If the human eye where a....

[combatentropy]

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.

Yes, that is because panning smoothly with your eyes is not very useful. Your brain and eyes were meant to look at something.

Bear in mind that you appreciating a movie scene with a nice, smooth pan is a combination of a nice smooth pan plus your eyes jumping around observing different sections of it. This second "filter" is often forgotten by those who try to make a movie more like your real experience. Whatever movement or cutting happens on the screen is compounded by the movement and cutting of the audience members' eyes.

My rules for a natural style: http://combatentropy.com/rules_for_making_movies

 

[Joe Carney]

Wow, not a single borg joke yet. I'm impressed.

 

[jbeale]

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.

Interesting stuff. I was just thinking about this yesterday looking at a small bright LED in a dark room. The point of light does not look anything like the smooth fuzzy blob of an out of focus photo. It is more like a roughly circular dandelion head with many internal filaments, suggesting some very complex optical abberation. In daylight things focus just fine, though.

 

[Adam Levins]

Yes, that is because panning smoothly with your eyes is not very useful. Your brain and eyes were meant to look at something.

Bear in mind that you appreciating a movie scene with a nice, smooth pan is a combination of a nice smooth pan plus your eyes jumping around observing different sections of it. This second "filter" is often forgotten by those who try to make a movie more like your real experience. Whatever movement or cutting happens on the screen is compounded by the movement and cutting of the audience members' eyes.

My rules for a natural style: http://combatentropy.com/rules_for_making_movies

Looked at the list on the link.

I think there are some good points in it.

but to be creative you need to take all advice with a grain of salt. The script/story will dictate the style.

 

[dhazelrig]

This sounds like fun, so I'm gonna chime in. As there are many people on these boards with far greater technical knowledge than I about 35mm photographic equipment and the science behind it, I note that these are simply my modest observations.

As far as the relative perspective to 35mm film I'd have to say that a human eye is close to the perspective given by a 50mm lens. I would actually say somewhere in the upper 40's. I derived this from looking at a fixed object with my eye and then holding up an SLR with a 50mm lens on it and checking the difference. The 50mm lens seemed slightly "zoomed" in but very very close. (big surprise, I know, since this is exactly what photography has been telling us forever. 50mm is normal. But I guess I agree.)

As far as the FOV I'd have to say that a human eye is slightly greater than a 50mm lens. Perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood of a 35mm lens?

That's how I see the human eye differing from any lens. It has the aparent perspective of one lens and the FOV of another, much wider lens.

I note that this is my take for ONE human eye. We have two eyes working together to form one image, which is unprecedented when compared to film imaging. The brain's ability to process two lenses in two seperate locations in space and seamlessly combine them into one picture is what's really impressive.

I think it's folly to think about resolution. We're talking organics here that have to coralary to the way things are processed digitally.

As far as f stops, I don't even have a guess. Do people who can see better in the dark have a greater f stop, or is their brain rated at a greater ASA?

 

[Kurt A]

How much mental gain do you have?