Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!stam
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
From: stam@dgp.toronto.edu (Jos Stam)
Subject: Re: Psycho Graphics
Message-ID: <1991Feb14.163834.5594@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Organization: DGP, Dynamic Graphics Project, University of Toronto
References: <91Feb14.110238est.7256@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <1991Feb14.181142.21951@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 14 Feb 91 21:38:34 GMT
Lines: 28

Samuel P. Uselton writes:
>Marc Green writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>It is wasted effort to spend
>>time worrying about complicated camera models and the like. 
>
>This statement I take issue with.  If we can generate images from mathematical
>models by use of a computer which are identical to images of real objects as
                                       ^^^^^^^^^
>recorded by a camera and played back appropriately, we have accomplished
>several things.  We have experimentally verified our understanding of the
>physics producing the image.  We have a means for producing images of objects
>that may be difficult or impossible to actually photograph.  We have a means
>to present the stimulus to the observer in EXACTLY the same way.  Do you
                                            ^^^^^^^
>claim that the perception of images will differ (for a particular observer)
>even if the stimulus is the same?  If the observer has no information about
>whether the image is "real"?
>

How can you ever be certain that the stimulus are the same? You would have
to check this at the quantum level. Quantum events are all influenced by
the observer, hence it isn't possible to objectively certify the identity
between the photograph and the simulation...

Jos