How the human eye sees light

[Zhibo Lai]

It has always fascinated me how our human eyes can beat the top cameras in resolution, sensitive, dynamic range, FoV, etc.. Just curious, is there a camera/lens that beats the human eye in every respect?

But on to my real question. Say you are shooting an indoor scene with all indoor 32K lamps and your camera is white balanced for that light. But as soon as someone opens a window, you get blue light from it and blue spill onto your scene. But the same is not true with the human eye, correct? I don't ever recall seeing blue light coming from the window while I'm indoors, or orange light coming from a house while I'm outdoors.

What is it about the human eye that lets it white balance to both multiple light temperatures? Can the same be done with digital cameras?

[Joseph Hutson]

What is it about the human eye that lets it white balance to both multiple light temperatures? Can the same be done with digital cameras?

Maybe if God built a Digital Camera?

[Jason Murphy]

Well, at the end of the day, it's probably a good thing for all of us that God has many more important things to do than design a digital camera. Besides, Jim & Co. seem to be doing a pretty fine job, all things considered.

Seriously, though, there is no camera out there that beats the human eye in every respect. Obviously, some cameras and optics certainly can do many things that the human eye cannot; high speed cameras obviously sample time at rates that allow us to re-view it at a completely different speed than we ordinarily do. There are cameras/films that are sensitive to the infrared spectrum, and large format film cameras can often capture images at significantly higher resolution than we might be able to see normally, etc. So, many cameras/tools we use are superior to the human eye for specific functions.

But nothing made yet has the flexibility and/or adaptability of the human eye. Certainly in terms of quickly adjusting to different levels of light, or rapidly changing focus between two objects, etc.

Much of this is, of course, not the eye: it's the fault of the human brain, which processes what our retinas capture. It's essentially the brain which normalizes the color of light on the fly so that in most mixed-light situations, we don't even notice that the color temperature often radically shifts. (This is one reason that color correction can be tricky as all hell; we adjust to color casts. So, for example, a grey square on a green background will look different to us than the same grey square on a red background. It's all context, and our brain is pretty ruthlessly efficient at doing these adjustments.)

Another good example which you can try at home:

http://www.colorcube.com/illusions/chrmadpt.htm

Another way of thinking about it that might work better for this board would be to say that our eyes capture the image in RAW (upside down, as well) and our brain is the computer that does all the post-processing and color correction in real time. Assuming everything's working properly.

All that said, you can train yourself to notice relative color differences to an extent. When looking at a scene with mixed light sources, you can train yourself to recognize that one source has a bluer color cast (ie. higher color temp.) than another. It's just that we don't usually do this, and therefore don't notice it. But even with training, your brain will still adjust, and eyeballing is generally not a reliable method of color measurement.

[NoahK]

The eye is just very adapt at adjusting to wide dynamic range and has excellent fast white balancing. Think of it as the ultimate digital camera. in fact it's actually the one thing that makes most movie's lighting suck because it's very easy to fool your eyes into seeing light that looks good when in fact it has too much contrast or mixed color temperatures that will look bad on film or video.

Noah

[Dances With Cameras]

The eyes and our brain could be called "analog" "devices".

When we dig deep into the question how our "machinery" works and why, we might reach philosophical questions.

Personally, I think that we humans still know very little about ourselves.

Our know-how is increasing fast, but our know-why is falling behind.

Sooner or later, a camera will be developed that beats the human eye.

But the comes the question: "So what?"

I mean, life and art aren`t just about the perfect device.

What is life? What drives this bio-machine? Why? etc...

I recently re-watched Contact several times.

A VERY smart movie, highly recommended. It treats these problems in a unique way.

Makes you wonder, does science make life actually better?

Or, does my film become better now that I have a better camera?

Complicated stuff.

I think the path of reason and logic is certainly helpful, but it doesn`t solve everything...

Anyway, I think the sensor of digital cameras is supposed to be analog, if I'm not mistaken.

But then it feeds the signal to the analog-to-digital converter, which (somehow) transforms it into 001001100.

[Tim Hole]

Don't forget humans also see through association and imagination. Switch between creative and logic. Our brain conjurs up possiblilities and we chose one!

In some respects though the human colour correction function doesn't work at all because there is no standard just a variable.

[Dances With Cameras]

Yeah, it's true.

Actually I'd say that most of what we think we see is actually produced by our brain.

The Matrix has us.

[Jason Murphy]

Don't forget humans also see through association and imagination. Switch between creative and logic. Our brain conjurs up possiblilities and we chose one!

In some respects though the human colour correction function doesn't work at all because there is no standard just a variable.

True enough. Though I think it's more true to say that our brain conjures up possibilities and then picks the most likely without our conscious input.

Perhaps "color correct" isn't the best term to use for what our brain does. "Constant chromatic adjustment" might be a bit better.

