Talk:Stereopsis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stereopsis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Rembrandt#Optical theory|Rembrandt may have been stereoblind]] The anchor (#Optical theory) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

merger

It seems we have at least three articles on this subject. Clearly a merger of some kind is in order, but which name do we think is the "most common" name per WIkipedia naming conventions? Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereopsis is "the process in visual perception leading to perception of the depth or distance of objects", binocular vision is "vision in which both eyes are used together". The binocular vision article could cover binocular stereopsis but stereopsis is also found in monocular situations. Therefore stereopsis is a subject that is independant of binocular vision and so the articles should not be merged. --Uk grey fox 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's still Stereoscopic vision to consider. It seems to me that there is no way that we need three articles on this subject. Two articles might make sense, if there were significant merging/rewrite so that there is a proper delination and less overlap.

The example you propose still has the danger of a great deal of overlap since "binocular stereopsis" is the most common form. The solution would need to be a parent/child article situation, with Stereopsis containing a paragrpah summary of binocular vision (or binocular stereopsis if we rename it), as well as a link to the full article. (See San Francisco, California#History and History of San Francisco, California for an example of what I mean...)

Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that stereoscopic vision and stereopsis can be merged. However I still disagree with you about binocular vision and stereopsis. To be fair, binocular stereopsis takes up the major part of the stereopsis field but binocular vision is a much more far ranging subject, including fusion of vision, disorders and etcetera. Information about monocular stereopsis would be out of place in a binocular vision article.

In answer to your parent/child idea, that would seem to be the ideal solution, however I would have the stereopsis article being the main article and the binocular vision article linking to it - as binocular stereopsis and binocular vision are different things.--Uk grey fox 12:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because articles can be merged, doesn't mean that they should be merged. 'Stereopsis' as a word, taken by itself, has far less popular currency than either stereoptic or stereopic. And neither of them seems to include a link to the 3D effect seen in lenticular prints, which often need a plurality of cameras (two, three, four, or more) to produce their own special kind of 3D effect. Stereopsis appears to describe the effect experienced by a stationary viewer on a lenticular print from a single angle, but the movement of the observer - even if only by the coordinated movement of two eyes - introduces something more than that. What's the plural of stereopsis? Stereopses or stereopsia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.28 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

While it may be a good idea to merge Stereoscopic vision and stereopsis, I feel strongly that binocular vision should not be merged. The term binocular vision is commonly referred to by binocular vision specialists as a process that involves both sensory and oculomotor, combined with accommodative control, and allows for efficient, comfortable stereoscpic vision. While they are clearly related, stereopsis has more to do with the what the brain does with images from each eye to create a 3D perception and binocular vision allows the person to attain stereopsis. --Natebw 10:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereopsis is but one function of binocular vision hence they should not be merged. `'mikka (t) 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'3D Stereopic' Television

Where in Wiki is it appropriate to post information on 3D television, or 3D movies? Now that digital camcorders are becoming very commonplace, it should not be long before cable companies opt in for broadcasting left- and right- digital feeds on channels located side by side.

If you browse through the US Patent and Trademark Office (http://www.uspto.gov), you will find numerous patents for 3D movies meant for use with multiple projectors, and even multiple screens, not to mention fresnel arrays kept in motion, as with lenses floating upon bodies of liquid made to oscillate periodically; the patentable 'trick' of the 'trade' appears to lie largely in keeping the images synchronized, this being often easier said than done, but most of those tricks from the earlier part of the 20th century are now in the public domain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.31 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Even if two images are slightly out of sync, that does not necessarily mean they lack the requisite illusion of depth sought by the public. As was showcased in an article by John Goodrum "See Your 2-D Movies in 3-D" (published in Popular Science magazine in the 1970s), the images need merely be sufficiently displaced, and yet sufficiently paired together, that the viewer perceive the illusion of depth one ordinarily associates with 'stereopsis.' According to that article, stationary individuals, objects, and backgrounds would appear flat, but a moving object - like a ball, for instance, thrown across the camera's field of view - will enjoy a dimension of depth if every other frame in the movie is delayed, polarized, and subsequently projected onto the screen where it is united with a preceding image of opposing polarity, that the whole will be viewed with polarized glasses. For any multitude of fresnel lenses buoyed on sufficiently separate bodies of liquid (or gels) through which parallactic images are projected, the precision required will depend on the vibratory periodicity imparted on the liquid mounts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.13 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

security and 3D surveillance

The main article could be improved if some mention were made of the history of goggle-less 3D surveillance systems. I thought these were used in places where mobile guards (such as those in stockyards, impound stations, and the like) could come to regular checkpoints where display screens were kept. The main problem with older security systems was that guards would keep taking their goggles off. Wearing goggles for hours can become very unpleasant, just as sitting at a chair can, and that tends to result in rapid turnover of employees..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.14 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Stereoscopic vision: merge and redirect

Per the above discussion, Stereoscopic vision now merges with, and redirects to, Stereopsis. This was the content of Stereoscopic vision prior to the merge and redirect:

Stereoscopic Vision is the ability to see in depth. Stereoscopic vision is most important for predator animals who catch their prey, but has secondary importance for animals who are chased. Both eyes seeing the same scene reduces the field of sight and also allows other animals to sneak up undetected and attack. Prey animals prefer a panorama view of the wild, where their eyes are placed on each side of the head for more to see, allowing nearly a 360 degree field of view.

