What is Digg?107 Comments
- Pattyo13, on 05/14/2009, -0/+385short answer: 576 megapixels
- yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -2/+191great, now my brain is going to be sued for jpg compression infringement
- Xanin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+117***** THE..oh wait, this isn't an RIAA thread
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+87"short answer: 576 megapixels"
Even that's fudging it, we only have 100 million rods and 5 million cones (give or take), so we could see really high resolution in black in white, but significantly lower resolution in color. Furthermore, our brains are simply incapable of processing that amount of information, so we downsample the images in our brains; one of the biggest consequences of this is that we can't tell the change in color as fast as we can tell the change in contrast, yet with training can make out objects at incredible frame rates.
This is actually one of the reasons MPEG-type encoding isn't repulsive; the high frequency color information is simply beyond our capabilities of processing, so we discard it, and we keep the general contrast (luminance) channel of the video stream as high as we can (encoding schemes like 4:1:1 and 4:2:2, for example). So in actuality we don't actually have the ability to process a 576MP image; we can process about 2-3MP at speeds, and much greater than that in stationary images, but no more. - jkaiser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+86"But don't forget that women have more cones and men have more rods - I kid you not.Therefore the ladies see colours brighter than gents but can't see as well when it gets dark."
I did not know that. Once again digg provides me with another "useless" piece of information. Look out Ken Jennings, I'm on my way! - dreicher, on 10/12/2007, -6/+83"ladies...can't see as well when it gets dark".
Proof positive that there is a God. - shaun1018, on 10/12/2007, -5/+81It is now...
***** THE RIAA - kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -3/+69I'm in ur eyes, adding some rods.
- phoopee3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51thanks
- terribly1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45Great cite: "Found this somewhere in the net."
Sounds legit to me. - combovercool, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45haha thank you thats all i needed.
- mpkauto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39because its her god given right to be.
- amonthei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35You would still have the same number of "pixels", it's just that your lens can not focus properly on them.
The comment was not only lame but inaccurate. - shaun1018, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31Consequently this explains why bars usually have low lighting.
- rshu4you, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Green?
- UoMDeacon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Yeah, I tried to use the whole "Found this somewhere in the net" phrase on a research paper once. For some reason it didn't fly.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Fry: "But this is HDTV, it's has better resolution than the real world!"
- CheezIt9109, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I despise the pop-factoid nature of digg.
"the eye has little in common with any type of CCD camera."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_system - thorbergdt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16SO if the eye is 500 some megapixels in quality.. how big does that make your brain in equation of Megabytes?
- graystar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Blokes always have at least one extra rod surely.
- RandomHugs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11MOO!
- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+942?
- THEMACGOD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This is something I've always wondered... actually, I wondered this after I wondered what frame rate we see things at... not that the world has a frame rate... but you know what I mean.
- shaun1018, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12You just have a ***** lens your mega pixels are the same.
Edit: ***** above me beat me to it. : P - slezzzter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Actually the human eye isn't completely analog, nor completely digital. The nerves cannot send data continuously and do not send data modulated purely in amplitude. Instead, they send pulses with a frequency and amplitude related to the intensity of the incident light. The nerves have a refractory period which place an upper limit on the speed with which they can pulse. This is what limits our ability to perceive fast motion. Nonetheless, the signals are at least somewhat digital when the data is encoded in the frequency.
- Rammsteined, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Proof that there isn't a god, I think: The women who where able to see in the dark refused sex, therefore taking themselves out of the evolutionary chair :)
- KamikazeeDriver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Consequently this explains why bars usually have low lighting."
And I always thought it was to set a more relaxed atmosphere.
EDIT: I got the joke as soon as I hit submit. hahahahahha nice, um ok, digg me down
/under the joke cloud - CycloneNimrod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"but can't see as well when it gets dark"
Good thing, eh fellas? - HalFTW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Edit, digg down
- Kappa00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What happened to 60fps?
- greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You have the presets , you just have to find the right buttons. (ie pcp, herrione, shrooms, etc)
- haveacigar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Does that mean at 577mp our brains would explode?
- M0b1u5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's *****. The resolution isn't even CLOSE to that!
It's ONLY the immediate focal area which has a high resolution, and that resolution is EXTREMELY high - how high I wouldn't try to guess - but the point is this: away from the focal area, you see diddly squat, and the images created outside the focal area are very fuzzy and blurry.
The only reason you THINK you see everything in fine detail is because you FOCUS on things.
The brain then does some jiggery pokery to "fill in the gaps" around your focal area, by remembering where the eyes has focused, and retains some of this data to bring the overall quality of PERCEIVED vision up to what APPEARS to be very high resolution.
