BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chosun Juan" data-source="post: 3409179" data-attributes="member: 92780">There is an interesting article on eye characteristics describing resolution equivalence, focal length, aperture etc, here:  <a href="http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html" target="_blank">http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html</a>It seems that the 'assemblage' of the final perceived visual image is made up of a psychologically determined subset of the integrated image as physically recorded by the two individual eyes (my words).  It seems to me that this is why perceived acuity (or ability to detect differences anyway) is better than the supposed limits ...... I think from memory (an increasingly dodgy affair! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> that Kimmo and David had some testing/hypothesis that this was around something like  ~1.6x or so (just chucking a figure out there in the hope that one of the mavens will be along presently with the correct one!  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> less than the theory predicted ....... ???    :cat:Chosun    :gh:</blockquote>