Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • 3DR Review
  • Published:
3D Research

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 Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Here we assume that a 2D perceptual experience is one in which the image entities that are the focus of attention reside, or appear to reside, within two spatial dimensions—the negative space associated with the third dimension (normal to the depiction surface) being absent. However, such a perceptual experience is generally set within an overarching 3D framework. This arises because, for example, in most situations stimuli comprising a 2D image scene collectively continue to appear to be located at a finite distance. For near field viewing scenarios, this perceived distance is reduced (but not eliminated) when one eye is shaded.

  2. ‘Translucent penetrable space, pervious to sight and thrust, the purest image of my awareness, is not seen but intuited and in my seeing itself is intuited. The light is not without but within me, and I myself am the light’ translation from Pesic [45].

  3. See example of the Pulfrich effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mnWI_u_zBg. Accessed 20 March 2015.

  4. ‘The mirror and lenses used in the manner described above give a plastic effect which brings to mind that of the concave mirror, while greatly augmenting and improving it, as I have been able to establish by a series of comparative observations’ (translation courtesy P. J. Walker).

  5. Informal observation by the author suggests that framing elements do not necessarily impair perception of negative space in the monoscopic 3D experience, as demonstrated by mullion visibility in Video Wall displays.

  6. For viewing distances of less than a metre, a 2.5D cylindrical convex lens is recommended by Ames [2]. Informal trials by the author have failed to confirm Ames’ observations in respect of the efficacy of this technique.

  7. See example of s-bd/immersion (the early part of this content is recommended): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SphgMxwD5M. Accessed 20 March 2015.

References

  1. Adams, K. R. (1972). Perspective and the viewpoint. Leonardo, 5(3), 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ames Jr., A. (1925). The illusion of depth from single pictures. J Opt Soc Am, 10(2), 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ames Jr., A. (1925a). Depth in pictorial art. The Art Bulletin, 8(1), 4–24.

  4. Barry, S. R. (2009). Fixing my gaze. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barry, S. R. (2009b). An interview with ‘stereo Sue’. Review of Optometry, 48–49.

  6. Black, R. (2010). An optical device. UK Patent Application GB 2478358.

  7. Blake, E. C. (2002). Topographical prints through the Zograscope. Imago Mundi, 54, 120–124.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blake, E. C. (2003). Zograscopes, virtual reality, and the mapping of polite society in eighteenth-century England. In L. Gitelman & G. B. Pingree (Eds.), New media 1740–1915. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blundell, B. G. (2008). An introduction to computer graphics and creative 3-D environments. London: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Blundell, B. G. (2011). 3D displays and spatial interaction. Exploring the science, art, evolution and use of 3D technologies. Walker and Wood Ltd. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r96nhin3od4z81t/hepxE7-ju1.

  11. Blundell, B. G. (2014). On aspects of glasses-free 3D cinema ~70 years ago. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uw3yjnwn3qo9z1e/SyPYAkHSqc.

  12. Blundell, B. G., & Schwarz, A. J. (2006). Creative 3-D display and interaction interfaces: A trans-disciplinary approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brewster, D. (1856). The stereoscope its history, theory and construction. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chaldecott, J. A. (1953). The Zograscope or optical diagonal machine. Annals of Science, 9(4), 315–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Claparède, E. (1904). Steréréoscopie monoculaire paradoxale. Annales d’Oculistique, 132, 465–466.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coe, B. (1981). The history of movie photography. London: Ash and Grant.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Court, T. H., & von Rohr, M. (1935). On old instruments both for the accurate drawing and the correct viewing of perspectives. The Photographic Journal, 75, 54–66.

  18. Cutting, J. E. (1987). Rigidity in cinema seen from the front row and side aisle. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13(3), 323–334.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Eaton, E. M. (1919). The visual perception of solid form. The British Journal of Ophthalmology, 3, 349–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eby, D. W., & Braunstein, M. L. (1995). The perceptual flattening of three-dimensional scenes enclosed by a frame. Perception, 24, 981–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Edgerton, S. Y. (1976). The Renaissance rediscovery of linear perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Enright, J. T. (1993). Paradoxical monocular stereopsis and perspective vergence. In S. Ellis (Ed.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (2nd ed., pp. 567–576). Bristol: Taylor and Francis, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fichte, J. G. (1997). Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Stuttgart: Reclam, Philipp.jun.GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gabor, D. (1960). Three-dimensional cinema. New Scientist, 8(191), 141–145.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Guarini, E. (1904). The Verant: A new device for viewing photographs. Scientific American, 91(19), 312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hibbard, P. (2008). Can appearance be so deceptive? Representationalism and binocular vision. Spatial Vision, 21(6), 549–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Higashiyama, A., & Shimono, K. (2012). Apparent depth of pictures reflected by a mirror: The plastic effect. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 1522–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hill, H. H. (1898). Improved Graphoscope for obtaining stereoscopic effects. UK Patent Number 15,299.

