Approximating the human eye

[DocFrankenstein]

In that case, you might say that the eye + brain have no DOF at all, which I agree with.

BUT: when you're looking at the print the DOF matters imo, and that's where the DOF of the eye should match the dof of the eye...

I'm curious. Why would anybody want to approximate the human eye? What do u think that will accomplish?

 

[walter23]

Man is that what you believe, So another wards you will go out and buy the most expensive camera and put the cheapest lens you can find on it. Does that even make sense. The eye and the brain work as one, there is no I in team. there is no camera that can match the human eye and brain both are marvels that can not be reproduced. I am not trying to be a prick or anything and everyone is entitled to thier opinion, but that statement was so WRONG

The eye is good but it really is the brain that does most of your seeing. When you look at a scene you are constantly scanning it and focusing on different points while your brain assembles this information into a panorama with basically infinite depth of field. So I guess the best answer to the camera-analogue question would be ultra-wide with infinite depth of field.

 

[lampuiho]

Most of you must have failed high school biology because the pupil only changes the amount of light going into your eye. It does not change the DOF. It is that the lens that change the magnification. And they are controlled by the ciliary muscle. By changing the magnification, the distance to perfect focus change but the depth of field doesn't change at all.

 

[Helen B]

Most of you must have failed high school biology because the pupil only changes the amount of light going into your eye. It does not change the DOF. It is that the lens that change the magnification. And they are controlled by the ciliary muscle. By changing the magnification, the distance to perfect focus change but the depth of field doesn't change at all.

You don't really understand optics, do you?

 

[rexbobcat]

Most of you must have failed high school biology because the pupil only changes the amount of light going into your eye. It does not change the DOF. It is that the lens that change the magnification. And they are controlled by the ciliary muscle. By changing the magnification, the distance to perfect focus change but the depth of field doesn't change at all.

Totally, because it's not like the pupil is ANYTHING like the aperture of a camera lens.

 

[Buckster]

Most of you must have failed high school biology because the pupil only changes the amount of light going into your eye. It does not change the DOF. It is that the lens that change the magnification. And they are controlled by the ciliary muscle. By changing the magnification, the distance to perfect focus change but the depth of field doesn't change at all.

You don't really understand optics, do you?

He also doesn't understand what it means to dig up threads that have been dead for nearly 8 years and try to take a crap on its participants.

 

[Buckster]

To give you an example - if you look at something you like or someone you find attractive your pupils get bigger. If the eye used depth of field then this would reduce it which, in this situation, would be counter-productive.

I don't think it would be counter-productive at all. When the pupil/aperture widens, foreground and background elements blur more, allowing us to have the actual subject more isolated. This makes sense to me in the case of looking at someone we find attractive.

 

[lampuiho]

Most of you must have failed high school biology because the pupil only changes the amount of light going into your eye. It does not change the DOF. It is that the lens that change the magnification. And they are controlled by the ciliary muscle. By changing the magnification, the distance to perfect focus change but the depth of field doesn't change at all.

You don't really understand optics, do you?

He also doesn't understand what it means to dig up threads that have been dead for nearly 8 years and try to take a crap on its participants.

It's funny you said that when it's not called taking a crap on the participants. This is more like clearing up misconception.

A discussion of nature can never be dead. Information is still relevant even if it's 8 year old.

Changing the size of the pupil doesn't change the size of the lens or focal length or magnification at all. But it does change the angle the light can go in. But it is largely irrelevant because it still doesn't change whether light gets focused on your retina.

Do you really think you can see further by making your hand scope like and put it in front of your eye? Definitely not, I tried.

I would accept your point if you have any sort of proof. But varying pupil sizes just don't change the depth of field for me.

 

[amolitor]

Optical depth of field is almost a meaningless concept for eyes. It's there, I guess, but largely irrelevant. The imaging system is only a very tiny part of how the image we "see" is constructed.

 

[lampuiho]

Optical depth of field is almost a meaningless concept for eyes. It's there, I guess, but largely irrelevant. The imaging system is only a very tiny part of how the image we "see" is constructed.

It's meaningful because I've recently been working on a depth of field post-processing shader program.

 

[KmH]

Well good luck to you with that.

Will the DoF post-processing shader program work like the human eye?

 

[Buckster]

You don't really understand optics, do you?

He also doesn't understand what it means to dig up threads that have been dead for nearly 8 years and try to take a crap on its participants.

It's funny you said that when it's not called taking a crap on the participants.

THIS IS trying to take a crap on the participants, and was uncalled for: "Most of you must have failed high school biology"

This is more like clearing up misconception.

Except that you're not.

A discussion of nature can never be dead. Information is still relevant even if it's 8 year old.

Common forum etiquette is in play here. An 8 year old thread's participants are usually long gone, and the thread is DEAD. If you want to have this discussion with the current forum participants, start a new thread and deliver your message.

Changing the size of the pupil doesn't change the size of the lens or focal length or magnification at all.

Nobody said it does, so you're just constructing a strawman with that statement.

Do you really think you can see further by making your hand scope like and put it in front of your eye? Definitely not, I tried.

Again, that's not what ANYBODY is saying. You don't actually know what DOF is, do you?

I would accept your point if you have any sort of proof. But varying pupil sizes just don't change the depth of field for me.

The pupil dilating has to change the DOF - it's simple optical physics, like it or not. It doesn't mean it gives you telescopic eyes (the argument you seem to be trying to strawman against), it means that DOF changes.

The human eye changing focal length by looking at something very close up vs. something very far away does it as well, just like a camera's lens does. When looking at something inches from our face, the DOF is very narrow, compared to looking at mountains far off in the distance, where the DOF is miles deep, not a few inches.

 

[Buckster]

By the way, here's an experiment you can try that I learned as a kid who needed glasses at age 10: Put a pinhole in a piece of paper, then look through it - the whole world gets sharper. Guess why? Smaller aperture at the front of the eye causes a change in DOF, increasing it significantly.

 

[Josh66]

There was an interesting discussion about this in the 'I Shoot Film' group on Flickr a few weeks ago - Flickr: Discussing apertures vs eye balls in I Shoot Film

 

[kundalini]

[off topic]

There was an interesting discussion about this in the 'I Shoot Film' group on Flickr a few weeks ago - Flickr: Discussing apertures vs eye balls in I Shoot Film

Dude, I haven't seen you post in ages. Hope you had a good holidays.

[/off topic]