The human eye has a dynamic range of 10-14 f-stops[1], a Nikon D810 has 14.8.
The human eye has a ~10 megapixel resolution over a 20 degree view. Over 60 degrees that ~52 megapixels. There are DSLRs that exceed that. I don't mean cameras have the peak resolution over 180 degrees, just more than 20 degrees.
Cameras are certainly comparable eyes for space efficiency. Take away the frame, battery, electronics, simplify the lensing, and you have a very small device indeed. It would be better if we had spherical sensors, of course. The human eye's sensitivity can get up to ~1000 ISO after a long adjustment period. Cameras are much better.
>Fairly saying there is higher fps AND less blur in a camera means you have to show me a camera the size of a human eye, with the dynamic range of a human eye, with the resolution of a human eye, and the low light sensitivity of a human eye that can produce more than about 60 fps. You can certainly have more fps, but often at the cost of size or resolution or light sensitivity. You can certainly have less blur, but then that means you need a bigger aperture to let more light in so you can crank your shutter down. Are you saying a small camera can beat the eye on all counts?
Do cars not beat humans because they are bigger than people? There is no need for a camera the size and performance of the eye. Machine vision has no need of that resolution or dynamic range, and photography/film have no need of the size. Why would anyone make a smartphone with 50 megapixels? That's impractically large.
Even still, take the google pixel. By volume it's probably less than a tenth the size of the human eye. It's got comparable resolution (>13 MP), though lower peak resolution. The dynamic range is at the low end of a human eye despite the massive size difference. The FPS and ISO are better. All it needs is a fisheye lens. If a camera company wanted to exceed the human eye, they could certainly do it.
The human eye has a ~10 megapixel resolution over a 20 degree view. Over 60 degrees that ~52 megapixels. There are DSLRs that exceed that. I don't mean cameras have the peak resolution over 180 degrees, just more than 20 degrees.
Cameras are certainly comparable eyes for space efficiency. Take away the frame, battery, electronics, simplify the lensing, and you have a very small device indeed. It would be better if we had spherical sensors, of course. The human eye's sensitivity can get up to ~1000 ISO after a long adjustment period. Cameras are much better.
[1]: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-...
>Fairly saying there is higher fps AND less blur in a camera means you have to show me a camera the size of a human eye, with the dynamic range of a human eye, with the resolution of a human eye, and the low light sensitivity of a human eye that can produce more than about 60 fps. You can certainly have more fps, but often at the cost of size or resolution or light sensitivity. You can certainly have less blur, but then that means you need a bigger aperture to let more light in so you can crank your shutter down. Are you saying a small camera can beat the eye on all counts?
Do cars not beat humans because they are bigger than people? There is no need for a camera the size and performance of the eye. Machine vision has no need of that resolution or dynamic range, and photography/film have no need of the size. Why would anyone make a smartphone with 50 megapixels? That's impractically large.
Even still, take the google pixel. By volume it's probably less than a tenth the size of the human eye. It's got comparable resolution (>13 MP), though lower peak resolution. The dynamic range is at the low end of a human eye despite the massive size difference. The FPS and ISO are better. All it needs is a fisheye lens. If a camera company wanted to exceed the human eye, they could certainly do it.