Re: red/blue 3-d imagery (light question, not photography)

[Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At least, not until the next major paradigm shift. Then it will become obvious to the point where we won't be able to understand how we thought in any other way.
AndrewF


On 08/05/2004, at 10:31 PM, Chris wrote:

> Theory works ok, it is just not what really happens.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gregory
> Fraser
> Sent: 07 May 2004 14:18
> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
> Subject: RE: red/blue 3-d imagery (light question, not photography)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Hmm. Well, I found Plato's "Postulates" for Optics on p. 195
> > of Richard
> > Gregory's excellent tome "Mind in Science". Here are the first three:
> >
> > 1. The rays emitted by the eye travel in a straight line.
> > 2. The figure enclosed by visual rays is a cone which has its apex at
> > the eye and its base at the edge of the object looked at.
> > 3. Objects on which the visual rays fall, are seen.
> >
> > Nuff sed?
> >
> > Brian Chandler
>
> Are you saying these postulates are false? Vlad assured me that was sound
> optical theory. We based the Pixelhacker II on these principals! Where's my
> cattle prod and where's that son of a ....
>
> Greg Fraser
> http://users.imag.net/~lon2251/Gallery
<x-tad-smaller>http://www.pbase.com/afildes</x-tad-smaller>