take a look at this stereogram: (close your eyes to the screen to see it double and get far away slowly keeping overlaping byside images)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... /Stereogram_Tut_Width.png

notice you know perfectly which is farther which in real life doesnt happen, if you see 2 lights in the see at night you are unable to tell which is closer, i recall even have confused a close insect with a far bird, even simpsons parodied this

now put one finger close to your eyes and other far, when you pay attention to the close finger the far one appears double and viceversa, and this happens even with one finger at 50 cm and other at 52 cm

this doesnt happen with stereograms, notice that when you achieve deapth perception in the stereogram is exactly when you dont see anything double

but think of the amazing thing your brain is doing, its overlaping an image that is 2 cm apart and 3 cm apart at the same time telling from this depth

but why we achieve deapth perception in the stereogram and not alike in real life?

the reason is that the stereogram simulates a very small eye distance, maybe 1 cm while in real life we have 5 cm, so with the stereogram our brain has to do a small efort to overlap different distances images because this distance differences are very small while in real life distances are not manageables by our brain

i think we lost our ability for apreciating deapth due to to much reading that taught our sight to converge too close instead of going paralel, in other words instaed of the images being overlap by our brain are overlapped by converging our eyes with which the brain is used to do no effeort at all

well long ago i found a way to recover deapth perception would be using periscopic eyes that simulated our eyes being 1 cm apart and increase constantly distance till we relearn to look with the eyes paralel and let the brain overlap images apreciating depth

but just yesterday i thought of a beteer way, in the shown stereogram apparent far objects are farther side by side than objects that are apparently closer, but the distance difference is very small because it simulates eyes 1 cm apart, so the trick is increase apart distance difference constantly till the stereogram simulates eyes 5 cm apart

that would be the begining of starting to use 100% of brain

your thoughts?

Quote from lerts :

that would be the begining of starting to use 100% of brain

Beginning to use 10% of yours would be a start!

Quote from lerts :

your thoughts?

er....how about laying off the waccy baccy for a day or two?

IBTL

I saught help when I needed it, i'd recommend you do the same.

I agree completely Lerts, I think.

I think one of the thing is that the human eye/brain, is that it's easy to confuse and trick with. Illusions if you want to call it

@Bladerunner
Unfortunately, lerts seems to be the only person in existence who is the exception to the "spam and get banned" rule, so I wouldn't even count on the thread getting locked.

You need 3 axes to accurately gauge distances by eye. You need X, Y and Z co-ordinates, meaning if it's a single point of light in the dark you have no Y-axis to tell you whether it's far away or close and small.

You can't use a flat image to test depth perception because the image itself is at a constant distance, irrelevant of what size the objects on that image are drawn. The paper doesn't get any closer or further away from you.
Very high quality drawings can give the illusion of depth from middle-distance (look at old TV shows for example), but when you see them in person from a reasonable range it's always obvious whether something is real or not.

However, it would not shock me in the slightest if you, lerts, had lost your depth perception. You appear to have pretty much lost all other forms of awareness.

Woah Lerts, i see some logic in the post, but i dont think its right !
u b v high!

becky i go to a psichiatrist have my medication and im quiting with all substances like alcohol but before i was interested on getting energy from gravity which lead to my explanation on gravity from ellipses but now im interested in a method of achieving 100% of brain usage or enlightenment i dont think this is crazy just out of the box

whats wrong with starting making exercises with stereograms and slowly increase depth, thats exercise with the brain that instead of harm can only bring benefits

i post this in order to improve my idea, i find it extreamly interesting, i cant be the only one, imagine i was in the way to invent a method of easily achieving enlightenment share it with the best of my intention and it got locked and i banned

ive invented another eye exercise which i posted here as well that got me 3 times for 1 second to see with the periferal view as well as with the central one and as well as to have real 3d perception, i can tell you sight can get to be quite different to what we usually experience, focus at all distances, real depth perception and peripheral view as clear as central

Haha, yet another thread where I look at the title and think 'Is this Lerts?' and am rewarded when I look at the thread starter

You do get depth perception with real objects, but it gets a LOT harder to judge as the objects gets further away because the parallax effect of having two eyes is reduced to almost nothing, hence why its hard to tell the difference between a small light 100m away and a plane 10 miles away. If your eyes were 100m apart you'd easily be able to tell the difference, however wouldn't if the distance was increased to 1000 miles for example.

We can do this with stars. Stars that are closer than about 1000 parsecs we can calculate their distance from the earth by taking a photo in summer and again in winter when the earth has moved to the other side of the sun, and measuring the minute change in the angle compared to the background stars. However we can't do this with stars that are further away because the difference in the angles is way too small.

Try covering up one eye and then picking something up off the desk in front of you for a quick demonstration of how important depth perception is.

im thinking of a experiment with two leds at different distances in a dark room but have to figure out how to do it alone

do you imagine looking at the stars naked eye and be able to tell which are farther?

I think lerts has some good theories, he just slightly fails in explaining them to us, less gifted.

Quote from breadfan :

I think lerts has some good theories, he just slightly fails in explaining them to us, less gifted.

NO!

Lerts is awesome at his theories, it's those that defines Lerts. No other person on this forum could take a real life subject, then put some personality to it all with some spice and then get a laughable YET discussionally thread
Lerts, please don't stop posting your theories, I love reading them.

ive been playing attention to flocks of seagulls at maybe 100 m this while and the only way im able to tell which is closer is size, certainly i dont percieve depth as in the provided stereogram

also tried picking up an object with one eye closed and theres no difference

take a look at this ascii stereogram:

http://www.ixtlan.ru/images/subj_7.gif

simulating a wider eye distance is much more difficult to percieve depth, instead if you look to close by letters far away letters will look double and viceversa just as we normally do in reality

can anybody percive depth in the ascii stereogram? i cant, just been able once but if i increase dificulty(eye distance) continuously in the future my brain will percieve depth instead of seeing double far away objects when looking close and viceversa


ive been thinking all day and cant find the answer maybe somone can help:

why objects 140 pixels apart look farther than the ones at 120 pixels?

Quote from lerts :

ive been playing attention to flocks of seagulls at maybe 100 m

Oh bugger... now he thinks he is Eric Cantona!

Quote from Eric Cantona :

"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea"

Quote from lerts :

can anybody percive depth in the ascii stereogram?

yes i can and just like with the fingers any row you dont focus on is percieved twice with 2 letters floating close together
i dont think youve fully understood how depth perception works

Quote from Shotglass :

yes i can and just like with the fingers any row you dont focus on is percieved twice with 2 letters floating close together
i dont think youve fully understood how depth perception works

have you tried this one?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... /Stereogram_Tut_Width.png

if you do it correctly you dont see double floating images in the row which is not focused on, try it plz and youll see what i mean

my main point is that this stereograms prove that brain can overimpose images that are 120 pixels apart and 140 pixels, AT THE SAME TIME, contrary to the fingers real life example in which your brain aint able to overimpose both different distances fingers at the same time

Quote from lerts :

if you do it correctly you dont see double floating images in the row which is not focused on, try it plz and youll see what i mean

yes you do but at a difference of no more than 10 pixels (any other row than the adjacent one is just too far away to see properly while being focused on another) the effect is very faint... its much more pronounced with the ascii pics

the way those pics work automatically cause this effect... like i said you havent understood how depth perception works

you might be right and that be the explanation but i just tried this:

put a finger up and far and other low and close, pay attention to the far finger and still see close finger double though blurred

this doesnt happen with the stereogram, in fact in my experience a stereogram starts working when you stop seeing double any of its parts

i know the classical explanation of depth perception, your eyes converge farther or closer being able to tell distance by the eyes position but i disagree i think we are missing being able to overimpose far and close objects at the same time, contrary as we do in the stereogram in which we overimpose object 120 and 140 pixels apart at the same time

for the 3rd time it does happen in stereograms
its just that stereograms are generally objects that are farily far away with very little 3d spacing between them so the effect is only barely noticeable

i took very seriously your comment so i did the following experiment to be sure:

notice that the top row, the farthest is at the same depth than the square lines

now to do this i had to stand really far from the screen (1m), but i managed to look at the low row (the closest) and look at the tiger that has a square line crossing it and focused on the tiger not to see the line double( but this only works at big distance from the screen, if you are closer you are right you see the line double)

this should be imposible because the squared lines are 140 pixels apart while the tiger just 120

plz test it your self just remember looking the screen from far away:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... /Stereogram_Tut_Width.png

think if you are focused on the tiger you should see squared lines double with a distance apart of 20 pixels, but with a little effort you can see it at 0 distance apart while focus on the tiger

You should try to test this with marbles, you might need to borrow someone elses though lerts.

Lerts we tienes msn? agregame!

oh for crying out loud of course you wont see them as 2 lines from 1 meter back because a line that faint will just turn into one big blob

here look at this one parallel focus on the helmet and notice how the nose gradually becomes 2 that diverge at it gets closer to the camera

this is getting ridiculous its like explaining colours to a blind man

Quote from breadfan :

I think lerts has some good theories, he just slightly fails in explaining them to us, less gifted.

I can understand him just fine.


Hmmm... btw, interesting topic...

I think that the reason we're losing depth perception is based on... the concept of evolution. I'll give Lerts' experiment a go...

Depth perception occurs because the brain can see two different images and convert them into a single 3 dimensional "mental" image. In the case of stereograms, the angle between the viewers eyes is increased so that the focus point (where the view lines cross) is at a point further away than the actual stereogram image. The horizontally adjacent images are similar enough that the brain interprets them as two views of the same image, producing a depth perception effect. Note that if the stereogram is rotated to vertical, the effect doesn't work, it relies on the horizontal spacing to create the depth effect.

Holograms are actual interference patterns, producing a more realistic 3 dimensional image. As with stereograms, the viewer has to focus beyond the actual hologram surface in order to see the image, although it's much easier to do with holograms. In addition, the image remains 3 dimensional regardless of the orientation of the hologram. The viewer actually sees the virtual images from a near infinite number of positions (depending on grain density of image). For example, the top of a hologram could be an image from above a table's surface, while the bottom of the same hologram would be an image from below the table surface, with a smooth transition as the image is moved vertically.

"of course you wont see them as 2 lines from 1 meter back because a line that faint will just turn into one big blob"


well if i look at it normally from 1 m away i dont see one big blob, see it quite defined, why should it be different with the converging farther method, i see it very defined?

the deteriority of our depth perception could be due to evolution since we dont hunt any more(we have predator paralel eyes) but in my opinion what is unnatural is that since kids are 3 they spent 8 hours in school converging their eyes 20 cm away to read and the rest of the day converging eyes 2 m away watching tv,hundreds of years ago they would spend all day converging the eyes on the horizont, always relaxed with the eyes looking paralel

hey jeff have you got any link to this kind of hologram if is seenable on the screen?

i wonder, do you think that is unknown the ability of the brain to overlap at the same time images 120 and 140 pixels apart at the same time?