If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Depth perception and contrasting colours
"Jeff R." wrote in message
... Jeff R. wrote: Calvin Sambrook wrote: it's more obvious when the contrasting colours are large and touching or one on top of the other, try pink(magenta) on blue. This what you meant? http://www.mendosus.com/photography/colour-stereo.html (updated with new image) http://www.mendosus.com/photography/six-colour.gif -- Jeff R. That's the one. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Depth perception and contrasting colours
"Jeff R." wrote in message
... Calvin Sambrook wrote: "Jeff R." wrote in message Like so: http://www.mendosus.com/photography/colour-stereo.html Can everyone here see the apparent differences in depth of the coloured text on that page? Can anyone resolutely *not* see it? I'd be very surprised if anyone genuinely couldn't see it as I understand it to be the result of fundamental physics and physiology rather than an optical trick as much 3d stuff uses. "Optical trick" is a bit harsh, I think. All the techniques I am aware of serve simply to present a slightly different image to each eye - each image offset by (ideally) the spacing of one's eyes. Contrasting colours on a black background provide a very real stereo illusion, but I can't for the life of me see how it could be presenting different (offset) images to each eye. Yes, I was a bit harsh really they are all tricks in a sense. I didn't mean to belittle one or the other. By "trick" I kind of mean something which exploits the physiology in order to simulate an effect. So presenting two silghtly different 2d images to the eyes in a controlled way in order to make the brain think it's viewing a 3d scene is a trick in that sense, just like presenting a sequence of different images in order to trick the eye into thinking it's seeing motion is a trick. ... That said the website you've given isn't a particularly good one to show it up, Really? Is the illusion obvious to you in the first few (red/blue) line groups? it's more obvious when the contrasting colours are large and touching or one on top of the other, try pink(magenta) on blue. Not sure I follow what you mean by "large", but I'll give it a go. Stay tuned for updates. Opps, sorry, I didn't realise that was your work or I would have worded it a little less bluntly, I thought you had found that site. Does it work with one eye closed? (It doesn't for me.) It certainly should as the effect is within the eye rather than between eyes IYSWIM. Yes, I follow, but my experience is that the effect *almost completely* disappears when I close one eye. I think I'm kidding myself, but I fancy there is only a tiny, marginal effect when viewed monocular, but there is certainly a huge, easy-to-see effect when viewed binocular. More interestingly, can anyone offer a simple, understandable explanation for the effect? From (slightly hazy) memory it's caused by chromatic abberation, or differential focus, or differential magnification, or differential colour (pick a term, I've seen all of them used), of the colours by the simply lens of your eye. Photoraphers see this sort of thing a lot in lenses, particularly long ones. Y-e-e-e-es... (trying to figure out how CA would cause a stereo illusion...) Do you mean: The different colours achieve focus at different points (even though the source is coplanar), so the brain interprets that difference as a difference in depth? That makes sense, though it seems contrary to the evidence. Would I be aware (consciously) of the differential focus? (Would I be able to sense my eyes trying to focus differently?) Would/(should?) all the colours appear to be in sharp focus simultaneously? (as they demonstrably are) Would this effect work monocularly? (I say it doesn't) Your eyes do lots of things you're not aware of. I suspect this effect also gets caught up in the stocastic (sp?) movement issue too - do you notice that the magenta and red on blue appear to "dance" or "swim" a little on the page? Try a big blob of say red on a blue field which covers the whole screen. Nice idea. I'm sure it's (at least) the germ of the answer. (different wavelengths being interpreted differently) Your eye/brain is not a simple camera and doesn't just record what it sees like a camera but rather interprets it to glean information. It's (incorrectly) interpreting the chromatic abberation and hence different focal points for the colours as distance information. (sorry - I repeated what you said) Googling produces some joy, but not much. (Too tight to pay for research papers.) Anyone think there could be implications here for landscape photography? (Or is the effect too gross/unsubtle?) Well, it only really happens with fully saturated colours (if you think about the explanation you;ll see why) One of the sources I looked at cited a Van Gogh landscape http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~lsa.../19_wheatS.jpg in which the pastel-blue sky/clouds appear to stand out behind the pastel-green fore and mid-ground. (from http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~lsa...r/19_depth.htm - good stuff) I don't know if the effect there is down to colour and depth perception, or Van Gogh's genius, but either way I do see it... and the colours are pastel, not saturated. ....which is why it's common with in additive colour systems (things which emit light like monitors) and not often seen in subtractive colour systems (paints, books and printed photos) although there was a superb album cover in the late 1970's or early 1980's which demonstrated it really well with a word written in pink on a blue background - I wish I could remember what it was called. Likewise I recall a story book from my youth that featured bright red and blue text on a black background - I found the 3D effect disturbing, even as a young'un. Had to run my fingers over the book to be sure it was actually flat. (it was) So if you're in the habit of taking photos of fully saturated pink mountains against saturated blue skies look out! Not too many of those round here, so no risk. Cheers, Calvin Thanks for your input. -- Jeff R. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HDR - how to get the photmatix colours? | bugbear | Digital Photography | 5 | June 25th 09 04:18 AM |
Count 'em 1 M colours | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | May 14th 09 08:04 AM |
printer colours vs 'real' colours | dido22 | Digital Photography | 4 | June 15th 07 04:37 PM |
Visual perception and gamma encoding | Johannes | Digital Photography | 3 | October 8th 06 04:59 PM |
B&W portrait w/contrasting skin tones | Ry8n | Photographing People | 2 | March 9th 04 08:10 AM |