P3D Re: From Euclid to Wheatstone and further on

["Peter Muyzers" <peter.muyzers@xxxxxxxxx>]

First of all, I would like to thank Abram Klooswyk for his great
contributions to this list as an excellent historian of stereoscopy. Not
only are his lectures on the history of stereoscopy intriguing, they are
also informative. Two thumbs up!

There, now I have said that, it is time to critic his observations. ;-)

In a previous message, Abram Klooswyk stated:
<<
Some people still maintain that stereo drawings  were made before
Wheatstone, they have a hard time in explaining why no stereo drawings
with four scratches or a couple of dots survive from those times.
...
>>

I'm one of those people. I might not be able to explain why no stereo
drawings  have survived from times before Wheatstone, I believe stereo
drawings  were made before his time.
Isn't it acceptable the technique might had been lost - as many traditions
and other techniques - without being properly documented? Or perhaps it had
been documented, but later on destroyed by war or nature disasters. Imagine
Mr. Caveman discovers stereo drawings  on a cave wall, he runs outside to
look for a nice piece of flat rock to document his observations just when he
gets stepped on by a herd of fertile  Mammoths storming by. The cave later
on is destroyed by an earthquake.
Of course, as an historian you are not allowed to accept such theory without
decent proof - even I need proof from time to time - but then again, we
can't ask Mr. Caveman anymore, can we?
OK, I'm being a bit too extreme here, but you get the idea, right?


In that same message but on another subject, Abram Klooswyk said:
<<
In recent years "computer graphics" has been developed, often referred
to as "3D" graphics. Professionally I sometimes use a "3D" rendering
computer program. The program makes images on a monitor which look like
objects seen with one eye. The screen is flat, so the images are 2D.
For me, 3D means stereoscopy. Stereoscopy has the oldest rights on the
term "3D" (and, for that matter, on the term "stereo"), but it was
captured by computer programmers.
>>

I *do* understand your conflict with the use of the term "3D graphics" if
the images are meant to be only "mono". It is like for a regular mono
photographer to say: "I take pictures in 3D because the objects in my
pictures exist(ed) in the real world 3D space".
So it doesn't make sense for a computer artist to say that he makes 3D
graphics if there is only a single image shown on the screen or printed.
But I do think you are allowed to say - as a computer artist - that you use
a 3D computer graphics program even though the output is 2D. After all, the
program uses true 3D coordinates to represent the objects in a virtual
space.

When you look at my signature you will see "3D animator" as what I am. If I
had to put just "animator", I might be a clown at birthday parties, or if I
had to put "2D animator", I would be drawing cartoons using cel animation.
"3D animator" here means that I use a 3D computer graphics program to create
my images whether  they are 2D or true 3D (or stereo) images. But to put "3D
computer graphics program animator of 2D or true 3D images" as my title
would be a bit ridiculous.

So be careful not to misinterpret the meaning of "3D".


Abram Klooswyk continues:
<<
I always refer to the flat 2D pictures, on screen and printed, as
"so-called 3D". The programmers however, and most people from the
"ray tracing community", call these mono-pictures: 3D.
>>

Now where did you get this nonsense? I am part of the
programmer-and-raytracing community for a long time and I have never heard
anyone call their pictures "3D" - unless they were real stereo (3D) images.
Sure, they use a "3D" program (instead of a 2D program like for example
Adobe Photoshop) to make their images but they don't refer to their images
produced, as 3D images.
If you have proof of such person who abuses the term "3D", let me know and
we'll ban this one from the community. ;-)


Still, Abram Klooswyk continues:
<<
In a talk on similar pictures a few years ago, I have argued that,
when this computer output is called "3D", the perspective drawings
and paintings from the Renaissance on *also* should be called "3D".
>>

Don't give people any ideas there! It wouldn't surprise me to read a
publication about Leonardo's 3D drawings - no offense Leo.


Abram Klooswyk states correctly that:
<<
... there is a difference, *in the computer* many of these programs
use a true 3-dimensional representation of objects. The x, y and z
coordinates of points are indeed in the computer's memory.
>>

Yes. This is exactly why computer graphics artists refer to the term "3D".


Abram Klooswyk tries:
<<
People from the cyber-graphics community like to see themselves as the
pioneers of this age. The fact that they call the flat 2D on-screen
output "3D" says a lot about them. They obviously think that the 2D
image, brought to their *own* mind when they look at the monitor, is
less important than the 3D "object" which is in the "mind" of the
*computer*. But when they really *are* the pioneers, it means that
man in this age is going to identify himself with a computer.
>>

Wow! Backup there, Sparky!
"Man in this age is going to identify himself with a computer"???
Where do you get these weird ideas? By saying this kind of nonsense, you are
not going to be mentioned in history books, you know.
I think, you and I need a personal conversation here and settle this matter
forever. ;-)


--
Peter Muyzers
3D Animator / Digital Effects Artist
mailto:peter.muyzers@xxxxxxxxx

Engstegenseweg 88/2
3520 Zonhoven
Belgium
+32 (11) 812 796

* I do not seek, I find *
        - Pablo Picasso



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