The combined sensory input of a human was estimated at 3Gbit/s back in 1959.
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~gunnart/MTP/volum2_session4A_ocr.pdf
The first paper in the document.
Considering what 10Mbps compressed video can do, I think we're doing pretty well. Getting really close to the limit would require eye-tracking to only encode and transmit the details that the viewer is actually in a position to notice, and that's obviously only possible for a very limited slice of applications.
Wouldn't you need much more than 10Mbit/s before the lens, if it's getting compressed down to 10Mbit/s after the lens?
That is, unless you're talking about injecting that data directly into the optical nerve.
Re:Raspberry Pi Zero vs. Elliott 405
by officialchicken on Monday December 07, 2015 @10:41PM
(#10694634)
The only way it's below 10Mbit/s if you have a cataract and are legally blind. Or it's dark.
The eye has significantly more bandwidth than 10Mbit/s - it's "reality" in front of the retina, (say, 20-30K) a bit above 8K at the retina (rods/cones), and almost the same in the optic nerve.
We can see/study data directly on the optic nerves now, and understand pretty well how common aberrations or deformities affect the retina.
isn't the thing about holographic display that you have to output the data for more than one angle? Meaning, multiple different angles for different eye angles to create stereoscopy. So, 10Mbits * n_vertical_angles * n_horizontal_angles * k_compression_coeffiscient
This is currently under development ..
I remember reading somewhere that the bandwidth of the optic nerve is about 10Mbit/s. Given that we've had 10Mbit/s Ethernet for years, couldn't it be said that we already have the hardware to build a display that is indistinguishable from reality, and it is now "just" a coding problem, in that if a 10Mbit/s stream contained exactly the right information the brain would interpret it as reality?