P3D Re: 2&1/2 D

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 
>From: "Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>............
>As part of a well reasoned post advocating 3D, Larry Berlin wrote:
>............
>>seeing into other abstract realms and dimensions makes stereo3D THE
>>essential visual space for satisfactory interaction suitable to the
>>complexity of our world.
>.........................

*****  Well at least one person received digest 3173....

>
>I would support 2D as follows.  2D is in fact the great invention that
>enables us to make sense of the complexity of the world.  

*****  Would be true if we wore bison skins and chased down our food with
big sticks... That's how old the invention of 2D is... Your statement would
be more true if you applied it to the invention of printing, which while a
somewhat 2D device, is not limited to 2D printing except where the mind
controlling the printing fails to use the stereo option.


>A 2D image
>does contain the z information, abeit as a projection, and that is
>precisely its strength.  

*****  As well as it's greatest weakness. It's a matter of guesswork, and
whether or not the image is clear, and it can't be full of detailed
complexity of depth. 3D includes z information in a clear and precise manner
without having to diagram things or explain, or decipher. It's direct to the
full visual senses. I'm glad we can use 2D to such an advantageous level,
but it's nothing compared to what we can do with 3D.

>Each 2D image is, in effect, a map of a piece
>the world.  

****  Duly squished down to a flat represenstation and consequential loss of
detail. Specifically lacking the difference information that two 2D images
as a pair would provide.

>And well devised maps can make information easier to
>digest. 

****  It usually takes several (or many) flat representations to provide a
hint of the true 3D spatial reality, and that after repeated study of all
the separate pieces of information. (ie: within your mind you attempt to
build your own 3D image from the information) How much nicer to supply all
the information in one stereo example without the confusion.

> Take topographic maps, for example.  The plaster topographic
>relief models found in national park visitor centers are interesting,
>but I have never found them suitable for planning a hike.  I always
>needed a topographic map to get a practical sense of distance,
>steepness and other pertinent features.  In this case 3D is a step
>backwards in intelligibility, not to speak of convenience.
>
>Sorry, just playing devil's advocate.
>


***  I have to agree with Oleg that carrying the plaster and plywood 3D
relief map on a hike would be, well ridiculous! (probably less accurate than
the map!) However, with the advent of stereoscopic imaging, one could have a
*visible* relief map that carries as easily as the topographic map, and
provides a much better visual environment to plan or pursue a hiking trip
than a flat paper with dozens of lines and mysterious symbols. (assuming a
situation where knowledge of precise terrain is important) Admittedly, such
a device hasn't been built, but I know that such a device is very possible,
and would be preferrable. Using today's technology trends, it might be built
to include a GPL device... and include in digital form more maps than you'd
care to carry physically, as well as containing more information per map.

3D, rightly used, is *never* a step backwards in intelligibility.
Convenience is an important factor and does adversely affect the use of 3D
in some current situations. It's too often due to the general overall
neglect of developing convenience related 3D tools (we're usually lucky to
have any sort of 3D tool, even if it's difficult to use, but that's the
past). With the advance of technology, as well as the awakening of more
persons to the potential of our 3D heritage, that convenience problem will
disappear. I'll keep 2D maps around for historical interest though...

I like maps, and have since childhood. I read them to gain a lot of
information. Now that I more fully comprehend what 3D offers, I realize that
a stereo relief map would contain more of the information that I want from a
map, and do it without confusion. It would be better than the plaster relief
model, and better than a topographical map.

Sorry to flip the advocacy on you, but your example is just another example
of our habitual over-dependence on flat surfaces, which in failing to
recognize it as such, we start believing it's somehow impossible to apply a
better option than 2D. Just look at a relief map sometime, and consider the
mechanisms by which we attempt to put all kinds of overlapping information
on a 2D sheet of paper. Remember too, that you can't print too much
information on that sheet of paper because it would confuse the other
informatin that is already there. Therefore such maps have historically been
given a limited range of information. Admirably detailed, useful and
relatively convenient, but less than what they could be if done in 3D. The
solution is to learn to think in 3D instead of mapping all our knowledge to
2D out of age old habit. 

Larry Berlin

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


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