Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

The Dynamic Range of the Human Eye

Craig Ryan said:
I've done tests with a spot meter, and I recall it was around 13 or 14. Maybe 15.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know how you would go about testing the dynamic range of the human eye. What was your method?
 
You don't want the camera to actually behave like our eyes see, you want it to behave like we THINK we see.

For example, if you pay attention when you are walking, your eyes are bobbing up and down all the time, like a shoulder-mounted camera would. But if you think back on your walk, it will become a perfectly smooth steadicam shot.

Likewise, it doesn't matter if we can only see 6.5 stops at a time because we also can only see detail in a small area of the eye at a time. But we are always looking around, first we might look at this highlight, then into this shadow, etc. When we are looking at a screen, we want to be able to look around the frame and see all the details. The frame is akin the "window" created by our eyesockets, not the focus point of an individual glance.
 
Jody Neckles said:
I'm curious to know how you would go about testing the dynamic range of the human eye. What was your method?
Click to expand...

Believe me, I wouldn't claim to have any scientific proof from my "test". It was merely taking spot and incident readings in a very high contrast scenario (looking out my window high noon in the summer) and then trying to take note on when/if my eye adjusts, and like Gavin did, try to alight my vision between two objects with a wide range and see if I could see detail in both objects/surfaces. Hardly scientific at all.

It's really an entirely subjective idea, and really doesn't say much.
 
Sam Eilertsen said:
You don't want the camera to actually behave like our eyes see, you want it to behave like we THINK we see.
Click to expand...

Assuming we want to 'present' a specific luminance range. The alternate argument is to make no exposure judgments and just develop HDR displays with 20+ stops. Then the eye can take the raw data and process it *exactly* the same as the human brain since it will be the human brain. :D
 
Thor Melsted said:
Yes, 75 degrees is pretty good. It's not a narrow 20 degree cone or anything. I never said it was. But note that this is only for red and yellow. Green is at 60 degrees, which is a pretty small cone.
Click to expand...

You're changing your story now.

we only see color straight on because the 6 or so million color sensitive cones are concentrated in the middle surrounded by about 120 million light sensitive rods. So if you see something you have never seen before enter your peripheral vision, you won't know what color it is until you look directly at it.
Click to expand...

You said "Look directly at it". I wouldn't consider 140* or even 120* fov "directly at it."



As to how far out I can see fingers vs color. I can't really "see" anything out there. I can only 'vaguely perceive movement' for most of that degrees. I couldn't tell you the color, nor could I tell you they were even fingers. So maybe 5* of the 170* fov is discernible as shape but not color. But again you're looking at like 3% of our perceived fov being color blind.

You made it sound like if it wasn't the center of your vision. And my memory doesn't "fill in" color for any of the peripheral. Because even after looking at it, once you get out the last couple of degrees of view I can't even 'remember' what color it is.

Green is definitely the hardest.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Assuming we want to 'present' a specific luminance range. The alternate argument is to make no exposure judgments and just develop HDR displays with 20+ stops. Then the eye can take the raw data and process it *exactly* the same as the human brain since it will be the human brain. :D
Click to expand...

Gavin you crack me up! :lol:
That's a cool idea and I would love to see a display like that in my life time....
 
Last edited:
Jody Neckles said:
I'm curious to know how you would go about testing the dynamic range of the human eye. What was your method?
Click to expand...

I think only with simultaneous contrast you could developp such a device. Put a big bright area and a small one inside it. Vary the small one in stop intensity. When you can't desting light variation in the little one you could 'perhaps' tell your dynamic range limitation...?
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Assuming we want to 'present' a specific luminance range. The alternate argument is to make no exposure judgments and just develop HDR displays with 20+ stops. Then the eye can take the raw data and process it *exactly* the same as the human brain since it will be the human brain. :D
Click to expand...

Eventually it will start looking flat and unrealistic though, without intense color grading. Jim said that they haven't been able to find many situations that actually NEED the 18 stops of the maximum HDRx on the Epic.
 
Sam Eilertsen said:
Eventually it will start looking flat and unrealistic though, without intense color grading. Jim said that they haven't been able to find many situations that actually NEED the 18 stops of the maximum HDRx™ on the Epic.
Click to expand...

It won't look flat. It'll look like reality. If you have an 18 stop display displaying 18 stops it'll look like what was there.
 
The Dynamic Range of the Human Eye plus brain combination is between 18 to 20 stops.
It is EASY to beat the eye, technically, but it is DIFFICULT (still impossible) to build a camera which can fool the eye. Newer sensors are getting better without a doubt in this area.

Note: The eyes' "sensor" is ball-surface shaped and not flat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top