ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 เม.ย. 2013
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/what-camera...
Our eyes are practically magical, but they cannot see everything. For instance, the naked eye cannot see the moment where all four of a horse's legs are in the air or the gradual life cycle of plants -- but cameras can capture these moments. Bill Shribman gives examples where photography can pick up where the eye leaves off.
Lesson by Bill Shribman, animation by Flaming Medusa Studios Inc.
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpQnHoQvZt4/mqdefault.jpg)
we still need eyes to see cameras
Hud
Bindas
brain chonk
what cameras can't see but I can ?
dreams
bleed blue You can, but not buy your eyes tho
+bleed blue Bioluminescence. Algae in the Marmara.
Who knows if camera can dream too?
I'm a horse trainer and camera designer so its always surprised me that anyone would have ever have thought that a horse does not have all its four feet off the ground. A horse in trot has a moment of suspension when all four feet are off the ground, and a horse in canter also has a clear moment of suspension (its easy to see if you are experienced with horses). Yes sometimes a gallop can seem like a "blurr" to the non horse person, but a good horse person with a good eye (formed over many years) can easily see that it is so. So sometimes you can only see what you have the experience to see. So in my opinion this was an argument between those that had a skilled eye for movement and particularly the horse versus those that did not. Thankfully Edward M, put that one to bed for ever and sided with those that have a good "eye".
Most young scientists use cameras to give homework and test answers to other young scientists
2:20 "We fire the WHOLE bullet. That's 65% more bullet per bullet!" - Cave Johnson
2:15 Except that the wings of a colibri don't flap like that at all. They draw "8"s due to the particular structure of the colibri's shoulders, which enables them to hover in place and even fly backwards.
For the concern of everyone's time, just read the description and move on to another video. There's nothing too interesting about this unless you view the full lesson.
No! I'm making a fangame and I accidentally clicked on TED-Ed again!
Ah well, I'll make the game in twenty-seven years.
+Mitchthe12th XD
+Madeline Morrissey omg
+Mitchthe12th L
Yeah you’ve got time
22 more, pal
Rendering doesn't always refer to digital rendering it also just means "to produce a copy of", so using the word render in this case could be correct as well.
How about UV and Infrared? How come that important is not mentioned as out of the range of Human Visual System(HVS)....!?
Well that's because we are talking about normal cameras
Also cameras can "translate" Infra-red light into a "light blue" color so we can see the infra-red that some things produce like remote controls.
I love the videos on here educational and entertaining. I'm glad my teacher showed my class one of your videos.
By Ted ed standards frankly this was boring an uninformative.
+Old king cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he
Uninformative? Quite informative, just didn't say as much as you thought it would.
Indeed , it's not the best one they made ...
uniformative ?
The horse video was the first video to ever be made , it was taken with the help of clicking many pictures and putting them together .
We still have to use our eyes to examin cameras priduction
Cameras and video can do one thing the eye or the mind cannot. Capture moments in time forever. We can take photos forever freezing moments in time.
So let me get this right, cameras can pick up things the eyes miss.
Do i also assume that a microphone might pick up sounds i didn`t quite hear?
HORSES FLY!!
Horses are wingless Pegusi!
I wonder if stuff that cold would actually look like it's glowing? It would probably look pretty dim compared to the other stuff around it. Also, in this scenario, we can still see in the visible spectrum. The infrared light being emitted might be drowned out compared to the reflected visible light.
I wasn't tired before I watched this video
correction - I meant infrared, and what's cold to us would emit infrared so even cold stuff from for example the freezer would look like glowing from heat
What that guy means is: In cameras, the "pixels" are in a "grid" fashion, in our eyes there are "circles" of "pixels", and they are more dense in the center: you have "higher-res" on the center of your FOV.
that's just the thing. the eye isn't just a wall of receptors, it's slightly more complicated than that.
why is the bullet still in its cartridge at 2:20?
+Danilo Metzger I know right!
I dunno maybe lazy
0:39 reminded me strangely of Webdriver Torso.... am I the only one who had this happen to me?
Not to mention the frequencies of light that cameras can see but we can't.
If you fire a remote control at your digital camera, it will be able to see the light the remote emits.
