P3D Re: Escher, stereo, impossibility

[Owen Pearn <owenp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

repost. might be of interest:

"Adding Depth To Illusions"

"Since many of the common illusions seem to depend on "false"
perspective, or on the lack of true stereoscopic depth, we might inquire
how illusions could be constructed with true perspective, and possibly
even in full stereo depth. Conventional wisdom holds that such illusions
are destroyed when depicted with accurate stereoscopic depth."

more (pictures) at:

  http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/illus2.htm

-o-

abram klooswyk wrote:
> 
> Bruce Springsteen (p3d 3769):
> >By definition, a depth-impossible object cannot be presented
> >in stereo, and the examples I've seen, by A. Girling and Udo
> >S. and Holten, only demonstrate that fact.
> 
> Indeed, an impossible object is impossible in stereo,
> but I not only like impossibilities but also paradoxes :-).
> 
> M.C. Escher's impossible drawings indeed are paradoxical, often
> because a certain interpretation turns out to be contradicted
> in another part of the scene. In the stereoconversions the
> same contradiction occurs, only more so. It's a matter of
> taste whether you like the square of impossibility or not.
> 
> Abram Klooswyk
> 
> >Penrose staircase & tribar...
> Should be called after Reutersvärd, in my opinion.
> 
> -----------