P3D Re: "Too much depth" Part 1 of 3

[Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I (Gabriel) wrote,
>I'm not sure why you think they don't match. In my second
>statement, the different mechanisms I'm referring to, are
>not "stereoscopic" depth cues, but rather monocular depth
>cues. 

Chris replies,
>Sorry, I didn't interpret your statement in that way. Your
>second statement was in response to me saying:

Chris,
>There isn't a boundary in the sense that there is a
>switching from one mode of stereopsis to another. But it
>seems that different mechanisms dominate at different 
>distances.

Chris, 
>Nothing about monocular depth cues...

Yes, there is no mention of monocular depth cues in that
paragraph and is ambiguous on the mechanism but you
immediately go on to elaborate that these "mechanisms" are
monocular in nature! What you wrote is,

Chris,
>For distant objects, the eyes are nearly parallel and
>each eye sees an almost identical image of the object
> - stereopsis arises from the horizontal disparities of
>the images.

>For close objects the mechanism appears more complex,
>and appears to rely more on vergence movements,
>proprioception (here the feedback of eye position) and 
>some implicit interpretation of the object's structure.

>It is the latter case that is so hard to mimic because
>some of the natural cues are present in stereo
>photography and some are missing.

Vergence is a monocular depth cue!

Granted there seems to be a confusion on what your referring
to and you admitted to as much in your other very recent
post,

>OK, it appears we may have been using different terminology.
>I have been applying depth perception as an umbrella term
>which covers all the various ways in which the brain perceives
>z-axis (ie away from the observer) depth. This would include
>what you're defining as distance perception as well. My
>definition includes use of monocular and binocular cues.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Gabriel