-1

What happens when camera technology evolves so dramatically that (without considering zooming) camera lenses get “better” than our human eye?

Do we see the footage in higher definition, or do we simply stop noticing since we wouldn’t be able to comprehend the higher definition?

Is there a limit to the highness of definition, where the maximum is a human flawless eye, or is there room for improvement?

And if there is room for improvement would we be able to detect the more detailed picture the camera lens made?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Daan Rijks
  • 179
  • 2
    This depends somewhat on your definition of "camera." – rob Oct 28 '21 at 18:41
  • 3
    Also depends on what "better" means. There's a lot of similarity between eyes and cameras, but in the end, they do not do the same thing. So, better at what? By some measures, cameras are better than eyes. Some cameras are vastly better, in fact. – Solomon Slow Oct 28 '21 at 19:45
  • See here & here. – J.G. Oct 28 '21 at 20:20
  • What do you mean by "human flawless eye?" Are you suggesting that human eyes are flawless? – Sandejo Oct 29 '21 at 04:54
  • I think we are making better cameras ... better for our eyes cameras... we define "better" by just how we perceive the image. When cameras surpass the human eye (and they've already did) then we have to use zooming and stuff to know that it is better. It's not just better for eyes, but also better as in storing more information – Kid A Feb 19 '23 at 12:46

4 Answers4

6

No need to wonder. Hold your smart phone at arm's length. The screen is a digital image with resolution higher than your visual acuity at 1m. If you want to make out its finest details you need a zoom function. Better resolution just means the above is true progressively closer to your eyes.

g s
  • 13,563
  • Or in my case just take my glasses off and the resolution is better than my eyes at any distance. – Dale Oct 28 '21 at 20:08
0

There are many different aspects to the performance of a camera, so your use of the word 'better' is rather vague. However, assuming we focus (pun intended) on definition alone, the question of whether you could appreciate extremely high definition pictures depends not so much upon the quality of the camera but on the device used to display the image, the magnification at which it was displayed and the distance at which you viewed it.

Assuming the resolution of the device matched the resolution of the image, then there would be a point beyond which increasing resolution would only be apparent to the eye if the image were shown magnified.

Marco Ocram
  • 26,161
0

Let's take the case of digital halftoning, as used in color printers today, and assume the human eye is assessing quality of print at normal reading distance (approx. 18").

If we then define pixel size according to the smallest dot of colored ink that can be laid down (i.e., "dots per inch") then visible improvements in image quality occur when advancing from 96 DPI technology to 180 DPI to 300 DPI to 600 DPI; the last step where smaller pixels yields better quality is the move from 600 DPI to 1200 DPI. Beyond that, to perceive 2400 DPI requires a magnifying glass and 3" eye-to-image spacing.

The lenses in modern image capture devices can resolve far more detail than the human eye can, and for the last 10 years or so the commonly-available image printing devices which render those images have been able to beat the human eye at its own game.

niels nielsen
  • 92,630
0

It's possible that cameras could someday surpass the capabilities of human eyes in certain respects, but it's important to understand that the two are designed for different purposes and operate differently.

Human eyes are incredibly complex organs that work together with the brain to provide us with our sense of sight. They have a wide field of view, high dynamic range, and can adjust to changes in lighting and focus quickly and automatically. In addition, our brains have the ability to process visual information in sophisticated ways that go beyond simply capturing images, such as recognizing patterns and interpreting depth.

Cameras, on the other hand, are designed to capture images in a way that can be stored or transmitted for later viewing. They are limited by the physical properties of their lenses and sensors, and while they can be programmed to adjust focus and exposure, they do not have the same level of adaptability and sophistication as human eyes.

That being said, cameras are already capable of capturing images with higher resolution and detail than the human eye can see, and advancements in technology could continue to push the boundaries of what cameras can do. However, it's important to keep in mind that even if cameras become better than our eyes in certain ways, they will never completely replicate the experience of seeing the world through our own eyes and processing that information with our brains.

Daan Rijks
  • 179