My really dumb question of the day ...

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #13401374
I wish we had a faster shutter speed with our eyes... then we can probably see the path of a high speed projectile.

Years ago I was at a shooting range with someone that was shooting a handgun at distant targets (~100 meters) using a bullet with a jacketed base. The sun was setting directly behind us. It took several shots before I realized that I could actually see the streak of the bullet going downrange. The shiny jacket on the bullet's base reflected the sun just enough to allow me to see it.

It wasn't so much that you saw the bullet, it was more like you realized that you had seen (past tense) the bullet.

The conditions, the distance (flight time of the bullet), just everything was perfect. It's the only time I've ever actually seen a bullet in over 30 years of shooting.

Roak

roakey wrote in post #13402876
Years ago I was at a shooting range with someone that was shooting a handgun at distant targets (~100 meters) using a bullet with a jacketed base. The sun was setting directly behind us. It took several shots before I realized that I could actually see the streak of the bullet going downrange. The shiny jacket on the bullet's base reflected the sun just enough to allow me to see it.

It wasn't so much that you saw the bullet, it was more like you realized that you had seen (past tense) the bullet.

Roak

Metaphysical paradox: You don't ever see the bullet. You only see the light which reflects off it and reaches your eyes. What your brain sees, however, is only an interpretation of that lighy, which by now only seems like a streak but could be none at all.

jwcdds wrote in post #13402466
...
I tested her once, letting her see the screen for less than 2 seconds, covered her eyes and had her recite what she "saw".

It would be interesting to see at what point the recollection would stop. For instance, if you exposed it for a second. 500 milliseconds, 250ms, 125ms and so forth. If the recollection is based solely on seeing and not processing, by reducing the time to failure you would have determined the speed of vision and data transfer.

I'm guessing its around 100ms to 66ms as old home movies displayed at 15 frames per second has no jerkies, it's smooth motion.

Nathan wrote in post #13402890
Metaphysical paradox: ... You only see the light which reflects off it and reaches your eyes.

Which means you don't ever "see" anything. As you point out, you don't even see the light -- you "see" electrical impulses in your brain after a transducer (your eyes) turns the light into electrical impulses.

While all very interesting, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Roak

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #13402733
If I ever need eye surgery I'm going to ask for the f/1.4L lenses. No red ring though, might look a little odd when someone looks at your eyes.

You may want to rethink that one. I'm sure you see better in the dark than your 35 1.4L

Nor do red ringed or bloodshot eyes.

Back on topic: I suppose some people must have larger apertured eyes than others, since some claim to have better or worse night vision than others. Those exercises that people claim to improve night vision - do they increase the aperture at which our eyes are used to functioning?

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #13401374
I wish we had a faster shutter speed with our eyes... then we can probably see the path of a high speed projectile.

Actually, I've read quotes from several trick/exhibition shooters over the years who claimed that being able to see the bullets in flight is part of the secret of their success. "Jelly" Bryce is the first one who comes to mind.

Nathan wrote in post #13402698
I don't think you get the basis of what I'm saying. Recollection is a completely different topic. What we're sort of discussing is really the speed of light and the speed of thought.

I don't think the speed of light is in question here. It's a constant (supposedly). So the only thing that matters here is speed of thought processing.

As Calvin's post said he wanted to see highspeed projectiles... my argument was that he does see it, his mind just can't process it consciously. But that doesn't mean the mind didn't see it subconsciously. Photos passed through the cornea and to our optical nerve.

I don't know... to me, the only way you can recall something visual is if you actually saw something. So one must have seen it to recall it. But what do I know. Chances are that I'm flat out wrong.

jwcdds wrote in post #13402983
I don't think the speed of light is in question here. It's a constant (supposedly). So the only thing that matters here is speed of thought processing.

Never said speed of light was the question. However, the question is also not the speed thought processing. If we're processing something, then we've already seen it. We're beyond the point of discussion already. I'm talking about that stage between light and thought.

