Date   

Re: Human Eye as Image Sensor

Bill G
 

AND, the SHARP FOV of the eye, in which the rays hit the FOVEA, the ONLY section of the eye which has sharp resolution is a total of 2 deg. of center vision.   If you try to read written text while focusing on one word from 15"+, and stay fixated on that word, and try to read the adjacent word or two, u will see how poor all of our vision is, other than the Foveal 2%.   The fact the eyes focus range is 55 deg is useless, as the resolution is so low to start with, nothing is resolvable.  Our peripheral vision is primarily for sensing movement and the existence of objects.
Video is at 24-60fps, eyelids don't blink at this speed.  The only real useful information was the eyes shutter speed is estimated at 1/1000s.  


On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 8:57 AM timo@... <timo@...> wrote:
Also, the eye is a motion picture camera, not a still camera.

Timo

> On Sep 25, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Bill Costa <Bill.Costa@...> wrote:
>
>> The eyelids are the camera shutter and affect the shutter speed.
>
> An apt analogy would be that the eyelids are like a combination lens
> cap and a lens cloth with a cleaning solution.
>
> ...BC
>
>
>
>
>







Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Cameron Kaiser
 

It seems pretty clear why stereo photography, stereo TV, and stereo films
never get much traction in popular culture. If people who have chosen to
be on this list can be so vehemently dismissive of the most obviously
true statement that 2D images are a gross distortion of reality (at
least for people who have two eyes and stereoscopic vision), then there
will be little hope that 3D will ever become properly mainstream.
But statements like that say there is no redeeming value to 2D.
It says no such thing.
You don't think that statements like "gross distortion of reality" go beyond
a mere factual statement into the domain of pejorative? Or, to coin a phrase,
indicate you are "vehemently dismissive"?

A fanatic is someone who
can't change their mind and won't change the subject.
I will change my mind if somebody convinces me I am wrong.
Again, enjoy the windmill tilting. There sure seems to be a lot of it.
Fanaticism doesn't generally wash well with the general public, so I look
forward to our hobby remaining niche.

--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@...
-- Wherever you go, there you are. --------------------------------------------


Re: Human Eye as Image Sensor

timo@guildwood.net
 

Also, the eye is a motion picture camera, not a still camera.

Timo

On Sep 25, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Bill Costa <@BC3D> wrote:

The eyelids are the camera shutter and affect the shutter speed.
An apt analogy would be that the eyelids are like a combination lens
cap and a lens cloth with a cleaning solution.

...BC





Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

timo@guildwood.net
 

On Sep 25, 2020, at 11:35 AM, Cameron Kaiser <spectre@...> wrote:

It seems pretty clear why stereo photography, stereo TV, and stereo films
never get much traction in popular culture. If people who have chosen to be
on this list can be so vehemently dismissive of the most obviously true
statement that 2D images are a gross distortion of reality (at least for
people who have two eyes and stereoscopic vision), then there will be little
hope that 3D will ever become properly mainstream.
But statements like that say there is no redeeming value to 2D.
It says no such thing.

I appreciate
the artistic work necessary to deal with those limitations; I find it
stimulating. And to say, as did a certain member whose messages I now filter,
that a 2D video game is similarly "distorted" that was never an accurate
representation of reality nor intended to be is just silly.

I like, and even prefer, 3D. I'll even agree that for photography in
particular it is superior. But I'm not going to denigrate 2D just for being
2D when it's done well, and especially as an art form in its own right.

Ours is the domain of the perpetual, fringe hobby.
And statements like those made on this list are why.
A statement like that, on this list, is why stereo photography will remain fringe?

A fanatic is someone who
can't change their mind and won't change the subject.
I will change my mind if somebody convinces me I am wrong.

Timo


--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@...
-- TRUE HEADLINE: Include Your Children When Baking Cookies -------------------





Re: Human Eye as Image Sensor

 

The eyelids are the camera shutter and affect the shutter speed.
An apt analogy would be that the eyelids are like a combination lens
cap and a lens cloth with a cleaning solution.

...BC


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Cameron Kaiser
 

It seems pretty clear why stereo photography, stereo TV, and stereo films
never get much traction in popular culture. If people who have chosen to be
on this list can be so vehemently dismissive of the most obviously true
statement that 2D images are a gross distortion of reality (at least for
people who have two eyes and stereoscopic vision), then there will be little
hope that 3D will ever become properly mainstream.
But statements like that say there is no redeeming value to 2D. I appreciate
the artistic work necessary to deal with those limitations; I find it
stimulating. And to say, as did a certain member whose messages I now filter,
that a 2D video game is similarly "distorted" that was never an accurate
representation of reality nor intended to be is just silly.

I like, and even prefer, 3D. I'll even agree that for photography in
particular it is superior. But I'm not going to denigrate 2D just for being
2D when it's done well, and especially as an art form in its own right.

Ours is the domain of the perpetual, fringe hobby.
And statements like those made on this list are why. A fanatic is someone who
can't change their mind and won't change the subject.

--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@...
-- TRUE HEADLINE: Include Your Children When Baking Cookies -------------------


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

timo@guildwood.net
 

For an interesting proof that 2D is a distortion, we should look at how a deliberate distortion can mess with our “visual depth cues”.

An Ames Room is the perfect example. This illusion is impossible with a stereo camera.

Personally, I think the man looks small because he is in a different time zone.

Timo


On Sep 25, 2020, at 10:50 AM, timo@... wrote:

I am a little disappointed. 

It seems pretty clear why stereo photography, stereo TV, and stereo films never get much traction in popular culture. If people who have chosen to be on this list can be so vehemently dismissive of the most obviously true statement that 2D images are a gross distortion of reality (at least for people who have two eyes and stereoscopic vision), then there will be little hope that 3D will ever become properly mainstream. 

Some of the comments here have sounded more like the totally anti-stereo news columns, and reviews, written (we always presumed) by somebody who doesn’t have experience with stereo photography.

Our’s is the domain of the perpetual, fringe hobby.

Timo

On Sep 25, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Kevin Brooks via groups.io <locks_00@...> wrote:

"It is amazing that anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of stereoscopic imaging would doubt my very true statements."
Yet so many with a very deep understanding of stereoscopy have posted their disagreement, while you continue to simply insist that these statements are "very true". I am amazed that you are amazed.

"Monocular depth cues are called that because they are NOT stereoscopic."
It's nice that we can agree on this, at least!

"Anything that you do to a 2-D image that leaves it monoscopic will not reduce the distortion."
But additional distortions (such as those caused by a fisheye lens) would logically increase the distortion, hence demonstrating that the previous image cannot have been maximally distorted.

"Even a fisheye lens distortion is very minor as compared to the distortion of 2-D images that do not have other distortions.  Thus, 2-D distortion is the maximum distortion possible."
I can't even begin to unpick this, so I'm just going to leave it here, and move on. Life's too short.






Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

timo@guildwood.net
 

I am a little disappointed. 

It seems pretty clear why stereo photography, stereo TV, and stereo films never get much traction in popular culture. If people who have chosen to be on this list can be so vehemently dismissive of the most obviously true statement that 2D images are a gross distortion of reality (at least for people who have two eyes and stereoscopic vision), then there will be little hope that 3D will ever become properly mainstream. 

Some of the comments here have sounded more like the totally anti-stereo news columns, and reviews, written (we always presumed) by somebody who doesn’t have experience with stereo photography.

Our’s is the domain of the perpetual, fringe hobby.

Timo

On Sep 25, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Kevin Brooks via groups.io <locks_00@...> wrote:

"It is amazing that anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of stereoscopic imaging would doubt my very true statements."
Yet so many with a very deep understanding of stereoscopy have posted their disagreement, while you continue to simply insist that these statements are "very true". I am amazed that you are amazed.

"Monocular depth cues are called that because they are NOT stereoscopic."
It's nice that we can agree on this, at least!

"Anything that you do to a 2-D image that leaves it monoscopic will not reduce the distortion."
But additional distortions (such as those caused by a fisheye lens) would logically increase the distortion, hence demonstrating that the previous image cannot have been maximally distorted.

