If Your Eye was a Camera What Would the Specs be?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Get the best discount of the year on Raycons! Now through the end of November, go to buyraycon.com/... to get 20% off your order!
CONSIDER SUBSCRIBING ► bit.ly/Subscrib...
Watch Season 5 From Beginning ► bit.ly/Crew_Se...
This Episode ►
Niko and Peter are ready to reveal the ultimate camera - with specifications that EXCEED the human eye! .. the only problem is that they don't know what those specifications are.
This video was Directed and Edited by Nick Laurant / nicklaurant
FOLLOW ►
Instagram: bit.ly/_Corrido...
Sub-Reddit: bit.ly/_Corrido...
SUPPORT ►
Join Our Website: bit.ly/Crew_Me...
Buy Merch: bit.ly/Corridor...
OUR GEAR & PARTNERS ►
Most Used Equipment: bit.ly/Corridor...
Perfect Camera: bhpho.to/2FJpQmR
Puget Systems Computers: bit.ly/PC_Puget...
ActionVFX - bit.ly/TheBest...
MUSIC ►
Epidemic: bit.ly/Corridor... click this link for a free month!
Check out Savants Music! ► bit.ly/Savant_M...
![We Digitized our Lives then Buried Them [CGi Time Capsule]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pHvw_KtHxTM/mqdefault.jpg)
You forgot one extremely cool property of the eyes that the camera must have: auto-cleaning lenses
Lol
But would they cry detergent and wipe themselves w/ a micro-mop?
You'll need to build the rest of the face to hide that mechanism
@@myguelmartinsgarajau1555 you know how window wipers work? You can make a little mechanism outside that slides down and wipes the eye. You could make the eye camera slightly bigger to fit any stuff you need that wouldn't work on the outside
@@senboy9002 If you enlarge it too much, than it wouldn't be a *human* eye camera anymore.
Also, didn't knew windshield wipers could be made this small, thx ʘ‿ʘ
They don't auto-clean. There are people who have certain conditions and they need to wash them out or wipe the mucous out of them manually.
**trying to figure out how they made the camera look so realistic** **remembers they're literally cgi artists**
Same
If you look close the pores stretch.
Oh my god!!!
Yeah man,it may be cg
pffft they are lazy and did CGI camera eyeballs instead of Ray Harryhousing it.
But what a pain it would be to use a round camera hahahah. I mean people drop their flat phones too often I can only imagine people dropping their cameras rolling down the street.
They left some features out - self-repair for minor scratches, self cleaning, and a cover that senses potential damage and reacts to protect the camera.
Also blindness when you fall in love.
Top tier comment right here
❤️
well obviously they can't include features like those as they would interfere with planned obsolescence
@@Eric-uy7ee 80 year lifespan, degrades 40-50 years in, random models are highly defective and require add-ons to fix, use solely indoors degrades product over time.
Umm I think all that is called an eyelid and tear ducts, most people already have those, unless the cam eyes are for an android, then you would have to add those on, which technically aren't part of the eye but more like auxiliary system for the eye, ohh and I think the brain handles the love blindness, yeah even with a camera eye you would still be susceptible to love blindness.
As someone who did his PhD in photogrammetry: Thanks for collecting all the various insane performance aspects of biological systems in one video (until now, i've only found individual aspects scattered over various sources). Too few people know that the awesome sounding "Full HD" is classified as "extremely poor eyesight" (might even be "legally blind") in human performance terms
But... but... it says "full." :P
You mean "Full HD" over the whole sphere? Cos if Full HD over normal monitor angle is "blind", 320*200 monitors from 1980s should be considered worse than having no monitor at all.
And by the way, actual resolution of human eye is no more than 1 megapixel cos optic nerve consists of about this amount of axons. (did not watch the video but studied some biology a while ago)
@@wormball well it's the practical resolution that matters, not the actual one
@@wormball I know of an experiment some time ago where the experimenters tested a camera (i think it was around 60°FoV) against a human eye chart (these things where you have to read some numbers/letters from a certain distance when you are at the eye doctor/optometrist); IIRC they needed about 10K resolution to match 20/20 vision (i.e. about 160px/° angular resolution). You can also just watch the video as it has a lot of data on human vision.
Full HD exceeds the visual acuity of human eye if you watch the image from long enough distance. It's only if you go close enough the image that the image fully fills your field of vision when you need the 130 Mpixel resolution.
This is the reason why even 4K is actually too high resolution for most users: they have too tiny screens to fully benefit from the resolution.
How much does it cost, you didn't mention the price
He said subscribe, hit the notification bell and leave the color you want in the description. Should arrive 9 months after the conception of purchase.
About $3.000 per month
An arm and a leg.
if you have to ask then you can't afford it.
the price might cost you both of your eyes, and maybe a leg or two.
"Don't worry about that; it's artsy."
Most convincing line of the whole presentation.
Was about to go down to make a comment about that myself
Cognitive scientist here: One thing worth pointing out is that the optic nerve makes use of "coding" (combinations of neurons contributing to a signal) to detect shape and motion. Light too! The eyes actually make use of a firing pattern kind of similar to PWM to make for a much higher dynamic range than you might expect. Niko also pointed out that receptors are offset in firing time. Measuring the qualities of human vision is really tough because so much of our perception relies on not just the eye, but also signal processing in the optic nerve and occipital lobe to create a cohesive image. While the framerate test doesn't have experimental validity (mostly because of the display and image source), I'm glad to see Niko did the research and found other sources for his data. I've seen way too many RUclipsrs falsely claim the human eye can't see 4k or can't see above 60fps without actually considering how different the eye is from a camera.
Claiming that the eye can’t see more than 4k in resolution is especially weird to me. It should be a certain ppi that is too high since 4k on a 24” versus a 48” screen is obviously different.
I hate it when they say we can't see a difference above 60fps in a monitor, while I can spot the difference of my monitor dropping from 140 to 130 so easily that it ruins my immersion in many games.
The hardware is the software and the software is the hardware!
Good points! The human eye is also supposed to far exceed its native spatial resolution when it comes to detecting offset of edges (I'm missing the proper term for this). It's amazing how much preprocessing occurs in the eye even before the signals enter the visual cortex. If we truly wanted to create a camera with specs as close to the human eye as possible, we would need to incorporate this kind of logic into the sensor, because our eyes don't just relay raw visual input to the visual cortex.
Edit: The term I was looking for is "Vernier acuity"
@@lmoa3917 Yeah, butI could consider that claim on a phone where PPI can get up to 500-800 for 6"ish phones
turning "you cant store images" into "promotes social interaction" is truly the mark of an Apple product
it does store images, just in a text file, using AI to explain what was in the image.
Well I think the Eye Camera would go together well with an Eye Phone.
lol
No headphone jack either
@@mookymookymooo idk if this is a bad thing honestly
If there was a software update for this, would it be called an “eye patch”?? 👁
Hahahahaha! But what would it be called it there was an error?
@@Volatile127 An eye-bug? Sounds gross.
This only deserves likes, bravo
@Cody Bonn, actually it would be a firmware update.
Does it have a window to the soul built into it?
thats an extra $50
@@grrrraghhh4306 Unless you're a Ginger
I see what you did there.
@@ejeckk i don’t
@@n0tl4nc38 windows
This is not true...
Peter "Jobs" would never sell it as a set. He'd make you buy one more to make the set.
Yeah!! All this time imitating Jobs, and they didn't get it right at all.
Where are all the shady and greedy practices?
"We've listened to our customers and they'd prefer if we gave them the option of not needing to buy a second camera if they don't need it"...
Intel : Aight sponsor time.
pretty sure you mean Tim Cook
Jobs wasn't a ripoff, or at least nowhere near as much
charger sold separately
The frames per second question is a complex one. The problem with your test comes from two things. First, the footage you were showing was not natively generated at 120fps. Fake frames won't work as well as real frames. The other problem is the footage doesn't have full shutter motion blur, like our eyes would have if they had a frame rate.
Another problem is, eyes don't see in bursts like frames. They see in a constant stream. While you're correct about the latency, that's not frame rate. The constant stream sounds like infinite frame rate right? Sort of, but not really, because if you paused and looked at any particular instant, what you're going to see is a blend of visual information from the last several ms. For most people, this is going to be somewhere around 20ms. This is why it can become difficult to distinguish frame rates above 60, because even at 60fps, there's never any moment where you're seeing only a single frame. Multiple frames are being blended together at any given moment due to the "burn in" of the retina.
Also, for your quick flash test, there have actually been tests that showed people being able to recognize flashes at even 1/1000th of a second. That means of there's no motion blur, there's a possibility you would be able to detect individual frames even up to 1000fps, if you're good enough.
However, once you factor in motion blur (particularly one that uses the full 360 degree shutter), it's going to be next to impossible to recognize the difference between 60fps and anything higher. The one area where you would be able to tell is when your eyes happen to perfectly track a fast moving object, because then the motion blur on the moving object will be noticeably less on the higher frame rate video. However, both will look equally smooth in terms of how fluid it looks, due to the above reasons I explained. The notion blur will allow the constant streaming of your eye's visual data to receive images that also look like a constant stream of visual data, so motion looks more natural.
Although I would agree that without motion blur, above 500 fps your eyes are going to be mixing close to 10 full frames together at any given time, and in the vast majority of cases, blending 10 frames is enough to simulate motion blur realistically.
But we all know our eyes can't see more than 2 GB RAM.
Oh my god, you are over qualified for the RUclips comment section. Thank you anyways.
Well i would say nonsence
The nature Is perfect And it can't be copyed or messured :)
@@kristianmaas6629 Nature finds a way that works and stops there. If you actually look at how nature works you'll see that most of the time it is not optimized. It just works.
Aww u ruined the Jurassic world fealings
You guys just lost the opportunity to call it the “Iball”
Finally
It's already a thing
f
Did you mean iBall?
iBall ceo sweating intensifies.
"PLOT TWIST " : This whole episode is filmed in the eye camera
no it would be blurry everywhere but the middle
Whoa
Freaking youtube compression man..
He knows too much.
but it wasn't, you can tell
HOW IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT OUR BOY CARMICHAEL IN THAT VIDEO???
Great to see him again!
had to check the comments to make sure I wasn't crazy lol
He's actually back to be the showrunner for a series called Functional Filmmaking that's only on their website! But yeah, super great to see him.
One thing you’re forgetting is that the eye comes with a super computer called the visual cortex that processes the information from the eye.
