Timeline for How do we perceive object distance in refraction/reflection?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2022 at 10:15 | comment | added | John Hunter | This all seems right, but just to add that the matter of depth is due to us having two eyes. If we cover one, then it's similar to the camera, it could probably be shown with ray diagrams that the apparent depth in the mirror will be the same as for the original object. As @kkm mentioned in a comment, we probably can manage without psychological input from the brain to explain most of these things. Interesting question, all the best with it. | |
| Jan 2, 2022 at 8:07 | comment | added | RayPalmer | And this book is the reflection of the original inside the mirror. Our brain also adds depth to this, and so, the reflections seems to be deep inside the mirror. If it were a camera, it would have just printed the image that formed. That is why, pictures of reflections have no depth. If we take a mirror selfie, it would appear that our reflection is on the surface of the mirror. But if we look into a mirror, our reflection would appear a little deeper inside. | |
| Jan 2, 2022 at 8:05 | comment | added | RayPalmer | So our brain, makes the assumption, that the object is inside the mirror, and that is what we see. In a sense, it just adds depth to the 2-d image that forms on the retina. I think that is how vision works. The brain first convinces us that the image that forms on the retina must be exactly what the world looks like. For example, suppose the book isn't visible to us directly, but through a mirror. So, the book is there, in the image that forms on the retina. The brain tells us, well, since there is an image of a book on the retina, there must be a book in our line of sight. | |
| Jan 2, 2022 at 8:02 | comment | added | RayPalmer | @JohnHunter yes ! and moreover, it is the brain that seems to add depth, that a camera doesn't. Suppose there is an object, not directly in our line of sight, but the light from this object bounces off a mirror and reach us. On our retina, there is a 2-d image of the surrounding, the mirror, and the object too ( on the mirror ). What our brain does is, it says, well the reality must look exactly like the image that has formed, and all objects must by away from us, in a straight line. So our brain assumes that the object must also be in front of us, even though it actually isn't. | |
| Jan 1, 2022 at 23:06 | comment | added | John Hunter | All this reminds me of an old Comedian Harry Worth, who had the photo on this link at the start of his show, made using a shop window - it was actually a moving film, he could apparently lift both legs in the air at the same time! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Worth | |
| Jan 1, 2022 at 23:04 | comment | added | John Hunter | A lot of this seems right, and it's great it's all making sense. The rays of light from the mountain enter our eye or the camera from two different routes. Both are actually real images, in the sense they both make a real image at the retina and both are equally valid. It's our brain, as you say that makes us realise that the upside down mountain is not the usual way for us to perceive a mountain. Although we could stand on out heads, then it could happen that the upside down image was from the 'real' mountain without reflection. So you are right, the brain must interpreting the images. | |
| Jan 1, 2022 at 22:54 | history | edited | RayPalmer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 220 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2022 at 22:46 | history | answered | RayPalmer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |