5 ms·

First sentence: All sorts of wild guesses and theoretical calculations exist about what the resolution of the human eye is, with 576MP a common claim. 576MP is

First sentence: All sorts of wild guesses and theoretical calculations exist about what the resolution of the human eye is, with 576MP a common claim. 576MP is not a resolution. Article immediately closed.

svachalek 13y ago
Resolutions are commonly measured in pixels. Or are you expecting something rectangular and ISO standard like 1920 x 1080? Divide by pi, take the square root, multiply by two, we're talking about 27000 pixels in diameter. That said, I don't agree with a lot of the methodology. If pixels are what we're going for, it only makes sense to me to count rods and cones.
- colanderman 13y ago
  No, I think the GP means angular resolution – i.e. pixels per unit of solid angle – which one might presume is the figure of merit here.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    It's trivial to transform the units, and it's easier to understand megapixels or xxxxp. Terrible reason to close the article.
    - colanderman 13y ago
      It's trivial to transform the units …except they're not dimensionally compatible. You need to know the solid angle subtended by those pixels. That's like saying you can trivially transform 60 miles per hour into a distance. You can't, unless you have time. More importantly, the solid angle in question is not obvious – are we talking just the fovea (area of the eye with highest density of cones [1]), the eye as a whole, or the solid area subtended by a standard computer monitor, or…? [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html#c2 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.ht...
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        The angle is the field of view. Because of the eye's uneven resolution you need to have some idea of how they're handling the field of view no matter what. It's like saying '60 miles per hour from Vermont to West Virginia'. There's some fuzziness about where exactly you put the end points, but you have a good idea. Basically, using raw angular resolution would also be too vague without context, but if you have context then megapixels are sufficient.
Dylan16807 13y ago
1. Yes it is. 2. The 576MP number comes from taking the resolution of the very center of the human eye and then extrapolating to the entire field of vision. It's the panorama you could get if you had someone sit in a single spot for minutes on end, examining every direction. This number deserves no better than a bad mention, being used so much in misleading contexts.

svachalek 13y ago

Resolutions are commonly measured in pixels. Or are you expecting something rectangular and ISO standard like 1920 x 1080? Divide by pi, take the square root, multiply by two, we're talking about 27000 pixels in diameter. That said, I don't agree with a lot of the methodology. If pixels are what we're going for, it only makes sense to me to count rods and cones.

colanderman 13y ago
No, I think the GP means angular resolution – i.e. pixels per unit of solid angle – which one might presume is the figure of merit here.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  It's trivial to transform the units, and it's easier to understand megapixels or xxxxp. Terrible reason to close the article.
  - colanderman 13y ago
    It's trivial to transform the units …except they're not dimensionally compatible. You need to know the solid angle subtended by those pixels. That's like saying you can trivially transform 60 miles per hour into a distance. You can't, unless you have time. More importantly, the solid angle in question is not obvious – are we talking just the fovea (area of the eye with highest density of cones [1]), the eye as a whole, or the solid area subtended by a standard computer monitor, or…? [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html#c2 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.ht...
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      The angle is the field of view. Because of the eye's uneven resolution you need to have some idea of how they're handling the field of view no matter what. It's like saying '60 miles per hour from Vermont to West Virginia'. There's some fuzziness about where exactly you put the end points, but you have a good idea. Basically, using raw angular resolution would also be too vague without context, but if you have context then megapixels are sufficient.

Dylan16807 13y ago

1. Yes it is. 2. The 576MP number comes from taking the resolution of the very center of the human eye and then extrapolating to the entire field of vision. It's the panorama you could get if you had someone sit in a single spot for minutes on end, examining every direction. This number deserves no better than a bad mention, being used so much in misleading contexts.