[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 62 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Happy 19th Birthday 4chan!




>there's "people" on this board that think pic human vision can get the same resolution as pic related across its FoV (about 500MP)
>their cones are defective and yet they insist on arguing about color too
I almost want to give up, feels like picking on a retard.
>>
Yeah on the other hand you seem like a bright fellow
>>
>>4068749
I have citations on my side, "babe"
>>
>>4068748
>there are people on this board who think this is worthwhile to talk about
gg
>>
>>4068758
It's more than worthwhile, it's about liberating anons from their mental prisons and educating people about the realities of shot noise.
>>
>>4068752
>too stupid to understand citation
>"but i have citations!"

>>4068765
Godspeed anon. But you're dealing with moop, the dumbest person on the board. On the bright side, if you post an Ansel Adams pic he'll try to dox you as Ansel Adams, which is entertaining.
>>
>>4068782
I understood the citation, the thread itself is calling out moop on his dumb claim that human vision is like a digital sensor. You quoted me twice in your post, let's wait for Moop to show up and display his ignorance once again. His doxing attempts have been hilarious.
>>
>>4068785
My apologies anon, I thought that post was moop being a smartass.
>>
>>4068788
I can see what you mean now that you mention it, apologies accepted.
>>
There are "people" on this board that shoot technical film that vastly outperforms the resolving power of their lenses
>>
>>4068805
That's true but it was a fuckup because my 800lp/mm lens is adapted and my film SLR electronics are gay and lock up.
>>
>>4068748
And you look at your stupid film with, what, cyber-vision? Nope you use your eyes, darting around in saccades as your foeva scans the details into your short-term memory.
When you get stoned enough, it turns off the 'in-camera' correction in your vision and you notice how blurry much of your eyesight is.
>>
>>4068826
The whole point is that you can't see the whole detail at once. Peripheral vision is much inferior to central.
>>
>>4068826
The film can capture what the eyes can't. It's like a superior form of memory
>>
>>4068785
>let's wait for Moop to show up
Why the fuck would anyone want to encourage that buffoon. You are as pathetic as he is
>>
>>4068957
Because the more he argues with me and this other anon the less chances he spends that time doxing posters who upload pics I like.
>>
LESSON 2
Arguing with yourself is a sure fire way to get others to leap to your defence.
>>
>>4068966
>implying anyone would ever defend moop
>implying I'd ever say the retarded shit moop spews all the time even as bait
When I bait I use uncomfortable truths, not some imaginary science that contradicts every paper out there.
>>
>>4069072
>moop
Nice try poopchute
>>
>>4068782
>But you're dealing with moop
Then don't talk about dumb gear shit and moop will have nothing to say? You're arguing in his field and area of stupidity, but if you just shut the fuck up about it that invalidates him from the get-go
>>
>>4068829
That makes no difference, it's like claiming areas of bokeh are caused by low resolution. You dumbass.
>>4068961
I'd be very surprised if there was anyone as autistic and triggered as you.

Are you sure you're not just very angry because he pointed out the citation you gave claiming humans can't even see 720p turned out stating humans can see 587 megapixels in their fov?
>>
File: Untitled.jpg (21 KB, 611x95)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>4068748
>3 days and 2 hours after being banned for 3 days, you have to make a whole thread about how you're totally not triggered

omegafuckinglul
>>
>>4069225
>humans can see 587 megapixels in their fov?
That's not what it said lol, that's an extrapolation of a 2 degree angle
>screencap
Some janny who fucked up revealing their power level, as evidenced from the follow up post.
>>
>>4069238
>the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.

But let's dig further into clarkvisions maths...

The original argument was you saying the human eye can't even see 720p in low light, you also noted that in almost pitch black human vision falls to 20/200 (10% of it's original resolving power)

Clarkvision states

>How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.

That's a 24" diagonal image from just under 2 feet away, much smaller than the recommended size for a screen at that viewing distance, and if we assume it's in near pitch black then our acuity drops to 10%, or 7.6Mp

See, even if we take the absolute worse case scenario, too small a screen, too dark to see, you're still resolving a 4k image from 2 feet away on a 24" screen. Not the less than 1Mp that you have tried to claim.

>wahhhh you're a janny

lol, make a new thread about how unfair that is too, the only reason your posts stay up so long is so everyone can join in on taking the piss out of you. You do know mods can see device ID's and IP's too, right?
>>
>>4069243
>m-muh megapickles!
1080p is enough to project a motion picture in a small theater, on par with 16mm.
>>
>>4069253
Wow, so you're just going to openly admit you were wrong all along, just like that? lol.
>>
>>4069256
What? 576MP is bogus and you know it, stop grasping at straws
>>
>>4069260
>Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.
>>
File: janny.png (5 KB, 618x83)
5 KB
5 KB PNG
>>4069243
>lol, make a new thread about how unfair that is too, the only reason your posts stay up so long is so everyone can join in on taking the piss out of you. You do know mods can see device ID's and IP's too, right?
All I'm saying is the guy who posted that and then deleted it was obviously a mod, pic related is what he posted afterwards.
>>
>>4069243
>>4069270
2 degree is the standard observer, picked for that reason only because acuity falls off quickly beyond that angle.
>>
>>4069270
Imagine being wrong about something you literally experience during your whole life.
You realize that your peripheral vision is fucking trash? Get the fuck outta here with that 576MP shit
>>
>>4069277
Should have seen him arguing color science when he's colorblind, lol.
I have a photographer friend who is colorblind but he acknowledges his limitations. The dude has a fondness for ortho film because it closely mimics the way he sees after taking the color out.
>>
>>4069277
>Vision isn't 576mp
Ok, where's your citation, I've provided mine proving it is 575mp, so you need one not only disproving mine but proving your own.

You can scream and throw your toys out of the pram all you want about how you don't feel it's correct, I feel that it's spot on, maybe you just need glasses?

>>4069285
Stop talking to yourself you weirdo
>>
>>4069291
>This is my Jeep
No it's not, it's just more of your compulsive lying and projection of your huge insecurities.
>>
>>4069294
Actually I was baiting you to try another kick at the dox cat since it's all you can do. I do drive a lifted Wrangler though but it has vanity plates so I won't post it here.
>>
>>4069243
Dude, I love how you gave every benefit of doubt to the triggered guy and still absolutely destroyed him using his own citation.
Your haters are so unhinged.
>>
>>4069298
Be less obvious when you samefag buttercup.
>>
>>4069297
>I do have a jeep wrangler, I just can't post photos of it

Ok dude, literally no one asked if you drove a sub $500 car, yet here we are, with you trying to boast about it. What's wrong with you?
>>
File: no-chad.gif (3.23 MB, 640x640)
3.23 MB
3.23 MB GIF
>>4069300
>pls dox urself pls dox urself pls dox urself

>sub $500
nice b8
>trying to boast
I made a hinge joke
>>
>>4069298
>>4069300
Lol

Don't worry about this Angy little sweetheart, he's just very upset that he's been stalking me for a decade and still insists on embarrassing himself every day.

Did you hear about when he tried to send things to me in the post and ended up sending it all to someone down my road. Truly obsessed with me.

>>4069301
>I DO HAVE A SUB $500 I PROMISE, YOU CANT BAIT ME INTO PROVING IT!

Again, no one asked babe. No one even knows who you are. Pretty weird with a community of under 100 people, posting every day for over a decade, and the only thing I, or anyone, knows about you is your device ID's.
>>
>>4069305
>Don't worry about this Angy little sweetheart, he's just very upset that he's been stalking me for a decade and still insists on embarrassing himself every day.
>Did you hear about when he tried to send things to me in the post and ended up sending it all to someone down my road. Truly obsessed with me.
Take your meds, also stop talking to yourself.
I haven't been on /p/ for nearly a decade, and what little I know about you is because you're infamous, buttercup. I didn't really care much until you tried to dox me recently. Your MO made it obvious you were also behind some successful doxings on this board in the recent past.
>Again, no one asked babe. No one even knows who you are. Pretty weird with a community of under 100 people, posting every day for over a decade, and the only thing I, or anyone, knows about you is your device ID's.
You don't even know my device ID's, lol.
>>
>>4069225
I'm gonna buy a DSLR capable of recording in 720p max and there's nothing you can do about it pleb.
>>
>>4069243
>120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
Jesus Christ you keep missing the point...which Clark himself stated...that the eye can't see "120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3)" all at once in high resolution. How dumb are you that this is difficult for you to understand?

>The original argument was you saying the human eye can't even see 720p in low light,
The conditions were "starlight in a Bortle 1 zone" and if you ever left your basement at night you would realize this is true.

>>How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.
The human eye only has 20/20 vision in a 2° FoV. So the math is actually this:
2*60/.3 = 400
400 x 2 = 800 pixels
Your PRINT needs to have more than this because you might look at ANY PART OF THE PRINT. But YOU cannot see ALL OF IT at once. You can see 800px of it at once.

But now let's use Clark's math to determine print resolution required under starlight. That would be:
53*60/3 = 1060 pixels x 35*60/3 = 700 pixels
USING CLARK'S MATH, UNDER STARLIGHT A PRINT DOESN'T NEED 720p TO SATURATE YOUR FOVEA. BY CLARK'S OWN MATH, YOU HAVE <720p RESOLUTION UNDER STARLIGHT. Are you ready to concede dumbass?

Even this is an overestimate, but there's no need to go further since you are proven wrong. Again.

>and if we assume it's in near pitch black then our acuity drops to 10%, or 7.6Mp
No math-fail, you have to adjust the arc-minute numbers in the equation (two variables). You can't just take 10% of the final result.
>>
>>4069225
>That makes no difference, it's like claiming areas of bokeh are caused by low resolution. You dumbass.
>false analogy is false
Your peripheral vision is not shit because of bokeh. It's shit because only the fovea has the density of cells necessary for high resolution. It would be like having a FF sensor with 61mp equivalent in a 2° FoV, but only 3mp equivalent everywhere else.
>>
>>4069286
>Ok, where's your citation, I've provided mine proving it is 575mp, so you need one not only disproving mine but proving your own.
>HURR I'LL JUST IGNORE MY OWN CITATION
"The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail."

What Clark didn't make clear enough for autistic fucks like yourself is that your brain NEVER paints an entire nearly 180° scene. Your eye darts around putting the fovea on areas of interest. It doesn't constantly scan side-to-side, top-to-bottom to gather detail every where. It gathers comparatively little of the total detail in the scene. It's an evolutionary adaptation so that our brains have processing power leftover for little things like scene recognition and higher thought processes.

You never, not even once in your life, possess a 576mp frame in your memory. Short or long term. Our brains would choke on that level of detail.
>>
>>4069320
>the areas you're not looking at have lower resolution

Oh, just like bokeh, anywhere that's not being focused on is blurry.

>clark actually meant this, not what he wrote!

?
>>
>>4069329
No you fucking cretin, not like bokeh. Like corner softness. You know, like those garbage Sony lenses that show softness even when mounted on a crop camera.
>>
>>4069329
>>the areas you're not looking at have lower resolution
>Oh, just like bokeh, anywhere that's not being focused on is blurry.
No, retard. DoF is NOT the issue. The retina doesn't have the cell density outside the fovea to record high resolution. When you sit in front of a big screen the whole screen is at the same distance, it should all fall within the DoF if you're focused on the center. But you can't see worth shit outside the 2° center.

>>clark actually meant this, not what he wrote!
I quoted Clark dumbass. Oh, and please directly acknowledge that you didn't understand his math and by his own math starlight vision is <720p. Admitting you're wrong for once would be a huge personal development for you.
>>
What is moop?
>>
>>4069360
our retarded pet
>>
Fucking hell PLEASE PLAESE just post a photo shot on this film, PLEASE
>>
>>4069409
Here you go, friend.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4069412
And where are the 600 megapixels?
>>
>>4069429
>Please post images that are JPG format and ideally smaller than 1 MB, and/or about 1000 pixels on the longest side.
>>
>>4069429
https://www.analog.cafe/r/409200000-pixels-with-adox-cms-20-ii-c4k6
>>
Lmao these nerds really spent all Tuesday arguing over the MP count of eyes.
>>
>>4069445
>angry NPC noises
>>
>>4069331
>No you fucking cretin
Why are you letting Moop's low quality bait trigger you? He's being a retard on purpose
>>
>>4069474
Lmao don't you have work, or school, or something?
>>
>>4069482
No, he's naturally and genuinely stupid. But admittedly arguing with him can't change that
>>
>>4069510
You're so hung up on moop that you're willing to argue until you're blue in the face against a doctor of planetary science that studies optics and imaging devices to investigate space after receiving his PhD from MIT, who is employed by multiple space agencies including NASA
Who do you think really is coming off as stupid?
You've been so obsessed you've said his name nearly 100 times in the last month.
Just to put into perspective how stupid you're being, you claim humans are limited to a 2 degree fov? That's the same as a 1200mm lens on full frame; if your vision looks like that, go to the optometrist my guy. And maybe stop arguing with rocket scientists with doctorates in imaging.
>>
>>4069671
If you think that's what he said read again. Max acuity is at those two degrees.
>>
>>4069691
>Max acuity is only on the things you're looking at!

Lol

You dumb cunt, where else did you expect it to be?

the eye and brain puts together a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. The same way a camera puts together an image pixel by pixel.
>>
>>4069693
outside of those two degrees you get less photoreceptor density, moopco
>>
>>4069695
>The things you're not looking at have lower acuity

Please tell me when it finally clicks as to how asinine your position is.

And please keep getting mad that the citation you gave states humans have 576mp equivalent resolution for their standard fov, or 57.6mp in almost pitch black.

>>4069320
>you have to consider arc minutes
Do you not understand how 20/20 vision works? Or do you not understand angles?
>>
>>4069671
>argue until you're blue in the face against a doctor of planetary science that studies optics and imaging devices to investigate space after receiving his PhD from MIT, who is employed by multiple space agencies including NASA
Nope, they are arguing with a dickwad from Bristol
>>
>>4069709
So you're admitting there's no 576mp across the fov, that's a start. Good boy.
Next step is admitting that no single 576mp frame ever appears in the brain.
>>
>>4069725
>>4069710
The fact you've turned this conversation about the science researched by a doctor of optics employed by NASA into a personal attack means you've already lost.

It doesn't matter even if Hitler quoted Clark stating the standard human fov is resolved at 576mp, then the data still remains the same.

You're also the same person that misinterpreted Clarks research as stating that sensor size doesn't matter, when it said the exact opposite, that aperture equivalence and sensor size is critical.

You're probably an antivaxxer too eh.
>>
>>4069755
You're quoting two people there and still misinterpreting everything.
I'm no antivaxxer but unlike you I think it's ok to be white.
>>
>>4069755
By the way do you know what happened 107 years ago today? We talked about it in the thread where you tried to dox me.
"Heroes wouldn't use nooses", yeah right. Justice was served that day.
>>
>>4069758
>>4069773
>Completely deflects from the conversation and goes all in on racism
Losing the argument just wasn't humiliating enough on its own eh?
>>
>>4069778
>a pedo who killed and raped a girl, was convicted and then got out thanks to the adl getting his just deserts from the hooded heroes is racism
lol
It wasn't deflection, I haven't bothered arguing much with you outside of pointing out that max resolution is just in that 2 degree angle. The other guy has more patience for your retardation, it's like he enjoys schooling you.
>>
>>4069782
>The other guy
Which other guy? I only joined this conversation to call him a dickwad because he is a dickwad. Usually I just hide his bullshit threads but it is the first time I've been here in a week. Have a nice day.
>>
>>4069671
>You're so hung up on moop that you're willing to argue until you're blue in the face against a doctor of planetary science
No moop, we're arguing against your inability to understand what the good doctor said, along with your inability to properly apply his formula to 20/200 starlight vision conditions.

>but i'm not moop! i'm nooooot!
There are only three people with any interest in this thread which was practically finished yesterday. And only one of them, moop, would open it back up.

>you claim humans are limited to a 2 degree fov?
Oh babe, why won't you Google before posting?
>In terms of visual acuity, "foveal vision" may be defined as vision using the part of the retina in which a visual acuity of at least 20/20 (6/6 metric or 0.0 LogMAR; internationally 1.0) is attained. This corresponds to using the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) with a diameter of 0.5 mm REPRESENTING 1.5° OF THE VISUAL FIELD. Although often idealized as perfect circles, the central structures of the retina tend to be irregular ovals. THUS, FOVEAL VISION MAY ALSO BE DEFINED AS THE CENTRAL 1.5–2° OF THE VISUAL FIELD. Vision within the fovea is generally called central vision, while vision outside of the fovea, or even outside the foveola, is called peripheral, or indirect vision.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision
https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2191825

Your 20/20 vision covers, at best, a 2° FoV. It can be as low as 1.5°. Acuity drops off rapidly into the peripheral. Which means you cannot claim the human eye records 576mp frames. It's just not how it works. You can say that a display or print which covered the full human FoV, at optimal distance, would require 576mp resolution so that any where said human looked with their fovea they would see max detail. But the human eye cannot record 576mp equivalent data at once.
>>
>>4069695
Exactly this.

>>4069709
>>The things you're not looking at have lower acuity
Dumb ass, you're "looking at" everything in your total field of view. I can stare at my monitor and see the window in my room off to the side at probably 160°. But I can't see that window in any fucking detail unless I turn and put my fovea on it.

>And please keep getting mad that the citation you gave states humans have 576mp equivalent resolution for their standard fov,
That is a misrepresentation of what Clark said. But with your IQ it's an understandable misrepresentation. I do blame Clark though for going for the catchy click bait headline and not explaining more clearly to the retards that no, your eye does not have 576mp equivalent frame capture.

>or 57.6mp in almost pitch black.
I'm sorry you failed at math >>4069320
>No math-fail, YOU HAVE TO ADJUST THE ARC-MINUTE NUMBERS IN THE EQUATION (TWO VARIABLES). You can't just take 10% of the final result.
>But now let's use Clark's math to determine print resolution required under starlight. That would be:
>53*60/3 = 1060 pixels x 35*60/3 = 700 pixels
>USING CLARK'S MATH, UNDER STARLIGHT A PRINT DOESN'T NEED 720p TO SATURATE YOUR FOVEA. BY CLARK'S OWN MATH, YOU HAVE <720p RESOLUTION UNDER STARLIGHT. Are you ready to concede dumbass?
>>
>>4069755
>MUH SCIENCE!!!
>FOLLOW...MUH...SCIENCE!!!
Oh babe...you can't follow the science if you do not understand it!

>The fact you've turned this conversation about the science researched by a doctor of optics employed by NASA into a personal attack means you've already lost.
He did no such thing. He's just trying to explain to your 90 IQ brain...like I have, repeatedly...that 20/20 vision covers at best 2°. And while your brain does paint multiple high acuity sections into memory, it never scans it's entire FoV at high resolution or stores an entire 576mp "moment in time."

Our perception of a sharp, detailed world is a carefully crafted illusion by our visual center to maximize our ability to function while minimizing the required neurons and calories. As is our visual processing uses the majority of brain function and brain energy use. If our brains tried recording 576mp at 24fps we wouldn't have room to process anything else. We would be cameras recording beautifully detailed frames without understanding what's in them.
>>
>>4069789
>Which other guy?
This guy, >>4069796.
So there's three of us now dogpiling on moop, nice.

