High Definition vs natural visibility

The blog of Pasefika  Archive   Contact  RSS FeedSubscribe

In the previous post about HD was written to define High Definition, pixels and how we see them.In this post we will analyze how this may affect the way people interpret graphical information.

As mentioned previously, the while some people see little difference in image quality in the current generation of movies and tvs, given the top of the line products with current high definition standards other see is closing the gap between images see on tv and the naked eye. A comparison with tv in the previous post showed an increase from .3 megapixels standard definition to over 2.0 megapixels at 120 times per second with current models of tvs. Not only does this show a he increase of the amount of pixels or dots being viewed at any given second from watching tv but also leads into a post about the affects how we interpret the increase amount of visual information.

If you research about the fact that much of the human mind is devoted to process visual information, you find theories about how we evolved and the reasoning behind this. With our evolution one may say that humans were subjected to roughly the same environmental factors that give us the visual information we see. These would be the visual spectrum of the suns wave lengths that hit surfaces of objects we see as well as the limitations of our field of vision and the environment of the viewer. Someone in the natural environment of a desert may view less objects and less visual information that someone in a tropical jungle with varying amounts of sunlight in each environment but the consistent is the field view as well as the fact that the our equivalent of natural resolution, or amount of visual information doesn’t change from the natural environment, just how we interpret the light bouncing off of it.

A simplified example of this is that if we ar in the middle of the desert with no clouds just dry earth, blue sky, one rock by our feet, and the sun up above at high noon, then all of the visual information we gather in a second is for the most part consistent. The only thing to change this would be the sun and/or if we moved our head and chose to focus on something else. In this example of one second let’s say that we choose to focus at the rock for a second. For most without scientific measurement we can say that this visual data for that second was consistent. And if any human in the history of humanity was in that same place at the same time of day, they would have been exposed to relatively the same amount of visual information as we just did in that one second.

Now let’s bring our example back to modern times using a digital cameras to capture the same visual information focusing on that same rock.Early digital cameras matched SD tvs, 0.3 megapixels 640x480. Now lets take another image with a digital camera capable of 1080p 1920x1080 pixels or 2.0736 megapixels

Compare and contrast

Given the same environment of our example, the natural visual information that has been consistent since pre-human times meaning that our eyes and minds have evolved to the same consistencies in the natural world, objects, sunlight and how we interpret sunlight’s reflection off of objects. In contrast now we have digital visual information which we view from monitors direct which move light directly to the eyes from the display as well as increases in resolution with mean the amount of visual data is increasing with each generation of consumer products.  

View our next post analyzing the future of visual information and how we interpret it.