File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, I have an interesting question for you that as a photographer I have always wondered.

What is the aperture of the human eye?

I mean... theoretically it makes sense that the eye's aperture size increases with dark light, thus reducing depth of field, and the opposite with bright light. So let's say on an average, partly cloudy day, do you think we could assign a particular F-number for the human eyeball?

Discuss.
>> Anonymous
The f-number of the human eye varies from about f/8.3 in a very brightly lit place to about f/2.1 in the dark.

Sauce:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
>> Anonymous
>>184150
Oh. Damn. So much for discussion and debate.
>> Anonymous
what film format has the closest area equivalence to our eyes' retina though?
>> Anonymous
More interesting proposal: Resolution of the human eye, if it could even be measured. Granted, I know the eye and a display or capture device work much differently, but how much detail can the eye capture, when converted to, say, ppi or dpi?
>> Anonymous
>>184154
the retina senses light by sending messages based on a chemical compound that separates when light hits it. each instance of this reaction that causes a neuron to fire can be thought of as a pixel.

we'd have to find out how many cells are recieving light by multiplying thier density per area by the total area of the functioning retina. i would guess it's about 150,000x150,000 to put it into digital terms, but oviously not in such a square formate.
>> Anonymous
>>184152

this gentlement estimates that
dark = iso 800
bright daylight = iso 1

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
>> Anonymous
>>184154

the gentlement in that same link also estimates the MP rating of the eye to be around 575MP and above, probably more when you consider all factors.
>> Anonymous
>>184158
One doesn't simply multiply the density by the total area. There are two kinds of light-sensing cells with different behavior, and their density varies wildly across the retina. Plus the human brain can't precisely tell which of the two adjacent cells did the light strike.
>> Anonymous
if i could save pictures to my brain and transfer them to a computer

i would take the best pictures ever
>> Anonymous
>>184173

nope. someone would still do it better than you. by squinting more...haha
>> Anonymous
asians would have automatic panorama

kekekekkekeke ^__________^
>> Anonymous
>>184177
THAT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH VIGNETTING.
>> radnomness
>>184163
If I'm not mistaken there are a set number for each eye of motion and colour receiving cells, yes?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>184190
There are rods and cones.

Three+ types of cones, which received color. Generally Red/Green/Blue. However, there is a decent amount evidence that humans are blocked tetrachromats - that we have a fourth set of cones that receive UV-range light but are blocked due to the opacity of our eyes themselves.

Rods receive light generically - greyscale. While each cone is connected to a single nerve, sets of three rods are connected to a single nerve - with no way of distinguishing which sent the signal.

In general, your central vision is cone-heavy. While viewing dim light, rods are far more influential than cones. Cones are used for high-light-level color vision.

The number is "set" but varies - from individual to individual and from eye to eye. Also, undoubtedly some cells die. I can't remember if they're replaced or not. Probably are, at least to some degree.
>> Anonymous
More importantly, does the human eye produce a good bokeh? Or just shitty point and shoot bokeh?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>184213
Human eye produces _perfect_ bokeh. It's the ideal that we want our lenses to produce.

At least, imo.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>184216

oh hey
>> Anonymous
>>184216
No, it doesn't. With some practice, you can defocus your eye and examine it.
The shape of the bokeh in the eye can vary; usually the shape appears to be a slightly jagged circle and the uniformness depends on the state of the lens and the liquid inside the eye. People with damaged pupil or lens tissue may see a very irregular bokeh.
>> Anonymous
>>184222
thats what i do when im bored at school.
focus your eyes on a desk up close and then try to not really look but i guess il just use examine, the ground. makes really nice bokeh to me thats what i wish my lenses were like.
>> Anonymous
>>184213
>>184216

I think this may be part of the huge appeal of Leica lenses. At least with my eyes' bokeh and my eyes looking at pictures from them, the characteristic bokeh of Leica lenses seems to be closer to the human eye than any other.

Which isn't to say there aren't other types of equally good bokeh, either; it's a matter of taste and style as far as what set of lens properties (including bokeh) fits a photograph best.
>> Anonymous
the pupils dilation is dependant on the state of the subjects mind,chemicals in the brain affecting perception and the way the eye focus`s.
>> Anonymous
Thing is though, our retinas are small. So the difference in DOF between low light and bright light is too small to recognize not to mention it'll be really dark.

Peripheral vision is also weird. If I look forward and stick my tongue out, I can see it off the corner of my eyes but if I focus down, my cheeks get in the way and I can't see them anymore.
>> Anonymous
Is it possible to make a camera with a concave sensor (like in a human eye), and if so, would the results look like what we see?

Shits getting deep...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>184845

a bit like this maybe?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsPhotographerJohnImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:05:19 21:21:04Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width555Image Height527
>> Anonymous
>>184845

Suppose you got a camera with a concave eye-like sensor and took a picture. How would you display it, or process it? Ending up with a regular image on monitor or paper sounds a bit ordinary for the trouble.

Besides if we were to start taking pictures with our eyes, i would have to get mine fixed since especially on a bright day there's all kinds of shit floating before the sensor. :(

I remember being told that currently our eye resolution is optically limited by imperfections on the cornea. Story tells about an experiment where a person had his cornea surfaces smoothed, resulting in loads of more detail, which he had lots of trouble adjusting to. (Think seeing pixels on screen or fibers on paper all the time when you try to read) So there would be more capacity than is used. I haven't found much about this, so if anyone knows if this is actually true, would be nice to know.
>> Anonymous
>>184855
Very much like that.

Our eyes' lenses/retina fails at displaying images as clear "throughout the picture" as cameras can with flat focal planes
>> okto
>>184147
Max aperture for the human eye is about f/2. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Human_eye)