On Alternative Approaches to 3D Image Perception: Monoscopic 3D Techniques

Abstract

In the eighteenth century, techniques that enabled a strong sense of 3D perception to be experienced without recourse to binocular disparities (arising from the spatial separation of the eyes) underpinned the first significant commercial sales of 3D viewing devices and associated content. However following the advent of stereoscopic techniques in the nineteenth century, 3D image depiction has become inextricably linked to binocular parallax and outside the vision science and arts communities relatively little attention has been directed towards earlier approaches. Here we introduce relevant concepts and terminology and consider a number of techniques and optical devices that enable 3D perception to be experienced on the basis of planar images rendered from a single vantage point. Subsequently we allude to possible mechanisms for non-binocular parallax based 3D perception. Particular attention is given to reviewing areas likely to be thought-provoking to those involved in 3D display development, spatial visualization, HCI, and other related areas of interdisciplinary research. Graphical AbstractKeywords Stereopsis Á 3D perception Á Paradoxical monocular stereopsis Á Monocular 3D Á Plastic effect Á Stereoscopy by default 1 Introduction

Ways of Viewing Pictorial Plasticity

“…Our personal favorite application is looking at paintings in a museum, but also more mundane activities such as viewing personal photos on a screen may become more interesting when the plastic effect is present. Thus, studying and applying old techniques and inventions concerning the plastic effect may be a valuable addition next to the high-tech advances of virtual reality, as has recently been argued by Blundell (2015). The current findings in combination with our previous study (Wijntjes et al., 2016) indicates that the synopter version we used in these studies is a good candidate for viewing pictures at distances of about 1.5 to 2 m. For presentations on small displays that are close to the eyes, other devices may be useful, such as the Verant lens (also by von Rohr), or Hill’s graphoscope.…”

“…These ways of viewing have all been discussed earlier ( Ames, 1925 ; Blundell, 2015 ; Schlosberg, 1941 ), including a concise overview of our own ( Wijntjes, Füzy, Verheij, Deetman, & Pont, 2016 ).…”

Claparède (1904) on Monocular Stereopsis: History, Theory, and Translation

“…Wheatstone’s explanation of why we see a flat depiction as flat with two eyes and as showing depth with one eye is consistent with a theory that has come to be known as cue-coherence theory (e.g., Blundell, 2015; Vishwanath & Hibbard, 2013): That depth can be experienced providing the various sources of information (cues) specifying depth are in agreement, otherwise the strongest source wins out. For Wheatstone that strongest source was binocular disparity.…”

A frame at a different depth than a photograph enhances the apparent depth in the photograph

“…The extent of depth seen in a given picture can be enhanced under various viewing conditions. For example, the depth extent may increase when a picture is viewed in a mirror (e.g., Ames, 1925;Higashiyama & Shimono 2012;Schlosberg, 1941), through specific optical devices (e.g., Ames, 1925;Blundell, 2015;Chaldecott, 1953;Koenderink et al, 1994;Koenderink et al, 2013;Wijntjes et al, 2016), or monocularly (e.g., Claparède, 1904, translated in O'Shea, 2017Koenderink, 2012;Vishwanath, 2016;Vishwanath & Hibbard, 2013;Wijntjes et al, 2016). The depth-enhancement effect of a picture has been widely recognized since the middle of the 18th century (see Clayton, 1997;Oka, 1992;Wijntjes et al, 2016) and is often called the "plastic effect.…”