Your brain hallucinates two images together into one, after flipping them upside down, and is constantly adding details that are not actually there and also removing some details that are.
But yes atomicbocks has a good answer if ‘the truth’ means ‘probably what most other humans percieve most of the time, maybe’.
No camera can capture what humans can see. Human eyes have a roughly 22mm focal length but see closer to what a camera with a 55mm length sees. This, of course, also varies from person to person and is also effected by the fact that you mostly use two at once and average them.
Focal length equivalent assumes a 35mm sensor or film format. 50mm on 35mm is basically the human range of view (although human eyes are interesting in that our resolution is so much sharper in the middle of the sensor than on the edges, and there’s significant variation between individuals.
But the important part is that it isn’t actually focal length that makes the effect. It’s distance from the camera. If you do a dolly zoom with a fixed focal length lens, where you still push or pull the camera towards or away from a subject, you can still see this effect on the nose and the ears.
A flat, two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object will always have distortion. The effect we see here is about distortion that changes with camera distance, and the change itself is what makes things feel strange.
yours might? mine only really transitions to 2d after a few miles.
my profession involves being hyper-aware of the five feet immediately around me though. i need to know where things are with my eyes closed or i’ll drop something expensive.
I’ve done enough photography to know that isn’t the only difference. Although it certainly plays a role
Which one is closer to the truth?
They are all ‘the truth’.
… from a certain point of view.
Your brain hallucinates two images together into one, after flipping them upside down, and is constantly adding details that are not actually there and also removing some details that are.
But yes atomicbocks has a good answer if ‘the truth’ means ‘probably what most other humans percieve most of the time, maybe’.
No camera can capture what humans can see. Human eyes have a roughly 22mm focal length but see closer to what a camera with a 55mm length sees. This, of course, also varies from person to person and is also effected by the fact that you mostly use two at once and average them.
Make cameras out of human eyeballs, got it.
But then there’s also the post-processing (or rather lossy compression) in the two neuronal layers around the eyeball.
Focal length equivalent assumes a 35mm sensor or film format. 50mm on 35mm is basically the human range of view (although human eyes are interesting in that our resolution is so much sharper in the middle of the sensor than on the edges, and there’s significant variation between individuals.
But the important part is that it isn’t actually focal length that makes the effect. It’s distance from the camera. If you do a dolly zoom with a fixed focal length lens, where you still push or pull the camera towards or away from a subject, you can still see this effect on the nose and the ears.
A flat, two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object will always have distortion. The effect we see here is about distortion that changes with camera distance, and the change itself is what makes things feel strange.
Doesn’t our brain see a 2d-picture anyway? Due to the retina being one layer of photosensitive cells?
yours might? mine only really transitions to 2d after a few miles.
my profession involves being hyper-aware of the five feet immediately around me though. i need to know where things are with my eyes closed or i’ll drop something expensive.
The brain constructs 3d from perspective and shadows.
and sound and sensory stimuli we get, yes. Are we talking about the same thing or different things?
My point: we see in 2d. But interpret the picture as 3d.
Lenses can’t. Cameras can, I think.
They have post-processing capabilities in addition to lenses.
No… there is literally not a camera in existence that can reproduce exactly what a human sees.
Yeah thankfully, cause a human eye sees a thumb sized spot in high definition, and everything else is a smudge until you move the eyeball to it.
What do you mean? For my eye current digital photos are very close already.
Also, I see you introduced “exactly” in addition to your previous comment.
And I, in my original comment, used “closer”.