Re: resolution, useless & otherwise

[T3D John Bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> To increase the resolution of the eye would require some fundamental
> re-engineering, packing more receptors (shrinking the receptors?),

I've heard that the hawk family has the receptors packed closer together.
The eagle has excellent vision with an eye roughly the size of ours.
I'm all for a little genetic engineering here.  8-)

> It would seem that stereo acuity would by its nature be better than the res
> of one eye, since it has a 60mm base, in some ways comparable to the res of
> an eye 60mm in diameter.

In what ways?  It's not like you could do interferometry, right?  
Not sure how that could be done with slow (tens of m/sec?), low-
frequency nerve fibers.

> Or, a very nearsighted person can catch a basketball with no glasses.

Yeah, I used to catch them with my nose all the time.  Splat!  Funniest 
thing you ever saw.  8-(  Could be the tracking problem you mentioned.

>> For papers on stereo acuity vs resolution, see Gerald Westheimer.

> Can you be more specific with that citation, is there a book?  I find 
> about 40 listings in Howard & Rogers' Binocular Vision, but all for obtuse
> sounding articles in professional journals.

Which of the meanings of obtuse are you using here?  I'll assume it's 
the one which is a synonym of abstruse.  ;-)  I can't tell you right 
off hand because any papers I have are at home.  If you can figure out
how to used the search engine on bobcat, I've cited him more completely
before.

John B


------------------------------