Weeeiirrrrdddd!

http://www.grand-illusions.com/optic...ngry_and_calm/

--riverman

Interesting. I had to get out of my chair to get far enough away for
the effect, but it *is* weird.

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:
Interesting. I had to get out of my chair to get far enough away for
the effect, but it *is* weird.

If you put on your reading glasses, you don't have to back away so far.

(at least I didn't.)

riverman wrote

ref to optical illusion

Cool. The best part is it's a whole lot easier to get the illusion than
with those "noisy" pics that have a hidden 3-d image. I had to work on one
of those for several hours before I got it. (then I was cross eyed for a
week!!!)
--

-dnc-

Wolfgang wrote:

If you look at the screen from some other angle, rather than straight on,
the effect also occurs at a shorter range. The more oblique the angle, the
shorter the required distance.


I couldn't get see the effect on my laptop, until I tried squinting and
it worked. Interesting.

"Fiddleaway" wrote in message
news:01c64f92$f5237900$c2ff1345@micron...
riverman wrote

ref to optical illusion

Cool. The best part is it's a whole lot easier to get the illusion than
with those "noisy" pics that have a hidden 3-d image. I had to work on
one
of those for several hours before I got it. (then I was cross eyed for a
week!!!



Thanks for the laugh....

still chuckling....

you really had "several hours" to stare at patterns on paper?

Some times think I'm not living right...

"Gary M" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

If you look at the screen from some other angle, rather than straight on,
the effect also occurs at a shorter range. The more oblique the angle,
the shorter the required distance.


I couldn't get see the effect on my laptop, until I tried squinting and it
worked. Interesting.

Very interesting. Neither effect, I think, is adequately covered by the
explanation offered. Also interesting, though I have no idea of its
significance, is that the explanation makes mention of an angry "man." At
first glance I didn't even take note of that. Both photos....well, both
composites, to be more precise.....are clearly men.....um.....or are they?
Focus your gaze on the upper lip of the calm man and there's little doubt
left by the overall effect of the mouth, nose and chin. He even looks a bit
familiar. Shift upward and the nose, eyes, smooth forehead and fine line
eyebrows strongly suggest a woman. It turns out to be a very androgynous
figure. The angry man, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be nearly as
ambiguous......well, at first. Imagine a tall conical hat on him, and
you've got a fair police sketch artist's rendering of the Wicked Witch of
the West. And then, to top it all off, when you back away (or squint....or
view from an angle), the figure on the right clearly becomes unambiguously
masculine while the one on the left is undoubtedly a woman.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"JR" wrote in message
...
rb608 wrote:
Interesting. I had to get out of my chair to get far enough away for
the effect, but it *is* weird.

If you put on your reading glasses, you don't have to back away so far.

(at least I didn't.)

If you look at the screen from some other angle, rather than straight on,
the effect also occurs at a shorter range. The more oblique the angle,
the shorter the required distance.


Agreed. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the details of the fine lines. Up
close, we let the lines determine what we perceive, but at a distance we
lose the fine lines and let the general shading do it. The left image has
the shading of a calm person (wide eyebrows, flat mouth) while the right
image has the shading of an angry person (narrow eyebrows, lowered mouth in
a grimace). The role of the eyes in the right image is rather interesting.

At an oblique angle, my laptop screen doesn't show the fine lines so well,
so I see the general shading.

This effect completely explains how a good haircut, makeup and clothes can
makes someone old like Mick Jagger seem so young onstage.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message ...

...At an oblique angle, my laptop screen doesn't show the fine lines so
well, so I see the general shading.

This effect completely explains how a good haircut, makeup and clothes can
makes someone old like Mick Jagger seem so young onstage.

Young, yes, but it's the underlying bone structure that makes him pretty.


Wolfgang

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:17:59 -0500, Gary M
wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:

If you look at the screen from some other angle, rather than straight on,
the effect also occurs at a shorter range. The more oblique the angle, the
shorter the required distance.


I couldn't get see the effect on my laptop, until I tried squinting and
it worked. Interesting.


Best I could do was partial effect. By the time I get far enough away
for the effect, my near-sightedness comes into play. But just before
they both become vague blurs, I could see the angry face change to
something differently ugly and the calm face start to become the angry
face. Angle didn't seem to make any difference for me, just distance.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
Really.