Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

  1. #1

    Default Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    I was lying in my bed last nigt, looking at the beautiful ceiling lamp and decided to take a picture off it with my DSLR without using flash and using auto exposure. Did this exercise just to have more pratice on my new camera.

    You experts, should have guessed correctly how the picture turns out to be. The lamp is totally washed out with the surrounding ceiling badly under exposed. I can see the lamp pattern and the ciling very well lit, but the picture says otherwise. I did try to shoot at all different exposure combination, but none of the pictures came close to what I see.

    I start to ask these questions:
    "Are human eyes far more superior than camera, or is it that I don't understand the camera at all?"
    "Can looking at a Picture really recreate the same effects when we look at the same scence with our eyes?"
    "If the picture can't give that Voww effect, than what purpose does a picture serves?"

    Any kind soul out there to enlighten me?
    Last edited by Silence Sky; 24th September 2006 at 09:21 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Gim Boon Tai
    Posts
    2,909

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Human eyes have a much wider exposure latitude compared to cameras. A rough figure would be 2x. Some animals have even wider latitude compared to humans
    If you understand my works, it's photography. If you don't, it's art.
    SplutterPhotography|flickr

  3. #3

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    if you are from the Canon camp, the clear winner is the human eyes.

    According to Canon, the lens is the "eyes" of the eos. The first chapter in the lenswork book is entitles "approaching the human eye".

    it says, "How far can an SLR lens actually succeed in duplicating the characteristics of the human eye?" Not very far it seems. No lens can ever focus as fast especially at a fast moving object. Can any lens capture all the natural colours the eyes can see? not all.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    2,504

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    the answer is obivous, no lens will ever compare to the human eye.

    the eye has far far far far far superior dynamic range, superior exposure latitude, superior focusing speed, and the brain works more than a million times faster than DIGIC 6, 7, 8, 9 etc. and by the way, 'superior' is a gross understatement.

    the eye doesnt suffer from purple fringing (can u imagine seeing everything in purple), distortion (then every building will be like the leaning tower of pisa, soft corners etc.

    the eye can stop down 10 stops in seconds and is never wrong in terms of exposure.

    the eye is the most complex organ of the human body with the most bewildering array of circuitry that embarasses the most sophisticated supercomputer.

    lenses will always be flawed because they will never overcome the basic limitations of physics

    the wonders of creation....
    Last edited by Isaiahfortythirtyone; 24th September 2006 at 08:21 PM.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    611

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Quote Originally Posted by hanafi View Post
    if you are from the Canon camp, the clear winner is the human eyes.

    According to Canon, the lens is the "eyes" of the eos. The first chapter in the lenswork book is entitles "approaching the human eye".

    it says, "How far can an SLR lens actually succeed in duplicating the characteristics of the human eye?" Not very far it seems. No lens can ever focus as fast especially at a fast moving object. Can any lens capture all the natural colours the eyes can see? not all.
    it's not the lens..it's the medium. Except the focusing and aperture part without distortion.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    if you can invent a sensor with dynamic range as wide as human eyes, im sure you will be the 2nd bill gates.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Got Lens ..
    No eyes ...

    See what ....

  8. #8

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    My eyes only got a little bit of backfocussing.

    It's white and if I don't sleep, a red ring forms... la la la...

    Yes, the eye is better.
    It has anti dust, auto iso, auto aperture, auto focus, auto tracking
    It is the camera, not the photographer.
    my flickr - adamloh.com

  9. #9

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Quote Originally Posted by ExplorerZ View Post
    if you can invent a sensor with dynamic range as wide as human eyes, im sure you will be the 2nd bill gates.
    I am not sure is it a fair comparison after all. We have two retina and a carema has only one sensor.
    If we employ two lenses and process the combined image from the two separate sensors , who knows what we get.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Quote Originally Posted by Silence Sky View Post
    I am not sure is it a fair comparison after all. We have two retina and a carema has only one sensor.
    If we employ two lenses and process the combined image from the two separate sensors , who knows what we get.
    erm... that sounds basically like doing a HDR image with 2 body + 2 lens instead of one body + 1 lens.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Quote Originally Posted by adamadam View Post
    My eyes only got a little bit of backfocussing.

    It's white and if I don't sleep, a red ring forms... la la la...

