Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

If the human eye where a....

R

RicanJoe

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If the human eye where a functioning camera lens, what do you the specs would be? EX:cost?optics?zooming?aperture? what ever YOU think.
Just a random/funny thread :).
 
Around about 38mm in focal length. Hard to say about the f stop with all that brain activity going on.
 
Jokes aside but I've noticed something interesting.

When you try to pan, either moving just the eyez or the head with eyes fixed, or both - the visuals come in a bit jerky, making very small jumps, like stroboscopic. The sight just jumps a few times on a full pan - from one clear and focused "frame" to another.

Try it - make a full pan, just with the eyes, or head + eyes and you'll see that you'll never have a perfectly smooth pan.

It seems that even the eyes have some side effects and skew :). So, in this case, the RED is doing pretty well :).

I wonder what is this? Anyone know?

I guess it's more of a "brain" thing - the way that our brain processes data from the eyez.

It's funny that actually what we see and hear, isn't what is, but more like - the mental projection, which the brain makes, based on data from the senses.

It exists also as a philosophical concept - Immanuel Kant [one of the greatest minds of humanity, IMO] makes the clear distinction between the "noumena" [things as themselves] and "phenomena" [things as we perceive them].

Later science proves that on a purely physiological level. What you see isn't what actually is, but more like - what your senses and brain let you see.

It's funny just thinking about it - look around, trying to realize that what you see isn't what actually is. :) Really weird and even spooky.

Maybe this proves that what we see isn't [in theory] all that can be seen.

Reminds me of The Matrix somehow.

Funny.
 
Sorry, I had a philosophy teacher in school who if you spelled the name of a philosophers name wrong you failed the course.
 
chuck colburn said:
Sorry, I had a philosophy teacher in school who if you spelled the name of a philosophers name wrong you failed the course.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Me too. :)

But this isn't Kant's fault.

And dial. materialism comes just a bit later.

Kant was a star-gazer in his own way :sorcerer:.

[My thread on piracy's got you guys thinking that I'm Lenin's grandson or something. "I knew that I'd f*ck myself by posting this..."] :tongue:
 
karapetkov said:
Jokes aside but I've noticed something interesting.

When you try to pan, either moving just the eyez or the head with eyes fixed, or both - the visuals come in a bit jerky, making very small jumps, like stroboscopic. The sight just jumps a few times on a full pan - from one clear and focused "frame" to another.

Try it - make a full pan, just with the eyes, or head + eyes and you'll see that you'll never have a perfectly smooth pan.

It seems that even the eyes have some side effects and skew :). So, in this case, the RED is doing pretty well :).

I wonder what is this? Anyone know?

I guess it's more of a "brain" thing - the way that our brain processes data from the eyez.

It's funny that actually what we see and hear, isn't what is, but more like - the mental projection, which the brain makes, based on data from the senses.

It exists also as a philosophical concept - Immanuel Kant [one of the greatest minds of humanity, IMO] makes the clear distinction between the "noumena" [things as themselves] and "phenomena" [things as we perceive them].

Later science proves that on a purely physiological level. What you see isn't what actually is, but more like - what your senses and brain let you see.

It's funny just thinking about it - look around, trying to realize that what you see isn't what actually is. :) Really weird and even spooky.

Maybe this proves that what we see isn't [in theory] all that can be seen.

Reminds me of The Matrix somehow.

Funny.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thats true.

All jokes aside for me too.

Is it odd that I can manually rack focus with my eyes? I can throw my eyes out of focus whenever I want to, like in school when I'm sitting in class..:)

I wonder when lenses will be made that can simulate peripheral vision. wait...
 
RicanJoe said:
Is it odd that I can manually rack focus with my eyes? I can throw my eyes out of focus whenever I want to, like in school when I'm sitting in class..:)
Click to expand...

I can do that, too, and I can also cross/uncross them at will (magic eye images are really easy for me). I'm also aware of many defects in my eyes, such as astigmatism, chromatic aberration, and internal reflections (lens flare), as well as some strange artifact that shows up when viewing (for example) a swinging red LED in a very dark room. It's a bit like cyan tendrils going out to the sides and looping around, here's an artists rendition (attached). In reality the effect is even more subtle, and is only noticeable when the light is in motion.

View attachment 3490
 
I read somewhere that the "sensing" area of the retina was similar in area to a frame of 35mm film (18 x 24 mm).

I don't disagree with the eye's focal length being around 17mm. But it is only the central area of the retina (fovea) that has high resolution. I think this is why I have always found that the most natural perspective was using a 40mm lens.

I wish I could get that guy in Blade Runner that made the eyes, and come out with a line of "Super Speed" eyes, f1.2. I bet I'd sell a ton of those:greedy:
 
if our eyes represent a 17mm lens, then why was i told many moons ago that a 50mm lens represents human vision?
 
The problem is that you hold a photograph at a particular distance from you or you sit a certain distance from a screen. Depending on how far that distance is, the image appears to be a totally different focal length relative to your eye's FOV.

I think the idea is that your FOV may be equivalent to 17mm, but of course peripheral vision is pretty blurry, and we don't cover our eyes with an image completely when we see it. So, holding a photo (or seeing a cinema screen) at a normal distance would give about a 50mm equivalent.

I think this is based on academy aperture or 35mm stills, so I bet a 40mm lens or something would be a bit more accurate in most cases, for the average cinema-goer. (Of course, in the front row this might be 20mm; in the back row maybe 100. Just guessing....)
 
Mike Krumlauf said:
if our eyes represent a 17mm lens, then why was i told many moons ago that a 50mm lens represents human vision?
Click to expand...

A "normal" lens produces a field of view that is similar to human vision. The diagonal of the image plane is typically used as the reference for field of view determination. A "normal" lens has a focal length that is approximately equal to the diagonal measurement of the image plane. When the focal length is equal to the diagonal measurement it produces a diagonal field of view of approximately 53° which is similar to human vision.

For 35mm film (24mm by 36mm), the diagonal measurement is 43.27mm. 50mm is close to this measurement so it is considered a "normal" lens. A 50mm lens produces a 47° diagonal field of view which is close to 53°.


http://www.panoramafactory.com/equiv35/equiv35.html#What makes a lens wide angle or telephoto
 
This comes up on set all the time. Sometimes the argument carries on for days. Are you talking field of view? If so it usually goes back and forth between a 50mm and a 27mm. (35mm)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top