>>4069796
>There are only three people with any interest in this thread which was practically finished yesterday. And only one of them, moop, would open it back up.
I must confess I sometimes throw some bait to pull him back in if the thread is close to dying, it amuses me.
>Your 20/20 vision covers, at best, a 2° FoV. It can be as low as 1.5°. Acuity drops off rapidly into the peripheral. Which means you cannot claim the human eye records 576mp frames. It's just not how it works. You can say that a display or print which covered the full human FoV, at optimal distance, would require 576mp resolution so that any where said human looked with their fovea they would see max detail. But the human eye cannot record 576mp equivalent data at once.
Couldn't have said it clearer.

>>4069805
>If our brains tried recording 576mp at 24fps we wouldn't have room to process anything else. We would be cameras recording beautifully detailed frames without understanding what's in them.
It would be so kino though.
>>
>>4069808
>>4069805
>>4069799
>>4069796
>>4069789
>>4069782
This samefagging is mental illness territory.

>You only see 576mp if you look at everything around you!

And a camera only resolves what it focuses on too, you either have to accept humans and cameras only resolve what they focus on, or consider their max theoretical resolution.

And that's being generous to you, in reality photos are fixed but vision is variable, I can always see 576mp in my fov, but have to accept whatever bokeh is present in a photo.

Whatever way you look at it, Clark states that human vision is 576mp in the standard, conservative fov of 120 degrees.
>>
>>4069874
>This samefagging is mental illness territory.
I made three of those posts moopy.

>>You only see 576mp if you look at everything around you!
No retard. You NEVER see 576mp.

>And a camera only resolves what it focuses on too,
No retard, it is not a DoF issue nor a lens aberration issue. If I aim my camera at a flat target which fills the FoV of an RF 50mm f/1.2L the entire target will be in focus at the same high detail level, corner to corner. You can stare at the center of flat target and the peripheral is a blur. You have to move your eyes to read because the peripheral is a blur. If our retinas had consistent cell density across the FoV you could stare at the center of a page and read the entire page without moving your eyes at all. But you cannot because only the center 2° has high cell density. It is exactly like a 35mm sensor with 45mp pixel density in the center but only 2mp pixel density at the edges. It can never, ever capture 45mp.

>you either have to accept humans and cameras only resolve what they focus on,
No, YOU have to accept that max resolution is only achieved in the center 2° of human vision.

>I can always see 576mp in my fov,
How can you be this stupid?

>but have to accept whatever bokeh is present in a photo.
This has nothing at all to do with bokeh. If it was entirely a DoF issue then you could read a newspaper top to bottom while staring at the center of it. The plane of focus would be pretty much flat. No one can do this because your retina literally does not have the "pixel density" (cells) outside of the fovea.

>Whatever way you look at it, Clark states that human vision is 576mp in the standard, conservative fov of 120 degrees.
Clark was wrong to mislead idiots like you. The human eye never captures 576mp, even while building a memory by looking around.
>>
>>4069900
>My whole argument revolves around saying a NASA doctor of optics was wrong >:(

Lol!

>You're moop

No, I'm moop and that other message wasn't me, you really do live in a crazy fantasy world eh?

What other coping methods are you embracing right now? Probably quite a few as you still live with your parents in the middle of nowhere eh?
>>
>>4069902
>My whole argument revolves around an appeal to authority when I don't understand what the authority was telling me
LOL! I mean...LMFAO!!!

>No, I'm moop and that other message wasn't me,
This samefagging is mental illness territory. But we already know that about you, "babe."
>>
>>4069902
So you don't want the horror to stop, Moopco?
>>
>>4070122
You come across as so desperate
>>
Lol these two are responsible for like 50% of the board’s posts.
>>
>>4070155
>these two
At the very least 4 people here:
Me (the guy Moop tried to dox), Moop, the guy debating Moop in depth with the citations and shit, the guy who called Moop a dickwad from Bristol and presumably left shortly after.
>>
>>4070161
Cool so you’re responsible for 12.5% of the board’s posts and zero photos.
>>
>>4070161
>I'm 3 people I promise, and I totally didn't realise that me "knowing" there's 3 people was actually admitting I am all 3 people.

Oops!
>>
>>4070181
At least it's contained to a thread and therefore not killing other gear threads.

>>4070182
>i can't tell the difference between writing styles
>i'm also schizo and think everyone who disagrees with me is one person
Oops!
>>
>>4070182
I thought there was two of us giving your feeble a hard time until the guy who called you a dickwad denied discussing Clark.
>>
>>4070186
>If I take the effort to use periods I think I look like a different person online

Lol

>>4070187
>If I state I wasn't part of the discussion, that means I must be a different person

Lmao
>>
>>4070189
>t. Schizo
>>
>>4070191
Nah, I don't think they're schizo, I think they genuinely think pretending to be 3 different people is helping them win anonymous arguments with online strangers.

Deluded I think is a better word.
>>
>>4070189
>>4070193
You know there's a 30 sec cooldown between posts don't you moop? I was going to delete my post because I made a typo but then I realized you could maybe try to use the new time gap to accuse me of being the other guy.
>>
>>4070194
>I thought you'd accuse me of being all the same person

How did you know "the other 2" people wouldn't post, lol

>Your moop

Guess again, it's so easy to trigger you, just need to drop a ">:) lol lmao" and you go into a meltdown
>>
>>4070197
>How did you know "the other 2" people wouldn't post, lol
I knew one of the others had posted because his post showed up above mine just after I hit post.
>Guess again, it's so easy to trigger you, just need to drop a ">:) lol lmao" and you go into a meltdown
Who do you think you're fooling? Because it's not me, flower.
>>
>>4070197
meds
>>
>>4070206
>I knew these 2 posts were within 30 seconds of each other, that's how I proved they're not both me, look, it even happens again with this and >>4070207

>It's totally got nothing to do with me having to post from multiple devices to ban evade >:(

Lol
>>
File: lmaomoop.jpg (179 KB, 800x1108)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
>>4070215
>It's totally got nothing to do with me having to post from multiple devices to ban evade >:(
You really believe I do that?
The ban expired by the way.
>>
>>4070215
>80 seconds
>not <30 seconds
>IT HAPPENED AGAIN
MEDS
>>
>>4070227
He's talking about >>4070186 and >>4070187.
His feeble mind didn't even spot my typo
>>
>>4070225
>No fttp with fixed ip
Lmao, how poor are you?
>>
>>4070229
>>4070230
No, I was talking about these 2
>>
Seems like he's conceding defeat. Always nice to dab on bong fags.
>>
>>4070482
You’re both absolute losers.
>>
>>4070548
>so-called "photographer" doesn't care about the physiology of his prime camera
You're a fool.
>>
>>4070562
If that’s what makes you feel better about your week long argument.
>>
>>4070568
Have you even read Locke?
>>
>>4070570
If that’s what makes you feel better about your week long argument.
>>
>>4070572
It's been 4 days, fool.
>>
>>4070574
Again, whatever helps you feel better.
>>
>>4070548
>hangs out in a gear thread insulting people
>HURRRR YOU'RE A LOSER FOR ARGUING ABOUT GEAR
The absolute state...
>>
>>4070589
It's not a gear thread, it's a technical discussion thread.
>>
>>4068748
>there's "people" on this board that think pic human vision can get the same resolution as pic related across its FoV (about 500MP)
I'm glad this is no longer the case now that he got schooled. Or at least he's not arguing it anymore.
>>
>>4070927
If you're outright refusing to acknowledge quotes from the citations YOU provided, then you've already lost.

No one is going to waste their time repeating your own citations back to you whilst you lose your mind and fall deeper into mentally ill territory.
>>
>>4070930
I'm OP, all I provided was a space for you to get schooled by the guy posting citations. He claims you're grossly misunderstanding them and cherrypicking, and I think he has a point. I already schooled you a long time ago but it was about so-called isoless sensors.
>>
>>4070930
Now, how about you admit you lost? I have a half-exposed roll of CMS 20 II here in front of me.
>>
>>4070933
>>4070937
oh babe, go read the clarkvision website again and quote the part where he comes back with the total equivalent resolution of human sight, lol >:(
>>
>>4070942
Sweetie, I don't even have the link. But I do remember you're the kind that uses 0dB as the noise floor to measure DR so your opinion is worthless to me. 0dB noise is unusable.
>>
>>4070942
Okay, found the link. This debunks you.
>The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.
>>
>>4070951
>Quote what that guy said was the resolution of the human eye
>No >:( but I will quote where he explains the insane amount of detail the human eye and brain can process, but I outright refuse to quote the bit where he says human vision in a 120 degree fov is 576 megapixels >:(

Lol, the only thing you debunked was your ability to answer a simple question without engaging all the mental gymnastics.

>>4070946
>I don't know what data you're even talking about >:(
Then why did you butt in? Sounds like more mental gymnastics to me champ ;)
>>
>>4070993
>Then why did you butt in?
To keep the thing going. I like seeing you get btfo.
>>
>>4070993
He's talking about SPATIAL DETAIL in a scene you moron. He's qualifying the 576MP calculation with that.
>>
>>4070930
>If you're outright refusing to acknowledge quotes from the citations YOU provided,
You are the only one outright refusing to acknowledge quotes from the citation in question.

>>4070942
>oh babe, go read the clarkvision website again and quote the part where he comes back with the total equivalent resolution of human sight, lol >:(
Why don't you quote the part where he says the eye paints sections of detail via small angular movements? Or the part where he says his total is what would be required in an image, i.e. not what anyone sees all at once? Why don't you quote the Wikipedia article about the fovea and the fact that 20/20 vision covers, at best, a 2° FoV?

>>4070951
Bingo

>>4070993
I guess you're just too stupid...literally too low IQ...to understand what Clark was trying to tell you, moop.
>>
>>4070993
Based retard
>>
>>4069902
>No, I'm moop and that other message wasn't me, you really do live in a crazy fantasy world eh?
Yeah you were too busy plugging TV sets in to post here at the time
>>
>>4071232
And trying to get the last word in the canonical thread.
>>
File: 555-come-on-now.jpg (46 KB, 468x400)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
>>4069440
>To get the 500-megapixel resolution Adox says CMS 20 can produce, I’d need to extract 0.5 billion pixels from a 24 36mm film strip (1.3348in2). That means I’d have to have a scanner that’s capable of 23,000DPI — which I do not have.
>But I do have my PrimeFilm XAs scanner with its 5,000 10,000DPI resolution which can get me 137-megapixel files after some interpolation. And I’ve got Adobe’s new Super Resolution tool that can artificially boost this number to 409 megapixels.

>some interpolation
>Adobe Super Resolution
>>
>>4071919
The claim is typical exaggerated film bullshit based on microscope analysis of 1000:1 test charts.

Still, real world CMS 20 on an Imacon or drum is pretty impressive. It's the only 35mm film that can stand toe-to-toe with 42-61mp digital.
>>
>>4072014
It can stand toe-to-toe to 645 Velvia 50
>>
File: IMG_2858.jpg (231 KB, 1090x1000)
231 KB
231 KB JPG
It's here, what now niggers? Dickwad from Bristol, any ideas?
>>
>>4072601
The dynamic range is shit, it's very high contrast. So plan your shots accordingly. It does really well with landscapes so long as the lighting is matched to the contrast. Very fine detail, very sharp.
>>
>>4072601
the only thing the dickwad from Bristol is any good for is failing at trying to dox people
>>
>>4072666
You really can't afford to be giving away so much space rent free in this economy.
Go on, let it all out, why are you SO upset?
>>
>>4072669
Because you didn't just try to dox me but you also doxed the only guy whose pics I've cared about on here in over a year. So better get a MFT with a 400mm and start looking for interesting birds and try to be as good as that guy was if you ever want me to let go. I'm missing out on amazing bird pics and it's your fault.
>>
>>4072669
And there's another thing, for some reason I love to hate you.
>>
>>4072698
Moop didn't doxx anyone, I just gave up on photography after realising bird photos that weren't taken at the perfect moment with the best gear weren't worth a cup of piss. And please stop tagging me in ig comments to stir drama, you absolute fucking loser.
>>
>>4072708
Who the fuck are you? I don't know who you're talking about but I'm not even on ig. The guy I'm talking about gave up on /p/ and shot Leica glass. Moop doxed him and then tried to dox me a couple weeks after. When I realized it was him and called him out, he reported me.
>>
>>4072709
I'm the only person I've seen shoot birds with any consistency on here, and I stopped about 6 months ago, for you to keep referring to me and then when I call you out on your completely false narrative because you've got a hate boner for an online stranger is fucking creepy. Again, get a fucking life you complete and utter loser, I am not the parasocial buddy you've built up in your head you friendless fuck.
>>
>>4072729
You CAN'T be that person, you want to know FUCKING WHY?
BECAUSE I'M THAT FUCKING PERSON! well done on embarrassing yourself by pretending to be ME.
>>
Don’t you people have like work or school or something?
>>
>>4072729
>6 months ago
That's old news buddy. This guy was posting last July.
>>
>>4072733
>Getting mad because someone pretended to be the person you're pretending to not be, and then openly admitting it

Lol

I really was right about you all along eh
>>
>>4072733
>>4072740
Samefagging at this level is mental illness tier.
>>
>moop still thinks Clark suppots his position
>>
>>4072742
>desperately backpedals

Lol, and no, it's not going to get removed no matter how much you report it.
>>
>>4072748
Report what? What do you believe I want removed? lol
I don't report, bitch. I didn't report you when you thought I was Anthony and I'm not going to report you for thinking I was Paul.
I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me. I don't report because why miss on the fun? Enjoy your stay.
>>
>>4072749
You've just outed yourself as pretending to be 2 different people, and you come back and want to further humiliate yourself?

