What resolution are our eyes?
Discussion
Here's one for you... I've been looking at HD TV recently and camera's etc., and it got me thinking about all this talk of megapixels, resolution and colour definition etc.
So at what point does the definition of an image or movie become greater than our eye can resolve? Can we even measure our eyes in megapixel terms?
So at what point does the definition of an image or movie become greater than our eye can resolve? Can we even measure our eyes in megapixel terms?
I think it's tricky.
The "pixels" of the human eye are different I think.
They're not regularly spaced like those of a computer image, they're more of a splattter painting.
On top of that we have two sets of image sensors overlaid. We have a very sensitive wideband image sensor which is monochrome, and a less sensitive, color sensor.
On top of that, we have a focal spot, and peripheral vision.
Our heads are not static, and the brain integrates multiple images over time, from each of the sensors, and from each of the focal and peripheral vision.
The final image that is seen is a composite of all of these. Some people may have other abilities, but these are those that I have identifed from my own vision, in conjunction with a little bit of knowledge about computers and Computer Generated Imagery.
There are probably, a considerable number of specialist cognition capabilities, that extract geometry, orientation, and all of the spatial features of whart we see. In addition there are a whole raft of mechanisims that allow us to interpret the written word allowing us to imagine things that we can't see but can read about.
There is probably a deterministic point at which one can say, an unaided human can't resolve a pixel, but much like the 22KHz hearing range it's different for everybody, based on the the person, and how good his/her visual cognition system is.
Personally for me, it's the dot pitch of my monitor, in 24bit colour, at a range of 18".
The "pixels" of the human eye are different I think.
They're not regularly spaced like those of a computer image, they're more of a splattter painting.
On top of that we have two sets of image sensors overlaid. We have a very sensitive wideband image sensor which is monochrome, and a less sensitive, color sensor.
On top of that, we have a focal spot, and peripheral vision.
Our heads are not static, and the brain integrates multiple images over time, from each of the sensors, and from each of the focal and peripheral vision.
The final image that is seen is a composite of all of these. Some people may have other abilities, but these are those that I have identifed from my own vision, in conjunction with a little bit of knowledge about computers and Computer Generated Imagery.
There are probably, a considerable number of specialist cognition capabilities, that extract geometry, orientation, and all of the spatial features of whart we see. In addition there are a whole raft of mechanisims that allow us to interpret the written word allowing us to imagine things that we can't see but can read about.
There is probably a deterministic point at which one can say, an unaided human can't resolve a pixel, but much like the 22KHz hearing range it's different for everybody, based on the the person, and how good his/her visual cognition system is.
Personally for me, it's the dot pitch of my monitor, in 24bit colour, at a range of 18".
Good question . . . I think human eyes see unsharp and fill in the gaps . . . A pic on a screen / printer / whatever device you can zoom into to see the dpi.
www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/comp99/CS041.htm
This is what I found and was satisfied with . . .
www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/comp99/CS041.htm
This is what I found and was satisfied with . . .
Sorry 968, but that was genuinely amusing..... 
that is indeed very funny 
I reckon the limitaion is more to do with the lens, as that is where the problems of sight arise.
It seems to do the job a treat according to my eyes. One thing which intrigues me is where are "real vision" is, apparently what we take as real is a kind of virtual reality in our brain, very very odd concept.
It seems to do the job a treat according to my eyes. One thing which intrigues me is where are "real vision" is, apparently what we take as real is a kind of virtual reality in our brain, very very odd concept.
I'd imagine its very poor.
Most of what you see is concentrated in one point on the eye - try looking at a word in this post, and then, without moving your eyeballs, reading a word in the post above this. Its almost impossible.
Colour recognition in peripheral vision is also very poor as well.
Most of what you see is concentrated in one point on the eye - try looking at a word in this post, and then, without moving your eyeballs, reading a word in the post above this. Its almost impossible.
Colour recognition in peripheral vision is also very poor as well.
parrot of doom said:
I'd imagine its very poor.
Most of what you see is concentrated in one point on the eye - try looking at a word in this post, and then, without moving your eyeballs, reading a word in the post above this. Its almost impossible.
Colour recognition in peripheral vision is also very poor as well.
If you want to test the monochrome capability of your eyes, and the way it connects to peripheral vision, try using a spent phosphorescent clock in the dark.
When they have been recently charged, say by a table lamp, you can see them without difficulty in the dark.
I find that once they have faded, I can only see them if I don't look directly at them. It's the most frustrating thing. You cant read the time, because you can't see the hands if you directly look at them. If I look away from the clock, I can see the hands, but I cant read the time from them.
That shows me that the monochrome sensor is physically wideband (and/or sensitive), but as you point out, it's connected with the cognition of peripheral vision.
>> Edited by dilbert on Friday 22 April 23:50
Obviously it depends on the distance you are viewing from. If you look closely at a pixel image you are more likely to see graininess than if stared at from a distance.
This link describes the problem well:-
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
This link describes the problem well:-
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff