4 ms·

But can you see the entire line of that chart without moving your eyes at all? In terms of a single 'snapshot' of our vision, the resolution is atrociously bad.

But can you see the entire line of that chart without moving your eyes at all? In terms of a single 'snapshot' of our vision, the resolution is atrociously bad. Only a very small area in the middle of our field of view has significant detail (test this by looking at some writing in the distance then stare at the first letter and try 'reading' the rest of the writing without moving your eyes - it'll just remain an indistinct blur).

Sharlin 13y ago
Exactly. The fovea article on Wikipedia has an illustrative diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis
vacri 13y ago
If we're making it a competition, I'll note that the human eye natively supports edge detection, and it operates in a much wider range of light. Eyes also come pre-packaged in a format that allows for quite accurate determination of distance at no extra charge. While cameras have a slightly broader spectrum, eyes work in a far greater range of brightness - and seeing in the near dark is far more useful than seeing the LED on the end of a remote. Eyes are perfectly mobile, and don't require external power. Eyes have a much faster traverse and can move to and focus on a target much more quickly. If you're turning, eyes will give you a stable image of the world around you to help keep your reference - cameras will just give you motion blur. Eyes are very difficult to replace, admittedly, but they have pretty astonishing self-healing characteristics and last for decades of constant use - in the rain, snow, desert heat, even underwater (though admittedly the image isn't great). Not to mention that if you roll your cameras, people will just be confused as to your emotional state, and of course, it's harder to feel a knot of love when staring into your significant other's IP cam...

Sharlin 13y ago

Exactly. The fovea article on Wikipedia has an illustrative diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis

vacri 13y ago

If we're making it a competition, I'll note that the human eye natively supports edge detection, and it operates in a much wider range of light. Eyes also come pre-packaged in a format that allows for quite accurate determination of distance at no extra charge. While cameras have a slightly broader spectrum, eyes work in a far greater range of brightness - and seeing in the near dark is far more useful than seeing the LED on the end of a remote. Eyes are perfectly mobile, and don't require external power. Eyes have a much faster traverse and can move to and focus on a target much more quickly. If you're turning, eyes will give you a stable image of the world around you to help keep your reference - cameras will just give you motion blur. Eyes are very difficult to replace, admittedly, but they have pretty astonishing self-healing characteristics and last for decades of constant use - in the rain, snow, desert heat, even underwater (though admittedly the image isn't great). Not to mention that if you roll your cameras, people will just be confused as to your emotional state, and of course, it's harder to feel a knot of love when staring into your significant other's IP cam...