The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004.

  1. Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian C. Baird

    mobilevil Guest

    but ur eye scan and your brain do image combine.
    6M color isn't enough for a photo
    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just in case anyone still doubts the Bayer method for producing digital
    > images. If it's good enough for Mother Nature, it sure as hell is good
    > enough for your digital camera.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
    >
    > http://retina.umh.es/Webvision/photo2.html#densities





    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    mobilevil, Jun 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian C. Baird

    gsum Guest

    Exactly! And that's why it IS enough.

    Graham


    "mobilevil" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > but ur eye scan and your brain do image combine.
    > 6M color isn't enough for a photo
    > "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Just in case anyone still doubts the Bayer method for producing digital
    > > images. If it's good enough for Mother Nature, it sure as hell is good
    > > enough for your digital camera.
    > >
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell
    > >
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
    > >
    > > http://retina.umh.es/Webvision/photo2.html#densities

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    gsum, Jun 15, 2004
    #3
  4. Unlike a Bayer or Foveon chip, the eye has two types of sensors (rods &
    cones). Rods are the low light, blue sensitive sensors. There are
    120,000,000 rods, but only about 6,000,000 cones which are the colour
    sensors. Cones are also the high light sensors. The brain combines these to
    from an image. So doesn't work really like a Bayer sensor.

    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just in case anyone still doubts the Bayer method for producing digital
    > images. If it's good enough for Mother Nature, it sure as hell is good
    > enough for your digital camera.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
    >
    > http://retina.umh.es/Webvision/photo2.html#densities
     
    Darrell Larose, Jun 15, 2004
    #4
  5. Brian C. Baird

    Ron Hunter Guest

    mobilevil wrote:
    > but ur eye scan and your brain do image combine.
    > 6M color isn't enough for a photo
    > "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Just in case anyone still doubts the Bayer method for producing digital
    >>images. If it's good enough for Mother Nature, it sure as hell is good
    >>enough for your digital camera.
    >>
    >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell
    >>
    >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
    >>
    >>http://retina.umh.es/Webvision/photo2.html#densities

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


    No? Then what is going to be LOOKING at the picture? Certainly if the
    ability of the eye to produce an image is matched by the camera, there
    is no benefit to be had by improving the camera unless you know some
    extraterrestrials who want to look at your photos....
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 15, 2004
    #5
  6. Brian C. Baird

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Darrell Larose wrote:

    > Unlike a Bayer or Foveon chip, the eye has two types of sensors (rods &
    > cones). Rods are the low light, blue sensitive sensors. There are
    > 120,000,000 rods, but only about 6,000,000 cones which are the colour
    > sensors. Cones are also the high light sensors. The brain combines these to
    > from an image. So doesn't work really like a Bayer sensor.
    >
    > "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Just in case anyone still doubts the Bayer method for producing digital
    >>images. If it's good enough for Mother Nature, it sure as hell is good
    >>enough for your digital camera.
    >>
    >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell
    >>
    >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
    >>
    >>http://retina.umh.es/Webvision/photo2.html#densities

    >
    >
    >

    It works EXACTLY like a Bayer sensor because that is why the sensor was
    designed as it was, it matches the human visual apparatus.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 15, 2004
    #6
  7. Brian C. Baird

    gsum Guest

    But the effect is similar in that Bayer provides 4 times as much luminance
    (and resolution) information as colour information.

    Foveon blindly records colour and luminance at the same resolution and
    this has the effect of reducing the efficiency of the sensor as information
    that is not needed is provided.

    Graham


    "Darrell Larose" <> wrote in message
    news:9SDzc.267546$...
    > Unlike a Bayer or Foveon chip, the eye has two types of sensors (rods &
    > cones). Rods are the low light, blue sensitive sensors. There are
    > 120,000,000 rods, but only about 6,000,000 cones which are the colour
    > sensors. Cones are also the high light sensors. The brain combines these

    to
    > from an image. So doesn't work really like a Bayer sensor.
    >
     
    gsum, Jun 15, 2004
    #7
  8. On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:28:16 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >No? Then what is going to be LOOKING at the picture? Certainly if the
    >ability of the eye to produce an image is matched by the camera, there
    >is no benefit to be had by improving the camera unless you know some
    >extraterrestrials who want to look at your photos....


    Why would the extraterrestrials necessarily have better vision than a
    human? Fact that they evolved on a different planet doesn't
    automatically mean they can't be almost blind... Perhaps they have
    CCD's cybernetically implanted to enhance their vision...

    But I digress...
     
    Paul Fedorenko, Jun 15, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>, kccheng@kachun-
    uknowwhat.com says...
    > but ur eye scan and your brain do image combine.


    What now?

    Are you trying to communicate with your poor typing skills that the eye
    and human brain INTERPOLATE color?

