h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Noggin, doesn't it depend on what you define a camera to be? A simple camera (pin hole) does not have a lens. The medium of immage storage is not re-usable unless you use digital or video tape. The image area reproduced by a camera is a fraction of what our eyes see unless you use a fish-eye lens which distorts the image. Can we really compare the eye and the camera?


Alji the Magus

Toxx
don't you remember ?

I doubt that there's much TO remember. Anyway, it's an awfully long time ago.

There are points of comparison, Alji, but they aren't terribly meaningful. The field of veiw of a camera is wonderfully flexible and sharp across the whole of its area. A wide-angle lens can be almost as wide as a fisheye. Even a standard 50mm lens (35mm SLR) has a wider field of view than the human eye. Then you can have zoom lenses up to telephoto level. Optically, the camera is much better.

On the other hand, the camera is useless without an eye to examine the resulting image (exceptions in certain computer applications, I know). The camara is an imaging machine. The eye and attached system is a perception/knowledge machine.

>'Even a standard 50mm lens (35mm SLR) has a wider field of view than the human eye.' - No it isn't! The field of view of my eyes is almost 180° and a 50mm lens is 48°.

>'sharp across the whole of its area' - No it isn't! Though this may be true at infinity, it is not true for all situations. Sharpness depends on depth of field, camera stability and film medium.

Our eyes can opperate at much lower light levels than a normal camera and has higher resolution than most film (the film is the limiting factor not the camera).

Alji the Magus

Alji, when your gaze is straight ahead, I'm prepared to bet that you can't read normal print thats 24deg to one side of you. The photographic image would be readable.

I was talking about centre to edge sharpness. The eye has a restricted depth of field like a camera. More restricted in low light, wider iris, bigger f number, less d.o.f. Wider angle lens, smaller aperture and setting focus to hyperfocal distance will give biggest depth of field - far greater than the eye.

Camera stability is a fair point. The eye can compensate for movement, but so can some lenses. True, there's a limiting factor in the film resolution. Then again, the eye only has reasonable resolution at the central few degrees of the image.

Film is a bit off the point. After all, you can get infra red film which can grab images invisible to the eye!

Hmm both my video camera and digital camera slipped out of my hands and broke very easily, neither are very good when immersed in water and the batteries are for ever running out. More often then not when I look at some pictures I find a blurred image, the object moved! They also fail to fully represent in the case of red eye for example.
On the other hand I've banged my head to the point of unconsciousness and my eyes still work, and I can still see underwater and in various amounts of light. When the thing I'm looking at moves it is not blurred until very high speed.
As for batteries.

Toxx
how far back do you remember?

This year alone I've had two bouts of viral conjunctivitis and one cornea ulcer. My camera is fine. It also has a warranty.

dammit men, go to a camera conversation.

Yes, it started off as a question of whether or not the eye is too complex to have been designed by trial and error or was it by divine guidence i.e. did it evolve or was it created.



Alji the Magus

Bit of a catch 22 there; to show that it was created you'd need to prove divine guidance, and to prove divine guidance you'd need to show it was created. As I've said before if there was an omnipotent god he would be capable of designing physical laws that made trial and error evolution possible (certain).

Noggin

That's my take Noggin.

Sorry about amera mention but Toxx do you have a camera as old as your eyes?

You scared of Death or wot?

oh. You all Bonkers then. Pardon my intrustion........

Hass. Vintage cameras are highly prized and usable. Leicas especially. My first camera was older than me: a Zeiss 6x6 folding cam. Wish I still had it. They're still available in working condition.

i would more say worried rather than scared. the thought that at the end there is somewhere nice to go to is a pleasent thought. the thought that there is a hell is not a pleasent thought. the thought that there is nothing is debateable as to whether that is nice or not. the FACT that you have to go through the process of dying is what is worrying! will i go in my sleep or slip away slowly and painfully aware what is happening? think about that and i gaurentee you will squirm!

creachy

Hello, I am new but I am interested in this topic and would like to make some comments...

I believe that all existence is derived from a "source" where both good and evil exist. I think that "God" is a name that christians give to describe the positive/loving side and the "Devil" is the negative/dark side of this.

It doesn't matter if you are a Christian or a Muslim, Jew etc, the "God" that you believe in is the same "God" or rather the same "source", but the religion (its set of rules and believes etc ) define a specific way of how you live and percieve the world around you.

Some religion are older than others and I think that their believes were appropriate to those at the time, and will continue to live on if enough people still belive and live by its rules etc... but our society and the world around us have changed because people are more open and knowledgeable...and so we have greater perspective and some people find some religion to be too restricting...

....if you strip of all the outer layers of religion you end up with the same essence/force/source whatever it is known as that you all call "God"

On the subject of atheist... i think that atheist don't like/believe in the idea of "God" but by listening to your innerself/intuition (some people are practical and get on with life and they can trust their intuition to take them to where they need to go, where as others are very sensitive to the "forces" or "vibes" around them and need stability and balance and so they look for divine guidance, something outside themselves to keep them on the right track) and being in touch with your environmemnt and world is very much the same as tapping into this "source" except you don't give it a name because you don't think much about this force because you are so busy getting on and having fun in life. Therefore I don't belive that just because you are an atheist means that you will burn in hell...

If you tap in to this loving energy/positive side of the "source" you can find "heaven" on earth....if you tap into the dark side of this "source" you wil surely also find "hell" on earth...

True heaven = when your soul returns to the "source" and is recycled/reused....???? comments welcome...

True hell = your soul returns to the "source" and is destroyed...????

i hope that I haven't offended anyone and I don't claim to know it all either, just a point of view....

the source that you refer to is known as 'gaia' (i hope i spelt it right it is pronounced 'gi-ya'). this is the life force of the earth that we as humans serve and return to according to wicca.(yes i am studying it at the moment with growing interest). the wonderful thing about todays society reseacher with no name is that you theoretically can not upset anyone with your views on such a subject(human rights and all that) as we all have a broader knowledge that we actually don't know what is next! your views however are generally consistent with that of wicca. i suggest you look into it also, i think you will find it very interesting.

Toxx
Used every day ?