Humans, according to some theories, are claimed to be modified tree apes. Tree apes swing from branch to branch and failure to instantly judge the world in 3D could lead to a bad fall. Just like a camera, light rays cross over in the lens so the picture on the retinas are upside down as well as front to back. The brain has no trouble with that and just interprets the information.

Our eyes are separated by about 65 mm so the world seen by each retina is rather different. The difference is great for objects nearby, but not helpful for distant things, like trees, and other landscapes. Stereoscopic vision stops at about 200 meters, because the difference between the two retinal images is then unreadable. The 200 meter limit can be measured, but it is not a practical concept. In standard stereoscopic photography useful 3D stops way short of 200 meters, but it can be extended far beyond unaided human ability by using hyper-stereoscopic photography.

-AED 22:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in The New Yorker magazine around May or June of 2006 about monopsia, the condition of those who are born with two eyes, but who, due to a dominance of vision in one eye over the other, fail to develop the faculty of stereoscopic vision. It appears that the phenomenon of parallax tends to vary so much amongst viewers, that those who have eyes that are closer together than 65 mm (or farther apart), have different perceptions of depth or height, this being a kind of illusion that varies from individual to individual. From what I have gathered, the illusion can be measured by having the individual look simultaneously at both the left and right images of a 3D scene, and then having her estimate how high an object is positioned above another object. (That would be rather difficult to do, but I think that an actual ruler, yardstick, or meter rests beneath it, so the viewer has merely to imagine how far it would be necessary to move the ruler around, to make contact with the object hovering in the air above it.)

The point of the article, is that monopsia can be corrected, even in adults who have spent decades of their life not realizing they weren't seeing things in 3D. The interesting part of the article, is determining whether an individual enjoys 3D vision, or has learned some other method of determining depth (usually through motion-imparted parallax).

Would a reference to monopsia have been more appropriate to stereoscopic vision or to stereopsis? It seems like there ought to be a reference to it somewhere.

Of course, now that they are merged, it's a moot point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.27 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There is already an article for monocular vision. That term tends to be used more frequently than "monopsia". -AED 05:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monopsia is a medical condition that can be corrected while monocular vision is not. Some people are born with two eyes, and live their whole lives without realizing or apprehending three-dimensional depth. The perception of depth is apparently in the visual cortex of the brain. Individuals with monopsia weigh visual data sequentially, first by concentrating on the details available through one eye and then on the details available through the other, not realizing or apprehending the sense of depth available to others not so affected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.18 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

As someone who suffers from a form of monopsia (probably due to strabismus), I would have to say that the above comment that monopsia can be corrected is too strong. _Some_ cases of monopsia apparently can be corrected. Mine (which gives me some peripheral vision from both eyes, but no fusion and differential usage (close vision with left eye, distant with right, and a very substantial spherical and significant cylindrical differences between the two)) apparently cannot be. - 66.165.176.62 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depth Perception

I would disagree with the comment in the article's first paragraph that "individuals with only one functional eye still have full depth perception". From personal experience, this is too strong a claim. I certainly have a good degree of depth perception from other cues, but the lack of stereopsis causes significant issues with close by depth perception (e.g., when I am parking, I am never sure how close I am to the car next to me, and my kids always found it amusing to try to play catch with me). - 66.165.176.62 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polarized Glasses and 3D Color Movies in the 50’s

I must disagree with the statement that the 3D movies of the 50’s were made possible by red and blue (anaglyphic, I believe the term is) glasses, and that polarizing glasses came along in the 70’s allowing color 3D movies to be shown. Primarily I object for the simple reason that I remember seeing 3D color movies using polarized glasses in the 50’s; the red and blue ones were used only for comic books at that time. Many years later they were used to permit 3D movies to be seen on television while permitting the same movie to be viewed without the glasses (and 3D effect).

~John Mayer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.44.125 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

History of stereo vision

Some sources on the net suggest that stereopsis is a much more ancient idea: http://3dvision-blog.com/tag/stereo-3d-history/ http://telemedicine.orbis.org/bins/content_page.asp?cid=1-8989-8994-9004 Can someone sort out the history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.80.174 (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]