Cram a 3090 in there and an image stacker program, then the wierd deep learning results would be like how you randomly forget or add things to a memory.
oh my god i think we watch the same exact videos bro..
If you're lucky
Yeah, basically AI deep learning algorithms in our brains. They fill stuff in almost like DLSS 2, without raw processing every dot of light hitting the eyes. It’s a way to speed up the process, the same way we use DLSS to squeeze more processing out of our graphics card. And it’s not just doing a deep learning temporal upscaler, it’s like a whole stack of these optimization post-process enhancements that our brains filter everything through.
Another big feature we have is like a high speed version of taking a panorama photo on an iPhone. Our eyes wiggle back and forth rapidly to increase our effective field of view by temporal stitching, so to speak. When we’re focusing in on something with binocular vision, we are straining our eye muscles to hold our eyes more still to get LESS field of view, as if we’re zooming in.
There’s so much going on that makes it really difficult to quantify in camera terms and units.
It actually has 2, the "Conscious" And "Subconscious"
I love how you guys presumably had a brainstorming session for videos, came up with this and shot it. You guys have transitioned from the short film culture of 2011 RUclips to the personality-driven culture of 2020 RUclips, and you've managed not to sacrifice the style and creativity that originally attracted people to your channel!
"I had to return some videotapes"... Anyone who's watched American Psycho would be a little concerned on where Peter really was
It's my favorite excuse for everything 😂
If apple had built a "eye camera" they would add myopia, astigmatism etc with a randomizer and would sell "iglasses" to fix it lol
😭😭😭
Why smash bros and not mk11 😢
@@josephsimunek5350 why nah, its clearly their bussines model. They are shortening battery life on purpose to increase performance yet still offer new batteries even tho its not really going to fix what they have done.
They tell you that they have to change your entire motherboard because of some bent display connecter pins. They create the problems either by incompetence or simply to increase revenue and to create a false image of their product.
They are beyond any company I have ever interacted, with their malicious acts against customers. Im glad I bought my last phone from huawei as they even offered me to change only the glass of my screen if display is ok, also lenovo service offered me an another shop to fix my laptop because it cost less and they did not had the parts to fix my laptop in that time, they said it would take a month to order the parts and would cost more and that I would still have my guarentee even tho an another shop fixed it.
You see, its not that hard to find solutions in the interest of your customers when you are not trying to milk them like cows!
@@josephsimunek5350 you are in the Illusion of that "they keep your info safe". Many safety leaks happened regarding apple over the years.
They would shutdown the eye if it detects parts that weren't serviced by an Apple Store.
I always have a little “wtf” conversation with God after I’m on the beach for 10 minutes with my eyes closed. Auto White Balance, really?
plssss when it all goes a bit blueish and desaturated?? madness.
Actually that's very relaxing, like in all these cities filled with concrete buildings and concrete roads and gray cars, it's nice to see some color once in a while.
Sometimes I just stand at the side of the road with my eyes closed.
Dude, there's this really rad invention, it's like, amazing! It's called: Sunglasses!
@@myguelmartinsgarajau1555 thats fun! I do dat in the middle of the road
@@myguelmartinsgarajau1555 aqui tu fecha os zoio e é assaltado
Niko: *points the light directly at the camera*
My astigmatism: Allow me to introduce myself
Only one astigmatism? 😤 weak 😅😂😂
*My eyes are like camera lenses....*
_Soulless._
*my grades are like camera lenses...*
so-less?
wow, so edgy
@@QMNWBE
Funny coming from the guy who has the joker as his avatar.
Wow so originally edgy.
@@thememeestfilmbuff But joker isn’t edgy, it would be Batman who is edgy.
@@Dojoslayer people who use joker are edgy
What about people with heterochromia, can they get two different colours in one box?
Well that's a feature not a bug. I'd say keep it could be a collector's item in the future
No
Hetrocromia is a mutation, it’s a very groovy mutation
Its like getting a shiny
@@justmyopinion7201 I’m a mutant? 🥺
I would suggest not using a TV for high refresh rate content. It uses interpolation to render non-existing frames which to some people doesn't look good. Especially not in games.
Show ANYONE a 120Hz monitor and then an identical one at 60Hz and they will immediately tell the difference. Done this test with people ranging from 6 to 70 years old and it's absolutely one-sided. So far nobody has not noticed the immediate smoothness. And for the love of god, make sure you run it off of a PC so that it can actually output 120fps at the same time.
Yep. That was the one big flaw I saw with the testing they did.
Here comes interpolation in games :D
Most Oled tv's can do 120hz native. Agree with ya, they should've used a PC for native accurate fps. And I thought the same thing about the black frame insertion, turning on the smooth option.
Niko has this calm, humble, genius inventor vibe to him. It wouldn't be surprising if these guys actually invent an icam.✌️
Also Niko "I like when Mario head pop!"
What do you mean you would be surprised if they made one? They already did as clearly stated in this video.
Yeah He has this vibe after 100 takes.... Don't believe what you see, it's a video , a production, and this is their work, do you see how often it is cut?
The ISO calculations don’t take into account that the “frame rate” of the cells in your eye changes based on light intensity
Yeah, and they didn't take into account pupil dilation and changing the f stop accordingly.