I mean, life and art aren't just about the perfect device.

...

does my film become better now that I have a better camera?

Of course not. I think (or at least sincerely hope) that most people will recognize this. Each device, be it camera, eye, brain, computer, whatever, comes with its own limitations; an important part of life and art is about figuring out how to work around those limitations.

That said, one thing that can be said definitively is that photography changes the way we see things. Some of the best photographs and films actually have the ability to show us things that we have not seen before (and no, I'm not talking about massive CGI-filled battles or anything here), or show us ways of seeing that we could never have come up with by ourselves. And in so doing, they can actually alter the way our brains perceive what we see.

[Bryan Arnold]

I think the eye is more like a lens with autofocus, auto-iris plus a sensor. The information from the sensor is processed and stored by the brains. So the actual capturing is done by the brains.

I read in "What the bleep do we know", I believe, that we're processing Terabytes/sec but are only aware of Gigabytes/sec or something like that. That's kinda like the background processes on my computer. Maybe human vision works in a similar way. We're seeing more than we're aware of and can therefore not copy this exactly with current technology. The answer may not lie in the resolution or sensitivity but in 3d vision or stuff that has yet to be discovered.

[MattN]

Well, at the end of the day, it's probably a good thing for all of us that God has many more important things to do than design a digital camera.

I think you mean "evolve a digital camera"

We are definitely going to have screens with resolution higher than a human can perceive in our lifetime, we're already pretty close as it is. The thing to remember is that we don't really process much out of our central focus region. Unlike a camera which captures the entire image in uniform detail.

[Jason Murphy]

I think you mean "evolve a digital camera"

No, I did mean design :)

Let's face it. I'd rather have the camera in 7 days than wait hundreds of millions of years.

[Christoffer]

What is it about the human eye that lets it white balance to both multiple light temperatures? Can the same be done with digital cameras?

The human eye does not have multiple balance. It has a slow "auto-function".
I can clearly see that a tungsten light is yellow/warm when there's cold light around.

As for the human eye, there's something else that people forget that is a flaw. The human eye reacts to color in a stupid way. It tries to compensate any color by adding the opposite. If you close your eyes in strong light and look at the red "bloodcolored" light from the inside of your lid and then open them, everything will be blue. I'm glad that isn't copied into the world of photography :P

[todd folts]

dont forget that your brain fills in information based upon memory both long term and of what you have recently seen, thus filling out everything you are seeing based upon both your periphereal and central (dont knwo if thats the right term) vision. the photo receptors in your eyes sense the wavelengths of a specific color but your brain is what processes it.

[Dances With Cameras]

The BRAINCine demosaics the RAW stream from our native 3D rig [our eyes]...

[Joseph Hutson]

My little brother, not too long ago, asked, "How many K's do our eyes see?"

[Bryan Arnold]

My little brother, not too long ago, asked, "How many K's do our eyes see?"

I was wondering about that also. And how many "frames"/sec? And how come I've never had problems with motion judder when panning? Why is the world not shaking when I'm running? And why can't I blur some people with shallow DOF?

[Bryan Arnold]

The BRAINCine demosaics the RAW stream from our native 3D rig [our eyes]...

And then stores it on Grey Drive :happyhappy:

What's the total amount of visual information we're storing per sec, per day or per lifetime? I don't think we're throwing anything away because people can remember all kind of things when hypnotised. Somehow we're recording and storing everything we ever saw.

[Dances With Cameras]

My little brother, not too long ago, asked, "How many K's do our eyes see?"


I think humanity is lost...:eek:

[Dances With Cameras]

And then stores it on Grey Drive :happyhappy:

What's the total amount of visual information we're storing per sec, per day or per lifetime? I don't think we're throwing anything away because people can remember all kind of things when hypnotised. Somehow we're recording and storing everything we ever saw.


I think yes.

Everything is connected and beautful.

Choose you day's divinity... first thing you see.

[Tim Hole]

This remind me of the episode of Red Dwarf that Kryton the mechanoid gets turned human:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3276397327958971757&q=red%20dwarf%20kryten&hl=en

[Peter Majtan]

Of course the irony of religion is that if You truly believe in God - his is already making such a camera through Jim & his team - as they would be his creation in the first place... :D

If You truly believe in God...

I don't - just for the record... :D

[millrick]

Of course the irony of religion is that if You truly believe in God - his is already making such a camera through Jim & his team

:Angel_anim: i'm glad that Red is on the side of the angels

:reddevil: and not the other team

[Dances With Cameras]

There are many gods...

[Bryan Arnold]

Of course the irony of religion is that if You truly believe in God - his is already making such a camera through Jim & his team - as they would be his creation in the first place... :D

If You truly believe in God...

I don't - just for the record... :D

Now that would be a discussion! Nobody knows for sure, so everybody believes something. Whatever that may be.

How is what we can see being projected? I mean, you can look at something without seeing it if you're thinking of something else. Do we have something like Picture in Picture or dualcore GPU's?

[Joseph Hutson]

If You truly believe in God...

I don't - just for the record... :D

Don't take it personal, but people didn't believe the world was flat. Did that mean it was?

...Nobody knows for sure...

Better check again.:thumbsup:

There are many gods...

Really?

Now that would be a discussion!

I would be MORE than happy to have that discussion!:thumbsup:

The problem is, I didn't even try to have a "theological discussion" on RedUser.net, I just asked if there were any people making "Christian Films", and got the threads closed.

If we can act like adults here on ScarletUser, I would LOVE to have the the "discussion".

Now unless someone takes this further, I will not keep making statements, as people(for some odd reason), cannot handle the thought of talking about these kind of things...I can.:happyhappy:

[Bryan Arnold]

Hey Joseph, if you take it up to Terry's Corner I'm sure we'll bite :). I don't mind going OT but it's kinda far OT for this thread, I think.

[Joseph Hutson]

Hey Joseph, if you take it up to Terry's Corner I'm sure we'll bite :). I don't mind going OT but it's kinda far OT for this thread, I think.

If you say so...:thumbsup:

[Tim Hole]

I can imagine have a serious theological debate on a forum would be frustrating and long!!!!! My philo/socio/theo musings always come out in my films. What always end up being very dark films, however the human mind is a dark place (unless you open the aperature!!)

[Stefan Christou]

I don't ever recall seeing blue light coming from the window while I'm indoors, or orange light coming from a house while I'm outdoors.


I see the color of light all the time. Not quite as harshley as I would through a Sony V1, but I see it. But I've only ever noticed it since working in TV.

There is an optical illusion out there on the web (find it) that is basically a picture of a chessboard with a pawn on it striking a 50% (ish) shadow accross the board. The eye percieves the shaddow accross a white square as being lighter than a dark square outside the shaddow, despite them both having the exact same luminosity (you can check it in photoshop).

Another trick you can do is focus on an object on the other side of the room, then put your open hand in the bottom part of your field of vision right close to your face. Look at your hand, taking note of the details, then look at the object on the other side of the room. Do the details stay on your hand? Weird huh? Now shake your hand about. Weirder still?

I heard somewhere that we only actually see about a third of our vision, the rest is guessed. And if you damage your retena, you see even less and guess more. Hence why I can't see fine rain despite having better than 20/20 vision. Good lenses, damaged sensor. I also get loads of noise in low light.

[Joseph Hutson]

Some people even see in B/W!:)

[Stefan Christou]

Oh wow i did not check the whole thread or I would have seen this whole theology thing going down. It's a shame the christian films thread got closed down. Would they close a thread on biker films? Religious beliefs are kinda personal though so it's probably not worth discussing them too vigourously

Stef

[Stefan Christou]

Some people even see in B/W!:)

I've always wondered what being red/green color blind would be like. Apparently they look the same color.

[Dances With Cameras]

Really?


Mm-yep. The Muslims got one, Christians got one, Jews too, native Americans, central Asians, Zulu, Voodoo, Chinese, Indians, Japanese...

Are they the same "God"?

If yes, why so many religions [which often fight bitterly against each other]?

Where's the "turn the other cheek" in the Crusades or the Jihad?

The Holy Inquisition? The talibans?

Something's wrong there...

I myself believe in some kind of divinity, something beyond... but I wouldn't venture to define it in any way...

(Oh, OK... maybe a movie, someday :))

For me, there's a huge difference between religion and what we could call "the divine"...

Anyway, just my personal position, nothing more...

[Peter Majtan]

I believe in ENERGY, physics and mathematics. It explains me how this world functions. That is enough for me... :D

[Joseph Hutson]

I believe in ENERGY, physics and mathematics. It explains me how this world functions. That is enough for me... :D

I believe in a God who CREATED "ENERGY, physics and mathematics. This is enough for me.

[Joseph Hutson]

Where's the "turn the other cheek" in the Crusades or the Jihad?

For the Crusades, the ones who instigated it, were more about building an empire for themselves, even though they "said" they were doing it in the name of Christianity. A very sad thing they did.

According to the Koran, I read that the infidels were to be killed, Surah 9:5
Am I wrong?

Whereas in the New Testament of the Bible, Matthew 5:44 says "Love your enemies as yourself.

Again, I have no problem furthering this conversation, if others do to.:thumbsup:

[Joseph Hutson]

Oh wow i did not check the whole thread or I would have seen this whole theology thing going down. It's a shame the christian films thread got closed down. Would they close a thread on biker films?
Stef

yes, a shame.

[Peter Majtan]

You have said that before - but we are all waiting for Your thread in the Off-Topic forum... :D

[Joseph Hutson]

Mm-yep. The Muslims got one, Christians got one, Jews too, native Americans, central Asians, Zulu, Voodoo, Chinese, Indians, Japanese...

Yes, but just because someone there is another God, does it mean really mean it is a TRUE God?

Jesus has the power to heal the sick, break addictions, and bring life to the dead.:thumbup1:

Do the other "gods" do that? If so, I would like to know.:thumbsup:

[Joseph Hutson]

You have said that before - but we are all waiting for Your thread in the Off-Topic forum... :D

I am sorry.

[Peter Majtan]

Jesus has the power to heal the sick, break addictions, and bring life to the dead.:thumbup1:

And so does cinema... :D

Joseph, really, let's stop hijacking this thread.

Can we please all return to human vision? Thank You and sorry Realogist... :D

[MattN]

Jesus has the power ... bring life to the dead.:thumbup1:

And so does cinema... :D

I LOVE zombie films!

[Stefan Christou]

robert rodriguez is a sort of god

[Joseph Hutson]

And so does cinema... :D

Joseph, really, let's stop hijacking this thread.

Can we please all return to human vision? Thank You and sorry Realogist... :D

I have, and sorry for hijacking the thread.:embarassed:

[Stefan Christou]

so has anyone tried the trick with holding your hand infront of your face I described abouve?

[Joseph Hutson]

so has anyone tried the trick with holding your hand infront of your face I described abouve?

Somewhat. :)

[Stefan Christou]

:thumbsup:* yay *

[Zhibo Lai]

And so does cinema... :D

Joseph, really, let's stop hijacking this thread.

Can we please all return to human vision? Thank You and sorry Realogist... :D

What's ironic is that God is on my top 3 list of most curious topics. I have thought about God all my life, in fact I want to make a docu/narrative about the definition of God. I am preparing for it, but first I want to make one on the morality of Abortion, and then onto the bigger question of God.

My SN Realogist is reflective of my philosophical pursuits. Realogist = one who studies Realogy = the study of Reality or what is Real. It is the quesiton of what is Real, what is truth, what is absolute.

So all this is very interesting for me. I will see if Off topic has been created, if not I will start one. Would be great feedback for my upcoming docu/narrative. I call it the argumentary - not quite a documentary (not based on facts), and not quite a narrative (not a ficticious story) but a film that presents an argument, neither fact or fiction, but a subjective view point.

Ok back to human eyes. Check off topic boards.

[Ayoji]

What would the bandwith of CNS that connects the eye and brain?
What are those floating things also? Its like dust that got traped but moves because of liquid.
I have some blind spots on one my Left eye and made my Right, Eye dominant. Even with glasses I have some dead pixels that make it hard to read.
Then body is an amazing thing. You dont quiet reliaze it until something goes wrong or you are a scientist trying to make a huminoid robot with AI!:rolleyes2:

[Jared Caldwell]

What would the bandwith of CNS that connects the eye and brain?
What are those floating things also? Its like dust that got traped but moves because of liquid.
I have some blind spots on one my Left eye and made my Right, Eye dominant. Even with glasses I have some dead pixels that make it hard to read.
Then body is an amazing thing. You dont quiet reliaze it until something goes wrong or you are a scientist trying to make a huminoid robot with AI!:rolleyes2:

The "dust" in your eye is actually broken down protein. In most people, that comes and goes. If you have an actual problem, I am sure you and your optometrist already know about it! :D

[Ayoji]

Yeah your right about Protien deposits.
My retina has a few burntout nerve endings due to Chemo/Steroids from when I was younger. So thats unrelated but it all adds to the unpleasant viewing experience. lol Thank God I can see though!:happyhappy:

About analog versus digital for eyes? I think its more like AI movie Orga versus Mecha. Im confident that we will find a way in the short term to replicate most things in a human, mechanically with help of nanotechnology.:) I think its harder to replicate organically.:(

[axiomission]

I've also kinda wondered about the human eye.... in a personal sense, can our vision be defined by any aspect ratio? Rather than calling it peripheral, where would the eye lie in that case...

PS. Joseph Hutson, you are awesome.

Back on topic though....

[Joseph Hutson]

PS. Joseph Hutson, you are awesome.


I am lost.:shocked: What did I say this time?

[axiomission]

I am lost.:shocked: What did I say this time?

hah, I read your "mini-hijack". But that's all I wanted to bring up, nothing more, nothing less. :thumbsup:

[Joseph Hutson]

hah, I read your "mini-hijack". But that's all I wanted to bring up, nothing more, nothing less. :thumbsup:

I started a new thread, and it wasn't me who started the hijack. Correct?

[axiomission]

I started a new thread, and it wasn't me who started the hijack. Correct?

No, I'm not blaming you. I was agreeing with you.

[Joseph Hutson]

No, I'm not blaming you. I was agreeing with you.

hehe, thanks.