Resolution of the Human Eye

[Silencer]

Cameras and such devices are rated by their resolution, or how many pixels they cram into a specific area (DPI).

 

I was wondering, what is the resolution of the human eye? When do you think we'll be able to create cameras that see better than us?

[5614]

From here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4555

We get this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html

link which gives us an answer, but not quite the answer... lets see what others say!

[Mokele]

From the above website, peak density seems to be about 175,000/mm. But light has to pass through the lens, so I'm not sure how that translates into whether we can distinguish pixels or the like at a certain distance. I never was very good at Optics.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

The Rayleigh criterion places a physical limit due to diffraction.

 

That limit, combined with a "near point" of the eye of 15-25 cm, gives a limit of around 300-400 dots per inch, which is what is considered good (print or photo) quality. At that level you are at the threshold of losing the ability to tell that the picture is analog or digital.

[Dak]

gnuh: fizix

 

I was wondering, what is the resolution of the human eye? When do you think we'll be able to create cameras that see better than us?

arent eletron-microscopes essentially cameras with a better resolution than the human eye due to there use of eletrons, which have a smaller wavelength than light (and which also possibly changes the rayleigh criterion allowing for better resolution in a theorietical 'perfect' EM, although im crap at phisics so im not sure)?

 

or do you mean cameras as in kodak?

[Mag]

At that level you are at the threshold of losing the ability to tell that the picture is analog or digital.

 

whats analog and digital?

*feels dumb*

[swansont]

whats analog and digital?

*feels dumb*

 

analog is continuous, digital is discrete. A conventional photo is considered analog, since the size of the emulsion grains are so much smaller than we can detect with our eye. A digital photo is (surprise!) digital, since there are a set amount of pixels.

[brad89]

Cameras and such devices are rated by their resolution' date=' or how many pixels they cram into a specific area (DPI).

 

I was wondering, what is the resolution of the human eye? When do you think we'll be able to create cameras that see better than us?[/quote']

 

I wonder, would the resolution of the human eye be the amount of photons that we can cram into our field of vision?

[brad89]

By the way, for a camera to be able to see better than us is impossible, because we would never know due to we would be the ones to look at its image, making its picture the same as our eye. Also, I guess that you could say that it would be able to see past our visible spectrum, but that already exists.

[Icheb]

By the way, for a camera to be able to see better than us is impossible, because we would never know due to we would be the ones to look at its image, making its picture the same as our eye. Also, I guess that you could say that it would be able to see past our visible spectrum, but that already exists.

Actually, you can . If you take a picture with a camera that is supposedly better than your eyes, you can try to zoom in to the picture. If the picture quality stays the same, the camera is better .

[swansont]

Actually, you can . If you take a picture with a camera that is supposedly better than your eyes, you can try to zoom in to the picture. If the picture quality stays the same, the camera is better .

 

Exactly. Cameras have to be better than our eyes for this reason. You don't want to see the limitations of the camera in the picture.