Amazing Mega Pixel eyes - See the invisible!

06/16/2005 10:33:15 AM · #1

I've noticed something about my Canon 20D.... it can see the invisible!

Let me explain - i've taken a few shots of ships, freightors and airplanes and have been amazed when I zoom in on these photos.

A picture of a freighter all the way across the harbor. Maybe an inch of space in the photo...but when I zoomed in I could clearly read on the building structure in large red letters "No Smoking"!

A picture of a small cessna type aircraft flying over head - zoomed in and could read the registration numbers. Likewise on a larger jet much higher over head I could see the numbers on the engines (well just the bottom half).

But none of these items were visible to my naked eye. Now, I read articles about them implanting articificial eyes in people who are blind. And although the first experiments only allow them to differentiate between dark and light objects. How long until anyone who is blind but has a working optic nerve will be able to see again thanks to digital replacements?

Okay, that's all fine and dandy. Now say you need thick bi-focals...will cybernetic replacement eyes become available within 40 yrs? if so, how long until this becomes cosmetic?

You were born brown eyes - you want blue...furthermore all your friends with cybernetic eyes can see much father than you can! I wonder how long until retinal and/or ocular replacements truly become feasible.

Already Canon's 1Ds Mark II is impressive...what about in 5 yrs when they have a 48mega-pixel sensor?

I wonder what mega-pixel rating our eyes actual are? does anyone know what they're equivalent too?

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

06/16/2005 10:35:10 AM · #2

48mp sensors? there are just so many pixels that can fit into a 35mm frame... the rest just becomes noise.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/16/2005 10:40:35 AM · #3

48mp sensors? there are just so many pixels that can fit into a 35mm frame... the rest just becomes noise.

Naw...we're no where near the limit yet. You have to realize that the 5mp point and shoots have way smaller sensors than the DSLRs and are cramming them much tighter. They're not as quality conscience to be sure. But you must realize that our density ability has been increasing consistently for years. (see Moore's Law). And just as over the last decade processor chips are written in smaller and smaller / denser and denser manufacturing processes - likewise the same is true for sensors, flash memory, etc.

It's called nanotechnology...

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

06/16/2005 10:44:32 AM · #4

Although quantum noise becomes an issue which you don't have to account for when designing chips (AFAIM) when looking at photodiodes.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/16/2005 10:44:47 AM · #5

Originally posted by Gil P:

there are just so many pixels that can fit into a 35mm frame...

I'm sure some people were saying 'there's only so many transistors you can put on a microprocessor' 15 years ago when we were all using 3 Mhz chips.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

06/16/2005 10:45:36 AM · #6

Seen a number of articles on research and trials of the first digital sensors for those who have lost their sight but have working nerves within their eye.

Initial trials showed that the sensors worked and the trialists were able to distinguish the light and dark accurately.

Of course, these sensors were something like 16 pixels in resolution (yes I mean 16 not 16 mega) so there's a long way to go yet!

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

06/16/2005 11:00:12 AM · #7

Once you hit about 12mp you're starting to rival film quality. So long as the body has no kinks in it, you might never have to upgrade from there on except if you're a crop-o-holic which is considered a poor practice by me (even tho I still sometimes crop if it's really needed).

fstopopen

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/16/2005 11:02:30 AM · #8

or if you want REALLY big prints that rival the quality of medium or large format cameras. MORE MEGAPIXELS!!! MORE MEGAPIXELS!!!

hehe

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

06/16/2005 11:08:48 AM · #9

Just to stomp all over your sandcastle....something like a 10x zoom could be very dangerous on artificial eyes as it would mess with ones perception of where you are, causing balance issues and possibly even motion sickness.
So for safety reasons, I don't think that kind of zoom in the eye is realistic. Anyone who's ever tried walking and shooting with zoom at the time will know what I'm on about!

