Talk:Field of view

message: 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)
thread_title:  Future expansion topics 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. The claim seems dubious, and I marked it as such. --Stybn 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Claim is not dubious - Look up American woodcock.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.236.228 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, this claims that the American Woodcock has 360° vision, citing: Keppie, D. M., and R. M. Whiting, Jr. 1994. American woodcock (Scolopax minor). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America 100. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 28 pp. I'm not hunting that down, but I'm removing "dubious" tag. --Stybn 08:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Predatory animals often have both eyes facing forward, to maximize depth perception via parallax (eg lions). The price for overlapping the field of view of each eye is a smaller field of view overall. Conversely, many non-predatory animals (eg horses) have eyes which basically point more in opposite directions, giving them a huge field of view (so they can see the lions coming) but little parallax (so they're more likely to trip over the lion). Of course there are also many, many exceptions to this rule (eg octopi). Redbobblehat (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds with 360-degree field of vision? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The problem you have is vignetting, which is measured by relative illuminance across the image. Field of view is not an optical measurement of image quality, but a way of measuring spatial geometry; describing how a (theoretically perfect) camera relates to its environment. If the vignetting is mechanical, the field of view may be considered circular rather than rectangular, and the reason it appears blurred is because the offending aperture (whatever it is) is out of focus. Geometrically, however, the edge of the circle can be measured definitively. Redbobblehat (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagonal Field of View for Wide Angled Lenses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious definition 

message: 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)
replies: text: Find one then. Seems perfectly OK to me at the moment. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

text: It's a nice image, illustrating the FOV of the telescope, and fits well for the article. It is not related to the FOV of humans, however, so I have changed the legend slightly. Strasburger (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Neutral Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Italian Content? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The image is indeed misleading: it has nothing to do with human or animal vision. Perhaps it is a left-over from previous sections on equipment like cameras or telescopes etc? Adding markers for aspects of human vision will make it even more confusing (since the concept of the FoV is not terribly well defined for humans). So I agree the image should be removed from the section on human and animal vision. Perhaps it could go to the astronomy section? Or, as a first step, be moved to the talk page (but then better put the explanatory sentence back in, to know what it was intended to show, namely the hypotheticl FoV of the entire telescope, including something like camera movements). Strasburger (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panoramic image at bottom of article is misleading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Perceived Size