Filling in the Gaps...

Here is a really cool optical illusion that Thomas forwarded me. It is amazing the information we fill in for images. Just to keep in mind we don't really see images as they are, it's how we perceive them to be. This picture is just for show, to see the effect, you will have to click on the link.

CASTLE ILLUSION

and how this effect was accomplished:

INSTRUCTIONS

Rotoscoping!

Rotoscoping is a technique that dates back to the Fleischer brothers in which live-action figures are cut out and re-drawn. The movement and even features in some cases of the characters tend to be more realistic.
In the mid-1990s, Bob Sabiston, an animator and computer scientist veteran of the MIT Media Lab, developed a computer-assisted "interpolated rotoscoping" process which the director Richard Linklater later employed in the full-length feature films Waking Life (2001) and A Scanner Darkly (2006). Linklater licensed the same proprietary rotoscoping process for the look of both films. Linklater is the first director to use digital rotoscoping to create an entire feature film.
The films are notable for having pushed the genre of animation from a medium that is commonly associated as a childish non reality representing form into a form that has a stronger basis and representation of reality. It brings a bit of realism which gives the medium a bit more credibility and bridges the gap between live action and animation.
My interest in this, is the questions of why is it that we need some form of reality to achieve credibility? Why Can't animation in its various forms, from traditional illustrations to computer generated form, without the obvious references to reality be seen as a liable and serious medium.
What is it about a moving illustration that has deemed it "childish"?
There are many animation that are serious, but in the mainstream and even in the history of animation it seems that it has been set as a device centered mainly on the portrayal of the silly, innocent and mindless amusement.
Is it something about the way we perceive human motions, speech, and character in reality that prevents us from accepting animation which is comprised of fabricated realms and simulated realities as truth?

Depth Cues

Here I am just posting some examples of the cues that help us to recognize depth in a planar image:
This image has contradicting cues. It has the depth cue from the squares pattern receding to a horizon point, and uses height of the subjects to indicate depth. However, the size of the figures contradicts how we would expect things to appear as they are further back from us.
















In the image below which is in front? The circle or the square shape? The lack of clarity, or blurriness is an indicator to us that an image is further back. This technique is very popular in animation as a Gaussian blur can increase the depth of a flat image.










We perceive depths in objects relations to each other. Generally we perceive things as being 'in front of' or 'in back of', but in reality, this relationship only exists in our minds and not in the picture itself.















Also utilizing the height principle and use of shadows, in which we have real world experiencing in perceiving, how do you label these objects' relationships to each other?

Perception of textures and space- learned behavior.

The following comes from "Visual Intelligence" by Donald Hoffmann, who is writing about our perception of objects and how we learn from experiences to make automatic inferences, which help us to understand the world that we live in. For example, looking at the fabric hanging in my cubicle, I can say that I know what the material will feel like, not only because I have touched them before, but because I can identify with how the texture of the fabric looks and can predict what it will feel like from experience. The following was a case study published in 1728 by William Cheselden about a boy between 13 and 14 who had eye surgery which enabled him to see after being blind his whole life from congenital cataracts. The boy had problems identifying the differences between a cat and a dog until he was able to catch the cat and know it was a cat by feeling it. In the study they also showed him pictures , which only after a couple of months he realized they were supposed to represent solid structures. Before the realization he had considered them only flat planes comprised of colors and was surprised, after realizing their representation, that although they looked 'round and uneven' they felt only flat.

We do this kind of depth inferring all the time. A good example is the Necker cube of which I have included a picture of above. To the touch it is a flat plane, but we perceive the cube as having depth or 3 dimensionality. Also, we perceive it in two different ways, one in which the box is receding in, and one in which the box is popping out upwards. You construct the cubes that you see although they do not really exists. You mind is constantly trying to construct and perceive images in context to the database of information it has access to.

In reality, and by reality I mean the world around us, we are constructing all the depth we see. Depth is a function of our mind putting together the two images received from your eyes, and in turn, people even see at different depth. So if people do see at different depths, which is the right one? Is there a 'true depth'?

Light and Dark

I've decided to make my focus on the use of light and dark and how it can change a person's perception of the images that they are experiencing. The use of color and lighting, regardless of the visual medium, can play a pivotal role in the emotions that are trying to be conveyed towards the audience. I hope to explore how and why people in general seem to have a certain reaction towards a specific use of contrast or even something as simple as the amount of color saturation, just to name a few brief examples.

Stop that motion!

Hey, sounds like people have some pretty interesting topics. I haven't got as specific of a focus, but I am interested in the perception of depth, especially in 2D animation. I also wanted to share this work with you: http://www.javanivey.com/my_paper_mind.html
I love the technique. I'm always fascinated by the use of 2D elements in 3D space.

How "They" Percieve Animation

Hello

Well Timmy that's pretty interesting. I'd like to see what you come up with.
I think my interest lies in the way in which people perceive animation. It seems to be this common notion that animations are cartoons and a medium directed towards children. I'd like to explore the reasons behind this. Could it be the popular production of main stream animations that are geared for children, like Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks. So do people need to be more exposed to other forms of animation?
Or is it that the look, style, or the medium in all that it contains can only lend itself in a certain manner and only be perceived in a certain way? What are the other forms of animation and why are they unpopular?
I think I'd pretty much like to concentrate on the way in which people think about animation and how it is presented and perceived.

Timmy's Topic!

FIRST POST! WAHOO!

Hey all! I just wanted to say that I want to focus my research on the topic of....................Weight! Thats RIGHT! I am going to eat as much as possible the next 14 weeks and talk about how much weight I gain! We'll keep trakc every week I post on my current weight and then film it all and sell it as a documentary piece! No not really

I want to focus on the the perception of effective animation of weight. Creating figures or forms that convey a sense of reality or believability based on the artistic visual representation and interpretation of weight. I think that in animation, most successful performance or even non narrative pieces that convey a sense of "weight" show a significant level of advancement in the study of motion then those that do not. I hope through my posts I can not only help further educate and practice myself on the effective portrayal of weight as an important element of animation, but that I can also educate you all and the masses about why conveying WEIGHT! in animation is of tremendous importance and of interest to me! I will look primarily in forms of character performance but will also explore wieght applications in other forms of non narrative animations as well!

Tim is currently: 158 lbs :) hehe