[SGVLUG] Especially for Mike
narsil at gmail.com
Tue Mar 7 17:22:30 PST 2006
Good points Mike and Dustin!!
I wish I had a TiVo. Cable and working TV too. I didn't get cable or
ship my TV to school in order to save money, but I miss them.
On 3/6/06, Dustin Laurence <dustin at dogbert.laurences.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 08:32:46PM -0800, Michael Proctor-Smith wrote:
> > On 3/6/06, Jean Chen <narsil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I wonder what resolution you could say our eyes have. I must look
> > > that up sometime.
> > I don't think the resolution of the eyes is very good but there is
> > very advanced software to interperlate, the bad input data, as well as
> > buffers. Hence the reason anything over 21 or so frames per-second
> > seems like full montion.
> Hmm. This:
> comes up with a value of 576 megapixels, and admits that doesn't cover
> the full range of vision. That is what I was going to say--the field
> of view is really good, much better than most everyday devices (and
> we're so optimized for binocular vision that we aren't very good in the
> field-of-view department.
> I'd say that's pretty good.
> However, I agree with Mike in that counting pixels doesn't do vision
> justice. Beyond the image processing, there is the dynamic range and
> also the dual sensor setup.
"Optimism can make you look stupid, but cynicism always makes you look
cynical." -Calum Fisher
More information about the SGVLUG