3 ms·

Lacking one eye really doesn't matter that much. You move your head a bit, you instantly know where everything is in 3D.

by axod 16y ago

sliverstorm 16y ago
You ever tried to play tennis with one eye covered? I'm not saying your life is ruined with only one eye, but don't downplay their plight. You can still see in 3D, it's true, but (in my experience) you loose a lot of accuracy.
- axod 16y ago
  I wear glasses and my left eye is pretty useless - my brain pretty much ignores any signal from my left eye unless I cover my right. So unfortunately I can't really tell how much importance there is in things like this. You're probably right for people who have really good/equal eyes.
viraptor 16y ago
Simple trick: Take a pen with a cap. Close one eye. Hold it at some distance - as if you were holding it just above the desk while sitting at it. Without making the hands touch (just hold the end of the cap and the end of the pen), try to put them together again. It's actually not that easy and I miss almost every time. Moving your head a bit doesn't help that much in this situation. So yeah - for big objects, scenery, etc. it works. For some manual actions 2 points of vision are much more useful than paralax when moving.
- jerf 16y ago
  I have dubious depth perception; two modestly nearsighted eyes. I just took your challenge. I did it perfectly, first time. That's probably because my brain's depth perception mechanisms are used to adding in more cues than brains that can lean on perfect binocular vision do. People tend to get really romantic about how brains work, so I should probably make something clear. When I say that my brain is more used to integrating multiple other environmental clues to get depth perception than brains with perfect stereoscopic vision, that's actually a bad thing. The resulting depth perception is clearly worse than good stereoscopic vision. I am lucky in that if I wear glasses, which I do not routinely, I can get true stereoscopic vision back; I do not lack the brain mechanisms entirely as some people with bad vision do. And that's clearly better. My brain is better adapted to degraded input, but it remains degraded input. Brains prefer stereoscopic vision when available because they naturally gravitate to the best sources of data. Rolling back around to my main point, depth perception is a great deal more complicated than most people give it credit for. There's really two distinct depth perceptions, one using stereoscopic vision that only works out to a few tens of feet regardless of how good your vision, and one that works on the rest of the world using motion and occlusion cues and a variety of other things. These flashing pictures manage to fire some of my depth perception based on motion cues, but completely lack the precise depth perception I get from stereoscopic vision. There's really no such thing as a monolithic "depth perception", it's a lot of things that get integrated in the brain.

Lacking one eye really doesn't matter that much. You move your head a bit, you instantly know where everything is in 3D.

by axod 16y ago

Lacking one eye really doesn't matter that much. You move your head a bit, you instantly know where everything is in 3D.

sliverstorm 16y ago

You ever tried to play tennis with one eye covered? I'm not saying your life is ruined with only one eye, but don't downplay their plight. You can still see in 3D, it's true, but (in my experience) you loose a lot of accuracy.

axod 16y ago
I wear glasses and my left eye is pretty useless - my brain pretty much ignores any signal from my left eye unless I cover my right. So unfortunately I can't really tell how much importance there is in things like this. You're probably right for people who have really good/equal eyes.

viraptor 16y ago

Simple trick: Take a pen with a cap. Close one eye. Hold it at some distance - as if you were holding it just above the desk while sitting at it. Without making the hands touch (just hold the end of the cap and the end of the pen), try to put them together again. It's actually not that easy and I miss almost every time. Moving your head a bit doesn't help that much in this situation. So yeah - for big objects, scenery, etc. it works. For some manual actions 2 points of vision are much more useful than paralax when moving.

jerf 16y ago
I have dubious depth perception; two modestly nearsighted eyes. I just took your challenge. I did it perfectly, first time. That's probably because my brain's depth perception mechanisms are used to adding in more cues than brains that can lean on perfect binocular vision do. People tend to get really romantic about how brains work, so I should probably make something clear. When I say that my brain is more used to integrating multiple other environmental clues to get depth perception than brains with perfect stereoscopic vision, that's actually a bad thing. The resulting depth perception is clearly worse than good stereoscopic vision. I am lucky in that if I wear glasses, which I do not routinely, I can get true stereoscopic vision back; I do not lack the brain mechanisms entirely as some people with bad vision do. And that's clearly better. My brain is better adapted to degraded input, but it remains degraded input. Brains prefer stereoscopic vision when available because they naturally gravitate to the best sources of data. Rolling back around to my main point, depth perception is a great deal more complicated than most people give it credit for. There's really two distinct depth perceptions, one using stereoscopic vision that only works out to a few tens of feet regardless of how good your vision, and one that works on the rest of the world using motion and occlusion cues and a variety of other things. These flashing pictures manage to fire some of my depth perception based on motion cues, but completely lack the precise depth perception I get from stereoscopic vision. There's really no such thing as a monolithic "depth perception", it's a lot of things that get integrated in the brain.