Duke Posted August 9, 2003 Posted August 9, 2003 Why do things look smaller when they are further away? Noone has ever given me a decent answer to that question. Just thought i'd ask.
Intelligence Posted August 10, 2003 Posted August 10, 2003 What do you mean look smaller. This has too many assumptions. If you stood an an infinitely white space, and I put an object you'd never seen before RIGHT in front of your face and 50 feet away..... ......You'd never know how far away each was. The only reason you judge an objects size is: 1. You are familiar with the size this object SHOULD be at a certain distance 2. You are comparing how much of the background this object blots out. This is why people say the camera ads ten pounds. Because your eyes look AROUND an object and can see more of the background BEHIND the object. A camera does NOT have this depth, being only one eye - and thus it sees LESS of the background behind an object and the object looks slightly larger. Make sense?
Duke Posted August 10, 2003 Author Posted August 10, 2003 Thats an interesting answer. Usually people just say "because its further away" which makes no sense really. I think i've actually heard the white room thing before. Wouldn't the amount of background you can see behind the object be dependant on how small the object appears anyway?
YT2095 Posted August 10, 2003 Posted August 10, 2003 it`s also to do with something called paralax(sp?). a perculiarity of "stereo vision" and example would be this; hold your index finger infront of your eyes and cover one ov them, focus on a object some distance away (maybe 10 foot away) block this object out with your finger. now, keeping your head and finger perfectly still, uncover the 1`st eye and cover the second one, you`ll notice the object 10 foot away is no longer covered by your finger it will apear to have moved. now repeat the same thing but cover an object 100 foot away, you`ll notice the object you covered with your finger is now in full veiw and seems to have moved several feet (light years if you look at stars! and that`s how we tell how big or distant an object is, of course the brain works all of this automaticly in nano seconds couple that with the fact that relfected light off an object is radiant, the further away it gets, the less photons reach your eye, and so it apears smaller, that`s how Telescopes work, the big lens at the front, gathers a large amount of photons and then concentrates them to a small point, making things seem larger hope this helps a little
Dudde Posted August 11, 2003 Posted August 11, 2003 you know I have a reasonably amusing and probably completely wrong answer to this but I'll post it later I don't have much time left here and you know, does that mean everybody looks ten pounds more to me? not being able to see out of my right eye and all;)
YT2095 Posted August 11, 2003 Posted August 11, 2003 No, it would however mean that you`de have experienced depth perception problems for a while untill your brain found a new way to compensate for it though
NavajoEverclear Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 Thank you for starting the thread duke, and thanks for the radical answers intelligence. Someone needs to invent a camera with two eyes, simulating our vision----- or would that not work because pictures are two dimenstional? Maybe someone needs to invent 3 dimensional pictures then--- and how would that be done? are hollograms really possible (if so would they be practical for use by your average jo), and what is a possible alternative to hollograms?
Sayonara Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 Such cameras are already available. I believe http://www.iwantoneofthose.com used to sell them, but they no longer appear to be in stock.
atinymonkey Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 Can't find one But did find this Orbital Space Getaway
NavajoEverclear Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 atiny monkey, i just realized that your new avatar is grr. Rock on man. Why did they cancel Invader Zim anyway? (or did they just deny the american colony Zim priveldges?)
Sayonara Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 Invader Zim cost too much to make (3D/cell animation composite - quite expensive) compared to the ratings it was getting. So blame Nik for keeping the audience small. You can find the 6 or so unscreened s2 episodes on eMule but they're still difficult to get. Kazaa is bursting with s1 episodes.
atinymonkey Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 Originally posted by atinymonkey I'm changing to the cute fluffy icon of doom now. http://www.thedoomsong.com/ Yay! As you can see, you can blame Sayonara³ for the Zimmness. We don't even get it on TV over here Gir's worth the downloads though!
NavajoEverclear Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 i didn't know it used any fancy type of animation (well now i recall certain instances that probably used special technology, but not anything any more advanced than all the other shows, and probably less than most actually) Hohoho did anyone see the christmas episode? That was hilarious, i cant remember if i saw the whole thing myself, but i still remember how they turned santa clause into a monster and world dictator
Sayonara Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 Bow down, bow down Before the power of SAN-TA Bow down, or be crushed by.... His jolly boots of DOOM.
NavajoEverclear Posted August 12, 2003 Posted August 12, 2003 oh man i am so going to download that off kazaa
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now