Limits...
Comparing artistic and geometrical perspective depictions of space in the visual field.

Baldwin J, Burleigh A, Pepperell R - Iperception (2014)

Bottom Line: In this study we created an artistic rendering of a hemispherical visual space that encompassed the full visual field.We compared it to a number of geometrical perspective projections of the same space by asking participants to rate which best matched their visual experience.We found the artistic rendering performed significantly better than the geometrically generated projections.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cardiff School of Art & Design, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, UK; e-mail: rpepperell@cardiffmet.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
Which is the most accurate way to depict space in our visual field? Linear perspective, a form of geometrical perspective, has traditionally been regarded as the correct method of depicting visual space. But artists have often found it is limited in the angle of view it can depict; wide-angle scenes require uncomfortably close picture viewing distances or impractical degrees of enlargement to be seen properly. Other forms of geometrical perspective, such as fisheye projections, can represent wider views but typically produce pictures in which objects appear distorted. In this study we created an artistic rendering of a hemispherical visual space that encompassed the full visual field. We compared it to a number of geometrical perspective projections of the same space by asking participants to rate which best matched their visual experience. We found the artistic rendering performed significantly better than the geometrically generated projections.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Elliptical picture space approximating the shape and extent of the binocular visual field, represented as a cyclopean image that fuses the area visible to both eyes when looking ahead at the fixation point. The fixation point is located closer to the top of the field, reflecting the anatomical structure of the human eyes and face.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4441028&req=5

Figure 1: Elliptical picture space approximating the shape and extent of the binocular visual field, represented as a cyclopean image that fuses the area visible to both eyes when looking ahead at the fixation point. The fixation point is located closer to the top of the field, reflecting the anatomical structure of the human eyes and face.

Mentions: The general method of creating artistic representations of the visual field begins by defining an elliptical picture space that approximates the dimensions and shape of the human visual field (Figure 1). An elliptical boundary for the picture space is used because, as Gibson (1950) noted, it is closer to the shape of the visual field than the conventionally used rectangle. A fixation point is chosen in the scene, normally directly ahead of the viewer, and the equivalent point plotted in the picture space, this being located slightly above the horizontal centre, which reflects the fact that the human eye sees more in the lower part of the visual field than the upper (Lachenmayer & Vivell, 1992). The contents of the visual field are then mapped onto the picture space such that the boundaries of both coincide. Judgements are made about the portion of the visual field occupied by each perceived object, its location and shape, and these are recorded in the drawing. Having carried out this procedure many times in relation to different scenes we have found it consistently results an image in which the area of the scene being viewed in central or foveal vision is enlarged compared to how it would appear in an equivalent rectilinear or fisheye perspective projection (Pepperell & Haertel, 2014; Pepperell, in press. See also Figure 4). The degree of enlargement applied in each case depends on a number of factors, including the size of objects being depicted, their proximity to the viewing station, and the distance between the artist and the depiction as it is being made.


Comparing artistic and geometrical perspective depictions of space in the visual field.

Baldwin J, Burleigh A, Pepperell R - Iperception (2014)

Elliptical picture space approximating the shape and extent of the binocular visual field, represented as a cyclopean image that fuses the area visible to both eyes when looking ahead at the fixation point. The fixation point is located closer to the top of the field, reflecting the anatomical structure of the human eyes and face.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4441028&req=5

Figure 1: Elliptical picture space approximating the shape and extent of the binocular visual field, represented as a cyclopean image that fuses the area visible to both eyes when looking ahead at the fixation point. The fixation point is located closer to the top of the field, reflecting the anatomical structure of the human eyes and face.
Mentions: The general method of creating artistic representations of the visual field begins by defining an elliptical picture space that approximates the dimensions and shape of the human visual field (Figure 1). An elliptical boundary for the picture space is used because, as Gibson (1950) noted, it is closer to the shape of the visual field than the conventionally used rectangle. A fixation point is chosen in the scene, normally directly ahead of the viewer, and the equivalent point plotted in the picture space, this being located slightly above the horizontal centre, which reflects the fact that the human eye sees more in the lower part of the visual field than the upper (Lachenmayer & Vivell, 1992). The contents of the visual field are then mapped onto the picture space such that the boundaries of both coincide. Judgements are made about the portion of the visual field occupied by each perceived object, its location and shape, and these are recorded in the drawing. Having carried out this procedure many times in relation to different scenes we have found it consistently results an image in which the area of the scene being viewed in central or foveal vision is enlarged compared to how it would appear in an equivalent rectilinear or fisheye perspective projection (Pepperell & Haertel, 2014; Pepperell, in press. See also Figure 4). The degree of enlargement applied in each case depends on a number of factors, including the size of objects being depicted, their proximity to the viewing station, and the distance between the artist and the depiction as it is being made.

Bottom Line: In this study we created an artistic rendering of a hemispherical visual space that encompassed the full visual field.We compared it to a number of geometrical perspective projections of the same space by asking participants to rate which best matched their visual experience.We found the artistic rendering performed significantly better than the geometrically generated projections.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cardiff School of Art & Design, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, UK; e-mail: rpepperell@cardiffmet.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
Which is the most accurate way to depict space in our visual field? Linear perspective, a form of geometrical perspective, has traditionally been regarded as the correct method of depicting visual space. But artists have often found it is limited in the angle of view it can depict; wide-angle scenes require uncomfortably close picture viewing distances or impractical degrees of enlargement to be seen properly. Other forms of geometrical perspective, such as fisheye projections, can represent wider views but typically produce pictures in which objects appear distorted. In this study we created an artistic rendering of a hemispherical visual space that encompassed the full visual field. We compared it to a number of geometrical perspective projections of the same space by asking participants to rate which best matched their visual experience. We found the artistic rendering performed significantly better than the geometrically generated projections.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus