DzigaVertov Response - Belle

I think the reading examined some things that I knew on some level but never really considered. It makes sense that although the camera is often considered an extension of the human eye, it could be considered most effective when capturing things in a way that the human eye could not. Since the 1920's, beyond the ever increasing quality of cameras, there's been an increase in the ways in which the camera has evolved to see things in ways the human eye cannot. It can reach places that we cant (underwater cameras, drones, those little cameras that go down your throat at the doctors'), and display time in ways we cant (those year-long time lapse videos). I'd be interested to see how this analysis could be applied to other modern technologies that are thought to be "better" than the human eye, or offer us access to something we can't actually see like photoshop or computer generated imagery.