Can you elaborate between the differences between the two? Is it just that the pictures are not as sharp for your perception or what? I didnt quite understand the question.
posted by keijo at 3:12 AM on August All day and, 2005
Yeah, that was a wonderful flashback. K, I'm back. The brain filters things and highlights things in your visual industry which obviously no photographic camera can do. If you are talking totally shadow/highlight details then the range of our eyes is vastly preferable over what film or digital camera sensors can capture. Ansel Adams made the zone system after years with experiment to extend or reduce the luminance range of images to match what he saw. For the simple example you can stretch the range of digital images through two shots of the same picture to expose for shadow particulars and highlight details, after that compositing them in Photoshop. That can give a greater range of luminance. Many things are possible with the right information. But knowledge isn't immediate, it takes time to compile which is the reason the greatest photographers are never a amateurs who use automatic digital cameras.
posted by JJ86 at 3:22 AM on August 24, 2005
Because your eyesight is a fairly small part of the Buy Kamagra Paypal equation. It's brain which is doing almost all of the work. A camera sits even now and statically captures an image. Your skills and brain roam dynamically across a field of view continuously adjusting, measuring adapting and also filling in.
Having said that, cameras and film have been lovingly tweaked over the century so that they do a remarkably good job but think about what they don't do they don't record depth, they can't dynamically adjust lighting or contrast depending on your location looking, they can't adjust emphasis or detail in the same way either. Part of the photographers art is usually to be aware of these limitations and find a way to compensate.
If you think about it, a photograph is really nothing at all similar to something you see with your face, (it's flat for a start) nevertheless we are so used to the promotions Buy Viagra In Bangkok a photograph employs that we reduce these deficiencies.
posted by grahamwell at 3:31 I'm on August 24, August 2005
I'm not an expert, but seeing isn't photographic. I seem to remember only the outer arena of the eye can see shade, and the brain processes various views to fill in your gaps.
There's depth opinion which you need two view for, and probably other stuff happening.
posted by lunkfish at Several:32 AM on August 24, 2005
I'm not even Kamagra Side Effects close to an expert on this but is it possible that the fault lies avoid the camera but with the way your works. When you focus on a thing in particular your breadth associated with vision is very limited, this tends to then appear to stand out when shot with a camera is usually less impressive.
(Very able to stand correction).
posted by biffa at 3:33 Was on August 24, 2005
The reason is dynamic range a persons vision can see a far vaster range of darks plus lights than the best video camera. How much vaster? I'm glad an individual asked. (I love it whenever i know the answer to something!).
Dslr camera exposures are measured (in one sensation) by the aperture or sensitivity (which usually we will call the p stop) A full explanation might involve much much more than that, (where there was a good one called from the Blue a while back in the sidebar) but for the purposes of our simple dialogue here the best cameras use Kamagra Oral Jelly Review a 15 stop range of exposures. A persons eye has around 34 "stops" of sensitivity. Now, the relationship between one stop and the next can be double the amount of light; so the additional 15 or so "stops" of awareness of the human eye gives us your vastly greater ability to sensation small variations in light about an enormously wider variety of lighting conditions.
To put the idea another way, use a compression example: what a camera 'sees' is a widely 'compressed' version of what your eye views. Detail is lost.
Another type of the wonders of the our experience.
posted by pjern on 3:56 AM upon August 24, 2005
I'm not an expert, but seeing isn't really photographic. I seem Levitra Side Effects to bear in mind only the outer ring from the eye can see colour, as well as brain processes different views to fill in the interruptions.
This is not correct. You can see color in your entire field associated with view. You have more receptors which have been sensitive to light (and not so much to color) in the perifery of your eye sight. That's why you can see objects additional in the corner of your eye in surprisingly low light situations, but they seem to disappear when you look immediately at them. Color receptors are not great at seeing in low lumination.
Now on Kamagra 100 Effervescent the question. The biggest reason you have a Cheap Cialis 5mg different perception compared to what you get in a photo (in my view) is that the lens on most "point plus shoot" cameras is wide point of view. So items that seem a standard distance away, suddenly appears to be like way into the distance. It also has got the effect of making things look kinda "fish eye" and objects that are fitted with straight lines come out rounded and bowed.
The next problem is one of contrast. Your eyes (brain definitely) can handle a very wide range of difference. You do this on the fly, so that when you look at someone inside of a dark room sitting in front of a new bright window, you can see whomever fine, and then you can immediately focus on the scene outside. A photograph can do one, or the other. The only method compensate is to use a display to "over expose" the person in the dark place so that they are in less comparison to the scene outside. There are a few films that are better for a wider sensitivity to dark and light, but most cameras and pretty much all digital, will have this concern.
So what it really comes down to that the eyes have the ability to dynamically adjust to some sort of scene over and over, and a photo takes one "slice" of that. To find the same result as your eye, you'd have to take a whole bunch of pics in series to cover the main range of light that your sight can instantly adjust to.
And ultimately, your eyes can refocus in to the distance and up close quickly and photos are usually a give up between something in the foreground is in focus, but the yardage is unfocused. Those previously mentioned huge angle lenses are good in getting most things from pertaining to 3 feet to infinity inside focus, so that is one of the logic behind why they are used.
posted by qwip during 4:01 AM about August 24, 2005
Well then, i'll give you an example of the difference. I just now found a cool photo stitches software called Autostitch that lets you build panoramic photos. So I went to the boardroom on the 28th flooring of my work and also decided to take a picture in the view I get to enjoy for the duration of meetings. Do you know how many shots it Cialis Dosage took to get a surroundings that was more or less similar to things i saw just by looking out of the? 34 photos at 1600 x 1200 and even it still seems a bit small.
http://galleri.kjerringoy.no/displayimage.php?album=155&pos=46
http://bbs.shanda960.com/viewthread.php?tid=386291&extra=
http://www.aocs.org.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=216946&do=blog&quickforward=1&id=607419
http://www.straight.com/node/add/article
http://www.straight.com/node/add/article |
