| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2005 02:07:56 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by PollyBean:
Saj,
I googled this: Res and human eye. It has some content about what the eyes' megapixel equivalent.
P |
Fun link PollyBean,....thanks!
|
|
|
|
06/16/2005 02:15:00 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by fstopopen:
or if you want REALLY big prints that rival the quality of medium or large format cameras. MORE MEGAPIXELS!!! MORE MEGAPIXELS!!!
|
The 1Ds already rivals MF film |
|
|
|
06/16/2005 02:43:28 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
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...
|
Sorry Saj, not that simple. There is no DPI in the brain because there is no display screen in the brain, metaphorically or otherwise. This is in fact a famous conundrum that psychologists and philosophers have been aware of for centuries: If the eye's purpose is to reproduce as accurately as possible an image inside the brain, then there must be some process "watching" that image. Let's call that process a homunculus (you know, the little person in the bottle). If the homunculus is watching the "display" in your brain, then there must also be an image on on display in its brain. Which means there must be an even smaller homunculus inside its brain! And so on and so forth... see the problem?
Yes, there is a relatively undistorted image that gets projected onto the retina. The retina outputs a heavily warped and filtered version of that image which gets sent via the optic nerve to the LGN for further processing and from there on to the visual cortex area V1 (at the back of your scull). By doing nasty things to animals, scientists have verified that a recognizable "image" is in fact being represented in V1, and yes you could talk about DPI of the foveal part of that image (it would be meaningless outside the fovea due to massive warping).
But beyond V1 there are many stages of visual processing where the whole concept of pixels becomes meaningless. It's all edges and textures and surfaces and attributes, and ultimately objects with labels like "tree (attribute:tall)", "car (attribute:red)", etc. Only then do you actually became aware of what you are seeing. So adding more resolution to the front end (the retina) wouldn't make any difference, you'd have to rewire most of the brain. There is tremendous hope for artificial eyes for those who are blind but have a working visual cortex. But even if those eyes could eventually offer similar quality vision as the rest of us have, that doesn't even begin to address the problem of building a better visual system than ours. |
|
|
|
06/16/2005 02:46:18 PM · #29 |
| well those who have the higher PX count implanted in their eye would also have the ability to print straight from their head without the need for a computer |
|
|
|
06/16/2005 03:02:16 PM · #30 |
"There is no DPI in the brain because there is no display screen in the brain...If the eye's purpose is to reproduce as accurately as possible an image inside the brain, then there must be some process "watching" that image"
[[[Actually, there is a virtual size. That will be a valuation of spatial understanding and said image composed with the eye's resolution extrapolated to the brain's spatial understanding. This would be a mathematical process and not a physical process....sorry no little man inside.]]]
"So adding more resolution to the front end (the retina) wouldn't make any difference"
[[[I disagree, we do not know this. Sure there is post processing. But the data received for that processing will result in greater understanding. Take an individual who is color blind. They do not receive all the data and therefore they do not see colors. The true question comes about as to whether the brain could handle and process additional input. And there are many who believe it could. There are many who theorize that if a third eye was connected to the brain that there is the potential that the brain might be able to compose the imagery and process it much the way it does with two eyes. If it had opportunity to grow with it.
]]]
"There is tremendous hope for artificial eyes for those who are blind but have a working visual cortex."
[[[I did state this only applied to someone with a function optical neural system except for the eyes (photo receptors) themselves.]]]
"But even if those eyes could eventually offer similar quality vision as the rest of us have, that doesn't even begin to address the problem of building a better visual system than ours."
[[[If we can achieve similar quality vision then the question is can the brain exceed normal processing levels. If so, then yes we can exceed it.]]]
|
|
|
|
06/16/2005 05:11:06 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"There is no DPI in the brain because there is no display screen in the brain...If the eye's purpose is to reproduce as accurately as possible an image inside the brain, then there must be some process "watching" that image"
[[[Actually, there is a virtual size. That will be a valuation of spatial understanding and said image composed with the eye's resolution extrapolated to the brain's spatial understanding. This would be a mathematical process and not a physical process....sorry no little man inside.]]]
|
My point in retelling that philosophical chestnut was that reproducing an image inside the brain is only the beginning, the process that follows is what vision is all about. And sure that process is mathematical, but math doesn't happen by itself, it only happens in the brain because it's implemented in wet-ware.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"So adding more resolution to the front end (the retina) wouldn't make any difference"
[[[I disagree, we do not know this. Sure there is post processing. But the data received for that processing will result in greater understanding. Take an individual who is color blind. They do not receive all the data and therefore they do not see colors. The true question comes about as to whether the brain could handle and process additional input. And there are many who believe it could. There are many who theorize that if a third eye was connected to the brain that there is the potential that the brain might be able to compose the imagery and process it much the way it does with two eyes. If it had opportunity to grow with it.
]]]
|
Well, at a minimum, the optic nerve and lateral ganglion nucleus would need to be rewired, otherwise the extra resolution would never get to the visual cortex. That's about 200 km of neural axons right there (two million axons averaging 10 cm each). Then in cortical area V1 all that extra resolution would need to be processed in parallel, because unlike a computer, V1 does parallel, not serial computation. That means totally rewiring V1 and possibly down-stream cortical areas as well. As you point out brains can adapt quite a bit, but this amount of total rewiring could only happen via genetic engineering or evolution. Either way, I wouldn't expect hold my breath waiting for enhanced-resolution vision. |
|
|
|
06/16/2005 05:35:48 PM · #32 |
MHMHMHMHMHMH\\````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````//MHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHM\\````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````//MMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMH\\````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````//MHMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHM\\````````````````````````````````````````````````````````//MHMMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH\\````````````````````````````````````````````````````//MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHM\\````````````````````````````````````````````````//MHMHMMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH\\````````````````````````````````````````````//MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHM\\````````````````````````````````````````//MHMHMHMMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH\\````````````````````````````````````//MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHM\\````````````````````````````````//MHMHMHMHMMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH\\````````````````````````````//MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHM\\````````````````````````//MHMHMHMHMHMMHMHMHMHMHMH
MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH\\``````DEEP``````//MHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH
Message edited by author 2005-06-16 17:36:23.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 09:21:42 AM EDT.