ขอบคุณครัย สำหรับการบรรยายไทย
I'm not so sure that it would be bright enough. Infrared cameras are sensitive only to the infrared bandwidth of light. It ignores the visible spectrum completely. I'm skeptical that it would be bright enough to see in the daylight. I would agree that things would likely glow a little in low light conditions. Most point-and-shoot and cellphone cameras can see infrared. Find a remote control and point it at your camera with a button pushed. Objects aren't glowing in the camera though.
For the sake of comparison you can roughly translate it. one human retina has about 80-600 million photosensitive cells, depending what book you trust. since you have two of these wonders of nature you double that. Plus there is a lot of processing and encoding happening in the retina and stuff gets really complicated really fast ... you are right. information cannot be measured in megapixels, but that is a whole other topic I guess.
I'm pretty sure this analogy works with the receptors in the eye? I.e., the number of receptors ~ the number of pixels? Therefore, you should be able to measure it like that.
Wow, I don't know if I should be proud or repulsed by the fact that I understood that.
Aaammm... 2:20 , why is that bullet being shot with the shell ??
because that is the stereotype of what people think of when the word 'bullet' is spoken; a somewhat pointy copper oblong-oid shape, with a segment of a brass roundel, with a rim at the bottom edge, and a silver dot in the center of the back of this brass bottom rim.
I bet it'd first shift and then over time the range would increase a little. And it'd be weird for people to see colour-shifted oranges with weird stuff over it.
Also seeing UV would suck because it's kinda hard for it to penetrate even air...
Funny how so many people think that when a gun is fired, the casing stays with the projectile in leaving the gun.
Our eyes are pretty cool, but mantis shrimp have SIXTEEN different color receptors. (And they can launch a supersonic shockwave of doom, which is also fricking epic.)
OK, you're talking about the image and I'm talking about the camera. I'm saying that for example, if you changed the camera's resolution (in mp) 10%, it would have a much greater effect than if you changed the quality of the lens by 10%. This video is about what the camera can do, not the details of the image quality. And how is image size different than file size? Interpolation does not increase the resolution, just the file size. No software can add detail that isn't in the original image.
It's of course a guess but I would think, yes. Our eye's receptors are only sensitive to red, green and blue. Yellow light, for example, stimulates the red a little and the green a little. Our brain interprets that as yellow and create an image for us. Infrared doesn't stimulate our receptors. If a bionic eye could send a signal for infrared, our brain might have to come up with something for us to see. I wonder if it would make a new color or just shift and fit it into the ones we already see.
I really want to watch the animation that he was talking abou. does anyone know what it is?
i really liked this kind of video . lately the videos were really boring ...i miss the old TED ED with those really interesting videos like this one .
Cameras could see ghosts. In a photo of mine, there was a ghost next to my brother. The house is haunted tho, we all know that. Every house in the Philippines is haunted. Every time I fly to the PI for my braces every month (I don't live there but my aunt does and that's where my orthodontist is) , I'm scared to sleep in the library and most of all, stay alone there. My dad ALWAYS leaves me alone in the house.
I knew the whip and the horse run one...... I thouht it was obvious from the tracks in high brush were it seems to be like the horse hadn't left the air.... And the wip can only make that sound at the fastest point were the force is at the tip and it just finishes the snap....
the lens of a camera has nothing to do with its resolution. your eyes are better at differentiating colors in a wider range of light conditions, seeing clearly in low light conditions, detecting movement in the periphery of your view and seeing contrast between almost identical colors or tones. you can also change and lock focus faster between moving and stationary objects and between near and far. think how easy it is to focus on a blank wall or the surface of water or a leaf in the air.
Don't we only see about 8 MP (in comparison to a camera ) ? What about the frame rate ? The blind spot ? The fact that we only see detail in the center of where what we are looking at, and the brain makes up the rest ? If someone is an expert, please inform me :D Thanks!
Today I got my g cardboard and using the camera I can see infrared light coming from the tv remote.
cool
thank you so much for this video! worth sharing it to my class!
which class....................._
7 years over
But will it blend?
With future technologies, maybe we can broaden that spectrum and give humanity a new view of the world and its self.
you cant compare the resolution of camera to our eyes. He said our eye were "like" 500 mp cameras but really there is no way to measure the megapixels of our eyes because our eyes cannot be measured by megapixels.
I noticed this too. Maybe there wasn't enough collaboration between the educators and animators....
I imagine that we'd see washed out red in patterns in front of us. Depending on the device of course. And yes it would be glowing, just google some heat camera footage and you'll see what the luminescence would look like.
I have a question for a turn.
