3 ms·

>Not only are our eyes far more versatile than the most sophisticated camera equipment, This is inaccurate. You do need a fairly good camera to beat the human

>Not only are our eyes far more versatile than the most sophisticated camera equipment, This is inaccurate. You do need a fairly good camera to beat the human eye, but only a couple hundred dollars. Cameras not only beat the human eye in total resolution and color depth, they beat it in peak resolution over an area much, much larger. One of the main things you hear about cameras is that they have inferior dynamic range, but that is also untrue. A camera with an actual aperture (like the eye has the iris) is far superior. Cinema cameras are more than an order of magnitude better than the human eye, but even small cameras can be as good or better than eyes. Reports that the human eye can detect single photons are highly exaggerated. Technically true, but on a very different basis than a camera. Compared fairly the camera will come out ahead. The biggest "real" difference between cameras and eyes is field of view. Personally I have a 220 degree field. Although technically with two circular fisheye lenses you can get almost to 360 degrees, even individual eyes can have fields of view greater than 180. We know how it works and could reproduce it, but it's still very impressive and I don't think normal lenses do it. Even a cheap webcam has higher "fps" and less blur than a human eye. Cameras are also much better at estimating velocity even besides that. Some people are more sensitive to colors- especially infrared, and a number of people are tetrochromats. Cameras can naturally see infrared far deeper than humans although tetrachromatic/hyperspectral cameras aren't exactly common. >we constantly maintain a mental model of the world that allows us to focus only on the things that matter, and accurately infer state. This is not an advantage. What this means is that we aren't paying attention elsewhere. This is a very coarse first order optimization- cut out a ton of data, only pay attention to what you're paying attention to. It's tautological and it means you don't get to apply optimization algorithmically. This is a huge advantage for computers.

tbabb 9y ago
[citation needed]. - I am very skeptical that even a cinema camera can exceed the dynamic range of the human eye in one exposure. It is probably more important that features never saturate or go black when the image is properly exposed than that exposures are possible in a wider range of conditions. Also, cinema cameras are as big as toaster ovens and cost kilodollars. - You're saying the peak angular resolution of a camera with a near 180 degree field of view exceeds the angular res of clear human foveal vision? - Dark sensitivity: Yes, you can detect more a lot more light if you make the aperture 200x the size of a pupil. Could a space-efficient camera compete? - Fairly saying there is higher fps AND less blur in a camera means you have to show me a camera the size of a human eye, with the dynamic range of a human eye, with the resolution of a human eye, and the low light sensitivity of a human eye that can produce more than about 60 fps. You can certainly have more fps, but often at the cost of size or resolution or light sensitivity. You can certainly have less blur, but then that means you need a bigger aperture to let more light in so you can crank your shutter down. Are you saying a small camera can beat the eye on all counts? So yes, if we stud a car with RED weapon 8ks, we'll probably exceed human perception. Can the same be done cheaply and hidden in the body of a car with current technology?
- hwillis 9y ago
  The human eye has a dynamic range of 10-14 f-stops[1], a Nikon D810 has 14.8. The human eye has a ~10 megapixel resolution over a 20 degree view. Over 60 degrees that ~52 megapixels. There are DSLRs that exceed that. I don't mean cameras have the peak resolution over 180 degrees, just more than 20 degrees. Cameras are certainly comparable eyes for space efficiency. Take away the frame, battery, electronics, simplify the lensing, and you have a very small device indeed. It would be better if we had spherical sensors, of course. The human eye's sensitivity can get up to ~1000 ISO after a long adjustment period. Cameras are much better. [1]: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-... >Fairly saying there is higher fps AND less blur in a camera means you have to show me a camera the size of a human eye, with the dynamic range of a human eye, with the resolution of a human eye, and the low light sensitivity of a human eye that can produce more than about 60 fps. You can certainly have more fps, but often at the cost of size or resolution or light sensitivity. You can certainly have less blur, but then that means you need a bigger aperture to let more light in so you can crank your shutter down. Are you saying a small camera can beat the eye on all counts? Do cars not beat humans because they are bigger than people? There is no need for a camera the size and performance of the eye. Machine vision has no need of that resolution or dynamic range, and photography/film have no need of the size. Why would anyone make a smartphone with 50 megapixels? That's impractically large. Even still, take the google pixel. By volume it's probably less than a tenth the size of the human eye. It's got comparable resolution (>13 MP), though lower peak resolution. The dynamic range is at the low end of a human eye despite the massive size difference. The FPS and ISO are better. All it needs is a fisheye lens. If a camera company wanted to exceed the human eye, they could certainly do it.

tbabb 9y ago

[citation needed]. - I am very skeptical that even a cinema camera can exceed the dynamic range of the human eye in one exposure. It is probably more important that features never saturate or go black when the image is properly exposed than that exposures are possible in a wider range of conditions. Also, cinema cameras are as big as toaster ovens and cost kilodollars. - You're saying the peak angular resolution of a camera with a near 180 degree field of view exceeds the angular res of clear human foveal vision? - Dark sensitivity: Yes, you can detect more a lot more light if you make the aperture 200x the size of a pupil. Could a space-efficient camera compete? - Fairly saying there is higher fps AND less blur in a camera means you have to show me a camera the size of a human eye, with the dynamic range of a human eye, with the resolution of a human eye, and the low light sensitivity of a human eye that can produce more than about 60 fps. You can certainly have more fps, but often at the cost of size or resolution or light sensitivity. You can certainly have less blur, but then that means you need a bigger aperture to let more light in so you can crank your shutter down. Are you saying a small camera can beat the eye on all counts? So yes, if we stud a car with RED weapon 8ks, we'll probably exceed human perception. Can the same be done cheaply and hidden in the body of a car with current technology?

hwillis 9y ago
The human eye has a dynamic range of 10-14 f-stops[1], a Nikon D810 has 14.8. The human eye has a ~10 megapixel resolution over a 20 degree view. Over 60 degrees that ~52 megapixels. There are DSLRs that exceed that. I don't mean cameras have the peak resolution over 180 degrees, just more than 20 degrees. Cameras are certainly comparable eyes for space efficiency. Take away the frame, battery, electronics, simplify the lensing, and you have a very small device indeed. It would be better if we had spherical sensors, of course. The human eye's sensitivity can get up to ~1000 ISO after a long adjustment period. Cameras are much better. [1]: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-... >Fairly saying there is higher fps AND less blur in a camera means you have to show me a camera the size of a human eye, with the dynamic range of a human eye, with the resolution of a human eye, and the low light sensitivity of a human eye that can produce more than about 60 fps. You can certainly have more fps, but often at the cost of size or resolution or light sensitivity. You can certainly have less blur, but then that means you need a bigger aperture to let more light in so you can crank your shutter down. Are you saying a small camera can beat the eye on all counts? Do cars not beat humans because they are bigger than people? There is no need for a camera the size and performance of the eye. Machine vision has no need of that resolution or dynamic range, and photography/film have no need of the size. Why would anyone make a smartphone with 50 megapixels? That's impractically large. Even still, take the google pixel. By volume it's probably less than a tenth the size of the human eye. It's got comparable resolution (>13 MP), though lower peak resolution. The dynamic range is at the low end of a human eye despite the massive size difference. The FPS and ISO are better. All it needs is a fisheye lens. If a camera company wanted to exceed the human eye, they could certainly do it.