However, I'm all for improving vision problems artifically.
My 2 cents!
:P

Message edited by author 2005-06-16 11:10:09.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

06/16/2005 11:15:52 AM · #10

Originally posted by kyebosh:

I thought the going number was 8mp for film grain...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

06/16/2005 11:27:20 AM · #11

Originally posted by PollyBean:

Not talking about zoom really. For example...most people see 20/20 (or should). A lot of us see 20/30, 20/40, 20/80 and even 20/400 or worse. However, a few see 20/10.

Even if I used a lense that was human eye equivalent (I think that's 35mm right?) the difference of image quality between a 3megapixel and a 16megapixel image is inherent. My thought is NOT to have 10x zoom, but increased clarity of image.

If look at a street sign without my glasses and compare it to viewing with my glasses. Both are approx. the same size but there is a great difference in clarity.

And of course this doesn't even cover how the human mind would handle alternative colors (infra-red/UV) if given the chance?

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

06/16/2005 11:29:17 AM · #12

But even a 16mp image is useless if you're looking at it when it's 640pix wide...you have to be able to zoom in to take advantage of it (or print big). Our eyes are more or less standard size...I'm not sure that better resolution would really help.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/16/2005 11:46:33 AM · #13

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by PollyBean:
Just to stomp all over your sandcastle....something like a 10x zoom could be very dangerous on artificial eyes as it would mess with ones perception of where you are, causing balance issues and possibly even motion sickness.

Not talking about zoom really. For example...most people see 20/20 (or should). A lot of us see 20/30, 20/40, 20/80 and even 20/400 or worse. However, a few see 20/10.

Even if I used a lense that was human eye equivalent (I think that's 35mm right?) the difference of image quality between a 3megapixel and a 16megapixel image is inherent. My thought is NOT to have 10x zoom, but increased clarity of image.

If look at a street sign without my glasses and compare it to viewing with my glasses. Both are approx. the same size but there is a great difference in clarity.

And of course this doesn't even cover how the human mind would handle alternative colors (infra-red/UV) if given the chance?

Ok, sorry for misinterpreting! It would be kewl if you could artifically focus on an obj (that you couldn't naturally see), and see it clearly, with some kind of implant/attachment. Not fully understanding the hardware limitations of the brain and its image processing, it's difficult to really know the extent of what is possible. But it is exciting to think about.

Message edited by author 2005-06-16 11:50:25.

magicshutter

Nikon D70

06/16/2005 11:52:38 AM · #14

I think this thread fails to see the reality of the situation. Sure, you could crank up the resolution of eyes (which is what glasses do aside from correcting focusing problems at certain distances). But if someone is an idiot, they would have no idea how to utilize the higher resolution. Our brains would have to be the processor of said image, and some of us don't have but a few MB of memory let alone RAM. However, our brain already 'zoom' in a digital zoom sense. I can imagine what I'm looking at bigger, and mentally create detail which is what digital zoom does.. Sort of like resampling (ever notices how pixelated a 750x digital zoom camcorder gets?). Fact is, a zooming eye would have to be external (no room inside) which would make the 'implant' part of it redundant. Why not just take what they already have, Monoculars that have digi cameras built in, one step further and make it melon mountable. As far as the blind, they are dealt a tough card in life, I couldn't imagine not having sight. I support any efforts, including implants to fix what isn't working correctly.

Message edited by author 2005-06-16 11:53:36.

bpickard

Fujifilm FinePix S3000

06/16/2005 11:55:05 AM · #15

Originally posted by PollyBean:

In fact people can get used to some very unusual viewing conditions very quickly. There was one experiment where volounteers were fitted with glasses which inverted everything they saw. After a few days they were completely used to it and actually had difficulties adapting to normal vision when the glasses were removed! As for the megapixellage of the eye, check out this site (sight?!).
I think each eye is the equivalent of a 350 rebel (cones, at least) but remember that this is just the detailed part of the field of view and that each cone cell has hundreds/thousands of photoreceptors.

Ben

06/16/2005 12:07:26 PM · #16

I googled this article on glasses mounted camera, if anyone's interested.

Sure, our bodies are very adaptable, but getting used to an inverted image is one thing, and getting used to a 10x zoom is another! People with telescopic specs have problems with image stabilization.

