The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
From the Guardian:
"From second-rate horror films to episodes of Scooby-Doo, ominous paintings whose staring eyes follow a character around the room, no matter where they go, have been used to spooky effect. But now a team of scientists believe they have solved the mystery of how they do it.
A group working on how our brains interpret images found that as long as a character in a painting is looking straight ahead, our brains will perceive they are staring at us, no matter the angle from which we view the painting. A striking example is The Laughing Cavalier by Frans Hals, the 17th century Dutch painter.
The explanation lies in how we interpret three-dimensional objects portrayed on a flat surface. Real three-dimensional objects look different depending on the angle bec-ause of the changing way light falls across them. But on the flat canvas, shading and light are fixed and the image looks the same from every angle.
James Todd of Ohio State University and co-author of the study said: "If a person in a painting is looking straight out, it will always appear that way, regardless of the angle at which it is viewed."
The scientists, writing in the journal Perception, took hundreds of measurements of 3D images displayed on a computer screen. They found that whatever angle the images were viewed from, they always looked the same.
Jonathan Jones, the Guardian's art critic, said: "It'd be wonderful if people gave art historians the kind of grants that scientists seem to get to research art. Morons."
I mean, we *knew* this already. You don't have to take "hundreds of measurements". Just think about it for a couple of milliseconds.
"From second-rate horror films to episodes of Scooby-Doo, ominous paintings whose staring eyes follow a character around the room, no matter where they go, have been used to spooky effect. But now a team of scientists believe they have solved the mystery of how they do it.
A group working on how our brains interpret images found that as long as a character in a painting is looking straight ahead, our brains will perceive they are staring at us, no matter the angle from which we view the painting. A striking example is The Laughing Cavalier by Frans Hals, the 17th century Dutch painter.
The explanation lies in how we interpret three-dimensional objects portrayed on a flat surface. Real three-dimensional objects look different depending on the angle bec-ause of the changing way light falls across them. But on the flat canvas, shading and light are fixed and the image looks the same from every angle.
James Todd of Ohio State University and co-author of the study said: "If a person in a painting is looking straight out, it will always appear that way, regardless of the angle at which it is viewed."
The scientists, writing in the journal Perception, took hundreds of measurements of 3D images displayed on a computer screen. They found that whatever angle the images were viewed from, they always looked the same.
Jonathan Jones, the Guardian's art critic, said: "It'd be wonderful if people gave art historians the kind of grants that scientists seem to get to research art. Morons."
I mean, we *knew* this already. You don't have to take "hundreds of measurements". Just think about it for a couple of milliseconds.
Page:
"DDT is okay." - Professor Jake "the snake" Roberts
...And how much do they get payed for this, exactly!?
Bear in mind scientists have also told us booze is bad/good for us and at one point said DDT is okay.
ßulle†† wrote:
> Oh dear. This is so obvious as soon as you look at the picture.
>
> Why they needed a bunch of geeks to prove it I don't know. Who's life
> is that going to save exactly? What disease will that cure? What
> revolutionary new technology will it discover?
>
> Exactly. Bloody morons.
Well, thanks for reiterating my point. If anyone here requires a parrot I'll be sure to pass on your details, mate.
> Oh dear. This is so obvious as soon as you look at the picture.
>
> Why they needed a bunch of geeks to prove it I don't know. Who's life
> is that going to save exactly? What disease will that cure? What
> revolutionary new technology will it discover?
>
> Exactly. Bloody morons.
Well, thanks for reiterating my point. If anyone here requires a parrot I'll be sure to pass on your details, mate.
Oh dear. This is so obvious as soon as you look at the picture.
Why they needed a bunch of geeks to prove it I don't know. Who's life is that going to save exactly? What disease will that cure? What revolutionary new technology will it discover?
Exactly. Bloody morons.
Why they needed a bunch of geeks to prove it I don't know. Who's life is that going to save exactly? What disease will that cure? What revolutionary new technology will it discover?
Exactly. Bloody morons.
They have just discovered this?
I discovered this a few years ago!
I discovered this a few years ago!
Yea that guy in the painting in ghostbusters 2 was so 3d that he came out of that painting and tried to use that baby to get reborn!
Hell Ghostbusters 2 told us that much :)
people get paid to do this kind of work?? :S
people get paid to do this kind of work?? :S
"I wanted a cure for cancer and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"
"I wanted a cure for AIDS and all I got were these lousy T-cells"
"I wanted a cure for AIDS and all I got were these lousy T-cells"
Yes, no wonder they arent getting funding if the best they can do is this.
Page: