Re: [photo-3d] Re: 3D vision

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is part of the reason for my original suggestion of using two separate
2x2 mono viewers.  You can easily move them independently of each other so
that you can manually scan them, even if your vision is fixated.  Usually,
however, in cases of this type only one eye is immobile, so you can register
the image centration to that eye and align the image by the other, which
normally will scan.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Springsteen" <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Photo-3D Maillist" <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:54 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: 3D vision


> I'm inclined to agree with the logic of Abram's argument, regarding the
> prospect of Rogers' daughter seeing stereoscopically, even if the
> mechanical challenge of the experiment were addressed.  But allowing for
> John Rupkalvis' philosophy of "never say never", and assuming for the sake
> of discussion that there may be unknown potential for her brain to learn
> to process stereo input, I think an external mechanical problem may still
> exist.
>
> As Abram pointed out, retinal disparities, not vergence changes, are the
> basis of stereopsis.  But as a practical matter, the ability to "scan" a
> stereo scene binocularly by changing vergence as objects at various depths
> are fixed upon, is critical to the experience.  This requires that the
> optic path change dynamically, at the will of the viewer, while examining
> a pair.  Rogers indicated that his daughter really hasn't acquired much
> control over the muscles of the affected eye.  Would her attempts be
> compromised or thwarted by an inability to scan the view?   For a thought
> experiment about the mechanical problem, assume a patient with a proven
> history of stereopsis, whose eyes become permanently immoveable at a fixed
> divergent angle.  Is it possible, using any of the devices described so
> far, or any others you can describe, to make a viewer where the images are
> moved continuously before the eyes to bring different parts of the scene
> to fusion - when the eyes cannot do it themselves?  And do it fluidly so
> as to emulate the automatic effects of changing vergence in stereo
> scanning?  Rogers did refer to being able to *change* the direction of the
> optical paths in his appeal for a device, if I understood right, and that
> raised the question for me.
>
> Bruce
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>