In article
[interesting A. Adams quote, and other things deleted....]
>Ok, here's my two cents (finally). In angle of (unattended) view, that
>is to say total peripheral vision, the human eye is approximated by about
>20-28mm of focal length for a 35mm format. This is of course subject to >individual variation.
Hmmm, but most people can demonstrably see at least 180 degrees wide....
>As for depth of field no comparison can be made here because the
>human visual system uses a wide variety of monocular and binocular
>cues (binocular cues being unavailable to the camera lens) in order
>to percieve and gauge depth of field. (This is a glossing over and
>deserves more discussion.)
As is the role of the brain in giving us one horrendously long tonal
scale in a single image while maintaining good local contrast, and
in selectively color-correcting areas in the field of view (besides all
the other 'fill-in" abilities the brain has for completing an imperfect
image obtained from an incomplete "film plane" (there are parts missing!).
>As for attended angle of view, this too is a problematic question, as
>humans are able to attend to an area of vision quite closely, thus getting >the equivalent of an extremely long focal length, or a wide area of the
>total visual field, thus creating a short focal length.
I thought I covered this with an earlier post:
"...like having a super-wide-angle, super-wide-range zoom (8mm fisheye to 5000mm super telephoto equivalent for 35mm film), which is only reasonably good from maybe 100mm to 1000mm....."
Hope This Helps