@@BonomDenej But the lens will change size just like our eyes to chance iso
That's right, independent "shutter speed" for each sensing cell, some of them up to several seconds on intense high/low light scenarios.
The first ISO calculation, in daylight (mostly shadow, and a low Sun) said ISO 640, with 1/48s and f/3.2. Really?!
My guessimate would be more like 50 ISO. What am I missing here?
And to calculate the minimum iso they'd have to take into account the dynamic range figure, so it's probably way above 1 iso, since the brightest detail you can see would have to be at the top stop of the dynamic range when exposing for something around 10 stops darker.
Technically the eye camera would have a spherically curved sensor, not a flat planar one. Unlike a camera that has a flat CMOS sensor, a human eye has a curved retina. Designing a lens for a curved sensor is actually easier and more efficient than designing rectilinear lenses and you can get better performance out of them. That's why nature evolved curved retinas in animals, not flat ones.
but im sure the catch is its significantly harder / more complex to manufacture
@@SYBIOTE It was straight-up impossible until a little while ago. New tech is being rapidly developed to have curved sensors easily manufactured.
@@SYBIOTE The main problem with designing a curved sensor is the material. It's easy to make nice flat silicon wafers that you can etch into a sensor, but it would be astronomically expensive to machine a piece of silicon into a smooth spherical shape, and to also somehow etch a design into it with UV lithography machines.
@@SYBIOTE ESPECIALLY on a larger scale.
By the way, if anyone's interested, there's even such thing as a lensless camera.
Having lost an eye, I think about how far off are we from reproducing a human eye. Dam.
rip :(
I lost one too in an accident....I'm happy how our bodies quickly adapt
@@geffeniz :(
The cool thing is, you can just kinda plug in wires into your optical nerve and feed it video, the brain eventually learns the patterns and correlates it to what you hear/ feel/ smell etc and will essentially give you your vision back
@@crimmy838 yes but so far all they've got is black and white vision, they don't seem to be able to replicate colours at all yet
Plot twist: They all need glasses.
No no no .. thats just the basic care plan... but if you get the premium care plan you get "contact LENS" Light Enhancing Neuro screen ( sold individually, discounted if you buy 2 )
"Custom skins like blue, hazel, green... That's it."
Me sitting here with brown eyes.
Bah, just do it like me and give them to a customshop after they arrive. Otherwise I would never get my favorite built: green-grey-blue with a brown corona
@@Makumbator ooooh do they have croma eyes????
Brown color is only available for those who funded the kick starter.. sorry to tell you we both got the beta release
Also grey eyes, amber eyes, and the rarer albino (red) and purple eyes... and mixes of all of them.
I ordered mine in red and black.
Human eyes: Yo I'm the boss here
Literally all cameras: U still cant zoom in
Human eyes:........
Have you ever heard of the mantis shrimp?
Check out that things eyes.
octopus eyes: *haha*
nothing wrong with a great prime lens
you'll need a zoom lens for that. for eyes that would be a telescopic lens.
Isnt there a contact lens that is is/being invented to do that
0:25 fingerprint on the eyeball 😂
Atleast it won't hurt when if i touched a robotic eye, in comparison to the agony of accidentally poking my organic eye
@@spartanwar1185 My sister did that to my eye and it hurt like the top floor of Hell
If the camera was better than the human eye we wouldn't be able to tell
You can zoom in.
*wouldn't
True true
Technically we could. Just not in a single glance. We could zoom in more on an image, even if it's higher resolution than our eyes, and and pan around wider than our field of vision would allow. If the camera's colour sensor was better than our eyes, we could never tell. We can determine it mathematically, but not by sight.
@@Tryphara yeah, my bad
Me, with terrible vision: "There are two lines?"
Yes, i think
There are five lines.
me watching this on 144p coz I'm not on wifi: theres a line?
Furry
And...?
And peripheral vision has a higher "frame-rate" than your fovea. While the fovea is mostly cones which are good at distinguishing colours and focusing on details, the peripheral vision is mostly rods, which are good at detecting fast motion. It's why you might notice an old florescent light flickering out of the corner of your eye, but when you look at it directly, you can't quite tell whether it's really flickering.
Thats actually really interesting. Maybe i should start looking away from my screen when playing siege XD
@@mr.dinosuar7333 You may be kidding, but you're not entirely wrong.
@@mr.dinosuar7333 that actually works I guess, I had a tendency to shift my focus from the center of the screen when holding a gap with awp in cs because I thought it was easier.
That American Psycho reference at 8:17 though. Nice.
Nice catch 😉
Here’s a cool eye hack: put a sunglass over one eye. That eye will automatically use a longer ”shutter speed”, and 2D video (with some motion) will look 3D because of perspective disparity. I’m not kidding.
Yeah. Tom Scott has a video on it, for those interested
Peter is such a great addition to the team. His synergy with whoever he is on the video is so entertaining. Plus his blender skills are superb.
Wren II
I disagree.
Peter was the tactical hire of the century
@@mrLabear i like peter... he is like bogdan
@@mrLabear not saying you shouldn’t have a differing opinion but was that last part with the edit there seriously necessary?
@@mrLabear sad and insecure much?
@@mrLabear I think he's overrated, but.. the last edit is a bit much
Regarding the eye's framerate: they've done experiments showing that in stressful/life-threatening situations your eye increases it's framerate far beyond what you would normally experience. What was the experiment? They gave subjects a display that flashed between between 000 and a specific number (like a 2 frame gif) and asked the subjects to identify the number. They then increased the speed at which the display switched between 000 and the specific number until subjects could no longer identify the number.
This is the fun bit....
They then hoisted the subjects high up on a crane above a big safety net while they held the display. *Then dropped them.* While in freefall most of the subjects could identify the number on the display at a much higher framerate than they could see under "normal" conditions.
Edit: added a .
That would be the Adrenaline™ coprocessors kicking in.
@@VoltisArt It's an awesome product!
Source? I wanna read this article.
"blue, hazel, green, and that's it"
Proceeds to show pink one
I need glowing red and an RGB option.
well yeah you gotta have the rose gold
This isn't realistic. The iCamera wouldn't come as a set, it will come in left and right models, which you'll have to buy both separately to access the stereoscopic feature.
Plus, the BlindSpot technology allows plugging the power and data cable directly into the sensor, at the cost of a small region of dead pixels. But worry not! You can buy a separate coprocessor to use innovative AI technology and backfill the dead region! (no warranty, especially if backfill causes car crash)
typical apple marketing strategy
Plus the connectors will be different.
Charger not included
And a dongle allowing you to connect both at the same time? Sold separately for $29.95.
It's funny that Peter said he was "returning some video tapes" because he is the most likely to be a serial killer.
I caught that too
Yeah I was just checking the comments to see if anyone else caught that American Psycho reference. Lol.
Even funnier because Peter is the one who has been serial killed.
@Luke F Wren kept on killing peter’s clones
@@beepboop2803 42!! Noooooo!
4:00 that damn discord ping
You checked too?
Ikr
This is the kind of content I live for. Smart people exploring something they’re clearly well versed in, in a way that’s interesting and engaging to a layman.
I don’t know anything about cameras but this was fascinating. Excellent video
To bad they fall short
Uhh I’m pretty sure it’s CGI
Don't forget about the eye's ability to focus almost instantly with near flawless tracking on even high speed objects.
Me this whole video:
*"I know some of these words"*
Me too
Feels good when you know what they’re talking about
Quote from 100fps.com:
"How many frames per second can the human eye see?
This is a tricky question. And much confusion about it is related to the fact, that this question is NOT the same as:
How many frames per second do I have to have to make motions look fluid?
And it's not the same as
How many frames per second makes the movie stop flickering?
And it's not the same as
What is the shortest frame a human eye would notice?"
I think it's more like what's the limit of the eye to even get any light data
I always heard the eye has a radioactive isotope that decays 24 times per second, so anything less than that looks choppy.
@@westingtyler1 Radioactive isotope decay at a random interval following an exponential distribution, one of the main properties of this distribution is its lack of memory, meaning that if you know how long it has been since the last decay then the average time it should take until the next one do not change.
It might average out at 24 times a second but it would not be stable, it would easily jump between 1/20 and 1/28 of a second between decay and once in a while it could go for like a half second with no decay, not that often but you would be sure to notice a half second freeze frame even it just happened about once a week.
Also I doubt it.
@@pixels_per_inch I'm guessing that it to a very large degree is about experience and knowledge. As an example: How many complained about 360p , 480p, 720p or even 1080p before they had a chance to compare them to something better? And how many (in the beginning of each step) had the chance to actually compare the different screens close enough for them to actually make out the difference?
Also, if I'm not misremembering one article about the article that mentioned that the people that could see things at 500FPS was trained to see (and react, I guess) things as fast as possible. So while I think you're right that we have different genetical disparities, most people (pure guess) can probably be trained to see differences at, at least, 100 and, let's say, 144-200FPS - This is of course in-game/reality things and note in movies as that's a whole other thing.
The tricky part about the question is not that there's different ways to ask it?? The fuck?? The difficulty in pinpointing a benchmark fps that the human eye perceives, lies in the fact there is no standard for a benchmark eye and the majority of tests done on people in recent years have been on people trained to perceive the slightest change in frames, as evidence by the air force tests for example. Or even this video where they had 5 gamers and vgi artists try to determine between 60 and 120 fps which is a shoddy 50/50 test to try in the first place.
240p cause im blind without glasses
Mine are 144p I can't read anything passed my nose without my glasses :(
@Unwise words from a Bucket ah yes. And that nice change in focal depth so that when cars hit me idk until im in the hospital
@HeyItsMeDaisy the 20/20 gang has it easy. Im red-green colorblind too lol. no HDR here
Nope, it's just out of focus.
Mine is 1p
I'll not be surprised if they came up with one 9 months later.
You serious lol?
Accualy the pnly problem is how to connect cam to eye nerves
I'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION SO MANY TIMES AND NO ONE EVEN UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT
@@BlueGOfficial actually, the human eye is created in a way that a resolution can't be measured, the human eye technically doesn't have a specific amount of pixels because there is no screen or frames to be displayed, our brain sees one big photo that's constantly moving, so technically the human eye can exceed 5,000,000+ MP
I was literally thinking about that earlier today
Oh god, please use native 120. That motion smoothing is not at all the same thing.
yeah. I can tell the difference between 120 and 240, but I've not seen screens higher than that. I know people who can't tell the dif between 30 and 60. I can't understand that.
@@westingtyler1 The real weird thing is I can see a difference between 120 and 144, but not 45 and 60.
As someone who wasn't a huge fan of Peter as an intern (didn't dislike, just barely even noticed him) he's grown into being a huge asset for your channel, and an amazing on camera personality. Acquiring him was a huge move for your company, thanks for making stuff like this!
@@bradleyrossross963 You literally have no way of knowing what he's like off-camera.
“Blue, Hazel, and Green” we all know DAMN WELL, they’re gonna release a special Elizabeth Taylor model Violet coloured eye camera, that’s gonna be like triple the price and only one added feature smh.
Lol all jokes aside, I loved this video, I remember talking about this in undergrad haha
These types of videos are just soooo inspiring to me, I can't even explain 🙏🙏
I'm sure it comes as no surprise, but there were definitely some math problems when it comes to light sensitivity. The maximum f-stop of an eye IS about 3.2, but in order to use that number it needs to be converted to 35mm equivalent. The aperture is also not constant, and can vary by about 5-6 stops as the pupil contracts. When taking this into account, the dynamic range is effectively reduced by the same number of stops. It should also be noted that the eye has a harder time perceiving fast-moving objects in low light, which means the effective frame rate is not constant. The human eye has a true focal length of 23mm, with an objective aperture diameter of 6-7mm in low light and about 1mm in bright light, which, before converting to 35mm format, corresponds to an f-stop of f/23 to f/3.3. After converting to 35mm, the effective f-stop will range from f/50 to f/7.2.
At the end of the day, even though the human eye is very much like a camera, calculating its specifications is extraordinarily difficult because the retina operates in a way radically different from a digital image sensor. The eye has variable resolution across the retina, variable (and mushy) framerate/shutterspeed, variable aperture, variable sensitivity, and an incredible range of focusing power (the eye can perform as a somewhat decent macro lens). And all of this is to say nothing about how the retina processes data, which is nothing like a digital image sensor. A surprising amount of image processing takes place on the retina itself, including basic shapes, basic movement, and growing/shrinking (approaching/receding) objects. The more about the eye I learn, the more intriguing it becomes.
It really shows how important good eyesight is for survival. Otherwise evolution hadn't given us such a fantastic tool to understand our environment in a split second.
Octopi can see with their skin (in addition to their eyes). Not even all vision in the animal kingdom is image focusing-lens based.
No thank you
and, our eyes don't have the distortion of a wide angle cause the image is projected on a CURVED "sensor": the retina
@@cosecaduteperterra Oh yes, I've thought before about how amazing cameras could be if image sensors were constructed with a curve that matches that specific lens. Of course, then the next problem is translating that curved image sensor onto a flat plane for viewing, but that's a smaller problem.
Wait your telling me it doesn't come in brown? Well that seems like an overSIGHT!
you're
also hazel is brown.
Hazel is a mix of brown and green, source: I have hazel eyes. :)
Hit a like if everyone saw Carmichael
Is he back cuz I thought I saw him filming in Texas with them?
4:40 Baby
Yes! I actually rewound the video to check if my 3K sensors tricked me. Carmichael! Greetings from Germany. Wie isset?! :D
@@Andybowbandy He’s there part-time
I almost thought that was Wren with glasses for a moment.
"We have a TV here playing Smash Brothers here" just like 90% of all tech startups.
I got a pack of 2 of those fancy cameras. Let me tell you: you should really think about it before buying it. First of all, mine have a hardware problem in the color detection. It keeps messing the colors, sometimes there's purple and it only detect blue, other times it will render orange when things are green... Really something I did not expect for such a price.
Secondly, another issue appeared after some time: those camera are not able to focus correctly on far objects. I've heard it's a common issue. Again, a hardware problem that they never bothered fixing correctly. The solution? Using an external lens before the cameras to correct the failed product!
And the last but not the least, everybody has the same problem after many years: The cameras won't focus correctly on close objects. Yes, you read me right: every one of their cameras does this! What a scam! Of course, no warranty for this. The answer from the retailers? Simple: your product is very old, you should consider changing it. There again, some people can make you custom lenses, to put before the cameras to "fix" the problem, but again, it's on you to buy it.
And all this is just a fraction of the various problems you can have with this product. Some people even had cameras that don't work at all (due to hardware or software issue).
So, yes, when their product works correctly, indeed, it has specs and quality of an insanely good level. But the problem is, you never know if you'll have a flawed production. And there's no exchange, no refund.
sounds like typical Apple, at least you know you bought the original
Both my cameras have blind spots!
Saw this video today and my instant reaction was that these people are scammers. They have an evasive and a bit obnoxious prescence.
i’ve noticed an issue in mine where, even though both cameras are plugged in and fully operational, a software bug only allows one to be used at at times, rendering the 3D feature useless. i just hope they patch it soon
@@peach_total I admit, I've never heard of that one before. What is it called?
As a biotechnology nerd, I love how this sort of demonstrates how weirdly, incredibly good our innate "machinery" is at doing something as incredibly complex as turning light into images. All that's made of ATCG! Freaking crazy
The human eye certainly is too complex to be a random product of evolution, as is the rest of the universe.
our body is full of neat tricks to get things done.
anyway... i just ate noodles, noodles are made of wheat. Wheat take sunlight to grow. so basically I'm a solar powered machine.
so, add it to eye-camera feature: solar power.