"Even a fisheye lens distortion is very minor as compared to the distortion of 2-D images that do not have other distortions.  Thus, 2-D distortion is the maximum distortion possible."
I can't even begin to unpick this, so I'm just going to leave it here, and move on. Life's too short.





Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Kevin Brooks
 

"It is amazing that anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of stereoscopic imaging would doubt my very true statements."
Yet so many with a very deep understanding of stereoscopy have posted their disagreement, while you continue to simply insist that these statements are "very true". I am amazed that you are amazed.

"Monocular depth cues are called that because they are NOT stereoscopic."
It's nice that we can agree on this, at least!

"Anything that you do to a 2-D image that leaves it monoscopic will not reduce the distortion."
But additional distortions (such as those caused by a fisheye lens) would logically increase the distortion, hence demonstrating that the previous image cannot have been maximally distorted.

"Even a fisheye lens distortion is very minor as compared to the distortion of 2-D images that do not have other distortions.  Thus, 2-D distortion is the maximum distortion possible."
I can't even begin to unpick this, so I'm just going to leave it here, and move on. Life's too short.




Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Barry Aldous
 

I have been following this topic for some time and refrained from commenting on some of the nonsense that has been messaged.  Thanks to Ronald, who has put my thoughts into words much better than I could, I can now let matters rest and follow some other topic.

 

Barry Aldous

 

From: Ronald Schalekamp
Sent: 25 September 2020 07:44
To: main@Photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

 

The John's here seem very convinced.

However, a 2D image is not distorted. It is monoscopic. A 3D image is not a whole other image, it is simply two 2D images.
Our eyes dont see one 3D image. Our eyes see two 2D images. The brain adds depth perception from the info of the two images.
If the 2D image is distorted, the 3D image would be also.
2D is flat. 3D is two times flat. Add a brain and it offers depth, so that we wont be eaten by the tiny - but dangerous - crocodile at our feet.


 


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Ronald Schalekamp <info@...>
 

The John's here seem very convinced.

However, a 2D image is not distorted. It is monoscopic. A 3D image is not a whole other image, it is simply two 2D images.
Our eyes dont see one 3D image. Our eyes see two 2D images. The brain adds depth perception from the info of the two images.
If the 2D image is distorted, the 3D image would be also.
2D is flat. 3D is two times flat. Add a brain and it offers depth, so that we wont be eaten by the tiny - but dangerous - crocodile at our feet.




Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

John Rupkalvis
 

It is amazing that anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of stereoscopic imaging would doubt my very true statements.  Monocular depth cues are called that because they are NOT stereoscopic.  Anything that you do to a 2-D image that leaves it monoscopic will not reduce the distortion.  Even a fisheye lens distortion is very minor as compared to the distortion of 2-D images that do not have other distortions.  Thus, 2-D distortion is the maximum distortion possible.  

A gullible public has been conned into believing that the various "enhancements" added to 2-D images will take the place of 2-D distortion.  They do not.  People are buying expensive television sets that do not have 3-D capability because they erroneously think that things like a curved screen are the same thing as 3-D.   Most of the other enhancements are hardly noticeable from a normal viewing distance, especially when comparing true 3-D to distorted 2-D, which makes a difference that is really obvious.  A 3-D HD or even 3-D SD image is superior to an 8K 2-D image, which is still distorted.  Thus, we had better images in 1953 than we have today. 

Other features such as high dynamic range, high frame rate, improved blacks, wider more accurate color gamut, etc., do visibly improve the quality of a 3-D image, but still leave 2-D images as grossly inferior.  

What is needed now are improved public awareness and public education.  We should all be publishing articles in popular publications that improve the general knowledge.  But, we must consider the exaggerations used to promote 2-D systems.  Since manufacturers realize the power of marketing, even using false statements to convince their customers, it is necessary to counter those.  Don't be reticent.  While accurate, the reference to the distortions is really too mild an approach.  Anyone who can come up with stronger words and/or terms, while keeping it honest, like the word distortion, will be very welcomed.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:28 PM Kevin Brooks via groups.io <locks_00=yahoo.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:

We seem to be going round in circles.