    > 6M color isn't enough for a photo


    Tell that too the photos hanging on my wall.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <9SDzc.267546$Ar.104243
    @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, says...
    > Unlike a Bayer or Foveon chip, the eye has two types of sensors (rods &
    > cones). Rods are the low light, blue sensitive sensors. There are
    > 120,000,000 rods, but only about 6,000,000 cones which are the colour
    > sensors. Cones are also the high light sensors. The brain combines these to
    > from an image. So doesn't work really like a Bayer sensor.


    Well, that wasn't my point. The point was the eye/brain uses three
    types of cones to interpolate color - much as a Bayer sensor does.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Also, for those persons out there who a "less able", this was a direct
    ribbing of GP's earlier posts about Bayer sensors. That's why it's so
    funny!
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004
    #11
  12. "Darrell Larose" <> writes:

    > Unlike a Bayer or Foveon chip, the eye has two types of sensors (rods &
    > cones). Rods are the low light, blue sensitive sensors. There are
    > 120,000,000 rods, but only about 6,000,000 cones which are the colour
    > sensors. Cones are also the high light sensors. The brain combines these to
    > from an image. So doesn't work really like a Bayer sensor.


    Well, except in the sense that what we see is interpolated at every
    point.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    3rd booknotes anniversary! <http://www.dd-b.net/Ouroboros/booknotes/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 15, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <-b.net>, says...
    > Well, except in the sense that what we see is interpolated at every
    > point.


    Which was my point.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Brian C. Baird

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Brian C. Baird <> wrote:
    >Just in case anyone still doubts the Bayer method for producing digital
    >images. If it's good enough for Mother Nature, it sure as hell is good
    >enough for your digital camera.


    Mother Nature also has never created an animal with wheels, but vehicles
    with wheels however perform surprisingly well.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Jun 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Brian C. Baird

    Alfred Molon Guest

    gsum <> wrote:

    >Foveon blindly records colour and luminance at the same resolution and
    >this has the effect of reducing the efficiency of the sensor as information
    >that is not needed is provided.


    First time I see somebody write that having the full colour information
    at each pixel is a bad thing. Unbelievable.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Jun 15, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    says...
    > >Foveon blindly records colour and luminance at the same resolution and
    > >this has the effect of reducing the efficiency of the sensor as information
    > >that is not needed is provided.

    >
    > First time I see somebody write that having the full colour information
    > at each pixel is a bad thing. Unbelievable.


    No, he's saying it doesn't provide the benefit you think it would. As
    sensors get larger and have more resolution, the benefit is even less
    due to manufacturing constraints when compared to the relatively easy to
    manufacture CCD and CMOS sensors.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    says...
    > Mother Nature also has never created an animal with wheels, but vehicles
    > with wheels however perform surprisingly well.


    Too bad Foveon doesn't. But I'd imagine running it over with a wheeled
    vehicle might be effective for getting rid of it.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    news::

    > First time I see somebody write that having the full colour information
    > at each pixel is a bad thing. Unbelievable.


    I think you misunderstand.

    Three aligned R, G and B sensors is less efficient than three
    misaligned R, G and B sensors, you get a higher resolution with
    the same sensor count with a misalignment a la Bayer.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 15, 2004
    #18
  19. Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    news::

    > Mother Nature also has never created an animal with wheels, but vehicles
    > with wheels however perform surprisingly well.
    >


    Only on roads. Out in the wild nature, legs is to prefere.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jun 15, 2004
    #19
  20. Brian C. Baird

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Roland Karlsson <> wrote:
    >> First time I see somebody write that having the full colour information
    >> at each pixel is a bad thing. Unbelievable.

    >
    >I think you misunderstand.
    >
    >Three aligned R, G and B sensors is less efficient than three
    >misaligned R, G and B sensors, you get a higher resolution with
    >the same sensor count with a misalignment a la Bayer.


    He didn't write that. He wrote:

    >Foveon blindly records colour and luminance at the same resolution and
    >this has the effect of reducing the efficiency of the sensor as information
    >that is not needed is provided.


    He didn't write that you have to use the same amount of sensors in both
    cases.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Jun 15, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dr. Slick

    Resolution Limit of the Human Eye?

    Dr. Slick, Oct 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    16,524
    Paul H.
    Oct 15, 2003
  2. Alfred Molon

    What ISO does the human eye have ?

    Alfred Molon, Jan 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    3,929
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Jan 24, 2005
  3. jeff miller
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,002
    Confused
    Mar 11, 2005
  4. iAgent

    Webcam and human eye

    iAgent, Feb 28, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    686
    Don Stauffer
    Feb 28, 2006
  5. Paul D. Sullivan

    Paint Shop Pro RedEye - Animal Eye works great on Human Pupils

    Paul D. Sullivan, Jan 26, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    334
    Paul D. Sullivan
    Jan 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page