[SGVLUG] Especially for Mike

[Dustin Laurence]

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 08:32:46PM -0800, Michael Proctor-Smith wrote:

> On 3/6/06, Jean Chen <narsil at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I wonder what resolution you could say our eyes have.  I must look
> > that up sometime.
> 
> I don't think the resolution of the eyes is very good but there is
> very advanced software to interperlate, the bad input data, as well as
> buffers. Hence the reason anything over 21 or so frames per-second
> seems like full montion.

Hmm.  This:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

comes up with a value of 576 megapixels, and admits that doesn't cover
the full range of vision.  That is what I was going to say--the field
of view is really good, much better than most everyday devices (and
we're so optimized for binocular vision that we aren't very good in the
field-of-view department.

I'd say that's pretty good.

However, I agree with Mike in that counting pixels doesn't do vision
justice.  Beyond the image processing, there is the dynamic range and
also the dual sensor setup.

Dustin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.sgvlug.net/pipermail/sgvlug/attachments/20060306/3c5480c1/attachment-0001.bin