#camera lense w/human FOV
5 messages in this thread
A couple of months ago there were lots of messages talking about what
camera lenses comes the closest to duplicating a human eye perspective.
Most answers say it was impossible because a human eye constantly moves
back and forth.
However, someone gave an answer for what lense is most like what a person
would see. Do you remember what it was??
Thanks in advance
-KT
Keith, I think that 50-55mm is about normal focal length. Note that the
field of view is not as wide as a human's, however.
– G
I don't know if anybody thought of this, but how about a 50mm lens combined
with a wide aspect ratio such as 1.85:1 or more. This is one of the movie
aspect ratios, here are some of the typical ones:
1.33:1 Academy Aperture (also 16mm and NTSC)
1.66:1 European wide screen
1.85:1 US wide screen
2.2:1 70mm
2.35:1 Anamorphic
Try playing with the aspect ratios and using the safe frame feature in a
camera viewport to see what you'll see. Since a monitor is physically
limited to 1.33:1 you would need to create a "letter-box" image with black
borders.
Martin
Sounds like you've been hanging out with the guys at Trilobyte…<g>
-MM
Keith:
Gary is right: 50-55 mm. . You may be referring to a dialogue we had 3-4
months back concerning an eyeview problem in a simulated driving situation.
Though that project was executed in Topas, our solution may have some value
here. We took data from the State Highway Department which stated that
signals should be placed within a 40-degree left-right cone of vision to be
properly visible at a given point on the road. Topas permits zooming to
occur in an "aerial view"-mode which provides a prepresentation of the
"angle of vision from the camera". We simply jacked with the angle, using
a protractor on the monitor, until we got it to jive with the data. The
resulting view was quite close to a flat-field representation of what would
have been visible to the driver, and the mm value was (surprise!) 53 mm. .
Since the eye does not "see" in flat views and is constantly altering depth
of field and point of focus, this is a primitive representation, at best.
Ken Loss-Cutler