The Hegemony of the Planer Projection ...

[Sparrow]

... in human perception, artistic representation and still photography; why?

[Bobfrance]

Why not?

And shouldn't it be 'Planar'?

[FrankS]

Is there a more suitable/desirable alternative?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Bobfrance

Why not?

And shouldn't it be 'Planar'?

Because it's such a recent thing, three millennium at the outside ...

... and yes I know, but I don't seem to be able to alter it now

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Is there a more suitable/desirable alternative?

I don't know, reality ephemeral isn't it?

Consider converging verticals created by it, they are far more unsettling in a photo than they are in perceived reality and often absent from artistic representation, yet we accept all three as a reality of sorts

[Bike Tourist]

The Hegemony of the Planar Projection ...

Forgive my ignorance. Are you talking about the rendering of three dimensions onto two or a Zeiss product?

The Zeiss Planar did lead the field for awhile but it certainly is not dominant.

If we are talking about renderings on a flat plane? Then what is the alternative — holography?

[semilog]

It's reactively easy to achieve and it's relatively easy for the human visual system to interpret. What's not to like?

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Stewart,

The anthropocentric principle. We see things that way, therefore we represent them that way. We can create other projections, but then, there are mathematicians who think in 11 dimensions.

Also, a good way of covering a wide field with (reasonably) even 'weighting'.

Yes, vertical vs. horizontal perspective is a puzzle, but then, there are plenty of cultural overlays too. In some kinds of Thai painting, as far as I recall, more important people are represented bigger than less important ones. Maybe it's only iconography, but does that matter?

And how do we know how the Lascaux painters 'saw'? Superimposed, no perspective?

Cheers,

R.

[FrankS]

Wasn't perspective/vanishing point in painting invented/discovered fairly recently?(relative to the 3 millenia timeframe mentioned in the original post)

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Bike Tourist

The Hegemony of the Planar Projection ...

Forgive my ignorance. Are you talking about the rendering of three dimensions onto two or a Zeiss product?

The Zeiss Planar did lead the field for awhile but it certainly is not dominant.

If we are talking about renderings on a flat plane? Then what is the alternative — holography?

It's the Planar Projection, a way of rendering a 3D world on a 2D plane while maintaining their angular relationships, it's a visual perception thing

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Stewart,

The anthropocentric principle. We see things that way, therefore we represent them that way. We can create other projections, but then, there are mathematicians who think in 11 dimensions.

Also, a good way of covering a wide field with (reasonably) even 'weighting'.

Yes, vertical vs. horizontal perspective is a puzzle, but then, there are plenty of cultural overlays too. In some kinds of Thai painting, as far as I recall, more important people are represented bigger than less important ones. Maybe it's only iconography, but does that matter?

And how do we know how the Lascaux painters 'saw'? Superimposed, no perspective?

Cheers,

R.

Well, yes, but we start out with a Cognitive Projection why do we abandon it at 3 or 4 for the planar one in particular.

I think I do recall some cave-art that was superimposed, and that was certainly part of the visual convention in early Egypt

Originally Posted by FrankS

Wasn't perspective/vanishing point in painting invented/discovered fairly recently?(relative to the 3 millenium timeframe mentioned in the original post)

The first reference to perspective is fifth or sixth century Greek theatre, before that I've no idea

[sonofdanang]

Funny, but when I shoot wides, I feel more comfortable thinking "inverse Mercator".... Just kidding. A moment of levity. I'll stop.

(So that's why Auntie Artica looks sooooo biiiiiiig!!!)

Best,

Shane

[ferider]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Well, yes, but we start out with a Cognitive Projection why do we abandon it at 3 or 4 for the planar one in particular.

Because .... everybody is an engineer at heart. Planar projections are easiest to measure and manufacture from.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by ferider

Because .... everybody is an engineer at heart. Planar projections are easiest to measure and manufacture from.

I thought about that; fine for navigation, but then the distances and volumes go all to cock with anything off axis

[ferider]

But all relationships are linear, Stewart. That helps.

[FrankS]

Logic dictates?

[Sparrow]

Well not really, the world we see and the world we perceive are so radically different.

We are ready to accept a FOV of between 35 and 50mm (or the 135 equivalent thereof) as being "normal" where infract 10mm is closer to the actual FOV of our eyes why not perceive that?

[Bobfrance]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

...We are ready to accept a FOV of between 35 and 50mm (or the 135 equivalent thereof) as being "normal" where infract 10mm is closer to the actual FOV of our eyes why not perceive that?

I believe the concept of a natural FOV equivalent for the eye to be pretty bogus. The eye is like a small torch scanning a dark room. Anything outside that tiny point that is largely a virtual construct generated by the brain. Perhaps this is where the planar representation comes from.
How this equates to 35mm is intriguing but beyond me.
I have been drinking wine tho'...

[jmkelly]

Our eyes are capable of receiving a FOV equiv. to a 10mm on 135, but our brains do not render that perception continuously, or identically across the retina. We have little color perception outside the center of the retina; the corners of our eyes are designed to perceive movement, and our brains to react to it reflexively.

I agree with Roland's assessment that the planar projection is the preferred perspective of the engineer homunculus in our brains. However, some of us have had training in thinking our way through n(>3)-dimensional data matrices which vary with time. Developing a "visual" representation (2d, 3d or 4d) of this sort of data that I could transmit to someone not familiar with the material is near-impossible. It ain't photography.

[Bobfrance]

Perhaps 10mm is accurate including peripheral vision and the the range that the eyes can saccade (without any head movement), however it looks quite unnatural in a photographic image.

[rolo]

Originally Posted by Bobfrance

Perhaps 10mm is accurate including peripheral vision and the the range that the eyes can saccade (without any head movement), however it looks quite unnatural in a photographic image.

10mm Bob, that's what I was saying earlier. Look down slightly and you can almost see both shoulders at once ( I realise my shoulders are bigger than yours).

So John, you appear to know what you're talking about amongst people like me. If it's 10 mm, how can anyone claim that a Noctilux represents the way we see. I honestly prefer the 10mm approach with Bob's torch like focus.

Inspecting the grain on a large 30"x40", tack sharp, Ansel Adams print the couple of inches I stare at are tack sharp and everything else out of the sides, looks blurred. But, it quickly realigns itself when I turn and change direction of focus. Strangely, there's no way to cheat it; happens every time.

So, do our eyes see more like a pin sharp AA lens, or a Nocti ?

[jmkelly]

Rolo - we like to see images made by a 50mm on 135 because the perspective looks natural to us. No matter the size of the image or the perspective it was generated from (fish-eye to tele) we still perceive that image from the center of our eye - indeed like a torch in the dark.

[Bobfrance]

Great thread (thanks Stewart!).
I'd really like to understand the mechanics of why 50mm (or any other focal length) seems natural to us.

[bensyverson]

50mm doesn't seem "natural" to me... Speaking for myself, 28mm or 35mm feels more natural.

[antiquark]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

... in human perception, artistic representation and still photography; why?

I once read an explanation which was based on the idea that we're three-dimensional creatures, so we have the ability to perceive a two-dimensional surface "all at once."

So if you want to "absorb" something pseudo-instantly, just by looking at it, it will have to be a 2D object (such as a photograph).

A 3D thing, you can't see "all at once", you have to walk around it, or turn it around, etc.