Comparing Digital Imaging Technology to the Human Eye
Bet a birds eye, say a hawk, is up to the equivalent of about a 400mm on a 35mm body.
This is a discussion on digital-imaging-technology vs the Human Eye within the Open Talk forums, part of the General Information category; Comparing Digital Imaging Technology to the Human Eye Bet a birds eye, say a hawk, is up to the equivalent ...
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
digital-imaging-technology vs the Human Eye
Comparing Digital Imaging Technology to the Human Eye
Bet a birds eye, say a hawk, is up to the equivalent of about a 400mm on a 35mm body.
They kinda sorta did, but they should have expressed dynamic range in terms we can all understand. I also disagree with the ISO and f/stop range.
For the time being, a well calibrated PAIR of eyeballs (a.k.a. 3-D) beats any recording device.
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
My Gallery"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" K.R.
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
Go to this page, and scroll down to the article "HDR sucks… most of the time"
Digital Photo Blog
This is an article written by a pro friend of mine, and it explains what we can actually see using our eyes.
I disagree vehemently with the ISO assesment. If I take an image with a camera at ISO 800 at f/2 with the current level of light in my living room (lets say at 1/30) I will get a very dark image and would not be able to discern printing on a piece of paper as it will be too dark, but if I open my eyes and look around in that same room, I can easily make out all level of details.
Not sure what the equivalency would be but I would bet somewhere around 6400-25000
Nevermind -- I'll take care of it myself!
|
|
Reply With Quote
