P3D Re 3D Fallacies, Re Chimenti

[abram klooswyk <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>]

Dale Walsh wrote (on Euclid, 21 Jun 1999, P3d 3361)
>I have seen this repeated many times and I am hesitant to accept 
>this as a fallacy. (...)
>I have seen it written numerous times including the statement 
>in Hal Morgan and Dan Symmes Amazing 3D book which says that 
>Euclid laid out the principles of binocular vision.

Ray Zone wrote (in another thread)(22 Jun 1999, P3d 3362):
>All of which points up the potential chains of misinformation
>that can arise in stereographic histories and how important 
>it is to provide the sources from which we get our information.

I very much support this!

For Euclid obviously there is no better source than Euclid himself,
and I have quoted *everything* which Euclid said on vision with
two eyes in the postings I referred to (I also posted them on
Photo-3D, 26 Sep 1998,  P3d Digests 2995 and 2996). 
There I referred to: 
"An English translation of the "Optics" was published by Harry E.
Burton in the Journal of the Optical Society of America 1945,
vol.35 Nr.5, pages 357-372, so it is only 16 pages long (A4)"
Quotes from my postings:
"It is clear that Euclid knew that in looking at rounded objects 
the left eye sees a the part of the surface that the right cannot 
see, and vice versa. So two eyes see MORE of the surface of such 
an object." 
"But seeing more of a surface with two eyes doesn't mean depth 
perception."

Peter Homer (on the Chimenti drawings):
>I have seen the pair in question reproduced in a stereo monograph 
>(...) produced by the UK stereoscopic society.

I have this 1978 monograph too, but I suppose it is hard to get
nowadays. It contains *reproductions* of articles by A.T. Gill, which
originally were published in the Photographic Journal of 1969.
But the book by N.J. Wade (Ref see P3d 3360) has the very
same reproductions and will be on loan in many libraries.
These sources *all* refer to The Photographic Journal of _1862_ (!), 
where these *woodcuts* of the drawings were *originally* reproduced
(a contradiction again?). Woodcuts seem not very reliable, but Wade 
mentions that Wheatstone, and later Brewster, had photographs of 
the drawings.
I never have seem better reproductions than the woodcuts, the
museum in Lille, France, which is supposed to have the original
Chimenti drawings, has been closed for many years. 

Abram Klooswyk


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