The benefit of the inverted retina doesn’t scale with size. It decreases with size
It’s the advantage of compression reduction that generally scales with size/resolution due to the frequency power spectrum of natural images.
The obvious thing to do is to just put the neurons that are currently in front of the retina in humans behind the retina instead.
Obvious perhaps, but also wrong, it has no ultimate advantage.
Yes, cephalopods also have eye problems. In fact, this places you in a bit of a bind—if evolution is so good at making humans near-optimal, why did evolution make octopus eyes so suboptimal?
Evidence for near-optimality of inverted retina is not directly evidence for sub-optimality of everted retina: it could just be that either design can overcome tradeoffs around the inversion/eversion design choice.
It’s the advantage of compression reduction that generally scales with size/resolution due to the frequency power spectrum of natural images.
Obvious perhaps, but also wrong, it has no ultimate advantage.
Evidence for near-optimality of inverted retina is not directly evidence for sub-optimality of everted retina: it could just be that either design can overcome tradeoffs around the inversion/eversion design choice.