george@ucs.adelaide.edu.au (George Travan) (11/23/90)
Andy Rose wrote recently on stereoviewing amorphous phenomena. I'm interested in this to. > When visualizing "regular" shapes in 3D, the spatial interpretation is > helped greatly by the brain's ability to recognize straight lines and > angles. As we begin to see more data which is amorphous, the lack of > straight lines makes stereo viewing essential. > > For example, viewing a city street and discerning depth with one eye is > not too tough since there are plenty of other visual cues, especially > convergence of straight lines (perspective). Look at fire or a cloud > with one eye though and there is little for the brain to "lock onto". > A problem with this may be that stereoviewing could cause confusion, as your eyes cannot focus any part of the scene. This doesnt happen in reality. Anyone comment on experiences stereoviewing amorphous phenomena? George Travan University of Adelaide e_mail: george@frodo.ua.oz.au
dll@teda.UUCP (Dan Liddell) (11/26/90)
In article <1916@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> george@ucs.adelaide.edu.au (George Travan) writes: >Andy Rose wrote recently on stereoviewing amorphous phenomena. I'm interested >in this to. > >> When visualizing "regular" shapes in 3D, the spatial interpretation is >> helped greatly by the brain's ability to recognize straight lines and >> angles. As we begin to see more data which is amorphous, the lack of >> straight lines makes stereo viewing essential. > >A problem with this may be that stereoviewing could cause confusion, >as your eyes cannot focus any part of the scene. This doesnt happen in >reality. Anyone comment on experiences stereoviewing amorphous phenomena? > At a demonstration in a science museum, I saw two stereographs of "random dots", with a three dimensional image superimposed on each of them. Without the viewer, the stereographs looked very much like small specks of paint spattered onto the paper. With the stereo view it still looked like this, for about a minute. Then the form superimposed on the blots suddenly swam into view. One form was a spiral, very much loke looking down the center of a spiral staircase. The other was a torus, floating above a flat, spattered background. The surface of each image was covered with the splattered looking dots, so there were no perspective cues. I viewed the spiral first. The recognition time for the torus was much less than that of the spiral. When I went back a week later, I recognized both images in seconds. -- Dan Liddell UUCP decwrl!teda!dll TELEPHONE 4089805200 USA curb your dogma. The opinions and views expressed are Dan's.