On 23 Jan 2003 00:45:15 GMT, contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:

>SNIP

>>I think it is useful for people to have a good idea

>>of how they see things, since this can prevent

>>misunderstanding of some representation types.

>Ditto.

>Obviously,

>>NO image matches the "eye's view" in ANY respect, and we are

>>also free to choose all aspects in our images (two different

>>

>>things)

>Double ditto.

> - but, something as basic as not understanding a

>>very common mode of seeing, and therefore dismissing the

>>more like "eye vision" mode as "less realistic", "more

>>distorted" or somesuch is undesirable,

>Triple ditto :-).

As it also appeared from our other posts, we are

generally in agreement on all but the part needing

emphasis in the coverage...;-)

> and is akin to

>>people assuming that we only see in red (by convention in

>>our images, and by learning), and therefore images with many

>>colors in them are "distorted"...;-) (This may be strictly

>>true, perhaps, but it is "uninformed" - and I think it is

>>desirable to dispel ignorance, when possible...;-)

>How do we 'only see in red'?

>Regards,

>Lewis

It was an assumption, for an example, as valid as the

assumption that we see in rectangular perspective - while

both may be incorrect, one can be used to make a point

about the other...;-) The red assumption is obviously incorrect;

the rectangular-perspective assumption is less obviously

incorrect, which is what I was trying to get at...;-)