My Assistant
Object Size For Human Eyes, in comparison with Pancam and Navcam pic |
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 -------------------- |
|
|
|
![]() |
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
Doug |
|
|
|
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) 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
|
|
|
|
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
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![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
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. |
|