IPB
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Object Size For Human Eyes, in comparison with Pancam and Navcam pic
Tman
post May 24 2005, 01:08 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 877
Joined: 7-March 05
From: Switzerland
Member No.: 186



If there already was a discussion about, then I would gladly ask: where is it? Otherwise does someone know something about the object size in the pics, getting from Pancam and Navcam, in comparison with "seen by human eyes"? For example, probably the object sizes getting from Navcam are smaller as we would see it with our own eyes at the same position, but how much approximately? And how about Pancam?

Primarily I would like to know the "real" size of sun by the sunset seen from Spirit on sol 489 (Pancam): http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=10917


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
djellison
post May 24 2005, 09:10 PM
Post #2


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Ahh - I thought it was more complicated that that smile.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post May 24 2005, 11:27 PM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (djellison @ May 24 2005, 04:10 PM)
Ahh - I thought it was more complicated that that smile.gif

Doug
*

It is a little more complicated than that.

I hate to disagree with the explanation above, but the way *I* always heard it was this:

The first factor in the ratio is, indeed, distance from an eyechart. The *second* factor is point size of type.

Someone with 20:20 vision can't resolve type smaller than 20-point from 20 feet away. Someone with 20:40 vision can't resolve type smaller than 40-point from 20 feet away. If you have 20:200 vision, you can't resolve type smaller than 200 point from 20 feet away.

There are some people with 20:15 and even 20:12 vision. This is extraordinarily good vision -- it means they can resolve 15-point or even 12-point type from 20 feet away.

As you can see, this allows the ratio to actually measure visual acuity. If it were simply a comparison between better and worse vision, as suggested above, it would have no absolute value and therefore would be a rather meaningless measure.

The "20:20" thing doesn't have anything to do with apparent size of objects, anyway. That's governed by the degree of curvature of the camera lens. I know that in regular photographic equipment, objects appear in fairly normal perspective (i.e., as large and small, by distance, as they would to a human eye) when you use a 50-mm lens. A wide-angle or "fisheye" lens, of 35-mm or less, makes objects appear farther away than they are (smaller at a greater rate with distance than we see with the eye). A narrow-angle, 75-mm up to 500-mm or more, makes distant objects appear much closer than they are (smaller with distance at a lesser rate than seen by the eye).

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Tman   Object Size For Human Eyes   May 24 2005, 01:08 PM
- - djellison   Pancam is just about the resolution of 20:20 human...   May 24 2005, 01:36 PM
- - Tman   Thanks Doug, I've found it here (below on the ...   May 24 2005, 02:43 PM
- - djellison   I think the best analogy is the eye-sight test tha...   May 24 2005, 02:56 PM
|- - Tman   QUOTE (djellison @ May 24 2005, 04:56 PM)I th...   May 24 2005, 04:19 PM
- - djellison   No - 20:20 is the 'score' your eyes get. 2...   May 24 2005, 07:04 PM
|- - PaulW   QUOTE (djellison @ May 24 2005, 02:04 PM)No -...   May 24 2005, 08:25 PM
- - djellison   Ahh - I thought it was more complicated that that ...   May 24 2005, 09:10 PM
|- - dvandorn   QUOTE (djellison @ May 24 2005, 04:10 PM)Ahh ...   May 24 2005, 11:27 PM
- - lyford   Wikipedia to the rescue! Though it's still...   May 25 2005, 02:05 AM
- - ilbasso   There are also a couple of advantages that the Pan...   May 25 2005, 02:34 AM
|- - odave   QUOTE (ilbasso @ May 24 2005, 10:34 PM)Astron...   May 25 2005, 07:22 PM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (ilbasso @ May 24 2005, 07:34 PM)There ...   May 25 2005, 08:10 PM
- - Tman   Thank you for your explanations - again something ...   May 25 2005, 07:06 PM
- - dilo   QUOTE (Tman @ May 25 2005, 07:06 PM)... Now f...   May 25 2005, 08:18 PM
- - Tman   QUOTE (dilo @ May 25 2005, 10:18 PM)About foc...   May 26 2005, 04:42 PM
- - Deimos   QUOTE (Tman @ May 26 2005, 04:42 PM)Have you ...   May 26 2005, 05:13 PM
|- - Bob Shaw   Please ignore this post - it's in the wrong th...   May 26 2005, 06:03 PM
- - dilo   QUOTE (Tman @ May 26 2005, 04:42 PM)Yes, than...   May 26 2005, 06:11 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th December 2024 - 02:48 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.