Human Resolution

[LASTGUY2GETPS2]

If human vision could be tagged with a resolution...what would it be?

 

[Crusty]

infinite?

 

[EyeMWing]

<inf>x<inf>x<inf>@~30hz

 

[her209]

From here

How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.

 

[imported_DocHolliday]

well that answers that eh?

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: her209
From here

How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.

Hrm, true, I completely forgot that there are limited numbers of photoreceptors available.

 

[Zanix]

So how many years till we have 575 megapixel cameras?

 

[Safeway]

-2 years

 

[BD2003]

I can guarantee you that that number isnt even close. Looking directly ahead, its probably not even close to 10 megapixels.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I can guarantee you that that number isnt even close. Looking directly ahead, its probably not even close to 10 megapixels.

that number is way way off. 10 MP? No way. End of story. 580 MP is far closer.

I have a Canon 20D 8.0MP camera. I know my vision > it.

 

[myusername]

There can't be a direct correlation, due to different perception structures in the eye. Some cells are dedicated to color perception, some detect detail, some detect "shapes" and some detect motion. Then, as noted, there is the question of orbital motion rapidly multiplying the perceived resolution. With an object 1 foot in front of your vision, you have at least 400 dpi vision, but only on an area about 1/2 an inch across. The farther from the center, the less effective resolution you have. BD2003's estimate is probably accurate as long as you understand he is talking about not moving your eyes. Window your browser and try focusing on the period at the end of this sentence . You can see the pixels on your monitor in the immediate area, but without moving your eyes, can you even tell what the icons on the top left of your desktop really are, much less worry about how sharp they are?

 

[Triforceofcourage]

Probably most of the people here who sit in front of a computer all day and stare at a monitor which is killing their vision would love to have their eyes work like a 8 megapixel camera lol 🙂

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: her209
From here

How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.

Dude...I am fvking state-of-the-art😎

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: myusername
There can't be a direct correlation, due to different perception structures in the eye. Some cells are dedicated to color perception, some detect detail, some detect "shapes" and some detect motion. Then, as noted, there is the question of orbital motion rapidly multiplying the perceived resolution. With an object 1 foot in front of your vision, you have at least 400 dpi vision, but only on an area about 1/2 an inch across. The farther from the center, the less effective resolution you have. BD2003's estimate is probably accurate as long as you understand he is talking about not moving your eyes. Window your browser and try focusing on the period at the end of this sentence . You can see the pixels on your monitor in the immediate area, but without moving your eyes, can you even tell what the icons on the top left of your desktop really are, much less worry about how sharp they are?

Exactly...without moving your eye. Pointless to argue otherwise. Its impossible to quantify in terms of pixels, but take your average 19inch LCD, 1280x1024...just about 1 megapixel, more like 1.3. Put up a grid of alternating black and white dots. Cover one eye. Move away until it becomes indistinguishable from grey. Then count how many screens you can fit in your field of vision, without voluntarily moving your eye (it will jitter), and add. Closest measurement you can get without adding too many variables into it.

Once you consider moving your eye, moving your head etc, you can get as wild a number as you want. But for a single eye, the above method should be a good approximation. Keep in mind color resolution isnt nearly as high as "grayscale", and the majority of your receptor cells are in a small area in the middle of your vision called the fovea. The immediate outsides of the fovea have a MUCH reduced "resolution".

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: her209
From here

How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.

Dude...I am fvking state-of-the-art😎

Actually, the whole system was designed and implemented thousands of years ago . . .

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: her209
From here

How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.

Dude...I am fvking state-of-the-art😎

Actually, the whole system was designed and implemented thousands of years ago . . .

Let's have a civilized discussion about who the designer was.


*runs*