Hits Bong "like dude, what specs would a camera have if it was as our eyes"
Corridor Crew: Got yah fam
The level of ingenuity you guys had in figuring this out is incredible
Shortsightedness and farsightedness people: *Aight imma head out*
It's basically bad lens and autofocus. Can't macro or focus to infinity.
Am shortsighted. Means I came with the macro lens, but had to go third-party for other shots.
*runs headfirst into the wall*
Not to be a smart ass, but I'm not sure the TV 60hz vs 120hz test was entirely accurate, since as far as I know the switch can only output 60 FPS. The FPS has to match the refresh rate of the display in order to be able to see an appreciable difference. But if you were to play a PC game at 60 FPS versus say 144 FPS with a high refresh rate monitor, I guarantee you could tell a difference.
Yeah, agreed. I have a 240Hz screen and with some very specific tests, I can definitely tell the difference with 120 and 60hz. In normal use in games though, not really. But if the experiment is "can you see it" then yeah, you can.
They turned on interpolation.
I am inclined to agree with you. There are TVs that can do native 120 or 100 Hz (depending on the frequency of the electricity that is supplied to the TV, when talking about alternating current), but the question is if that is the type of tv they were using.
The mode they pressed was also called 'smooth', so that makes me think it works with interpolation, which is 'faking' extra frames on the screen, instead of actually generating extra frames from the console/pc.
Hey, they're just filmakers! It's not like we should expect them to know about refresh rates ;)
@@JenoSnetrem So you're saying that you can't tell a significant difference between 120hz and 240hz? Just wondering cause I'm considering buying a 240hz monitor.
"I had to return some video tapes." American Psycho. Freaking love it ^_^
I really enjoyed watching your video! Educative and brought to us in a entertaining way! 10/10
More like 20/20... IYKWIM ;)
RIP brown eyed people, only comes in blue, green, and hazel.
You should just get the android version, then you can buy whatever color you want using third party parts... and the connectors will match too.
Grey eyes too
Exactly! Brown eyes are the most common eye color in the entire world 😂. I’m just nitpicking though...enjoyed this video
Mine is hazel with tiny bits of green
They should not have changed the lens when doing the 2 lines test since our eyes don’t change lenses too 🤷🏽♂️
true I was thinking the same, but I don't think it makes changes to results, they know a lot about cameras, maybe they know what they are doing, or maybe I'm too dumb!!
@@Silvie3D @kamel Labiad also, although our eyes don't change lenses, the lens of your eye DOES itself change - warping and flexing to focus near or far.
I don't think they changed lenses, they just zoomed in to the live view. The screen would not have been outputting the full sensor res
Sa7 kayna menha 😂 tf are you doing here Kamel. lol jk
Don't our eyes do that by flexing our lens?
Can you tell the difference between 60 and 120 Hertz?
*enter: pc gamers*
You actually can.
Once your game gets frame drops of 5 - 10, your eye perceives it as frame lag or frame skips when you're at around 144 - 240hz.
I play on a 240 Hz monitor and after about a year I can see the difference between 144 and 240 with it, but it is not that bad, I'm already looking forward to the 360hz monitors
Isnt hertz about sound?
you can even tell the difference between 120 and 240. But of they use a frickin switch that does only 30FPS anyways, how can you tell a difference? they probably didnt watch linus
@@sidereaper6140 hz is the unit for frequency
“We have the perfect cameras right here in our eyes” They say while having such poor vision to need glasses.
Technically, just their lenses suck.
"Available 9 months after the conception of your purchase"
Well played.
Was looking for this. This joke haha.
You really used a TV's fake-ass 120Hz mode to see if they could tell the difference?
Was wondering the same thing, they probably just didn't have an actual 120hz monitor to watch footage that was natively 120fps
But yea, TVs that have that high frame rate mode is just interpolation bs
@@NotNahtan would be very interested to see if they repeated this test with a 120hz, 240hz and, 360hz monitor. I know these tests have been done but would be interesting to know of the Corridor Crew
A lot of other RUclipsrs have done this exact test so you can check those out if you're not satisfied with the method.
I believe that the tv here is LG OLED. I have one too and hooking up real 120FPS game vs interpolated nonsense are very different things. Test here is more like can people spot that fakey motion that TVs do and not about real ability to see frames. Linus Techtips have done better tests with this.
@@KarlClarkeMusic yeah watch the linustechtips Does fps matter video. very in depth and informative.
Niko: Sees 2 parallel lines as 1 at metres and metres of distance
Astigmatics: [hysterical laughter]
Awesome guys! I've often wondered this. Thanks!
Interesting thing I just thought about is how people are always like “how are old photos so clear” and it’s cause it was just light and film not digital cameras and pixels
Film has no native resolution. You can up the resolution of properly exposed film to an insane amount
@@christiancasaverdepertica1802 It maxes out at 5K before the physical grains are too big to get rid of (without AI - which causes blurryness). You can obviously upscale but technically speaking, 5k is the most you can do.
@@FrotLopOfficial for a 35mm film. If you use a bigger film, you get a bigger resolution.