"it is a very minor distortion as compared to 2D where there is no depth at all. "

Assuming that by "2D" you mean a non-stereoscopic image, this is false. There are many monocular depth cues that can be used to glean information about distance, as per my message on 20th Sept. re: classical painting. This is well documented in pretty much any basic textbook on visual perception, and in many scientific papers. Attached is an example that covers depth cues in art through the ages (since you acknowledged this earlier), but there are many more.

"2D is the greatest possible distortion in imaging."

Again, this is false. Although I don't dispute that it is a "distortion", there can be greater distortions. Following on from the above, if you remove the monocular depth cues too, then you get further perceptual distortion. If you are not counting perceptual distortion (and I’m not sure why you would, given that the whole thread started by trying to understand why humans don’t use a particular 3D system), but only “imaging, then it is still wrong. If you use a fish-eye lens (distortion of X and y axes too, which causes distortion of Z in terms of perspective, etc.), or in fact any other optical/viewing arrangement that other than one that is orthoscopic. Or, as stated previously, if you have only one eye.

Attachments:


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Kevin Brooks
 

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:13 AM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
In 3D, even with a normal interaxial, there are still normal depth proportions out for several hundred feet.  Some have claimed that 3D is limited to close-ups, which is very false.  
I'd be very interested to read this work. Can you please provide a reference?

K


Re: Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

Kevin Brooks
 

We seem to be going round in circles.

"it is a very minor distortion as compared to 2D where there is no depth at all. "

Assuming that by "2D" you mean a non-stereoscopic image, this is false. There are many monocular depth cues that can be used to glean information about distance, as per my message on 20th Sept. re: classical painting. This is well documented in pretty much any basic textbook on visual perception, and in many scientific papers. Attached is an example that covers depth cues in art through the ages (since you acknowledged this earlier), but there are many more.

"2D is the greatest possible distortion in imaging."

Again, this is false. Although I don't dispute that it is a "distortion", there can be greater distortions. Following on from the above, if you remove the monocular depth cues too, then you get further perceptual distortion. If you are not counting perceptual distortion (and I’m not sure why you would, given that the whole thread started by trying to understand why humans don’t use a particular 3D system), but only “imaging, then it is still wrong. If you use a fish-eye lens (distortion of X and y axes too, which causes distortion of Z in terms of perspective, etc.), or in fact any other optical/viewing arrangement that other than one that is orthoscopic. Or, as stated previously, if you have only one eye.


Human Eye as Image Sensor

robert mcafee
 

The Human Eye as an Image Sensor

MAURIZIO DI PAOLO EMILIO

In human sight, the eyes, brain and optic nerve are all come into play during the image acquisition process. Cameras were built using the human eye as a model in an attempt to replicate its features.

The eye is composed of various parts. The retina is sensitive to light and is formed by photoreceptors for image conversion. Through the retina the image is broken down into electrical packets and conveyed to the optic nerve. Information is received by the brain at high speed, reaching the diencephalon, where it is processed and matched to the individual's previous knowledge.

Our eyes work with our brain to create the image we perceive: the eyes regulate focus (by bending light through the lens in the eyeball) and translate the photons into an electrical impulse to be processed by the brain.

The cornea is just like a camera lens. The pupil and iris represent the diaphragm. The eyelids are the camera shutter and affect the shutter speed. The crystalline lens is the autofocus. The retina is the real sensor whose dimensions can be comparable to a full-frame of 24x36 mm. The retina is composed of a myriad of pixels. Roger N. Clark calculated a possible number of megapixels under ideal conditions, something like 570 Megapixels.

The focal length of the human eye is between 17 and 24 mm. Our angle of view is 130°, which is reduced to 55° to the focus point. Several studies have stated our eye is a lens with an average shutter speed of around 1/100 second (in healthy individuals).We could say the binomial cornea/pupil corresponds to the binomial frontal lens/mobile lens of the camera: the cornea collects the divergent rays of light and conveys them through the pupil.

The human eye is extremely good at handling images when illuminated by strong light, so it becomes insignificant to talk about "noise" as the human brain simply "completes and corrects" possible problems in sight.