In truth, a "picture snapshot" taken from the retina would produce a roughly circular image (teh nose pokes into it somewhat) which is incredibly detailed in the middle, and gets fuzzier and fuzzier, and less colourful as you move away from the focial point. Once you get to about 65 degress from the focal area, there is no colour perception at all and the image is pure B&W. This despite the fact you don't "see" in B&W because the eye and brain are great at fooling you.
Honestly, the poster has no idea about human vision - he only know some numbers, and hasn't delved even slightly into the subject. - InsaneMachine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Contacts don't increase the amount of pixels you see, it just focuses the image. Would an unfocused 8 megapixel camera take better pictures than a focused 2 megapixel camera? Besides, if contacts did increase the number of pixels, wouldn't everyone wear them?
edit: amon beat me - obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The human brain's been estimated at around ~10 terabytes.
- Ricapar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not exactly. A 20MP camera better have some damn good lens, lens that are probably better than what your eyes have.
- levyjl1988, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh and blind people have zero considering they can't see anymore... ps don't digg me down, I'm just pointing out the obvious. lol
- thtroyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As described above about detail between color/contrast (cones/rods), it is similar with 'frame rates'.
Like detail, cones (color, center of eye) aren't for detecting very quick movement. If you look at florescent lights (or a lower Hz computer monitor), you won't notice much/any flicker when looking at it, but you may be able to notice flicker in your peripheral vision (rods), some people can detect upwards of 75Hz.
As already pointed out multiple times, the eye cannot be easily compared to a camera -- it is much more complex than that (and I suspect that our perception has more to do with how our brain processes the information than the eye itself). - changyang1230, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A comment abuse here.. I studied the visual system in the last semester, but there is no mention whatsoever about the number of cones in female being higher than male. I tried googling for it but there's no article about that as well.
Can someone provide some evidence about this claim? It sounds quite baseless. - hoshizakistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that's what I wrote in all the footnotes of my end of term paper that I handed in last week.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I used to joke around with my friend that real life was a video game and I would remark at how amazing the graphics and resolution of a forest was when we were in one.
"Dude look at the physics and mip-mapping of the tree swaying in the wind. It's almost as good as Crysis." - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2null
- jiggawoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think what M0b1u5 is getting at, is that the retina doesn't have a consistent concentration of rods and cones.
The centre of the retina has a high concentration of receptors, most of which are cones. This is why when you look directly at something you can see in coloured detail. Benefits of that are rather obvious I should think. Further from the centre the concentration of receptors decreases, and the ration of rods to cones increases. One benefit of this is that your peripheral vision is able to notice movement very easily. Ever notice that sometimes you see something move "out of the corner of your eye", but then when you look directly at it you can't make it out so well? The pay-off is that you can not see objects in your peripheral vision in detail. - Obidose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article is flawed. It fails to take the fact that as 3 rod cells are connected to one neuron, the megapixel value is effectively half of what is stated. Also rods are only used in poor light as in high light intensities they are bleached (much like using night vision in the desert) and also light is concentrated on the fovea, the small area of the retina in which all the cones are concentrated.
- mwilke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Prime example of what concerns me with digg submissions. Where are the credible sources? I am not saying the information isn't incorrect but there seems to be a theme of summarizing someone elses work, posting it in a blog and submitting my blog not the source. Also, for example someone submits a website that makes an outrageous claim and it has a geocities address. I'm sorry but I don't want a biology lesson from deviantart.com and a random user without some citations.
- jivemasta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The whole idea of how many megapixels your eyes are is idiotic. You have to be looking directly at an object to view it at optimum clarity. For example, try reading the post above or below this while not looking away from this one. You can't. Unless you have already read it and can piece together what you remember with what you can make out. The eye works nothing like a cameras ccd. A ccd makes a single image by looking everywhere at one, the eye can only look at one thing at a time, and compile a general image in the brain's memory.
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The eye is an amazing thing, it's why I love looking at 20x24inch contact prints made with 20x24inch sheet film weighing in at over 3 gigapixels.. true visual bliss..
- ohnnyj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But more detail never hurts: http://www.gigapxl.org/
- randomvector, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The article is so much crap. The comparison is bogus.
The eye is a foveated system. You resolve detail almost exclusively at the fovea (concentration of photoreceptive cells in the middle of your field of vision). To see this, fixate on a point in front of you. Now read some text at the edge of your field of view. I bet you can't do it. - dougmc, on 06/04/2009, -0/+1Of course, that answer is totally bogus. Your eye is only that sensitive at the very center of your vision -- it drops off massively as you get away from that.
And sure, your eyeball can move around, but so can your camera -- and I don't get to claim that my 10 MP camera has 1000 MP because I can point it in 100 different directions ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is