A
Astro
Guest
kapanak said:Though we still win with the approximate 500-600MP sensors we have in our eyes![]()
and how much of your field of view is in sharp focus?
Upvote
0
kapanak said:Though we still win with the approximate 500-600MP sensors we have in our eyes![]()
Astro said:kapanak said:Though we still win with the approximate 500-600MP sensors we have in our eyes![]()
and how much of your field of view is in sharp focus?
psolberg said:Astro said:kapanak said:Though we still win with the approximate 500-600MP sensors we have in our eyes![]()
and how much of your field of view is in sharp focus?
couldn't care less for resolution. I want human eye dynamic range.
psolberg said:couldn't care less for resolution. I want human eye dynamic range.
Orangutan said:psolberg said:couldn't care less for resolution. I want human eye dynamic range.
I believe your camera already has better than that. I've heard around 7 stops "static" dynamic range for the eye. It appears much more because we constantly adjust "exposure." I.e., constant HDR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Dynamic_rangepsolberg said:Orangutan said:psolberg said:couldn't care less for resolution. I want human eye dynamic range.
I believe your camera already has better than that. I've heard around 7 stops "static" dynamic range for the eye. It appears much more because we constantly adjust "exposure." I.e., constant HDR.
I don't think so. I can see way more than my camera or at least I perceive that way.
freaking human eye FTW.
kapanak said:While we wait to get a sensor equivalent of that of the human eye,
shall we beg Canon for something like this in the meantime?
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/23/2818815/nhk-ultra-hd-image-sensor
Why do we need photography again? Just turn it on, and choose your shots later ...
8192 × 4320 pixels at 120 frames per second ... Imagine this will be mainstream in 20 years ... O_O ...