Yikes and cringe
>>
Don’t you people have school or work or something?
>>
>>4072761
I wasn't pretending to be either, I just posted their work and you jumped to conclusions that I was them.
Now, what do you imagine I would report? Because I don't report, I wreck you instead.
PS: You're still wrong about 576MP.
>>
>>4072743
We really should bring this back around to the main point: that moop is a retarded who can't understand the fovea. I mean you can literally stare at a sentence on your computer screen and concentrate on the peripheral to see how quickly acuity drops off. But that's too intellectual a task for moop.
>>
>>4072767
>>4072769
I know you're looking for a way to escape this, but this >>4072733 is literally you admitting that you were samefagging to pretend that there's more than one person here that's triggered by moopco.

Oh, and we saw your thread the other day that got deleted too.

What exactly is wrong with you kid? is it autism?
>>
>>4072785
>everyone i reply to is the same person
>>
>>4072790
You literally admitted to being the same person you stupid cunt.

The level of cognitive dissonance you're engaging with is really quite bizarre.
>>
>>4072793
Not really, this is yet another glaring example of your lack of reading comprehension. Must suck to be a low IQ schizo.
>>
>>4072785
>this >>4072733 is literally you
It's not. Honestly I thought that was you falseflagging to samefag later as I called out in >>4072742.
What deleted thread are you talking about? I think you're making it up.
>>
>>4072793
I admitted to nothing. I just wanted to hammer on you again for being stupid.
>>
>>4072796
Oh I know what deleted thread, the one with the redhead hottie saluting the Sun. Honestly I don't know why it was deleted, it was about photography.
>>
>>4068748
so you set it to iso 20 if it's 40C and cloudy? seems quite complicated to use.
>>
>>4072916
Yes it sucks to have to remember a thermometer when shooting this film. And a spare roll of something else, in case it isn't either 12° or 40° that day. The results are worth the trouble for some.
>>
File: 902~2.jpg (36 KB, 600x456)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>It's another thinly veiled namefag drama thread

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width600
Image Height456
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2022:08:25 10:09:22
>>
>nophoto thread
>>
>>4072916
>>4072952
Those degrees are a measure of sensitivity that predates ISO
>>
>>4073008
Those degrees are ISO, dipshit.
ISO includes linear (formerly ASA) and logarithmic (formerly DIN) scales. They use the degree symbol for the log side.
>>
>>4073085
>formerly
Chuck's
>>
Poopco lacks the visual literacy to realize who selected those pictures while pretending to be a neonazi to get under his pathetic little British manlet skin.
>>
File: DhSfLqwU8AASXjb.jpg (90 KB, 600x745)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
People are often amazed at those high megapixel photographs and the detail the camera picks up, partly because they know their eyes can't achieve such acuity. It's not just the fovea scanning and the brain stitching, it's also the brain discarding what it doesn't care about.
>>
>>4073085
well? so how do you expose the film?
>>
>>4074323
You set the camera for ISO 20 (or 12) if it uses the linear scale and for 12º or 40º if logarithmic
>>
>>4074339
what if the left half is under a cloud, but the right half is in sunlight?
>>
>the guy who thinks we have 576MP vision can't tell a wormji from a Leica
lol
>>
File: Untitled.png (9 KB, 880x55)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
>>4077053
you're so mad colin.

I bet you regret giving pic related as your citation eh?
>>
>>4077060
Not only didn't I give that citation, but you got it wrong by ignoring everything else the guy said.
You're ignoring what he said about eyes being more like a video camera than a stills one.
>>
>>4077060
Also what's with this "colin" thing? Care to elaborate?
>>
>>4077073
>>4077074
lmao, colin getting heated.
>>
>>4077074
There's now a "colin" and a "moop"?
>>
>>4077103
The moop has been here for years, but Colin lives in moop's head and is whatever poster he doesn't like, conflated in one.
>>
>>4074426
Use a graduated ND filter
>>
lol this thread is still up and moop is still convinced of the 576MP figure
>>
>>4079283
That IS what the NASA optical scientist said, and you still haven't offered anything to counter that citation.
>>
>>4079326
i bet the guy that's losing his mind over you is the same guy that doesn't understand how microlenses work
>>
>>4079326
The scientist's own page has been offered. You're just too stupid to understand what he was trying to say.

>>4079329
I bet you're samefag.
>>
>>4079335
So when he said the human eye resolves 576mp across a conservative fov, he actually meant less than 720p, right?

He put the 576mp as the conclusion to the question of what the human eye resolves, you're just very upset that you were wrong and you think that you can gaslight everyone that embarassed you into thinking the NASA man meant to say "less than 720p" but accidentally put "576mp"

And congratulations on admitting you're the same guy getting btfo all over the board every day, lol.

Dumbass fucking Colin.
>>
>>4079340
>The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail.
>THE EYE IS NOT A SINGLE FRAME SNAPSHOT CAMERA.
>THE EYE MOVES RAPIDLY IN SMALL ANGULAR AMOUNTS
Direct from the article moop, you stubborn, stupid ass.

>he actually meant less than 720p, right?
Citations for the fovea fov AND for the loss of resolving power under starlight conditions have BOTH been provided to you. Yes, under starlight, you would need less than 720p on a TV sized print to saturate human vision at a distance where you could see 8k on the same print in broad daylight.

>He put the 576mp as the conclusion to the question of what the human eye resolves
Wrong. He put 576mp as the conclusion to the question of how many MP you would need in a print filling the human fov to insure that any where the human looked with their fovea their vision was saturated with detail. You can never, EVER observe all the detail at once, in one "frame" captured by the eyes.

This has all been explained to you in detail by multiple participants. But being the gamma male that you are, you just...keep...doubling...down.
>>
>>4079340
>Colin
there he goes again lmfao
take your meds moop
>>
>>4079472
>If I pretend my eyes don't constantly move, then I can't see much

Have you considered that maybe you're just a dead eyed autistic retard Colin?