    Yes, the eye is better.
    It has anti dust, auto iso, auto aperture, auto focus, auto tracking
    hahaha

    But when we talk about tele effect, camera wins hand down.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Don't forget, we also have a brain that can process the images intelligently.
    5D MII w/16-35L,Sigma 28-70&Nikkors(35f2,85f1.4,105f2.5,180f2.8ED)

  13. #13

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Quote Originally Posted by Isaiahfortythirtyone View Post
    the answer is obivous, no lens will ever compare to the human eye.

    the eye has far far far far far superior dynamic range, superior exposure latitude, superior focusing speed, and the brain works more than a million times faster than DIGIC 6, 7, 8, 9 etc. and by the way, 'superior' is a gross understatement.

    the eye doesnt suffer from purple fringing (can u imagine seeing everything in purple), distortion (then every building will be like the leaning tower of pisa, soft corners etc.

    the eye can stop down 10 stops in seconds and is never wrong in terms of exposure.

    the eye is the most complex organ of the human body with the most bewildering array of circuitry that embarasses the most sophisticated supercomputer.

    lenses will always be flawed because they will never overcome the basic limitations of physics

    the wonders of creation....
    I agree with you that human eyes are much better in terms of technical specification like those you have mentioned. I will add to your list; the focusing speed and 300+ magapixel of the human eyes. You see my camera always fail to focus on the lamp, but my eyes never failed to focus in very dark or very bright condition.

    However, there are also some limitations of the human eye:
    When you are reading this post, your eyes can only focus on one word at a time, at most you can reconginse another word to the left and right of the word you focused on. But a camera can snap in spilt second and capture every word of the passage.
    In the dark, a Night Vision camera will out perform human eyes.
    Our brain can't process high speed motion, eg. We only know a snake has strike, we can't capture the moment it lands its fangs, but a camera can freeze the motion.

    Our eyes can see 3D and a picture is only 2D. So I am wondering does a well composed picture really makes the viewer sees the beauty and feels the effect of a sunrise or it just serves as a memory recall, just like we call up a file from the hard disk. Our brain then reprocess the sunrise image we have previously seen and memorised, telling us ohh its a beautiful sun rise, a nice picture. And when the color is off, our brain tells us the picture is bad because it can’t relates to the stored memory, telling us a green sun rise is incorrect and it is an ugly picture.
    Last edited by Silence Sky; 25th September 2006 at 02:46 PM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    actually it depends on what you're comparing.

    cameras can do better art then human eyes. for one, the camera with big aperture, can do pretty bokeh. your eyes dont do it. haha =)

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratix View Post
    actually it depends on what you're comparing.

    cameras can do better art then human eyes. for one, the camera with big aperture, can do pretty bokeh. your eyes dont do it. haha =)
    Bokeh? Can! i just take off my specs and everything becomes bokeh.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA, United States
    Posts
    72

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    The aperture of the human eye varies between f/2.1-8.3 according to what I found on Wikipedia. I'm not sure of the ISO sensitivity but if I had to make an educated guess I'll put it in the range of ISO100-800.

    But comparing the human eye to a camera is much like an apples and oranges thing. One is biological and the other technological. However if we make an argument based on the technicalities, the human eye will obviously be superior as it had millions of years of evolution to build on. But when we invoke Moore's Law is it clear that our technological 'eye' would one day exceed the capabilities of what the human eye is capable of.

    It shouldn't shouldn't make anyone less happy when that day comes though. After all it would be the invention of us humans.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Human Eyes, No Doubt.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    611

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Quote Originally Posted by RailGun View Post
    The aperture of the human eye varies between f/2.1-8.3 according to what I found on Wikipedia. I'm not sure of the ISO sensitivity but if I had to make an educated guess I'll put it in the range of ISO100-800.

    But comparing the human eye to a camera is much like an apples and oranges thing. One is biological and the other technological. However if we make an argument based on the technicalities, the human eye will obviously be superior as it had millions of years of evolution to build on. But when we invoke Moore's Law is it clear that our technological 'eye' would one day exceed the capabilities of what the human eye is capable of.

    It shouldn't shouldn't make anyone less happy when that day comes though. After all it would be the invention of us humans.
    There are systems built to see what we can't see ...infrared and ultra violet spectrums detectors are an example of that. However, (btw, ISO of our eyes is determined by the photoreceptors and the human brain, so it's still not due to the lens or retina of our eyes), to put as much capacity into a relatively small and compact system as the one that Mother nature gave us is going to take a feat of engineering never heard before.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Just for discussions only.

    Much as the human eye and the brain are amazing organs, if there are cameras built like the eye and brain, I would still prefer the camera I own now, especially those that are totally manual.

    The reasons?

    The manual camera is an idiot. It can only do one thing. And do that one thing so predictably. So if I understand light, that predictability allows me to decide how to plan and make the image.

    In the manual camera, 1+1=2. Always.

    The human eye and brain, while highly versatile and evolved, are "imperfect systems" that can respond to a given "native" situation in different ways. This is why we all react to the same "native" situation in different manner. Which makes it interesting, but also bewildering!

    "Why can't women be like men?"!

    In the human sysem, 1+1 is not always 2.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Camera vs Human Eyes -- Winner?

    Will we ever be able to create living tissue? Will we be able to create a brain that can analyse and think faster than a human brain?

    Like every object, there will always be imperfections, advantages and disadvantages. A truely perfect device or object does not exist.

    Will we have a camera that rivals the human eye someday? I believe that is an almost insurmountable task. For other than having a sensor as sensitive as the retina, it needs a 'brain' that can process and analyse all the data accurately to produce the result our brain can.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •