Difference between revisions of "Talk:Standard lens"

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(What? 180 degrees?)
 
(After thinking about it..)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
I know this is a new page, so maybe a work in progress; but human field of view 180 degrees? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean (but I know there's a bottle of whiskey to my right, and I can't see it without turning my head!). In any case, the article shouldn't only address 35 mm; the concept of a normal lens is valid in any format. --[[User:Dustin McAmera|Dustin McAmera]] ([[User talk:Dustin McAmera|talk]]) 17:18, 1 November 2014 (PDT)
 
I know this is a new page, so maybe a work in progress; but human field of view 180 degrees? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean (but I know there's a bottle of whiskey to my right, and I can't see it without turning my head!). In any case, the article shouldn't only address 35 mm; the concept of a normal lens is valid in any format. --[[User:Dustin McAmera|Dustin McAmera]] ([[User talk:Dustin McAmera|talk]]) 17:18, 1 November 2014 (PDT)
 +
 +
:I guess I understand - with two eyes facing straight forward in a flattish face, yes, we can cover (almost) 180 degrees, side-to-side; but the statement is still misleading. Only a fraction of that is binocular; and a smaller fraction still is high-quality. The central area of high-quality vision has little to do with that geometry anyway; it's the way the eyes move constantly, pointing the central bit of the retina around, so the brain can construct a good view over a reasonable angle. I think the standard lens is chosen to be the one gives an angle roughly corresponding to that central region of good-quality vision, and it just happens by chance that it's about the same as the frame diagonal.--[[User:Dustin McAmera|Dustin McAmera]] ([[User talk:Dustin McAmera|talk]]) 18:16, 1 November 2014 (PDT)

Latest revision as of 01:16, 2 November 2014

I know this is a new page, so maybe a work in progress; but human field of view 180 degrees? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean (but I know there's a bottle of whiskey to my right, and I can't see it without turning my head!). In any case, the article shouldn't only address 35 mm; the concept of a normal lens is valid in any format. --Dustin McAmera (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2014 (PDT)

I guess I understand - with two eyes facing straight forward in a flattish face, yes, we can cover (almost) 180 degrees, side-to-side; but the statement is still misleading. Only a fraction of that is binocular; and a smaller fraction still is high-quality. The central area of high-quality vision has little to do with that geometry anyway; it's the way the eyes move constantly, pointing the central bit of the retina around, so the brain can construct a good view over a reasonable angle. I think the standard lens is chosen to be the one gives an angle roughly corresponding to that central region of good-quality vision, and it just happens by chance that it's about the same as the frame diagonal.--Dustin McAmera (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2014 (PDT)