Perception, Part II
‹date/time›
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
‹footer›
‹#›
From Palmer 257-260
Examples?!?!
Good to have a lot of motivation, because the actual rules aren’t too thrilling
Full explanation for mechanism for human binocular vision still unknown!
Coin example (edge of con rarely only view seen)
Rules 1 and 2 work only for generic views. If you’re at a weird view where things line up strangely, you may get shape wrong. But even when discover truth, you cannot change how you see it (!) Rules enable us to see, but also blind us to countless possibilities we can never see because our rules forbid it.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/E/escher/escher_belvedere.jpg.html
Stylized Face?
Abstract flat thing?
Random lines
Collinear lines in projection (or scene from one point of view) usually indicate collinear lines in real 3D form—and these stay collinear independent of view.
Presentation on perceptual grouping of line segments
http://astro.temple.edu/~sandeep/Pptseg.ppt#1
Grouping at work: things close to each other seem related. Exactly how often has to do with line configurations such as collinearity, but just marks near each other automatically seem related…
Not a proximity or grouping effect.
Says that in general, lines stay lines and curves stay curves. Cohesion of matter?
A 2D curve is probably curved in 3D
It’s also probably the result of a 3D curved surface—vs. a 2D “line” that is curved and hanging out in 3D space.
Remember, “principles” really mean “conditions we can’t change”. This is one of the conditions we operate under.
Masaccio
Braque
So, we see a smushed down version of the world—have to reconstruct 3D aspects. Things behind other things…
Overlapping—one of the depth cue—this is the rule behind it.
Convex outer rim shows convex shape of outer donut area
Concave rim shows saddle region of donut surface
Dashed line shows mental construction of smooth surface between the inner and outer rims: saddle switchign to convex. No where is the surface concave…
Your eye-brain system does this automatically to help you recognize the world. You can do it consciously in
drawing to communicate things about 3D form…
Does camel face look like Groucho Marx? Henry Kissinger?
Uses generic views, Good figure/ground,  Frames of ref not used much.
Depth cues:
Overlapping (minmal),  Height relative to horizon,  Blue in background, green up front
Rule 3: Lines that are colinear stay that way: hands grasped.
Rule 4: circle shape of heads (connect the dots) makes us believe they are dancing in a circle ( s. just look at feet…)
5+6: Curved lines indicate curved surfaces
Uses some projection: esp with woman on far right. But not much size difference, no converging lines or patterns, retains “flat”, decorative feeling.
7: t-junctions used to show how surface meet
8,9,10: Lines vary from convex to concave, accurately conveying sense of 3D body form
We see bodies as figures and the blue as background (more reasons for that soon)
“solid air” feeling to background livens up picture
Combines invariance and curve=surface concepts.
Can also Induce white surfaces with hatching
We don’t’ only construct 3D surfaces from drawings—this is going on when we view the real world (due to projection, among other things). (reason that drawing work…)
Sometimes doesn’t work
http://www.shawnmcnulty.com/art/XL/lifeaquatic.html
http://www.shadowchasers.tv/corasstranger.htm
Hat stand http://www.headcovers.com/newimages/antique-hat-stand.jpg
Proof that we construct surfaces with optical illusion:
Zen koan—is the triangle there when you don’t look/ (like when tree falls and no one there does it make a sound? –or one hand clapping? We have to be there to “see” anything.
Tips of black stroke making up birds are carefully aligned, causing a subjective white surface to “appear” –be constructed. Note the white areas do not look like holes, but like fully rounded, realized surfaces of the birds.
Many other explanations, describe din book were put forth to describe this effect. Results of rules based on projection
Gestalt theory of closure (shapes want to be completed/closed) firs thought to be reason—but doesn’t explain left image …
On the left the two indicated lines are parallel and therefore get grouped together On right, circular and straight lines do not seem “non-accidental.”
Helps explain why some things are “figures” to us and others “ground”.
http://www.masterworksfineart.com/inventory/arp.htm
In addition to all these rules/cues, we often have another very strong method of determining depth and surface relations: stereo vision.
Some people don’t have stereo—even though they seem through both eyes. Can live fine w/out it, but maybe not do certain professions…
HTMW p219. (some people see from both eyes, but not in stereo-separate brain processing needed)
Official Website of the Stereoscopic Displays and Applications Conference  http://www.stereoscopic.org/
First chapter (intro of vis meth) introduces this framework for studying images. It discussed some history of these elements and why the Rose thinks this framework is effective.
Andy disturbed by not seeing anything about what it is that is being communicated
Almirantis, Y. 1995. Left-right asymmetry in vertebrates. BioEssays
Cancar, D. 1995. Sex and the symmetrical body. New Scientist
Enquist, M., A. Arak. 1994. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature
Etcoff, N. 1999.  The Beauty of Science, Survival of the Prettiest
Eugene, A. 1998. I Want To Be Beautiful, interview
Gould, S. J. 1998. The allure of equal halves. The Sciences
Grammer, K., R. Thornhill. 1994. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology
Symmetry and beauty
Mealey, L., R. Bridgstock, G. C. Townsend. 1999. Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: a monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Samuels, C. A., G. Butterworth, T. Roberts, L. Graupner, G. Hole. 1994. Facial aesthetics: babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry. Perception
Scutt, D.,  J. T. Manning. 1996. Symmetry and ovulation in women. Human Reproduction
Swaddle, J. P., I. C. Cuthill. 1995. Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: symmetry may not always be beautiful. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences
UTMB, Galveston, TX - Dept of Otolaryngology - Facial Analysis; October 1, 1997
http://yestheyrefake.net/ideal_beauty2.htm