  29. Howard, I. P. (2002). Seeing in depth, Volume I basic mechanisms. Thornhill, ON: I Porteous.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jastrow, J. (1898). Some aids to the study of stereoscopic vision. Science, New Series, 7(175), 615–622.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Judge, A. W. (1935). Stereoscopic photography, its application to science, industry and education. London: Chapman and Hall Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kaldenbach, C. J. (1985). Perspective views. Print Quarterly, 2(2), 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kemp, M. (1978). Science, non-science and nonsense: The interpretation of Brunelleschi’s perspective. Art History, 1(2), 134–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Koenderink, J. J. (1998). Pictorial relief. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 356(1740), 1071–1086.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Koenderink, J. J., & van Doorn, A. J. (1995). Relief: Pictorial and otherwise. Image and Vision Computing, 13, 321–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Koenderink, J. J., van Doorn, A. J., & Kappers, A. M. L. (1994). On so-called paradoxical monocular stereoscopy. Perception, 23, 583–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Koenderink, J. J., Wijntjes, M., & Van Doorm, A. (2013). Zograscopic viewing. i-Perception, 4, 192–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Letkiewicz, M. (2013). Cudowna maszyna optyczna zograscope. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska Lublin-Polonia, 11(1), 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Makino, Y., & Yano, M. (2006). Pictorial cues constrain depth in Da Vinci stereopsis. Vision Research, 46, 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Masaoka, K., Nishida, Y., Sugawara, M., Nakasu, E., & Nojiri, Y. (2013). Sensation of realness from high-resolution images of real objects. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 59(1), 72–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Münsterberg, H. (1904). Perception of distance. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 1(23), 617–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nakayama, K., & Shimojo, S. (1990). Da Vinci stereopsis: Depth and subjective occluding contours from unpaired image points. Vision Research, 30, 1811–1825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ohmori, K., Sakamoto, K., Nomura, S., Hirotomi, T., Shiwaku, K., & Hirakawa, S. (2010). Monocular 3D vision with correct depth using Polypyrrole film actuator for light-weight display unit. In Proceedings of IMECS (Vol. II), Hong Kong, 17–19 March 2010.

  44. Patterson, R. E. (2011). Binocular vision and depth perception. In W. Cranton, M. Fihn, & J. Chen (Eds.), Handbook of visual display technology (pp. 121–127). Berlin: Canopus Academic Publishing and Springer GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pesic, P. (Ed.). (2009). Hermann Weyl, mind and nature: Selected writings on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pirenne, M. H. (1970). Optics, painting and photography. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pirenne, M. H. (1975). Vision and art. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception, Vol 5, seeing (pp. 433–490). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ponzo, M. (1911). Un appareil pour la vision plastique de photographies. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 56, 125–126.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Schlosberg, H. (1941). Stereoscopic depth from single pictures. The American Journal of Psychology, 54(4), 601–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Tidbury, L. P., Black, R. H., & O’Connor, A. R. (2014). Perceiving 3D in the absence of measurable stereo-acuity. The British and Irish Orthoptic Journal, 11, 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Vishwanath, D. (2011). Visual information in surface and depth perception: Reconciling pictures and reality. In L. Albertazzi, G. van Tonder, & D. Vishwanath (Eds.), Perception beyond inference: The information content of visual processes (pp. 201–240). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vishwanath, D. (2014). Towards a new theory of stereopsis. Psychological Review, 121(2), 151–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Vishwanath, D., Girshick, A. R., & Banks, M. S. (2005). Why pictures look right when viewed from the wrong place. Nature Neuroscience, 8(10), 1401–1410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Vishwanath, D., & Hibbard, P. B. (2013). Seeing in 3D with just one eye: Stereopsis without binocular vision. Psychological Science, 24, 1673–1685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wheatstone, C. (1838). Contributions to the theory of vision—Part the first, on some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London), 128, 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zeiss, C. (1903). Linsensystem zum einaugigen Betrachten in der Brennebene befindlichen Photographie. German Patent Number 151312.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

    Barry G. Blundell

Authors
  1. Barry G. Blundell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry G. Blundell.

Additional information

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13319-015-0047-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blundell, B.G. On Alternative Approaches to 3D Image Perception: Monoscopic 3D Techniques. 3D Res 6, 18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13319-015-0047-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13319-015-0047-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation