Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!fuug!funic!santra!hila.hut.fi!raisa
From: raisa@hila.hut.fi (Olli R{is{)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Psycho Graphics (was: Subjective Graphics)
Keywords: perception,subjective reality,adaptive rendering
Message-ID: <1991Feb14.122402.22933@santra.uucp>
Date: 14 Feb 91 12:24:02 GMT
References: <1991Jan30.173630.21099@nas.nasa.gov> <1991Jan31.120714.22611@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1991Feb1.082556.8553@agate.berkeley.edu> <2899@charon.cwi.nl> <1991Feb7.093627.3734@santra.uucp> <1991Feb12.013754.5320@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@santra.uucp (Cnews - USENET news system)
Reply-To: raisa@hila.hut.fi (Olli R{is{)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, FINLAND
Lines: 18

In article <1991Feb12.013754.5320@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov
(Eugene N. Miya) writes:
> Why does this remind me of Tony Perkins?.......  Or Mel Brooks?
> ... Er? A?  Pray tell, what other bases would you suggest?

I wonder if I dare to mention psychophysics. With this logic it is
probably associated with Donald Duck.

well...here is a *very* simple example called the moon illusion:
The moon (or the sun) appears to be larger when it is near the
horizon. It is a perceptual effect that has nothing to do with
physics. If you photograph the sunset with a normal 50mm lens,
the result is guaranteed to be bad. You really have to magnify
a lot, and to do that the foreground of the scene must be empty.
I am just wondering if there is a reasonable way to take into
account this effect (among others) in 3D-computer graphics.

Olli Raisa