What can not the cameras see, but see our eyes? [Google-translator]
It aggravates me to no end when people portray a "bullet" as an entire firearms cartridge, most especially the casing which is left behind when a bullet is fired.
knowing this I will share the beauty of my meal with the world
That's true, thanks I didn't consider this, interesting!
'Look mom, no hooves!'
I can't be the ONLY brony here, can I?
Yay humming birds!! :)
I actually saw all 4 legs come off the ground. o.o
A digital camera will have the same resolution (in MP) no matter what lens you put on it. A 20 megapixel camera will still be 20 megapixels if you put a crappy lens on it. This video is about cameras, not lenses, and the things I mentioned relate to the camera, not the lens. They compared a CAMERA to the human eye, not a lens and the eye.
I was hoping this video would show me somthing i didn't know...
i lmaoed @ "look ma no hooves"
where can you find the project at 2:30
what about infared light? they see that and we don't.
+Matt Freund (Notch8864) Your camera can see infrared and some ultraviolet that we cannot. Use your camera's viewfinder to check for invisible light sources next time you check in to a motel room.
Jon Wiebold Oh my fucking gawd. NASTY NASTY NASTY. 😦😦😦
"camera" = cemara body + lens
reducing 10% lens vs reducing 10% sensor resolution is a mute point. because it depends on what the bottleneck is. Usually the camera-lens is the bottleneck, so in most cases reducing sensor resolution won't reduce actual image resolution. I have allot of lenses, very few can outresolve the sensor of my camera.
"how is image SIZE different than file SIZE?" -> you just made that up. I said that image RESOLUTION does not equate to file RESOLUTION.
watch this while eating... Regardless, still an excellent video!
What cameras can see but our eyes can't?
Me: IR light 😆
cause eyes don't output an image in pixels. it's a natural analogue process, not a digital one, like a camera would be.
Which is why older cameras that use film can't be measured in megapixels, as they're not creating a digital image.
WOW how did he know I was eating dinner? truly amazing 2:39
well... actually wouldnt it fall under infrared sensor and camera territory?
I get that TEDed is all about animation, but don't you think you could have used Actual photographs for all of the things listed that make cameras so amazing, in lieu of just drawings and cardboard anime?
HEY! Why are Richard St. John's video comments disabled?
cameras can't see vampires, owned
Why not?
they didnt mention we cant see all types of light such as infared
A Polish post stamp in 1:56, yay! ^^
I don't get it. Please explain.
I have dyslexia and I read the title: why cameras can't see what out eyes dotn...
You could count the average number of photoreceptors, but I guess they still wouldn't be in a grid pattern.
At school we were drawing self portraits in art class and our art teacher says '' Don't forget to draw the pink squishy thing in the corner of your eye! '' LOL!!!!
2:55 you forgot duck lips and food
What cameras see that our eyes don't? Still... good lesson.
0:41 the ball is supposed to be red
I thought this was about infrared and ultraviolet light not a half assed google search on cameras
That was my first thought haha
Infra red?
What if I could see that all the hooves were off the ground. Maybe they just need people with better eye sight.
Our eyes are limited by the pulses sent to our brain. It's why we can't see the galloping horse in mid air. Adrenalin in our system can increase the speed of these pulses sent to our brain. Thus making time feel slow down.
difference in what your eye can see and what your brain can process
Aqueous Humor...it's the gooey stuff in your eyes.
yeeeaaah cool
great, i know what cameras can do
The young scientist will photograph himself in the bathroom, duck facing
NO if you put a crappy lens on a 20mp camera, the file-size will be 20mp but the image won't be. The actual resolution of the image is the determining factor, not the number of pixels. or else i could just increase the resolution of the file with software. AGAIN the degree of details that are visible determine the resolution, not the number of pixels. I think we have a disagreement about terminology: image-resolution does not necessary equal file resolution
Semi-interesting...but this isn't really about what cameras see that we don't, it's about cameras 'photographic memory' - our ability to go back (like to when the horse is in the air) - and its patience (since it can afford to watch glaciers all day)
Look ma, no hooves XD
It's perfectly acceptable to watch TED while high; but, when doing so, you should avoid partaking in discussion.
Thanks to wikipedia I get it. Haha! =P
phototropism growing rowards the light
*knew
Our eyes can see almost all of these things. It's our brain that has issues.
Here's one of the Visible Human videos if you're interested:
/watch?v=dPPjUtiAGYs