And if you're not allowing your eyes to refocus, does that mean any part of a photo with bokeh is actually low resolution? Or are you treating the 2 systems with different parameters?

Stay mad that his conclusion was that a conservative human fov has 576mp equivalent resolution.
>>
>>4079472
I've just read through all this thread and can't understand what point you're trying to make, the website you gave as proof that humans can't even see 720p clearly states that the equivalent resolution of human eyesight is at least 576mp.

And so what if the highest detail is only discernable in the very centre of your sight, when your eyes move around subconsciously 200 times a minute, automatically focusing and giving great detail of anything you wish to look at.
>>
>>4079628
>>If I pretend my eyes don't constantly move, then I can't see much
Yes, your eyes constantly move. No, they do not scan left/right/top/bottom across the entire fov at 24 fps, or even 1fps. You NEVER "scan" your entire fov. You focus on what your brain is interested in. When you talk to someone, do they look like this?
https://youtu.be/Xt9WGrndTkk
Or are they steady locked on your eyes? The guy in that video isn't even scanning across his fov, just part of it. And his condition does not enable him to see "muh 576mp!!!". It detrimentally impacts his vision because he can't keep his fovea on a target point long enough for his brain to fully analyze the detail in the 2 degree fov of the fovea. His vision is WORSE because his eyes are shaking.

Stop doubling down with stupid, convoluted theories to try and support your ignorant, midwit opinion you fucking little gamma.

>And if you're not allowing your eyes to refocus,
How many times must it be explained to you that it is NOT a question of focus? Retina cell density rapidly drops off outside the fovea. If you're sitting in your living room staring dead center at your TV the entire TV is in focus but you can't see the full detail without moving the fovea around the screen. Focus has nothing to do with it.

>Stay mad that his conclusion was that a conservative human fov has 576mp equivalent resolution.
Stay a gamma little bitch all your life, never able to take an L.

>>4079649
Don't samefag and restate the same retarded objections over and over again little gamma moop. It only makes you look worse.
>>
>>4079713
>You don't even scan at 1fps
3 times a second is the commonly agreed on amount. Dumbass.
>You only focus on things you look at
Precisely, if there's anything in your fov that you want to look at, your eyes will have subconsciously locked onto it within 1\10th of a second.
>My brain needs time to process what it sees
Yeh, this is a you problem, that combined with your belief that eyes don't even move once per second makes me believe you might have a serious deficiency to your prefrontal love, can you button up a work shirt?
>His vision is worse because he's taking in this 120 degree 575mp image
Lol, citation required
>Focus has no bearing on what you see
Uh-oh, I think your eyesight might actually be fucked bud
>You can't take an L >:(
Says the guy angrily disagreeing with a NASA optical scientists own words
>Samefag
No sweetie, just another person that agrees with me and NASA. Keep coping colin.
>>
>>4079751
>3 times a second is the commonly agreed on amount. Dumbass.
Your eyes move to a new point 3 times a second. They do not scan a 120 x 120 fov left/right/top/bottom completely 3 times a second or ever, dumb ass. Look at your face in the mirror. Are your eyes rapidly snapping left/right/up/down the entire time? No? Hmmm...

To scan the entire 120 x 120 fov in Clark's calculation with the 2° fov of the fovea would require 60x60 position changes. That's 3,600 eye movements. To do it 3x a second would be 10,800 eye movements. The fovea would be on any particular spot for only 1/10,800th of a second. That is literally, physically, impossible.

Double down again, gamma. Double down instead of actually READING Clark's article:
>At any one moment, YOU ACTUALLY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want.
>YOU ACTUALLY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS
>DO NOT
>ACTUALLY PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS
Fuck, how stupid are you that you can't understand this?

>Precisely, if there's anything in your fov that you want to look at, your eyes will have subconsciously locked onto it within 1\10th of a second.
>1/10th of second
So you can grab, at most, 10 pieces of 2° high resolution per second. Not 3,600. Hmmm...

>THE BRAIN DOESN'T NEED ANY TIME TO PROCESS
God you are one of the worst little gammas I've ever encountered.

>combined with your belief that eyes don't even move once per second
Never once said that, dumb ass.

>Lol, citation required
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nystagmus
Fucking little gamma.

>>Focus has no bearing on what you see
Not what was said, little gamma.

>Says the guy angrily disagreeing with a NASA optical scientists own words
>At any one moment, YOU ACTUALLY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want.
>YOU ACTUALLY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS
>DO NOT
>ACTUALLY PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS
NASA guys own words, gamma.
>>
>>4079751
>colin
Assuming by "Colin" you mean me the race realist OP, you seriously need to reevaluate your stylometry skills and maybe get yourself checked by a shrink. If you're just trying to be obnoxious and don't actually think everyone you call "Colin" is the same person, then just carry on.
You give me secondhand embarrassment.
>>
>>4079776
>>4079788
>Maybe if I scream about how racist I am that will make me win?
>>
>>4079776
>3600 eye movements

Im not one the other guys you've been talking with so far, but this implies it takes you 20 minutes to see everything in your fov, I think everyone on this planet with functioning eyes knows this figure is more like a couple of seconds to look around a scene just moving your eyes.

and a camera doesn't see a scene all at once either, it does it pixel by pixel, line by line. that's why we have the rolling shutter effect.

i think you could do yourself a favour and admit you're wrong on this one, the clark guy is very clear that equivalent human resolution is 576mp or more.
>>
>>4079978
You're taking him too seriously bud, just call him a dumbass who's only ever been successful at collecting chromosomes. Maybe drop in a cute pet name for him, like sweetie, hun or Colin and watch him explode.
>>
>>4079978
>implying the brain is like a sensor that stores scanned details
>>4079964
You're quoting two people there Timmy. I'm just reminding you that I'm the guy you tried and failed to dox. Seriously if you think the two quoted posts belong to the same person get your head checked.
>>
>>4079978
>Im not one the other guys
Do you really believe your post isn't as transparent as glass, moop?

>but this implies it takes you 20 minutes to see everything in your fov, I think everyone on this planet with functioning eyes knows this figure is more like a couple of seconds to look around a scene just moving your eyes.
You do not ever see everything in your fov in high resolution (20/20) detail. That's the point. Not 3x a second. Not in a couple seconds. Not ever.

>and a camera doesn't see a scene all at once either, it does it pixel by pixel, line by line. that's why we have the rolling shutter effect.
Yes but a camera can read out it's entire sensor in a fraction of a second, and its entire sensor is at max pixel density. You have a 2° center at max pixel density, and you never scan out more than a tiny fraction of your full fov.

