>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:24 2024
Received: by 10.50.159.166 with SMTP id xd6mr13214598igb.0.1336451664944;
Mon, 07 May 2012 21:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.178.73 with SMTP id cw9ls3216726igc.4.canary; Mon, 07 May
2012 21:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.110.75 with SMTP id o11mr13654100icp.6.1336451659833;
Mon, 07 May 2012 21:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.110.75 with SMTP id o11mr13654099icp.6.1336451659823;
Mon, 07 May 2012 21:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Received: from smtpauth02.mfg.siteprotect.com (smtpauth12.mfg.siteprotect.com. [64.26.60.150])
by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id e7si2990174iga.3.2012.05.07.21.34.19;
Mon, 07 May 2012 21:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.150 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) client-ip=64.26.60.150;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.150 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) smtp.mail=jm..._at_tscm.com
Received: from Waiting-For-A-Blue-Bird.local (unknown [71.174.17.141])
(Authenticated sender: jm..._at_tscm.com)
by smtpauth02.mfg.siteprotect.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 176A9C5F4
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:34:18 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4FA8A249.5040801_at_tscm.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 00:34:17 -0400
From: "James M. Atkinson" <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Reply-To: jm..._at_tscm.com
Organization: Granite Island Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1pre (Macintosh/2008022015)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "TSCM-L Mailing List" <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>
Subject: Anatomy of the Human Eye, Evolving to Digital Cameras
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020203.4FA8A24B.0047,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
�The Photographic Eye,� written by Allan Weitz is an interesting article
about how the human eye and the modern camera have several similar
attributes. What I found quite interesting in the article was how the
human eye constructs the entire scene through narrow (.5 degree)
snapshots of images. With some simple math, I was able to determine that
each image that we observe is actually 240-280 smaller images (120-140
degrees combined field of view), each involving 120 million panchromatic
pixels, and 7 million color pixels. This would reflect that to capture a
single image the eye collects 3.36 billion panchromatic pixels, and 196
million color pixels (and the 576 MP mentioned in the article may be a
little incorrect). The poetic message in the rods versus cones
comparison could be taken to mean that a black and white photograph
conveys 17 times more powerful a message then one in color.
The article by Weitz intrigued me further as I had recalled from my
Anatomy and Physiology courses that the cones do not respond evenly to
color in that there are more red responsive cones then green, and more
green then blue.
After reading the Weitz article an issue then came to mind (or actually
more of a hypothesis of mine) that modern digital cameras maintain an
even balance of red, green, and blue pixels in their imaging sensors,
when they actually should mimic the cone densities of the human eye and
be more biased to one color then another for optimal efficiency and
fidelity. To this end a modern digital camera should have over 70% of
the pixels dedicated to red, 23% to green, and 7% to blue, or the
inverse of these numbers depending on how you look at it.
The digital camera image sensor should also match the cone density
patterns of the human eye, which is a task that is actually far easier
then it initial seems, as the sensors can be etched in virtually any
color combination or density at the factory. My hypothesis is that by
matching the cone density of the human eye to the position or patterns
of certain pixels on the imaging sensor of a digital sensor that the
camera can be made to �see� more naturally, or more accurately the
camera sensor and the eye would see on a 1:1 basis. By collecting more
pixels in the spectrum then the eye can actually see, and not collecting
pixels the eye would �waste� the effective resolution of the digital
camera would be dramatically increased by doing nothing more then
re-ordering the pixels, but not actually increasing their number.
To look at this a different way, why should the camera sensor collect 7
million blue pixels, 7 million green pixels, and 7 million red pixels?
This symmetry of color pixels really is not needed, and an asymmetrical
approach to sensor design may allow cameras to actually see far better
then has previously been possible.
To take this a step beyond merely using asymmetrical sensor design, as
the rods and cones of the human eye are both mechanically, electrically,
and chemically different from one another and yet part of the same
matrix the camera sensor could also be modified to increase the diameter
of the monochromatic elements, and reduce the size of the color
elements. This would allow the monochromatic elements within the same
sensor to gain greater sensitivities and thus preserve image detail,
while the color elements would fill in the gaps and mimic the
performance of the human retina. Optionally, one sensor could be
dedicated to color imagery, and a second to monochromatic, and perhaps
additional sensors for alternate wavelengths similar to what is done
with reconnaissance satellites.
With silicon wafers now reaching 18-inches in diameter, and the new back
lit digital camera sensors well exceeding 50 million pixels per square
inch (i.e.: Kodak KAF-5K series) it will be possible for imaging sensors
to reach into the hundreds of millions of pixels within a few years time
using only a single chip.
While it may be costly to do so, it is currently within reason for a
single silicon wafer to be etched into a single digital sensor involving
1.12+ billion pixels; divided into whatever spectrum the designers may
wish. While an 18-inch wafer (Taiwan Semiconductor) and support circuits
may only fit onto the back of a 11x14 or larger camera the results would
be breathtaking, and may well exceed the abilities of the human eye, or
for that matter any other creature on Earth.
--
James M. Atkinson
President, Scientist and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
Granite Island Group
jm..._at_tscm.com
http://www.tscm.com/
(978) 546-3803
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:24 CST