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

[Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris,
>Now from my research it also seems that not only are there
>fine and coarse methods of static stereopsis, but a
>different mechanism for dynamic stereopsis where objects are
>in motion. Velocity cues are brought into play, and it
>appears the brain has a particular ability to combine
>velocity information from both eyes to implicitly
>reconstruct a velocity vector in 3D space.

Gabriel,
>>Unless there is some new developments in perception research,
>>all I know is that motion depth cues are indeed very strong
>>depth perception cues, but this is known as a monocular depth
>>cue (since you can do it regardless if your using one or two
>>eyes).

Chris,
>With one eye you couldn't resolve the motion in 3 dimensions -
>the change in size of an object as it moves toward you isn't
>precise enough (I think) or dynamic enough to be used for depth
>motion perception. It's much more accurate to use two eyes.

I agree, BUT I was referring to motion in the commonly understood
y axis (motion parallax). This is a monocular depth cue! This cue
is (if I remember correctly) right behind stereopsis for being a
very strong depth cue.

Chris goes on to write,
>Studies show a big difference in the range over which stereopsis
>operates between the static and dynamic cases. Dynamic stereopsis
>uses a wider disparity range (presumably for objects whizzing
>close to the head!), a shorter latency and better use of areas
>of the retina away from the fovea. There are also chrominance and
>luminance differences.

That's interesting but HOW did they isolate the known strong
monocular depth cue of motion parallax in their assessment!?! Is
there are third unique depth cue when viewing stereo motion
parallax? ;-)

Chris,
>OK here's some of the most promising-looking articles that my
> search turned up.

Thanks!

>Good luck - and if you make better sense out of it than me (not
>hard I think!) then do let me know :)

I rather doubt that! :-) Interesting discussion nonetheless, and 
thanks for bringing up the new theories on depth perception.

Gabriel