Theores of 3d Part, um, Something

The theory of 3D vision I've been working on is as good as done, but will be too long for here. Might upload it somewhere if anybody can be bothered reading, once it's done.

The really interesting thing to come out of it is that I'm now sure that the assumption that we all see in 3D in everyday life is actually wrong. So here we are assuming that 3D in pictures and movies is actually just a reproduction of everyday vision, when in fact our everyday vision is nothing of the sort, a lot of the time.

Once I realised that, it became possible to see even 2D things in '3D', including bog standard TV.

Anyway, will get it uploaded somewhere soon, if anybody's interested.

Comments

  1. Sounds interesting.

    I think that we often confuse our 'theories of eyes' - background assumptions though they may be - with 'how and what we can perceive', and to varying extents try and experience that theory as real. Perhaps this can take a couple of forms:

    1. If you ever have difficulty with your eyesight, there can be a tendency to 'try' and see properly according to how you think seeing works - i.e. by trying to 'use your eyes'. That is a case of trying to force the model into reality at the 'point of light capture' - and pretty much immediately leads to strain and reduced visual sense.

    2. The other form is where we try and force ourselves at the 'point of experience'. We aren't interfering with our eyes directly, but we are trying to shape our own perception. We 'know' that a television is a 2D image, so we try to experience it as that. But in fact, the television image is a representation of 3D in the same way that the patterns on our retina are a representation of 3D - both are 'sub-3D clues to a world of 3D depth'. There is an element of choice, of willingness, in the subsequent perception.

    There's a whole problem with the term 'seeing' and its assocation with eyes, since it's not just your eyes that contribute to your experience of a visual aspect to the world. Whether we actually really see in 'dimensions' at all, whether we reliably and consistently perceive space and extent with reference to some sort of background 3-dimensional grid, is an interesting topic, and connects nicely to the 'objects in space' vs 'objects and space as continuous' ways of thinking about things.

    So, yeah, do upload that somewhere.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Morality of a Speed Bump. Latour.

Reductio Ad Hitlerum, or what's wrong with Godwin's Law

Counterpoint (P.S.). Queen.