>i think you could do yourself a favour and admit you're wrong on this one, the clark guy is very clear that equivalent human resolution is 576mp or more.
Surely this is a different person and not moop lol lmfao
>At any one moment, YOU ACTUALLY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want.
>YOU ACTUALLY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS
>DO NOT
>ACTUALLY PERCEIVE THAT MANY PIXELS
I think you could do yourself a favor and admit you're wrong on this one, the Clark guy is very clear that you do not actually perceive that many pixels.

>>4079986
My cute pet name for you is Moop the Samefag.
>>
>moop still doesn't understand how vision works
>>
Hey Tim, OP here. Look, even the twats at Discovery channel managed to get it right unlike you:
https://www.discovery.com/science/mexapixels-in-human-eye
>A 576-megapixel resolution means that in order to create a screen with a picture so sharp and clear that you can't distinguish the individual pixels, you would have to pack 576 million pixels into an area the size of your field of view. To get to his number, Dr. Clark assumed optimal visual acuity across the field of view; that is, it assumes that your eyes are moving around the scene before you. But in a single snapshot-length glance, the resolution drops to a fraction of that: around 5–15 megapixels.
>>
>>4082268
lmao, that site is banned in europe due to data trackers, nice citation, data harvesting sites, lmao

and you seem to be forgetting you were arguing that sight wasn't even 720p, which is ~1mp. dummy

You're so desperate, that yet again, you're posting citations that disagree with you, classic.
>>
File: KARSCMSSUM21021.jpg (641 KB, 1311x1980)
641 KB
641 KB JPG
I liek this film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:09:26 20:57:20
Image Width6696
Image Height9960
>>
File: 1485884692373.jpg (110 KB, 718x628)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>4082280
I wasn't arguing for 720p. The other guy in this thread was arguing something like 720p under starlight or something to that effect, I don't know what hypotheses he was using. Eye resolution is angular, not in pixels, so viewing distance and object size need to be taken into account. What the fuck are you doing in Europe anyways? Did your fellow Anglos kick you from their islands?
>>4082281
It's really nice isn't it?
>>
>>4082365
>I wasn't arguing for 720p. The other guy in this thread was arguing something like 720p under starlight or something to that effect, I don't know what hypotheses he was using.
Citation that under starlight conditions your acuity drops to 20/200 or worse.

>Eye resolution is angular, not in pixels, so viewing distance and object size need to be taken into account.
The context was a print at the size/distance one would optimally place a 16:9 4k TV screen. So choose a print size and lookup the required distance for that size so that you can resolve 4k worth of detail. Tables for TV screen size/distance are easily found online. Under starlight conditions you can't even see 720p equivalent at that same distance. A 480p equivalent print would saturate your vision. (Naturally this has to be a print because an actual TV screen is backlit, i.e. not starlight conditions.)

Clark's own math comes to the same conclusion under 20/200 conditions.
>>
>>4082379
>Citation that under starlight conditions your acuity drops to 20/200 or worse.
Are you going by this? Posting it for completion's sake.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2019.1632047
>>
>>4082458
I don't think that's the citation from the other thread. But Google turns up numerous sources reporting any where from 20/200 to 20/400.

https://www.flight-study.com/2021/06/vision-in-flight.html
https://www.valleyflyers.org/wp-content/uploads/TheEyeandNightVision.pdf
https://vpl.uic.edu/teaching/Cao%202013RetinaColorVision.pdf

There are more. Some are probably quoting each other, or quoting a common study.
>>
>>4082365
>UK isn't part of Europe
>>4082379
>I look at photo prints in pitch black

Bruh, you already lost when you quoted the guy saying it was 576mp, this copium is unreal.
>>
>>4082520
Moop, you've lost this debate so many times the rest of us have lost count. At one point there were 4 or 5 people calling you a dumbass. Which you are.

I am truly curious though: are you just too stubborn and emotionally stunted to admit defeat? Or are you really so stupid...so low IQ...that you can't understand what Clark was saying?
>>
>>4082556
Best case scenario he's just a dumbass, the alternative is being an educated fool in denial of facts. A sadder predicament no doubt.
>>
>>4082556
>>4082659

You know changing IP doesn't change your device ID?
>>
File: lmao tbh.png (4 KB, 425x120)
4 KB
4 KB PNG
>>4082677
>implying samefag
You know there's more people ITT?

Wanna know which posts are mine in the last few days? Here you go:
>>4082062
>>4082268
>>4082365
>>4082458
>>4082659
>>
>>4082520
>UK isn't part of Europe
It never was, it just pretended to be to fuck over the French.
>>
>>4082682
Moop thinks everyone who disagrees with him is one single person. It's a form of projection because HE samefags all the time.
>>
>>4082693
poor moopy doesn't know about the discord :'(
>>
>>4082682
???
>>
>>4082698
>faking (You)s
kys
>>
>>4082677
>he doesn't autoflush cookies
>>
Colin, this got to the very bottom, you forgot to do your customary bump so that everyone can see what a retard you are all over again!
>>
>>4085194
>Colin
You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you Tim?
Do you get off to getting proven wrong time and time again?
>>
Lol these fucks really spent their weekend arguing about this.
>>
>>4085221
I don't know bud, maybe make ANOTHER post desperate for my attention. Still waiting on that screenshot of my insta too ;)
>>
>>4085556
You mean like your post bumping the thread?
lmao
I'm not going to post a screencap. There's no reason for it, TDR. If I saw the story, how do I know you didn't block everyone but your suspects from seeing the story? If I didn't see the story, how do I know you didn't block everyone you suspect could be me? The cap isn't going to happen.
>>
>>4085609
>Huge mental gymnastics to try and pretend that you're one of my IG followers

You're not too smart are you, I know everyone on my followers list.

I know it's very difficult for you to comprehend people following them on ig that aren't immediate family, but normal people have friends and social lives dude, if you actually moved out of your parents, get a job and began making a life for yourself, maybe you'll get a friend one day too.

Silly little Colin.

>The cap isn't going to happen

Oh I knew that from the beginning hun, this whole thing was a joke at your expense.

I'm looking forward to yet another thread from you crying over me, begging for attention like a lost little puppy.
>>
>>4085619
>You're not too smart are you, I know everyone on my followers list.
And I know you. Don't you remember what you did? I know what you did. Think hard, TDR.
>>
>>4085625
What did I do anon? Turn my old IG private as I knew you'd get upset over it? And here we are, lmao.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.