Three dimensions pictures? - Page 2

•  Subject
• Author
• Posted on

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

I don't like it. It sounds like an intrusion of privacy.

--
dorayme

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

I thought Martians were exhibitionists?

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net /
Great sights and sounds

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:05:45 +0200, "Paul"

Oh ppuhleeeze!

do you comprehend the meaning of 3 dimensional?
Now how can one represent a 3 dimensional object on a 2 dimensional
plane?
The term "3d" in computing sense, does not mean an object has physical
depth. It only appears to have physical depth.
The object is still 2 dimensional, height and width. Nothing more.
Period.

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

Google "parallax" and "persistence of vision".... the important word in the
above paragraph being 'represent'. 3D objects have been 'represented' in
steroscopes for at least 150 years..., and they are most certainly on a 2D
plane. I don't think the OP was suggesting matter transfer :)), rather a
'representation' of 3 dimensions.

...oh, you mean 'representing' 3 dimensions, like you said earlier. I don't
think the OP wanted to 'present' the objects, but to 'represent' (note the
prefix 're') their three dimensions. Fairly obvious.

No kidding, Hipparchus.

Try thinking outside the triangle ;)

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

Okay, Hippopotamus, but just for the record - I seldom do a lot of thinking
when I'm inside the triangle as it is.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net /
Great sights and sounds

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

"Neredbojias" <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php wrote in

I'm now thinking of Carl Sagan's (RIP) explanation as to why it might be
impossibile for us (as humans) to perceive any more than three dimensions...
nice. Yet we CAN describe mathematically n-dimensions, and it IS possible to
represent three dimensions from two... even visually!

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

Yes, it is, but since dimensionality (depth perspective) to the human eye
is established by the slightly-different rendition of a scene upon the
left and right retinae, I can think of no way which does not require in
some manner or form 2 images.  Some '50s films simulated this by blue-
and-red outlining, but that's just a method of synthesizing 2 images in
effect (-and I thought it sucked, anyway.)  There was also another and
perhaps better method, but to be honest I never saw one that worked with
either stills or animation which really succeeded in persistently
portraying a 3-dimensional reality.  However, the "ViewMaster" picture-
reader did at times offer some impressive selections of images which
could somewhat give the feeling of "being there".

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net /
Great sights and sounds

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php wrote:

I saw The House of Wax in 3-D in Cairo in the early 1950s.

--
dorayme

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

In Cairo?  No kidding.  I'm surprised it didn't melt...

What were you doing there, anyway, -taking asp lessons?

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net /
Great sights and sounds

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php wrote:

You try landing on earth from outer space and choose your exact
location...

--
dorayme

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

What's the prob?  Oh, perhaps it relates to the "women drivers" stigma.
Next time hire a male pilot and use a spacecraft with an ejection seat.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net /
Great sights and sounds

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

[...]

Holograms. Each eye does end up with a different image, but they work at
a range of angles: it's not just a snapshot of the 3D view from one
position, but a much more complete reconstruction of the 3D radiation
from the original scene.

Stereo images (and stereo sounds) are OK if you don't move your head or

In other words you can't make a stereoscopic scene in which if you focus
on the near objects the far ones appear out of focus and vice versa. But
a hologram should be able to do that.

Re: Three dimensions pictures?

Ah, yes, -holograms.  You are correct; they'd slipped my mind in the
discussion and I actually think holograms are the future of rendered visual
content.  The trouble is that to-date no one has come up with a truly
viable system for hologramming things or at least one that is commercially
feasible and I know about.  Even the Japs haven't "embraced the market" so
to speak - things are getting too good over there.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net /
Great sights and sounds