4 ms·
But our eyes are much smaller and better performing. Surely a large sensor is not a fundamental requirement with the exception of depth of field.
by slededit 8y ago
But our eyes are much smaller and better performing. Surely a large sensor is not a fundamental requirement with the exception of depth of field.
- danbruc 8y agoOur eyes are not really that good, a lot of your visual experience is due to the processing in your visual system.
- sschueller 8y agoAren't eyes actually quite bad and most the brain is doing the heavy lifting? We all have a huge blind spot yet we don't perceive it.
- kevincox 8y agoThe original computational photography.
- anfractuosity 8y agoI thought this was interesting "One reason for the saccadic movement of the human eye is that the central part of the retina—known as the fovea—which provides the high-resolution portion of vision is very small in humans, only about 1–2 degrees of vision, but it plays a critical role in resolving objects.[citation needed] By moving the eye so that small parts of a scene can be sensed with greater resolution, body resources can be used more efficiently. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- slavik81 8y agoThe human eye is enormous compared to a smartphone camera, and the retina is still larger than the 1 inch squared sensor he mentioned. What exactly are you talking about?
- AstralStorm 8y agoThat eye size difference is mostly due to much wider field of view and adaptability to pretty close macro cases.
- dzhiurgis 8y ago100MP IIRC - so not that enormous anymore compared with this sensor. The nerves that connect to brain are impressive tho, the thickest in our body.