Theories of 3D (Part 1)

I'm not sure the theories of how we see in 3D are right. In very general terms, we supposedly see in 3D because a slightly different image is received by our brains from each of our eyes, because of their slightly different position/separation in space. You can test this by looking out one eye, then the other, and you'll notice that the scene shifts slightly.

Using this theory looking with only one eye should therefore give you a 2D view of the world. But it doesn't - anybody reading this can test that for themselves. Everything seems 3D to me when using only one eye. And people with only one eye presumably more often than not function in full 3D. I suppose an explanation for this might be that the brain 'corrects' for the one closed eye. But the brain is always turned into a black box like that, to explain things people don't understand properly.

I won't go into an alternative theory yet, mostly because it's a bit half-baked. In the meantime, have a look at this (click on the image to enlarge it):

This is one of Microsoft's standard windows. To me the blue and black image looks profoundly 3D, especially when viewed in conjunction with the bordering elements. I quickly doodled something using a paint program to see if the effect was reproducible:

Be interested if others perceive the depth/3D effect as strongly as I do. Many don't seem to. It's not just a perspective effect, as in perspective drawing, the image looks completely stereoscopic (to me anyway, and more precisely it's autostereoscopic i.e. you don't need any tools or tricks to see the 3D).


Popular posts from this blog

The Morality of a Speed Bump. Latour.

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