@@FrotLopOfficial 70 mm film is 8k
Peter : "Custom skins that come in blue, hazel, green. That's it "
Brown eyed people : ...
brown is orange
Orange is the new black
why do the eye renders have smudge marks on them? wh- whos touching my eyes?
Gotta have these imperfections in CGI for realism.
MY EYES!
Honestly, I cant even tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps without it being right next to each other
There's a difference between the FPS you see in real time vs the feedback of FPS from recorded video on a screen, because you are are dealing with the refresh rate of that screen plus other factors. Information is lost. I believe 50FPS is about the max we are able to differentiate for screen display.
The highest I've been able to experience is 100Hz. I had my 60Gz monitor overclocked to 72Hz for a while and it yielded a nice little boost in smoothness, though that might have been mostly me thinking it was smoother. Making the jump to 100Hz was a different world. Even just moving the cursor felt much more natural and less jerky. I do have a trained eye though so I might be part of the group very sensitive to this and my experience would not be the experience of everyone.
@@DesertCookie I think moving cursor is makes it alot easier to see differences in FPS, but in actual video footage its harder to tell. Or may just have a trained eye.
My eye specs would be 4 megapixel and permanent background blur.
u too?
LITERALLY SAME THOUGH
“Nobody cries more than I do”
Okay, but you’re using interpolated frames for your high frame rate. That’s kinda garbage, cause real-time frame interpolation is far from optimal. I would guess true 120 hz is more easily distinguishable than interpolated 120 hz from 60 hz.
Yeah like why did they do this? They almost certainly have high refresh rate monitors in the studio, which they can easily change the refresh rate of.
Y all are taaalking SCienCe!
its so interesting how, well, organic the human eye is. We don't have a set framerate, it changes per "pixel", and some other factors most likely. Like if you just woke up, if you're scared and on edge, or if you've had training like that pilot test.
Nobody is saying anything about Peter doing the sponsored segment. WHERE'S JAKE??
Everyone skips Jake.
Inna Key pretty sure he’s been producing a corridor x black rifle coffee shoot Atleast as recent as oct 30
i really miss Jake
#freejake
@ #freejake
Thor called, he's asking if you guys have one in blue.
Rocket already gave him one.
@@rjuuuuun Yes, but it's brown
@@user-N20 You won. 😅
Is it lightning proof?
Imagine looking at higher res than your eye and expecting to see something better
this is trippy to think about after reading it out loud lol
Guess it's only possible if you find a way to connect it directly to your brain
Yea this “science” test was pretty shit lmao.
@@JOMprodBeta it’s like trying to play a video game at higher res than your monitor can display
@@Katanaz That's called supersampling. You still get a benefit from it in games. It gives it a sort of natural anti-aliasing quality without actually having to turn on extra anti-aliasing in the post-processing options.
They did not even mention the dimensions and weight of the camera. That brings it to a whole other level.
Is Carmichael back at Corridor, or am I seeing things?
I saw him too
He is back, he is the show runner for one of the www.corridordigital.com/ subscription only green-lite shows "Functional Film Making".
Same
I think so! That or we need to get new eye cameras lol
Them: "Can you see the difference between 60hz and 120hz"
Also them: *Plays a game that is maxed at 60fps*
Which is why they used motion interpolation. Which is still not a good test. They definitely have high refresh rate monitors in that studio they could have used.
@@monkfishy6348 Yeah, LTT did the testing with CS:GO and 240Hz, 120, 60 monitors, and they found out via high speed camera, some people have a larger range of FPS sensitivity, that you can sort of train yourself to have better vision. (The pro gamers were better. But everyone noticed the increase in frames.) (look ma! Gaming is good for something)
They should have played professional Quake 3 demos at 60fps and then 120fps (on a monitor that is at least 120hz.) Everyone would have seen a difference; it's huge.
@@Jay_Sullivan I wouldn't say it's huge...I have 2 monitors, one at 60 and at 144 and there isn't that much difference tbh.
@@kingacrisius , I'm guessing you've never played a game like Quake 3.
Mom: "Why is Niko running around dressed like a beatnik Harry Potter?"
Me: "Ummm, he's making a video abiout the new iCamera."
Mom: "Oh, okay. Where's that nice young man that rides that wheel thing?"
Me: "He's like Johnny Carson, his contract says he gets Tuesdays off..."
This may be my favorite thing they have done. Much Mythbuster energy.
Wasn't there an entire Black Mirror episode on why this exact concept could be a really slippery slope if it became publicly accessible?
Nah I'm sure it'd be a perfect utopia with no drawbacks
Black Mirror - Season 1 - Episode 3 - _The Entire History of You_
The Switch can't output more than 60 frames per second.
You used a TV's temporal interpolation to make it reach 120Hz.
That's not the same as looking at actual 120Hz footage, which would be easier to discern from upscaled 60Hz.
I was about to write the exact same comment!
This!!
You would think they'd know this.
100 years later:
Sorry my eyes spec is only 1080p
1000 year
Ironically, this is something I have wondered for a long time now, glad to learn.
I’m laughing so hard at the “Crapple announcement” 😅😂
Ikr, it’s the polar opposite of an Apple event XD
IS THAT CMIKE!? HATH HE RETURNED?!
yes
Can we just take some time to think about how dedicated and elegant these wurks are.... 🔥🔥
does the camera include those annoying little floaties that cover the lens?
You have to pay extra for those.