this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
421 points (98.4% liked)

memes

22666 readers
2161 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ShutUpWesley@piefed.zip 9 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

I've always wonders exactly why this is.

The difference is stark.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 28 points 17 hours ago (2 children)
[–] ShutUpWesley@piefed.zip 9 points 14 hours ago

I've done enough photography to know that isn't the only difference. Although it certainly plays a role

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Which one is closer to the truth?

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 17 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

No camera can capture what humans can see. Human eyes have a roughly 22mm focal length but see closer to what a camera with a 55mm length sees. This, of course, also varies from person to person and is also effected by the fact that you mostly use two at once and average them.

[–] Janx@piefed.social 17 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Make cameras out of human eyeballs, got it.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 5 points 14 hours ago

But then there's also the post-processing (or rather lossy compression) in the two neuronal layers around the eyeball.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Focal length equivalent assumes a 35mm sensor or film format. 50mm on 35mm is basically the human range of view (although human eyes are interesting in that our resolution is so much sharper in the middle of the sensor than on the edges, and there's significant variation between individuals.

But the important part is that it isn't actually focal length that makes the effect. It's distance from the camera. If you do a dolly zoom with a fixed focal length lens, where you still push or pull the camera towards or away from a subject, you can still see this effect on the nose and the ears.

A flat, two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object will always have distortion. The effect we see here is about distortion that changes with camera distance, and the change itself is what makes things feel strange.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Doesn't our brain see a 2d-picture anyway? Due to the retina being one layer of photosensitive cells?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

yours might? mine only really transitions to 2d after a few miles.

my profession involves being hyper-aware of the five feet immediately around me though. i need to know where things are with my eyes closed or i'll drop something expensive.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The brain constructs 3d from perspective and shadows.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

and sound and sensory stimuli we get, yes. Are we talking about the same thing or different things?

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world -1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

No camera can capture what humans can see.

Lenses can't. Cameras can, I think.
They have post-processing capabilities in addition to lenses.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

No… there is literally not a camera in existence that can reproduce exactly what a human sees.

[–] MoffKalast@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Yeah thankfully, cause a human eye sees a thumb sized spot in high definition, and everything else is a smudge until you move the eyeball to it.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

What do you mean? For my eye current digital photos are very close already.

Also, I see you introduced "exactly" in addition to your previous comment.
And I, in my original comment, used "closer".

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

They are all 'the truth'.

... from a certain point of view.

Your brain hallucinates two images together into one, after flipping them upside down, and is constantly adding details that are not actually there and also removing some details that are.

But yes atomicbocks has a good answer if 'the truth' means 'probably what most other humans percieve most of the time, maybe'.

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago

We have two eyes, so probably the widest shot

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

Your face isn't perfectly symmetrical, so when you see it in a picture vs a mirror it looks off.

There's also some kind of psychology with mirrors on top of (including?) the symmetry thing. You see your reflection every day in the same mirror, in the same lighting, from the same angle and distance, and you grow used to it so you think you look really really good. And you do! But then it's jarring to see yourself differently.

[–] sudoMakeUser@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago

Along with the other reasons given, seeing something in motion vs a static image.

[–] maltasoron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 17 hours ago

Two eyes versus one lense