Starting with the Eye and Working Backwards

mithrandir · 07-17-2008, 11:53 AM

The new issue of Popular Photography has a wonderful article called "The Photographer's Guide to the Eye" which has many helpful hints for formatting photographs using the eye's abilities/capabilities as the starting point. You can view it at:

The Photographer's Guide to the Eye - - PopPhotoAugust 2008

By the way, chips have a long way to go according to this quote from page 3: "Looking at a 120-degree field of view, the eye's resolution is equivalent to about 576 megapixels."

Rob

Gooshin · 07-17-2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by mithrandir

The new issue of Popular Photography has a wonderful article called "The Photographer's Guide to the Eye" which has many helpful hints for formatting photographs using the eye's abilities/capabilities as the starting point. You can view it at:

The Photographer's Guide to the Eye - - PopPhotoAugust 2008

By the way, chips have a long way to go according to this quote from page 3: "Looking at a 120-degree field of view, the eye's resolution is equivalent to about 576 megapixels."

Rob

our resultion only peaks in dead center, and tahts assuming you have perfect vision.

even a few inches in either direction our vision becomes very blurry.

also resolution figures of our eyes are a pointless comparison to cameras because we only have one FOV and one "size", its not like we can go home and download our thoughts into meter high posters or pocket pictures.

*Tom S.* · 07-17-2008, 12:15 PM

My eyes are the much older ver. 1.0 which were only measured in hundreds of pixels, not mega pixels.

*Igilligan* · 07-17-2008, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Tom S.

My eyes are the much older ver. 1.0 which were only measured in hundreds of pixels, not mega pixels.

My eyes are even older... They have film over them.

Thanks for the link....

*Ash* · 07-17-2008, 01:18 PM

Yeah, but our eyes have full time live view.

mithrandir · 07-17-2008, 03:12 PM

Don't miss the article. Knowing where a viewer is going to look in our pictures could lead to better composition. At least for me it will. With all the work being done on brain scanning, I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't come up with a way to download what we see (at least while we are viewing it).

*LaRee* · 07-17-2008, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Igilligan

My eyes are even older... They have film over them.

Thanks for the link....

LOL funny Gus! Me too.

and yes, thank you for the link. Very interesting.

ll_coffee_lP · 07-18-2008, 04:27 AM

Very cool read.

c[_]

stevebrot · 07-18-2008, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Gooshin

our resultion only peaks in dead center, and tahts assuming you have perfect vision.

even a few inches in either direction our vision becomes very blurry.

also resolution figures of our eyes are a pointless comparison to cameras because we only have one FOV and one "size", its not like we can go home and download our thoughts into meter high posters or pocket pictures.

Some good points. The truth is that the human eye is not a very good camera. The lens is closer to a LensBaby or a Holga that it is to a Takumar. The sensor has great sensitivity, but poor "pixel density". What makes the difference is the image processing system and the pano/stitch and other PP software that is at work in the human brain. Your brain is capable of optimizing the view for the intended subject and provides immense compensation for the failings of the eye itself.

Thanks to our brain, we are generally unaware of DOF for instance. Give it a try...just try to see your eye's depth of field. The brain also "smooths" over the irregularities of the retina so that you see a continuous image rather than one interrupted with a pattern of blood vessels.

As for FOV, yes the eye is a prime...a wide-angle at that. In fact the two eyes as a pair are an extreme wide-angle. However, the brain is capable of selectively cropping the scene so that we can see things from a tele perspective.

These are all very important things to consider in photography. Our job is to use things like composition, DOF and FOV to fool the brain into perceiving the photo as something the photographer wants the viewer to see.

Steve

P.S. I am well aware of the issues of less than perfect vision and the affect that has on perception. My daughter's eyes fail to attain infinity focus without auxiliary lenses. Maybe that is why she is not into shooting landscapes! Strangely, as my near-focus ability has progressively failed as I age, my interest in close-focus and macro subjects has increased!

ll_coffee_lP · 07-18-2008, 07:58 AM

As for FOV, yes the eye is a prime...a wide-angle at that. In fact the two eyes as a pair are an extreme wide-angle. However, the brain is capable of selectively cropping the scene so that we can see things from a tele perspective.

Stevebrot....what you say makes total sense. Would this selective cropping that you speak about be in effect during high speeds when tunnel vision comes into effect (i.e. 1/4 mile racers, etc.)? I'm aware of the phenomenon, but not sure why it occurs.

Thanks

c[_]

Gooshin · 07-18-2008, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by ll_coffee_lP

As for FOV, yes the eye is a prime...a wide-angle at that. In fact the two eyes as a pair are an extreme wide-angle. However, the brain is capable of selectively cropping the scene so that we can see things from a tele perspective.

Stevebrot....what you say makes total sense. Would this selective cropping that you speak about be in effect during high speeds when tunnel vision comes into effect (i.e. 1/4 mile racers, etc.)? I'm aware of the phenomenon, but not sure why it occurs.

Thanks

c[_]

as a racer i can tell you that tunnel vision comes from inexperience and extreme levels of anxiety. I know when i first started going to the track i kept missing flags that were being waved right in front of my face, the event organizer gave me a stern warning for that one!

a pro racer will always see the entire race track and "think" 4-5 turns ahead.

ll_coffee_lP · 07-18-2008, 10:17 AM

Very interesting Gooshin. I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.

c[_]

*LeoTaylor* · 07-18-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by mithrandir

...

By the way, chips have a long way to go according to this quote from page 3: "Looking at a 120-degree field of view, the eye's resolution is equivalent to about 576 megapixels."

Rob

Hello,

I've seen that kind of statement many times. BUT....

If you are looking at your computer screen straight ahead can you read something on your desk perhaps 60 degrees away? I can't even read the bottom of the screen 10 degrees away. If I look down to read the text at the bottom, I can't read what I'm typing. Our eyes have a wide angle of view but are only clear near the center. A wide angle lens that matched our eyes would be a piece of junk!

stevebrot · 07-18-2008, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by mithrandir

By the way, chips have a long way to go according to this quote from page 3: "Looking at a 120-degree field of view, the eye's resolution is equivalent to about 576 megapixels."

Rob

I too think that the 576 Megapixel estimate is a little off-base. In base terms an individual cone or rod cell is the practical equivalent of a detector pixel. I found a few resources on the Web and think that the Wikipedia article on the retina provides as good an estimate as any.

7 million cones
100 million rods

Since the cones are the cells are the cells that are used for high acuity and color vision (they are densely packed at the fovea near the center of the retina), those cells would provide the best estimate. So for all practical purposes, the retina of a single eye is equivalent to about a 7 megapixel detector.

Before anybody jumps to conclusions, it should be noted that the perceptive field is based on a moving eye with the brain stitching the details together. As a result, the visual system probably has access to considerably more data than that of a 7 megapixel camera.

Steve