The future of image sensors

ziggy53

Canon recently announced a couple of new cameras and it got me thinking about how digital imaging compares to animal imaging.

I mean, we think that the Canon 1Ds MkII is to die for (at least I think) and yet critters out there have much more capable vision than that.

After some research, I discovered that birds of prey have fovea with up to 1 million rods per square millimeter. If we take a standard, full frame 35mm image size at 24mm by 36mm we get 864 square millimeters, times two is 1728 (because birds of prey (BOP) are capable of binocular vision).

This means that if we could design a digital sensor at full frame 35mm size, with BOP resolution, we would have 1,728,000,000 or 1.728 Billion pixels of resolution.

Now that I gotta have! (Now imagine the lens technology required to match.)

Come on now Canon, if a bunch of "bird brains" can come up with 1.728 Billion pixels of resolution, when are you going to? Huh?

(Back to reality, a bird's fovea is only a small part of the retina, and I have no idea what the total BOP ocular resolution is, so... this whole message is a bit of a stretch.)

ziggy53

DavidTO

I could be wrong, but I believe that BOPs have vision that ranks at the top of the entire animal population. You need to aim more for the middle. Heck, I'd even settle for human eyesight in a camera. We all know how blind we can be...I mean, I can never find the butter....

David_S85

Not only do BOP have spectacular detailed vision, but most raptors have an effective FOV crop of about 2 to 3. What that means in photography terms is that if we humans see life through a 50mm lens at FF as a normal view of things, the BOP would be seeing life as if through a 150mm or a little more. This helps them to spot small mice on the desert floor while soaring high above. Amazing ability; but I'll bet they'd need reading glasses to see clearly at less than 5 feet from their beaks.

DavidTO wrote:

I could be wrong, but I believe that BOPs have vision that ranks at the top of the entire animal population. You need to aim more for the middle. Heck, I'd even settle for human eyesight in a camera. We all know how blind we can be...I mean, I can never find the butter....

Richard

David_S85 wrote:

... but I'll bet they'd need reading glasses to see clearly at less than 5 feet from their beaks.

Just as well, considering how ugly their mates can be...:D

Khaos

There is also a thing called level of diminishing returns.

It means that what you can perceive limits the increase.

So having something as high res as that when our own eyes can only truly appreciate half that res, it's a waste.

It reminds me of "This is Spinal Tap"

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and....
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [Pause.] These go to eleven.