3 ms·

Doesn't normal 2D TV also force you to ignore even more depth perception cues? We still have relative size, parralax, etc telling us that the things on the scr

Doesn't normal 2D TV also force you to ignore even more depth perception cues? We still have relative size, parralax, etc telling us that the things on the screen are at different depths.

daveungerer 17y ago
Did we read the same article? 2D TV doesn't trick the brain into thinking it's 3D. Your brain can clearly see it's 2D. When you view fake 3D, the brain thinks it's 3D. But now that your brain is in 3D mode, it has to turn off processing for a lot of cues it would normally take into account, due to the fake 3D not being a complete simulation of reality.
- tocomment 17y ago
  The article says there are 10 depth perception cues. ONE of them is showing different images to each eye. 2D images do have some of the 10 cues. What is special about this ONE cue and not the ones that a 2D image has? I.e., why does your brain turn off processing for the differing images to each eye cue but not for the parralax cue, etc?
  - daveungerer 17y ago
    What's special about this ONE cue? Ummm... how about the fact that it can trick your brain into believing it's viewing 3D without including most of the others? I mean... you just said a 2D image doesn't have this one cue, but has the others. That, by definition, makes it special. But your second paragraph show's me this is all based on confusion. The parallax cue and processing different images for each eye are the same thing, not 2 different things as you're implying. And that's the one of the cues that's NOT turned off. I'm not defending what the author is saying. I just feel you should read the article again, because your statements don't seem to address anything said in the article.
bartl 17y ago
I think you must be referring to perspective... which gives indeed an idea of 3D. Medieval paintings lacked perspective. But technically it's still 2D: both eyes see the same thing. We are used to 2D: if you look around with one eye, or at very long distances: the moon, the sun and the stars are in 2D. And we're used to 2D in drawings, paintings and photographs. 3D tries to trick you into seeing 3D by showing a different picture for each eye, but the illusion is far from perfect: according to this article we receive clues that point in different directions. And that, it claims, isn't healthy in the long run.

Doesn't normal 2D TV also force you to ignore even more depth perception cues? We still have relative size, parralax, etc telling us that the things on the screen are at different depths.

daveungerer 17y ago

Did we read the same article? 2D TV doesn't trick the brain into thinking it's 3D. Your brain can clearly see it's 2D. When you view fake 3D, the brain thinks it's 3D. But now that your brain is in 3D mode, it has to turn off processing for a lot of cues it would normally take into account, due to the fake 3D not being a complete simulation of reality.

tocomment 17y ago
The article says there are 10 depth perception cues. ONE of them is showing different images to each eye. 2D images do have some of the 10 cues. What is special about this ONE cue and not the ones that a 2D image has? I.e., why does your brain turn off processing for the differing images to each eye cue but not for the parralax cue, etc?
- daveungerer 17y ago
  What's special about this ONE cue? Ummm... how about the fact that it can trick your brain into believing it's viewing 3D without including most of the others? I mean... you just said a 2D image doesn't have this one cue, but has the others. That, by definition, makes it special. But your second paragraph show's me this is all based on confusion. The parallax cue and processing different images for each eye are the same thing, not 2 different things as you're implying. And that's the one of the cues that's NOT turned off. I'm not defending what the author is saying. I just feel you should read the article again, because your statements don't seem to address anything said in the article.

bartl 17y ago

I think you must be referring to perspective... which gives indeed an idea of 3D. Medieval paintings lacked perspective. But technically it's still 2D: both eyes see the same thing. We are used to 2D: if you look around with one eye, or at very long distances: the moon, the sun and the stars are in 2D. And we're used to 2D in drawings, paintings and photographs. 3D tries to trick you into seeing 3D by showing a different picture for each eye, but the illusion is far from perfect: according to this article we receive clues that point in different directions. And that, it claims, isn't healthy in the long run.