Alizee in 3D (optical illusion, may upset your stomach)

[HibyPrime]

Originally Posted by RMJ

Dot (point) is dimensionless.

Closest to 1D object on computer screen would be line, for example: |

Even tho, both . and | are 2 dimensional on computer screen. True 1D exists only in math, never in nature.

Even tho 1D not exist in nature, 0D does. Atleat in theory. Tho, we will never see it so it remains as a theory... Tho, it existence can be calculated once we have more info about it.

I believe the newest (and widely growing) theory on dimensions is that there are an infinite amount of them and you can not define an object without any one of them. ie. 2D is impossible in our universe, as is 3D - no time (according to Einstein anyway).

Edit: I got that way off, I was thinking about the string theory, it says that there are 11 dimensions, and they apply to all objects in our universe.

A 5th dimension could be energy, as an example. I'm dumbfounded for a 6th, but I'm sure there is one.

How can there be a 0 dimension? You are literally describing an object that does exist on some level by saying it does not exist. That's a mind boggler..

[HibyPrime]

Ok, so I setup two videos (two of the same ACC), and tried it with that 3d method. If you set them up only very, very slightly apart, it actually works!

It's a pain in the ass to get them setup right though.. (hint: use the sound to get them to match, not the video)

This makes me want to make a two-tv system and set them up so one displays the video a fraction of a second from the other.

[maareek]

Originally Posted by Snatcher42

Good idea!

EARTHQUAKE!

[Senshi87]

if i want to see 3d of her..isnt it just to open up a video and voila! 3d of her!?

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Senshi87

if i want to see 3d of her..isnt it just to open up a video and voila! 3d of her!?

No, videos are 2D. They have no depth as they're flat on your screen. And technically so are all of the images in this thread. But they give the illusion of depth.

[HibyPrime]

Originally Posted by Snatcher42

No, videos are 2D. They have no depth as they're flat on your screen. And technically so are all of the images in this thread. But they give the illusion of depth.

By that definition, it is impossible to see anything in 3d. Your eyes recieve all images in a 2d plane, just as your monitor transmits them.

The images that are properly made as "stereo," are exactly what you would see in real life - two images from a slightly different postion merged into one.

[RMJ]

Excatly. The stereo view is natural way to see the world. That's why these stereo images works too as supposed. Brains does the 3D illusion for your. Human does not have 3D view. We only have stereo view.

In couple (or few) years "3D"-televions will hit the markets. They will be normal TFT panels, but they have mask that splits the image so that your both eyes will see slightly different image. It is based on this same method, too. In TV's case you don't need to cross your eyes tho because the TV does it for you (with that mask).

Like I said before, 3D and images doesn't fit in same phrase. Image is never three dimensional. When adding the third dimension, it becomes object (or model, or whatever you wish to call it). Images are always 2D. Image of 3D object is always projection.

[spysmasher]

Originally Posted by RMJ

Like I said before, 3D and images doesn't fit in same phrase. Image is never three dimensional. When adding the third dimension, it becomes object (or model, or whatever you wish to call it). Images are always 2D. Image of 3D object is always projection.

Actually, the English word "image" simply means a representation of a person or thing ... including such truly 3-D representations as a statue or bust. What you have been saying about "image" applies to the word "picture" -- which is by definition flat or 2-D -- but not the word "image." Etymology bears this out. "Image" comes from the Latin imago, which was often used by the Romans to refer to statues or busts; whereas "picture" comes from the Latin pictura which originally meant "a painting." So there is nothing contradictory about the term "3-D image," but, technically, it would have to refer to a statue or something like that. As you and others have already pointed out, though, people tend to use that term somewhat inaccurately to refer to a picture that gives the illusion of being 3-D.

[Twitch]

To add to this unless you have the necessary knowledge you can't visually understand things like photographs. We have evolved to see the illusion of depth and space in photographs, but when one was shown to someone who grew up in complete isolation from such things(a tribesman form a jungle) it made no sense to him, the illusion dissolved and all he saw was a flat mess of colours, which technically a photograph and all images really are. I guess this proves that it's our brains and not our vision that is responsible for creating the illusion of 3D.

[RMJ]

Originally Posted by spysmasher

Actually, the English word "image" simply means a representation of a person or thing ... including such truly 3-D representations as a statue or bust. What you have been saying about "image" applies to the word "picture" -- which is by definition flat or 2-D -- but not the word "image." Etymology bears this out. "Image" comes from the Latin imago, which was often used by the Romans to refer to statues or busts; whereas "picture" comes from the Latin pictura which originally meant "a painting." So there is nothing contradictory about the term "3-D image," but, technically, it would have to refer to a statue or something like that. As you and others have already pointed out, though, people tend to use that term somewhat inaccurately to refer to a picture that gives the illusion of being 3-D.

Well, ok, you are right about that.

But since image is often used in place of picture I mixed up that exact meaning, too. But yea, you know what I meant. And when people talk about 3D images, they usually means 3D renders which are just 2D pictures, without any depth information.

Originally Posted by Twitch

To add to this unless you have the necessary knowledge you can't visually understand things like photographs. We have evolved to see the illusion of depth and space in photographs, but when one was shown to someone who grew up in complete isolation from such things(a tribesman form a jungle) it made no sense to him, the illusion dissolved and all he saw was a flat mess of colours, which technically a photograph and all images really are. I guess this proves that it's our brains and not our vision that is responsible for creating the illusion of 3D.

Yup, this is true, too. Photographs are completely flat. Only our brains can make some sense to them and imagine how the the objects in the picture should be if you were looking the same place in real life.

And it doesn't always work as supposed.