Message edited by author 2005-06-16 12:08:02.

dpakoh

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/16/2005 12:14:33 PM · #17

I don't know where I found it before.. But they have an image online showing the size of a standard point and shoot digital in comparison to a 35mm film area, and the canon 20D (mark 1D.. etc) senor area, and that of a large format camera. The 20D's sensor area is a slight bit larger than 35mm therefore giving you better results than a standard 35mm film camera

However, forget 48 mega pixel sensor area. Try 4 Billion Pixels //www.gigapxl.org 4,000MP camera. Don't forget to try the zooming on the site. Its increadible....

Finally a true digital answer to large format cameras.

06/16/2005 12:24:44 PM · #18

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

First off, 16mp vs .5megapixel ? What I believe you are saying is that it's worthless if you're resampling a 16mp image down to a .5mp image. True. But who said we were reducing it.

I think what you are forgetting is DPI?

You are forgetting pixel size. What is the size of your pixel. We often measure this in DPI. For example. Printing a 16 megapixel 4"x6" image on a 600dpi is over kill. But if you had an advanced 6000dpi printer it might not be so overkill - now would it? In fact, microprocessors are printed in an extremely high DPI (millions-dpi).

A 640x480 image printed at 300dpi = approx. 2"+ x 1 1/2"

A 640x480 image printed at 150dpi = approx. 4 1/4" x 3"

---------------------------------------------------------

The question is what DPI is our brain evaluate too? And what is the size of the screen for which it displays?

Hence, if our brain handles only 300dpi on an 8"x10" equivalent, we are able to determine that today's current megapixel rate is adequate for the job. But if our brain views in an equivalence of 2400dpi that 640x480 resolution will generate an image only 1/4"+ x 3/16"+ of an inch.

"Fact is, a zooming eye would have to be external (no room inside) which would make the 'implant' part of it redundant."
[[[Actually this is not true...my 70-200mm IS lens can zoom in and out with out any extension of size. And such would be the method that would be used in any artificial eye.]]]

"As far as the blind, they are dealt a tough card in life, I couldn't imagine not having sight. I support any efforts, including implants to fix what isn't working correctly."
[[[Eye support all efforts as well...]]]

"I think each eye is the equivalent of a 350 rebel (cones, at least) but remember that this is just the detailed part of the field of view and that each cone cell has hundreds/thousands of photoreceptors." - bpickard

[[[I bet that's somehow tied to the equivalent to what I was referencing above with DPI]]]

06/16/2005 12:25:24 PM · #19

Originally posted by dpakoh:

However, forget 48 mega pixel sensor area. Try 4 Billion Pixels //www.gigapxl.org 4,000MP camera. Don't forget to try the zooming on the site. Its increadible....

Finally a true digital answer to large format cameras.

Wowsa! Now that's what I call a camera!

06/16/2005 12:31:27 PM · #20

Thanks for the link, from what I gather the eye has the following:

6mp color sensor combined with a 125mp contrast/detail sensor - still unsure of the interpreted DPI...

---------

The 20D's sensor area is a slight bit larger than 35mm therefore giving you better results than a standard 35mm film camera

[[[Actually, it's smaller...(hence the 1.6x crop factor) the 1Ds Mark II is the one with the full frame sensor.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

06/16/2005 12:36:23 PM · #21

Saj,

I googled this: Res and human eye. It has some content about what the eyes' megapixel equivalent.

P

ty_roni

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/16/2005 12:49:48 PM · #22

Check this out:
The blind see with electronic eye

Message edited by author 2005-06-16 12:50:38.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/16/2005 01:16:00 PM · #23

Originally posted by theSaj:

Already Canon's 1Ds Mark II is impressive...what about in 5 yrs when they have a 48mega-pixel sensor?

I wonder what mega-pixel rating our eyes actual are? does anyone know what they're equivalent too?

To answer you question. This may help.

Human Eye Resolution [Internet Article]

EDIT: Link is much shorter than post.. :)

Message edited by author 2005-06-16 13:36:47.

06/16/2005 01:30:57 PM · #24

.

Message edited by author 2005-06-16 13:33:27.

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II