ModusPwnd
- 1,255
- 119
Lots of opinions here. I am firmly in the camp that we see in 2D, not 3D. Two 2D images does not make a 3D image. Furthermore, I do not think that a 2D image plus depth perception is equivelent to 3D. When we see in the x direction is an effective continum of information from left to right. That is 1D. We see an effective continum of information in the y direction from down to up, that is another dimension. To see in a third dimension we would need a continum of information in the z direction, front to back. Depth perception does not provide that. If we saw in 3D we would simultaneously see the front and backside of an object, as both the front and backside are part of that continum in the z direction. We can't do that. What we can do is take a series of 2D cross sections and then get a sense of the 3D structure. But I don't think people can even visulize 3D in their minds... what we do instead is visulalize a finite set of 2D cross sections or flay the 3D object out into a 2D image.
If 2D plus depth perception is 3D, then 1D plus depth perception is 2D? Nope, its not. A one dimensional image with information on the distance of each point does not make a two dimensional image. It makes a 1D cross section of a 2D image, and cross sections always lose a dimension.
If 2D plus depth perception is 3D, then 1D plus depth perception is 2D? Nope, its not. A one dimensional image with information on the distance of each point does not make a two dimensional image. It makes a 1D cross section of a 2D image, and cross sections always lose a dimension.