The question is what is the speed of light-to-thought conversion. I'm saying that the conversion must take place for something to be seen. Think of a blind person. You can throw all the projectiles you want in front of the person and the transmission of that light may even enter through the person's eyes. However, there is an error in conversion and nothing is ever seen.

jwcdds wrote in post #13402983
As Calvin's post said he wanted to see highspeed projectiles... my argument was that he does see it, his mind just can't process it consciously. But that doesn't mean the mind didn't see it subconsciously. Photos passed through the cornea and to our optical nerve.

My argument is that if something flashes before your eyes at the speed of light and the conversion process occurs at a lower speed, then it is possible that the image was never seen. Think of it like frames per second of a shutter... something can occur during the actuation. In my analogy, it is the actual occurence of conversion.

I'm not differentiating between conscious and subconscious. Again, I think at that point we can agree that something's been seen, i.e. the mind is already processing information that was converted from light into thought.

jwcdds wrote in post #13402983
I don't know... to me, the only way you can recall something visual is if you actually saw something.

Exactly. But I'm talking about the transition step from light entering the lens to the creation of what is seen.

Again... we're going off topic.

ChuckingFluff wrote in post #13402949
You may want to rethink that one. I'm sure you see better in the dark than your 35 1.4L

I was going based on the initial post that our eyes are at about f/2.1 in the dark so f/1.4 would be better. It was just a goofy post anyway.

ChuckingFluff wrote in post #13402949
You may want to rethink that one. I'm sure you see better in the dark than your 35 1.4L

Just as a correct exposure is controlled by aperture, ISO, and shutter speed... the image you see must be determined, at least in part, by their human analogs. It's a bit crude to say that the analog to shutter speed is the blinking of the eyes. Rather, the image is the capacity of our neurons to carry light information across synapses and the ultimately determined by the proverbial 10% of our brain that we conciously use to experience the world around us.

That's largely because the brain/eyes boost the ISO.

What is the ISO range of our eyes?

DavidG. wrote in post #13403431
What is the ISO range of our eyes?

Rather... ISO of our retina. The iris is our aperture. The brain is our Digic IV and compactflash.

Nathan wrote in post #13403130
The question is what is the speed of light-to-thought conversion. I'm saying that the conversion must take place for something to be seen. Think of a blind person. You can throw all the projectiles you want in front of the person and the transmission of that light may even enter through the person's eyes. However, there is an error in conversion and nothing is ever seen.

Well, depends on the nature of the blindness. Whether it's an optical nerve issue, or degenerative nerve issue, or something wrong with the eyes structurally, or whether the eyes are missing altogether. You also need to define "seeing" as your definition seems to suggest it includes "processing" the image into thought. It's nitpicking, but similar to "hearing" vs. "listening". We hear all sorts of noise, but just because we don't always pay attention, doesn't mean that the noises/sound aren't heard.

There are a handful of blind people who can "see" via echo-location. They grew up adapting and working around their lack of visual sight and can click their tongue and in their mind, it still forms an image, giving them feedback on distance and objects.

Case in point:
This kid is flat out amazing.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Jm0H8HAylIk

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=vpxEmD0gu0Q

They obviously can't "see", but they still can form some kind of mental image to distinguish fire hydrant, car, trash cans, etc...

My argument is that if something flashes before your eyes at the speed of light and the conversion process occurs at a lower speed, then it is possible that the image was never seen. Think of it like frames per second of a shutter... something can occur during the actuation. In my analogy, it is the actual occurence of conversion.

I'm not differentiating between conscious and subconscious. Again, I think at that point we can agree that something's been seen, i.e. the mind is already processing information that was converted from light into thought.

Well, don't forget not too long ago, advertisers use to flash 1-frame advertisements at the movie theaters to suggest that one's hungry for popcorn and thirsty for Coca-Cola. It's seen, the eye picks it up, the mind digests it. Just because you can't consciously put a finger on it, doesn't mean you've actually missed it.