View Single Post
Posts: 2,006 | Thanked: 3,351 times | Joined on Jun 2010 @ N900: Battery low. N950: torx 4 re-used once and fine; SIM port torn apart
#490
Originally Posted by endsormeans View Post
For example the data that the brain receives from viewing colour alone ...is staggering.
And the incredible function of what the eye manages in collecting that data ...even more staggering.

Just for one example.
(and I know myself I still decades later cannot help but look in absolute wonder and awe ...every now and then ...when I see the colour in question...even still..and I know many will be equally haunted by this once they read it.)

Find anything that has this colour in it.
https://colourlex.com/wp-content/upl..._225-2-opt.jpg

whether man made or natural.

Now that I have exposed you to this colour.
This is what happens to your eyes.
The moment you looked at it.
The physical characteristics of it are that the nature of the colour yellow vibrates at a molecular level to be able to be visible for us.
For the human eye to discern the colour you just saw,
the molecules in the human eye must set up a corresponding speed to the same rhythm of the colour yellow.

That speed of the molecules in the human eye recognizing that colour yellow are vibrating so many times a second.

A glance at the colour yellow ...
for the eye ..
the number of vibrations the molecules do and the data transmit thereby are the equivalent to the number of all the waves that have washed up on every shore of Earth since the dawn of our planet.
In that one moment.
Sounds like pseudo-science. At least, the part about shore of Earth.

Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
And ajakane, have you seen a human eye? It's enormous. You would have a hard time fitting it in a full-size SLR, let alone a thin mobile phone. And it's still ractually rather rubbish. The only reason it appears semi-decent is the huge computing power thrown at image post-processing. The good pictures you think your eyes capture are just an illusion.
Agree. This post-processing involves accounting for the near-sightedness of the eye, or any other problems with "hardware". Also, when looking somewhere, eyes don't stand in one place - they dart around, processing the scene, and maybe even focusing at different points. I don't expect that modern cameras can change focus that quickly - and even if they can, they still lack ability to rotate around.

Actually, human eyes are about the only reason I think dual-camera setup to make sense - for stereo vision and such. Anything having more than three cameras is overkill - and even then, it can be argued that the "third eye" in fish, lizards, tuatara and such is merely a light sensor - and by the way, living "cameras" do not have flash-light (which is so common in modern cameras).

Actually, optical zoom is not included in human eyes either. But I still admire phones which include camera with optical zoom. Be it Nokia N93 or Samsung G810. Even though moving parts are fragile by definition... I still admire sliders, with sand getting stuck inside and everything.

Thank you. Best wishes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Per aspera ad astra...

[Edit]
Originally Posted by mscion View Post
From what I've read, the newer (past couple of years) Pixels take better pics tham most high end phones because of software it uses to process photos. I believe it takes multiple shots when you snap a picture and processes them make a superior final pic. It uses HDR+ tech. So hopefully the Google pixel camera apk works on the phone and you'll have pretty good pics even if the camera hardware is not the best.
Supports the point about image post-processing being as important as, or even more important than, camera hardware. By the way, it would probably be nice to off-load image processing to a dedicated chip, similar to GPU, instead of having the software run on standard CPU.
[/Edit]
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Wikiwide For This Useful Post: