In message <233387536wnr at oimsdnp.demon.co.uk> - Peter Robinson <Peter at oimsdnp.d
>In article: <824752552.8119 at dorrell.demon.co.uk> p at dorrell.demon.co.uk (Philip
>>>> If an object reflects light by Matt reflection, then the colour and intensity
>> of light coming from a given point on the surface of the object is roughly
>> independent of the direction it is being seen from.
>>>> If it reflects light by Gloss reflection, then it depends both on the
>> direction it is being seen from and on the position of the light source.
>>>> Humans can certainly perceive the 3-D shapes of objects whichever of these
>> two sorts of reflection is involved. But I imagine that the processing
>> involved must be different in each case, and may even involve distinct areas
>> of the brain (presumably in the visual cortex).
>>Seeing in 3D is solely dependant on the position of the eyes (two minimum)
>relative to the subject and each other. It's true that with a glossy surface and
>directional lighting that the two eyes may see a slightly different image, but this
>doesn't effect how you see 3D. In fact, the eyes need a different image to form the
>3D image. If you have a large plain matt surface with even lighting, then you might
>lose the 3D capability all together because there is no difference in the image
>received by each eye.
>>I think you've got a basic misunderstanding of the princples of 3D.
>>Peter at oimsdnp.demon.co.uk>Peter.Robinson at oxinst.co.uk
Peter -- I believe it is you who have a basic misunderstanding here. I would
call your attention to a phenomenon called VISIDEC, in which 3D images are
created on a 2D CRT display by taking *vertically* binocular material and
presenting it in an oscillating manner in time, a demonstration that the
brain generates 3D in the vertical direction by temporal
comparison, not spatial comparison as in horizontal binocularity.
The reason I bring it up is because it does *not* rely on two eyes, and it
*is* 3D, even by your definitions.
rising at a.crl.com