Key words in that article
"New hypothesis"
They vaguely describe some artificial method of giving the perception of depth.
They give no evidence that it has actually worked.
3D means three-dimensional, i.e. something that has width, height and depth (length). Our physical environment is three-dimensional and we move around in 3D every day.
3D means three-dimensional, i.e. something that has width, height and depth (length). Our physical environment is three-dimensional and we move around in 3D every day.
it’s called 3D tv only because it’s a 2D image made to look 3D.
Toast popping up is 3D in real life and I can see that with one eye open
As someone who works with one eye (through a loupe) a good portion of my days, I can tell you that two eyes are most certainly not needed in order to have some depth perception.
If you close one eye the world does not suddenly become "flat"...
You do know about rendering and use of perspective in painting and drawing?
Yes, that's why it isn't about stereo vision as you keep saying. The perception of depth is because of perspective, angles, relative heights and sizes.
Does a drawing that is drawn with the sort or perspective you are referring to loose that when you close one eye?
All of which you see for real in real time when using both eyes.
When you are looking at a watch movement through a loop you don't have to be convinced that what you see is really there and is oriented the way you already know it should be. Everything you see only confirms what you expect to see.
Well it seems you doubt the science behind depth perception.
If you've convinced yourself that you can see just as well with one eye as with both eyes far be it from me to disabuse you of that notion.
Of course I never said it was "just as well" but you know that. What I have said is clear - I can see that objects are closer or farther with one eye closed.
I can tell you that two eyes are most certainly not needed in order to have some depth perception.
So why do I see 3D with one eye closed.
You may be able to judge distances in a limited fashion with only one eye but its not as easy as you seem to think it is, and certainly not as accurate.
You are not seeing the differences in distance you are inferring them from other visual cues. Those same cues can be maniplutated to make you believe an object is closer than another when the opposite is true.
Well it seems you doubt the science behind depth perception.
Lack of depth perception or even poor depth perception can disqualify one from many pursuits. How many one eyed pro tennis players are there? How many pro baseball players are there?
When I was involved in film making one of the subjects we studied was forced perspective. On standard 2D film which is equivalent to looking at a scene with one eye we could make a frog look to be bigger than a house. No one who was actually there with both eyes open would see it that way.
If you've convinced yourself that you can see just as well with one eye as with both eyes far be it from me to disabuse you of that notion.
There are actually people who are totally blind, some with no eyes at all, who are convinced that they are not blind. This is called "Blind sight". The auditory , olfactory and other senses are routed through the visual cortex and in their mind they see images and scenes that correspond to that sensory input. Not accurately of course but they are convinced they actually see no matter how many times it is proven to them that they can not.
