This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Field of view article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently implies that the field of view and the visual field are the same thing. I believe that they are actually so different that they would deserve separate articles. To me, the field of view is more related to a specific situation, like "my field of view was blocked by a truck (and therefore I could not see the bicycle crossing the street)", while the visual field is an abstract concept in the sense of a 2D-image representation of the real world by the visual system. -- Dontaskme 19:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dontaskme. The information and images regarding visual field loss are better suited in Visual field, so I have moved them. There is probably quite a bit of information that should be there instead of here. AED 22:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Would be useful to have a general discussion of the FOV of various movie cameras, video games, and 360-degree Circlevision cameras. Tempshill 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
How does Field of view relate to angle of view? This article currently states that humans have a 180 degree field of view, but angle of view says that a fisheye lens has an angle of view of 180 degrees, and human eyes don't have fisheye lenses. Hackwrench 04:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The article stated:
and
I have amended the former to be more general. —DIV ( 138.194.12.32 ( talk) 04:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC))
The article states that some birds have a complete field of view of 360 degrees. The statement absolutely needs a source or examples of such birds. -- Gwaur ( Spokening) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an apparent problem with the diagonal field of view for very wide angled lenses. When looking at a scene with a very wide angled lens, the vertical and horizontal fields of view are fairly well defined, but the diagonal ones are a problem. In a digital camera for example, I have noted that if a lens and sensor system is so designed that a 640x480 pixel array fits tidily into a lens image circle, then the light falls off towards the corners of the pixel array, as the corners of the pixel array tend towards the edge of the image circle. Thus, the corners of the image become darker and darker until they fade to black. So the question arises, how does one define the field of view here? Is it best to say that the diagonal field of view periphery is corresponds to the pixels that are receiving x% of the light falling on the centre.
I have seen several treatments of this online, but it seems to me that the only good way to do this is to agree an --x-- % relevant to the application and test the lens / sensor system pointing at a evenly lit white target.
Are there any thoughts on this out there? -- PD 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
All the photography books I can find define FOV as what we call angle of view, not the unsourced definition in this article. Does anything know why it says what it does, or where to get a source for it? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In case a illustration of equal quality, not featuring a military drone, could be found I would find this more tasteful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.128.16 ( talk) 07:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I concur that the images of a military drone were incongruous and not particularly relevant to the article's likely readers. I have replaced them with images from elsewhere on the Wiki illustrating the FOV for humans. -- Toddfast ( talk) 18:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is not possibile to add italian language link to this page? ( https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_visivo) thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by White wolf ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the time or resources to dig into the cited articles, but the 210 degree figure is incorrect for what I believe this article is meant to explain. I believe this is a case of conflating the full range of vision when allowing eye movement with the range from unmoving eyes focused forward. There are many sources which put a the "forward facing" horizontal range at 120-130 degrees. Diagrams that include the 210 degree figure usually make this distinction clear. The vertical range is less of an issue, since the limiting factors (cheek and brow) are give approximately the same range as the eye in any case.
If the article IS about full "looking around" field of view, then there are several misleading statements in the text. LordQwert ( talk) 18:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The image at bottom of page is misleading as it does not properly illustrate the topic. I have removed one sentence (improper description of image process and content). The image is is a stitched together composite of multiple original images mapped onto a distorted plane to give an illusion of the edge of a fish-eye lens effect at the apex of sky dome. The image is striking but confusing. I suggest the image be removed until a better example is found. Perhaps a panoramic image with superimposed lines that mark of binocular and peripheral fields and the points at which a humans head must be turned to bring additional areas into view.
— Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 08:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC) —
In the edit of 4 Aug. 2023, some information was moved from “Angle of view (photography)” to here (FoV), among it a section on perceived size. The latter, unfortunately, is ill-conceived, transporting the popular myth that angular size determines perceived size. It is further unrelated to the field of view since that refers to the overall size that is seen, not to its content. I therefore deleted the section in the article and moved it back to the “Angle of view (photography)” talk page, in case somebody wants to do something with it. Strasburger ( talk) 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Field of view article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently implies that the field of view and the visual field are the same thing. I believe that they are actually so different that they would deserve separate articles. To me, the field of view is more related to a specific situation, like "my field of view was blocked by a truck (and therefore I could not see the bicycle crossing the street)", while the visual field is an abstract concept in the sense of a 2D-image representation of the real world by the visual system. -- Dontaskme 19:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dontaskme. The information and images regarding visual field loss are better suited in Visual field, so I have moved them. There is probably quite a bit of information that should be there instead of here. AED 22:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Would be useful to have a general discussion of the FOV of various movie cameras, video games, and 360-degree Circlevision cameras. Tempshill 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
How does Field of view relate to angle of view? This article currently states that humans have a 180 degree field of view, but angle of view says that a fisheye lens has an angle of view of 180 degrees, and human eyes don't have fisheye lenses. Hackwrench 04:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The article stated:
and
I have amended the former to be more general. —DIV ( 138.194.12.32 ( talk) 04:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC))
The article states that some birds have a complete field of view of 360 degrees. The statement absolutely needs a source or examples of such birds. -- Gwaur ( Spokening) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an apparent problem with the diagonal field of view for very wide angled lenses. When looking at a scene with a very wide angled lens, the vertical and horizontal fields of view are fairly well defined, but the diagonal ones are a problem. In a digital camera for example, I have noted that if a lens and sensor system is so designed that a 640x480 pixel array fits tidily into a lens image circle, then the light falls off towards the corners of the pixel array, as the corners of the pixel array tend towards the edge of the image circle. Thus, the corners of the image become darker and darker until they fade to black. So the question arises, how does one define the field of view here? Is it best to say that the diagonal field of view periphery is corresponds to the pixels that are receiving x% of the light falling on the centre.
I have seen several treatments of this online, but it seems to me that the only good way to do this is to agree an --x-- % relevant to the application and test the lens / sensor system pointing at a evenly lit white target.
Are there any thoughts on this out there? -- PD 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
All the photography books I can find define FOV as what we call angle of view, not the unsourced definition in this article. Does anything know why it says what it does, or where to get a source for it? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In case a illustration of equal quality, not featuring a military drone, could be found I would find this more tasteful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.128.16 ( talk) 07:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I concur that the images of a military drone were incongruous and not particularly relevant to the article's likely readers. I have replaced them with images from elsewhere on the Wiki illustrating the FOV for humans. -- Toddfast ( talk) 18:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is not possibile to add italian language link to this page? ( https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_visivo) thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by White wolf ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the time or resources to dig into the cited articles, but the 210 degree figure is incorrect for what I believe this article is meant to explain. I believe this is a case of conflating the full range of vision when allowing eye movement with the range from unmoving eyes focused forward. There are many sources which put a the "forward facing" horizontal range at 120-130 degrees. Diagrams that include the 210 degree figure usually make this distinction clear. The vertical range is less of an issue, since the limiting factors (cheek and brow) are give approximately the same range as the eye in any case.
If the article IS about full "looking around" field of view, then there are several misleading statements in the text. LordQwert ( talk) 18:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The image at bottom of page is misleading as it does not properly illustrate the topic. I have removed one sentence (improper description of image process and content). The image is is a stitched together composite of multiple original images mapped onto a distorted plane to give an illusion of the edge of a fish-eye lens effect at the apex of sky dome. The image is striking but confusing. I suggest the image be removed until a better example is found. Perhaps a panoramic image with superimposed lines that mark of binocular and peripheral fields and the points at which a humans head must be turned to bring additional areas into view.
— Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 08:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC) —
In the edit of 4 Aug. 2023, some information was moved from “Angle of view (photography)” to here (FoV), among it a section on perceived size. The latter, unfortunately, is ill-conceived, transporting the popular myth that angular size determines perceived size. It is further unrelated to the field of view since that refers to the overall size that is seen, not to its content. I therefore deleted the section in the article and moved it back to the “Angle of view (photography)” talk page, in case somebody wants to do something with it. Strasburger ( talk) 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)