3D Imaging - Machine Vision artcle

robert mcafee
 


Working On A Tan

 

The governor of California gave us permission to watch 3D movies at our drive in theater, so let's get this party started!
 
You can view this presentation in 2D or in stereoscopic 3D:


Cascade Stereoscopic Club Zoom Meeting Invitation: Monday, September 28, 7:00 PM Pacific Time

Herb Weiner
 

Everyone is invited to the Cascade Stereoscopic Club Zoom Meeting on Monday, September 28, at 7:00 PM Pacific Time.

The agenda is:

  • Everyone is invited to share their theme photos, as well as photos of any other subject. The theme for this month's meeting is Bicycles. Please email your photos, preferably in MPO format, to herbw@... .
  • We will select six images (no more than two from any member) for the first round of the 2020-2021 ISCC (International Stereo Club Competition).
  • We will show results from the previous (25th) ISU CODE Folio.
  • As always, we will be pleased to answer any questions you have about 3D photography and the Cascade Stereoscopic Club.

Topic: Cascade Stereoscopic Club September Meeting
Time: Sep 28, 2020 07:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)


Meeting ID: 851 7639 8799
One tap mobile
+12532158782,,85176398799# US (Tacoma)
+13462487799,,85176398799# US (Houston)

Dial by your location
        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
        +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 851 7639 8799
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kGc3kZmwz

Herb


VIDEOS FOR 4K PHONE, 3DTV and OTHER DEVICES

John Hart
 

I recently made 23 of my best stereoscopic videos available on USB 3.0 flash drives for direct plug-and-play on 4K and HD 3DTV's (OU vertically squished format).  I have now added a SxS 3840x1080 version of each show for 4K phones (or other 3840 wide SxS displays).  These SxS shows, as well as the other formats, are available for download.  For details please visit hart3d.com and click on the yellow Video Collection button.
 
NOTES FOR PLAYING ON SONY XPERIA 4K PHONES (e.g. Z5 Premium, XZ Premium):
Normally I copy the SxS.mp4 video file(s) to the phone's internal memory (movies folder) and play them using the phone's own Video App.  The play is smooth and with full 4K resolution.  These phones take external micro-SD cards.  Thus, you can add storage to the available internal capacity (which is only about 48GB for the XZ, less for Z5).  However, the android operating system for these phones only seems to support Fat32.  This means that only shows <4GB in size will work in the external memory.  I tested a 32GB V30 Sandisk card, and it worked fine for movie-play in the phone, but I had to format it to Fat32 first (NTFS and exFAT failed).
 
John
hart3d.com
 
PS - anyone who previously bought the flash drive version can get a free download link-list. Email me.


The fourth dimension WASAnother formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

John Clement
 

In science a given theory which fits existing facts, but cannot predict a new effect which can be verified, is usually deprecated.  A fourth spatial dimension is one of these ideas.  It is basically science fiction or fantasy, so I would say it is not a believable model at present.  While there are models for the universe and reality that incorporate multi-dimensionality, they have never been able to find evidence for these dimensions, so I really doubt that physicists do believe in these dimensions.  So far they are just mathematical abstractions.  Some models claim the extra dimensions are coiled up and are microscopic.  It is like cold fusion.  The Physicists who understand the nuclear realm said it was nonsense, and they were right.  One idea is that our universe is like a 4 dimensional soap bubble and we are just holograms imprinted on the surface, but again this is just a mathematical abstraction with no verification.

 

Yes, I think that words matter, so the “scientists believe” is not accurate, because it implies a significant number of them.  It should be “a few scientists believe”.  Actually I prefer “convinced” to “belief” when talking about science.  Good scientists change their ideas and can shift paradigms, once evidence has been supplied.  However old models are still used when they have been proven to be useful, even though they do not represent what may be thought to actually be going on.  So there may be a 4th dimension, or even a 44th dimension, but no firm evidence for it.

 

John M. Clement

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didnt say ALL scientists. If there are 2 believing, the statement is right.
If those (at least) 2 are right, then our 3d view is a distorted view of reality?

That's what i was saying.


Also there are lots of things that cant be 'verified', but lots of people believe in.
Try God.
Or Trumps alternative facts.