A camera is not a bionic eye

[gtrumpy]

I post this thread after I read several article with title like "CAMERA VS. EYE"...such as 1, 2, 3.
From my point of view, expatiating on how similar are an image produced by a camera and an image produced by the human eye is useless.
Phrases like "the image of a camera is static, whereas the eye is ceaselessly moving" or "camera images have the same characteristics of resolution, focus, etc. allover the frame, whereas the eye do not" are ill-conditioned. It's like assuming the camera being an artificial device designed to replace the human eye.
It is fair comparing the basic elements that constitute the two systems (pupil-aperture, retina-sensor, etc.), but don't go beyond!.
My point is that cameras don't produce vision. They produce artificial images to be seen...of course seen by humans. Therefore, the display of an image produced by a camera entails saccades, foveal resolution limit, etc. Here we go again!
Cameras are designed to reproduce the visual reality, not to produce prosthesis.

Of course we can talk about the research to develop the bionic eye...but this is totally another subject.

[enaiman]

Personally I think it is a matter of time until the first bionic eye will be invented.
I see two major obstacles:
- successful connection between the nerve and camera terminals
- getting the right electrical signal for the brain to form the image

There are already hearing prostheses using a microphones as ear "replacement" so, why not using a camera to replace an eye? It's all about electrical signals.
I'll dare to say the bionic eye will be a reality in less than 10 years.

[gtrumpy]

I hope so enaiman. I presume being blind to be not that pleasant.
...but you can still work here