pan - from one clear and focused "frame" to another.

Try it - make a full pan, just with the eyes, or head + eyes and you'll see that you'll never have a perfectly smooth pan.

It seems that even the eyes have some side effects and skew :). So, in this case, the RED is doing pretty well :).

I wonder what is this? Anyone know?

I guess it's more of a "brain" thing - the way that our brain processes data from the eyez.

It's funny that actually what we see and hear, isn't what is, but more like - the mental projection, which the brain makes, based on data from the senses.

It exists also as a philosophical concept - Immanuel Kant [one of the greatest minds of humanity, IMO] makes the clear distinction between the "noumena" [things as themselves] and "phenomena" [things as we perceive them].

Later science proves that on a purely physiological level. What you see isn't what actually is, but more like - what your senses and brain let you see.

It's funny just thinking about it - look around, trying to realize that what you see isn't what actually is. :) Really weird and even spooky.

Maybe this proves that what we see isn't [I]all that can be seen.

Reminds me of The Matrix somehow.

Funny.
Yeah, thats true.

All jokes aside for me too.

Is it odd that I can manually rack focus with my eyes? I can throw my eyes out of focus whenever I want to, like in school when I'm sitting in class..:)

I wonder when lenses will be made that can simulate peripheral vision. wait...

[Justin K Phillips]

Is it odd that I can manually rack focus with my eyes? I can throw my eyes out of focus whenever I want to, like in school when I'm sitting in class..:)


I can do that, too, and I can also cross/uncross them at will (magic eye images are really easy for me). I'm also aware of many defects in my eyes, such as astigmatism, chromatic aberration, and internal reflections (lens flare), as well as some strange artifact that shows up when viewing (for example) a swinging red LED in a very dark room. It's a bit like cyan tendrils going out to the sides and looping around, here's an artists rendition (attached). In reality the effect is even more subtle, and is only noticeable when the light is in motion.

3490

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

I read somewhere that the "sensing" area of the retina was similar in area to a frame of 35mm film (18 x 24 mm).

I don't disagree with the eye's focal length being around 17mm. But it is only the central area of the retina (fovea) that has high resolution. I think this is why I have always found that the most natural perspective was using a 40mm lens.

I wish I could get that guy in Blade Runner that made the eyes, and come out with a line of "Super Speed" eyes, f1.2. I bet I'd sell a ton of those:greedy:

[Mike Krumlauf]

if our eyes represent a 17mm lens, then why was i told many moons ago that a 50mm lens represents human vision?

[Policar]

The problem is that you hold a photograph at a particular distance from you or you sit a certain distance from a screen. Depending on how far that distance is, the image appears to be a totally different focal length relative to your eye's FOV.

I think the idea is that your FOV may be equivalent to 17mm, but of course peripheral vision is pretty blurry, and we don't cover our eyes with an image completely when we see it. So, holding a photo (or seeing a cinema screen) at a normal distance would give about a 50mm equivalent.

I think this is based on academy aperture or 35mm stills, so I bet a 40mm lens or something would be a bit more accurate in most cases, for the average cinema-goer. (Of course, in the front row this might be 20mm; in the back row maybe 100. Just guessing....)

[Andrew McCarrick]

if our eyes represent a 17mm lens, then why was i told many moons ago that a 50mm lens represents human vision?

A "normal" lens produces a field of view that is similar to human vision. The diagonal of the image plane is typically used as the reference for field of view determination. A "normal" lens has a focal length that is approximately equal to the diagonal measurement of the image plane. When the focal length is equal to the diagonal measurement it produces a diagonal field of view of approximately 53° which is similar to human vision.

For 35mm film (24mm by 36mm), the diagonal measurement is 43.27mm. 50mm is close to this measurement so it is considered a "normal" lens. A 50mm lens produces a 47° diagonal field of view which is close to 53°.


http://www.panoramafactory.com/equiv35/equiv35.html#What%20makes%20a%20lens%20wide%20angl e%20or%20telephoto

[ac/jc]

This comes up on set all the time. Sometimes the argument carries on for days. Are you talking field of view? If so it usually goes back and forth between a 50mm and a 27mm. (35mm)

[combatentropy]

When you try to pan, either moving just the eyez or the head with eyes fixed, or both - the visuals come in a bit jerky, making very small jumps, like stroboscopic. The sight just jumps a few times on a full pan - from one clear and focused "frame" to another.

Yes, that is because panning smoothly with your eyes is not very useful. Your brain and eyes were meant to look at something.

Bear in mind that you appreciating a movie scene with a nice, smooth pan is a combination of a nice smooth pan plus your eyes jumping around observing different sections of it. This second "filter" is often forgotten by those who try to make a movie more like your real experience. Whatever movement or cutting happens on the screen is compounded by the movement and cutting of the audience members' eyes.

My rules for a natural style: http://combatentropy.com/rules_for_making_movies

[Joe Carney]

Wow, not a single borg joke yet. I'm impressed.

[jbeale]

I'm also aware of many defects in my eyes, such as astigmatism, chromatic aberration, and internal reflections (lens flare), as well as some strange artifact that shows up when viewing (for example) a swinging red LED in a very dark room. It's a bit like cyan tendrils going out to the sides and looping around, here's an artists rendition (attached). In reality the effect is even more subtle, and is only noticeable when the light is in motion.

Interesting stuff. I was just thinking about this yesterday looking at a small bright LED in a dark room. The point of light does not look anything like the smooth fuzzy blob of an out of focus photo. It is more like a roughly circular dandelion head with many internal filaments, suggesting some very complex optical abberation. In daylight things focus just fine, though.

[Adam Levins]

Yes, that is because panning smoothly with your eyes is not very useful. Your brain and eyes were meant to look at something.

Bear in mind that you appreciating a movie scene with a nice, smooth pan is a combination of a nice smooth pan plus your eyes jumping around observing different sections of it. This second "filter" is often forgotten by those who try to make a movie more like your real experience. Whatever movement or cutting happens on the screen is compounded by the movement and cutting of the audience members' eyes.

My rules for a natural style: http://combatentropy.com/rules_for_making_movies

Looked at the list on the link.

I think there are some good points in it.

but to be creative you need to take all advice with a grain of salt. The script/story will dictate the style.

[dhazelrig]

This sounds like fun, so I'm gonna chime in. As there are many people on these boards with far greater technical knowledge than I about 35mm photographic equipment and the science behind it, I note that these are simply my modest observations.

As far as the relative perspective to 35mm film I'd have to say that a human eye is close to the perspective given by a 50mm lens. I would actually say somewhere in the upper 40's. I derived this from looking at a fixed object with my eye and then holding up an SLR with a 50mm lens on it and checking the difference. The 50mm lens seemed slightly "zoomed" in but very very close. (big surprise, I know, since this is exactly what photography has been telling us forever. 50mm is normal. But I guess I agree.)

As far as the FOV I'd have to say that a human eye is slightly greater than a 50mm lens. Perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood of a 35mm lens?

That's how I see the human eye differing from any lens. It has the aparent perspective of one lens and the FOV of another, much wider lens.

I note that this is my take for ONE human eye. We have two eyes working together to form one image, which is unprecedented when compared to film imaging. The brain's ability to process two lenses in two seperate locations in space and seamlessly combine them into one picture is what's really impressive.

I think it's folly to think about resolution. We're talking organics here that have to coralary to the way things are processed digitally.

As far as f stops, I don't even have a guess. Do people who can see better in the dark have a greater f stop, or is their brain rated at a greater ASA?

[Kurt A]

How much mental gain do you have?