P3D Re: DIRDS not SIRDS

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
>Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998
>From: roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)  Writes:
>...............
>You seem to be implying that the mathematical algorithm for the derivation of
>a SIRDS is intuitively obvious given the knowledge of the DIRDS, and that it
>requires only a minor modification of the DIRDS algorithm. What are the
>algorithms used for DIRDS and SIRDS, and how do they differ?

****  I'm implying that the optical/visual phenomena of DIRD vs. SIRD is the
same thing. The algorithm derives from the phenomenon itself. Seeing the
phenomenon and trying to write an algorithm for it would automatically
reveal both situations. It apparently wasn't noticed despite this
obviousness. My assumption of the reason was totality of focus on one
version of the algorithm with little to no exploration of it's parameters.
Or if these parameters were known, they sure weren't in a hurry to use them.
For me the entire shooting match was laid bare in the first stereogram, and
subtleties of sophistication were simple extensions of the obvious. It took
two to three years before the first stereogram book on the market, that I
could find, included the extensions I had worked out. 
The first examples I'm referring to didn't come from Magic Eye.

>
>I knew about DIRDS years before I encountered SIRDS, and the idea of SIRDS
>sure didn't seem obvious to me. I was also aware of "wallpaper" type
>stereograms, but they don't necessarily tell you much about the behavior
>of a SIRDS that depicts a *non-repeating* stereo image (which is the case
>for most SIRDS).

****  Sure it does! Take victorian wallpaper for example. It's variations of
pattern placement were repetitive but not consistent. In one instance a
flower might stick out at you while others nearby were flat to the wall
surface or a whole portion of a row or several rows might seem to lean out
at you. The variation of depth observed in freeviewing such wallpaper can
then be understood to be designable by intention, either to privide accuracy
in applying the wallpaper, or in deliberately creating illusions.
Arrangements of such depth factors can easily be seen as interpretable on a
scale greater than the repetition factor itself.

>
>It's popular nowadays to look back at some discovery and say, "ah yes, how
>obvious - people must have been stupid or blind not to realize that earlier"
>(not to imply your statement was quite that strong). I feel that doing this
>unfairly belittles the effort that went into the development of knowledge
>and technology. 

*****  Just to be clear, I have lots of respect for the efforts that have
gone into all our collective knowledge. The process of looking back and
seeing the obvious isn't just for the purpose of making fun, though it
occasionally serves such a purpose. The most useful aspect is realizing that
we are surrounded by the ignored but obvious, so rather than kicking one's
self years later for not looking, stop and take a look now with an eye to
recognizing these things. It works. Lots of stuff is there to notice... like
seeing vs. looking.

>Our ancestors got into all sorts of predicaments that we
>could easily solve given our greater knowledge - as a single example, it
>appears to have taken centuries to figure out that maybe bloodletting wasn't
>a great all-purpose cure. Leonardo da Vinci had brilliant ideas, but they
>came from the starting point of the knowledge of his time - he didn't get
>as far as unified field theories and microprocessors. Mathematical
>expertise also evolves over time. 

*****  True, but that's only one side of the story. On the other side were
diverse peoples who at the same time as the mentioned events, held other
views that were more realistic. Blood letting wasn't practiced by all
peoples. Unified field theories existed in the belief systems of some
primitive peoples before a specific Western scientific version of it
existed. Today's science is finding more and more support for the reality of
an interesting number of *old beliefs* that had been denounced by some
factions of science for many years. Or the example of groups existing today
who seem to believe that the world is flat while the rest of us take for
granted that it's somewhat spherical, due to overwhelming evidence.

Knowledge comes from many places. Much of it from inner understandings
observable by any conscious being. Common interpretations can obscure real
understanding. Not all strange practices like blood letting were equally
believed in by persons in the same society. We can look past preconceived
notions just by recognizing that we have such things. That's a choice anyone
can make. 3D by it's revelatory nature tends to open this awareness of our
conceptual surroundings. 

>...........
>In the display field, if competitive cost were an issue, we'd still mostly
>have CRTs rather than flat panels on our desktops, and LCDs would still be
>the dominant flat panel technology. :-)

****  This points out that within an environment inclusive of competitive
cost, which any manufacturer deals with for ANY product, we have a broad
range of spending levels some of which seem to ignore cost. That means
there's room for lots of ideas.

>
>But seriously, in the creation and evolution of an idea, there comes a point
>where it has to establish a niche for itself, which often means competing
>with an already-existing approach which is far more advanced and developed.

*****  You are right about the niche process, and yet this reminds me of
another too-common illusion ...  The already existing approach is NOT
automatically more advanced or developed, just more entrenched despite
perhaps not being advanced. This is especially true of technological
development for a number of powerful sociological reasons. For instance we
tend to stop developing as soon as something *works*, as defined on the
lowest level. We tend to stop developing as soon as something starts making
a little money, and status quo sets in. 

The corollary is that not all older ideas have actually been eclipsed!

>............
>
>- One of the more subtle benefits a new idea might have for 3D: a lot of the
>  3D equipment now in use is in finite supply, and is no longer being
>  manufactured. Just increasing the amount of 3D equipment available can have
>  some advantages in the long run.
>- Another possible benefit for a 3D idea is if it greatly increases the number
>  of people who are involved in 3D, thus growing the market, and increasing the
>  incentive to innovate.
>- Marketing of 3D is important for development of ideas, and as an idea in
>  itself.
>

****  Yes, agreed. It's a wholistic kind of thing involving progress in
several inter-related factors. 

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------