; PQOh+'0HP
$TU Delft Repository search results0TU Delft Repository search results (max. 1000)TU Delft LibraryTU Delft Library@^ٸW=@^ٸW=՜.+,0HPX`hp
x
WorksheetFeuilles de calcul
B=%r8X"1Calibri1Calibri1Calibri1
Calibri 83ffff̙̙3f3fff3f3f33333f33333.^?TU Delft Repositoryg =uuidrepository linktitleauthorcontributorpublication yearabstract
subject topiclanguagepublication type publisherisbnissnpatent
patent statusbibliographic noteaccess restrictionembargo datefaculty
departmentresearch group programmeprojectcoordinates)uuid:996d16739dce4c199882b17a5fb6d491Dhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:996d16739dce4c199882b17a5fb6d4912Interaction of depth probes and style of depiction@Van Doorn, A.J.; Koenderink, J.J.; Leyssen, M.H.R.; Wagemans, J.We study the effect of stylistic differences on the nature of pictorial spaces as they appear to an observer when looking into a picture. Four pictures chosen from diverse styles of depiction were studied by 2 different methods. Each method addresses pictorial depth but draws on a different bouquet of depth cues. We find that the depth structures are very similar for 8 observers, apart from an idiosyncratic depth scaling (up to a factor of 3). The differences between observers generalize over (very different) pictures and (very different) methods. They are apparently characteristic of the person. The differences between depths as sampled by the 2 methods depend upon the style of the picture. This is the case for all observers except one.jdepth perception; picture perception; art perception; pictorial space; artistic style; natural perspectiveenjournal articlePionIndustrial Design EngineeringIndustrial Design)uuid:af78b7a2f8b3465987b7709a9a8fb33eDhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:af78b7a2f8b3465987b7709a9a8fb33eSpace perception in pictures>Van Doorn, A.J.; Wagemans, J.; De Ridder, H.; Koenderink, J.J.A "picture" is a at object covered with pigments in a certain pattern. Human observers, when looking "into" a picture (photograph, painting, drawing, . . . say) often report to experience a three dimensional "pictorial space." This space is a mental entity, apparently triggered by so called pictorial cues. The latter are substructures of color patterns that are preconsciously designated by the observer as "cues," and that are often considered to play a crucial role in the construction of pictorial space. In the case of the visual arts these structures are often introduced by the artist with the intention to trigger certain experiences in prospective viewers, whereas in the case of photographs the intentionality is limited to the viewer. We have explored various methods to operationalize geometrical properties, typically relative to some observer perspective. Here "perspective" is to be understood in a very general, not necessarily geometric sense, akin to Gombrich's "beholder's share". Examples include pictorial depth, either in a metrical, or a mere ordinal sense. We find that different observers tend to agree remarkably well on ordinal relations, but show dramatic differences in metrical relations.Ivision; picture perception; pictorial space; depth cues; beholder's shareconference paperSPIE)uuid:33c398ee2d54409abed2bacdb2909e04Dhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:33c398ee2d54409abed2bacdb2909e04Pictorial depth probed through relative sizes/Wagemans, J.; Van Doorn, A.J.; Koenderink, J.J.In the physical environment familiar size is an effective depth cue because the distance from the eye to an object equals the ratio of its physical size to its angular extent in the visual field. Such simple geometrical relations do not apply to pictorial space, since the eye itself is not in pictorial space, and consequently the notion distance from the eye is meaningless. Nevertheless, relative size in the picture plane is often used by visual artists to suggest depth differences. The depth domain has no natural origin, nor a natural unit; thus only ratios of depth differences could have an invariant significance. We investigate whether the pictorial relative size cue yields coherent depth structures in pictorial spaces. Specifically, we measure the depth differences for all pairs of points in a 20 point configuration in pictorial space, and we account for these observations through 19 independent parameters (the dep<fths of the points modulo an arbitrary offset), with no meaningful residuals. We discuss a simple formal framework that allows one to handle individual differences. We also compare the depth scale obtained by way of this method with depth scales obtained in totally different ways, finding generally good agreement.Tdepth perception, space perception, picture perception, pictorial depth, depth orderDesign Engineering)uuid:1cbf69386dd34016aa8647755450ff69Dhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:1cbf69386dd34016aa8647755450ff69%Rank order scaling of pictorial depth+Van Doorn, A.; Koenderink, J.; Wagemans, J.We address the topic of pictorial depth in cases of pictures that are unlike photographic renderings. The most basic measure of depth is no doubt that of depth order. We establish depth order through the pairwise depthcomparison method, involving all pairs from a set of 49 fiducial points. The pictorial space for this study was evoked by a capriccio (imaginary landscape) by Francesco Guardi (1712 1793). In such a drawing pictorial space is suggested by the artist through a small set of conventional depth cues. As a result typical Western observers tend to agree largely in their visual awareness when looking at such art. We rank depths for locations that are not on a single surface and far apart in pictorial space. We find that observers resolve about 40 distinct depth layers and agree largely in this. From a previous experiment we have metrical data for the same observers. The rank correlations between the results are high. Perhaps surprisingly, we find no correlation between the number of distinct depth layers and the total metrical depth range. Thus, the relation between subjective magnitude and discrimination threshold fails to hold for pictorial depth.Apictorial depth, depth order, pictorial space, picture perception)uuid:c7ed5c8ed6d243859903f1722854f5f6Dhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:c7ed5c8ed6d243859903f1722854f5f64Measuring 3D point configurations in pictorial spacejWe propose a novel method to probe the depth structure of the pictorial space evoked by paintings. The method involves an exocentric pointing paradigm that allows one to find the slope of the geodesic connection between any pair of points in pictorial space. Since the locations of the points in the picture plane are known, this immediately yields the depth difference between the points. A set of depth differences between all pairs of points from an Npoint (N > 2) configuration then yields the configuration in depth up to an arbitrary depth offset. Since an Npoint configuration implies N(N_1) (ordered) pairs, the number of observations typically far exceeds the number of inferred depths. This yields a powerful check on the geometrical consistency of the results. We report that the remaining inconsistencies are fully accounted for by the spread encountered in repeated observations. This implies that the concept of 'pictorial space' indeed has an empirical significance. The method is analyzed and empirically verified in considerable detail. We report large quantitative interobserver differences, though the results of all observers agree modulo a certain affine transformation that describes the basic cue ambiguities. This is expected on the basis of a formal analysis of monocular optical structure. The method will prove useful in a variety of potential applications.[depth perception, distance perception, art perception, visual space, visual field, geometry
*+&ffffff?'ffffff?(?)?"dXX333333?333333?U}}}}}}}}}} }
}}}
}}}}}}}}}}}}
p@
!
"
#
$
%
&l@
'
(
)
*
!
"
+
,

.l@
/
0
!
1
2
3
4
5l@
6
7
!
1
8
9
:
.l@
;
<
!
"
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~>@ddyKyKhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:996d16739dce4c199882b17a5fb6d491yKyKhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:af78b7a2f8b3465987b7709a9a8fb33eyKyKhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:33c398ee2d54409abed2bacdb2909e04yKyKhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:1cbf69386dd34016aa8647755450ff69yKyKhttp://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:c7ed5c8ed6d243859903f1722854f5f6gg
Root Entry FqW=qW=@SummaryInformation( F<Workbook FDocumentSummaryInformation8 F
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO