Return to buzzcut.com

This page was saved using WebZIP 7.0.3.1030 offline browser (Unregistered) on 04/01/07 5:37:59 PM.
Address: http://www.buzzcut.com/article.php?story=2005031721510046
Title: buzzcut.com - Mirror, Mirror  •  Size: 86307

   buzzcut logo
Advanced
Welcome to buzzcut.com
Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 10:27 PM UTC
     Sections   
Home
Areas of Interest
Game Theory
Notable Quotes
Newsletter
Games and Society
Critical Writing
Books and Articles
Critical Elements
Bibliography
General News

     Email Alerts   
Alert me to site updates--new articles, posts of notes and anything else making a trip back to buzzcut memorable.
Email:
Privacy policy: we will not share your name and email address with any 3rd party without your consent.

     What's New   
STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 2 wks
No new comments

LINKS last 2 wks
No recent new links

     User Functions   
Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

     Events   
There are no upcoming events

     Older Stories   
Friday 03-Mar
  • EA's "Black" opens like a film. So why doesn't it feel like one? (16)

  • Thursday 02-Mar
  • Considering Gravity (7)

  • Monday 13-Feb
  • The Medium Is Not The Message (21)

  • Thursday 19-Jan
  • All Your Readers Belong To Us (10)

  • Friday 13-Jan
  • Censorless Violence (12)

  • Tuesday 10-Jan
  • Disneyfied (Disney Fried?) (20)

  • Friday 30-Dec
  • The Escape from Xmas (14)
  • Videogames: Closing the Annoying Gap (24)

  • Tuesday 15-Nov
  • Gerbils (19)

  • Thursday 13-Oct
  • Suddenly Serious about Games (12)


  •    Mirror, Mirror  
     
    Thursday, March 17 2005 @ 09:51 PM UTC
    Contributed by: David

    All the conversation about “photorealistic” graphics and the immersive qualities of such a thing seems to miss one obvious point. We already have a perfect, real time, interactive, 3-D representation of the world presented on a 2-D surface. It’s called a mirror.




    This isn’t quite fair since a mirror doesn’t work like a computer monitor or painting on a canvas. A single object reflected in a mirror’s surface projects light in all directions from all over its surface per the physics of optics. And the nut of this is that your left and right eyes see slightly offset versions of the same object. This makes the mirror a true 3-D viewing surface no different than a window. Move to the side of the mirror and the image reflected changes. Try marching around a painting—what we see never changes.

    Because the mirror reflects the light in the environment in a very structured manner, the fidelity of visual information coming off its surface is very close to the fidelity of the visual information in the real world itself. So, it seems fair to say the mirror is the standard of visual immersion in planar displays. Fair?

    So know let’s ask the hard question—is a mirror immersive?

    In terms of our loose usage of the term, sure, it’s immersive. We look in the mirror and see “ourselves”. We take what we see in the mirror as real.

    But using the notion of the Turing Event, is the mirror immersive? Maybe. In some contexts it seems easier to argue than others. Magicians have used mirrors (well, that and smoke) to fool people into believing that one thing is somewhere else. So, in limited, controlled circumstances, I think that a mirror creeps closer to the event horizon of a Turing Event than anything else I can think of off the top of my head. But just looking into a mirror, do you really feel that you could reach through? Can you touch the person as you stare at yourself in the looking glass? Even dogs and small children generally seem to have a grasp on this one.

    A little exploration and the magician’s secret is revealed. The mirror is separated from reality and we don’t have any confusion about which is which.

    So is a mirror immersive? Can a videogame played on a 2-D surface ever be immersive?






     
             


    Mirror, Mirror | 27 comments | Create New Account
    The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
    Mirror, Mirror
    Authored by: zach on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 04:38 AM UTC
    I'm not sure I agree about mirrors being a simulation, but a mirror as a Turing Event is, I think, a good example of why the term breaks down on close analysis. Basically, you're positioning the perceiving thing and the thing being perceived in a situation that a priori assumes an independent reality of each, which is precisely what the Turing Event supposedly undercuts through its subversion of phenomenology.

    More generally, if a mirror offers us a Turing Event, then do my glasses? I usually forget I'm wearing them, and they certainly deliver a distorted view of reality, so aren't they tricking me into a disorienting suspension of whether what I'm seeing is "really" there or is just a "corrected" projection of it? What about my retinas? They turn light into chemical signals that my brain somehow understands as visual information, but those signals aren't "really" reality. They're a simulation of reality that lives somewhere between me and whatever is "out there."

    I really don't mean to belabor this point, but I think it's important to be extremely careful when proposing new terms when there are already plenty of good ones out there. However problematic they may be, they at least offer a starting point. The real test of "Turing Event" will be, of course, if people start using it. Despite its potential problems, I actually like the way that it locates "immersion" (or whatever) in a single moment as opposed to a general "we weren't immersed a minute ago but now we are."
    [ Reply to This ]
    Mirror, Mirror
    Authored by: CapCom on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 05:37 AM UTC
    This brings up an important point: say we DID have a videogame with graphics that looked like what we see in a mirror. Would we be satisfied with the game? Is what we really want something that looks like a movie or the face in the mirror?

    Of course, it's not going to be the graphics that make the game, though they certainly might sell it - there are certainly other elements that would make the game satisfying. But say Legend of Zelda had reality-quality graphics. Would this make the game more immersive than if it had, say Ocarina of Time-quality graphics or even Gamecube Zelda graphics?

    David posed a similar question awhile back by comparing different Zelda tunes from the NES days to orchestrated soundtracks and asking which sounded like 'real music' and why. Do we need it to sound real or look real to be immersed, or how realistic does it need to be? How immersed can we get playing a game like Super Mario Bros. or Pac Man and would better graphics or sound improve the experience any?

    Of course, when we find out how to make photo-realistic graphics, chances are not every game will use them. There would still be games with stylistic graphics such as cel shading and others would try for 'hyper-realism' where the image looks more 'real' than it should and is almost dreamlike. And even if they did all use photo-realistic graphics, there would still be plenty of variety: just look at film and the wide variety of sets and designs possible.

    As for immersion on a 2D surface, I would have to say a first-person game would probably be more immersive than a third person game because the barrier between player and character is broken - we see through the eyes of the character, so we are more in their shoes than if we are looking down on the character in third person. Of course, larger playing screens can help break the barrier as well, as anyone who has been to an Imax film knows - the large screen fills the vision and makes us think we are inside the world on the screen. So when an airplane flies, we feel as if we are in the airplane, too. New forms of feedback devices could also help 'make us feel like we're really there' (maybe a pressure-sensitive chair or even a chair that warms up or cools down depending on the temperature on the screen - I remember one commercial where the guy was playing a flight sim and had a fan in his room to simulate the rush of air). And just with a book or movie, we don't need to be in a virtual reality suit to be immersed, or at least engrossed in the game.

    If we want total immersion though, we are going to have to trick all the senses into believing something is real. The more senses that are tricked, or the better they are decieved, the closer you would be to a Turing Event. If it looks like chicken, smells like chicken, feels like chicken, sounds like chicken, and tastes like chicken, well, it must be chicken.

    Or is it?

    ---
    "Until next time..."
    Captain Commando
    [ Reply to This ]
  • Mirror, Mirror - Authored by: robbdn on Saturday, March 19 2005 @ 12:15 AM UTC
  • Mirror, Mirror
    Authored by: C. Foust on Sunday, March 20 2005 @ 05:52 AM UTC

    Think of that moment when you walk into a room which has a full-length mirror on one wall and you are fooled into thinking the room is twice as big as it really is. The most prehistoric part of your brain sees a pattern of light and dark and perceives space. If this moment is analogous to immersion, then the analog to the immersion-breaking moment is when you realize that that funny looking person staring back you is really your reflection.

    Immersion happens automatically. It's only when you see something that contradicts your reality (like a copy of your world contained in a piece of glass) that the illusion is broken.

    [ Reply to This ]
  • Mirror, Mirror - Authored by: wai_xing_ren on Sunday, July 03 2005 @ 05:59 AM UTC
  • Mirror, Mirror
    Authored by: eben on Thursday, April 07 2005 @ 12:43 AM UTC
    Here's a little anectode about mirrors.

    As a child I used to enjoy playing a game, (or if not a game at least playing) with the small, handheld mirror from our bathroom in which I held it beneath one of my eyes and covered the other, until the room appeared to be inverted, and then pretend to walk around on the ceiling. Its actually still a fun thing to every once in a while, and you should try at home yourself.
    In this case, regarding a mirror's 'immersiveness' the mirror is used horizontally like a little pool that your eye goes swimming in.
    And of course, I can't resist alluding to McLuhan's revival of the myth of Narcissus in the context of electric media, but I'll leave that to his books.

    [ Reply to This ]
    the illusion
    Authored by: clara on Thursday, April 14 2005 @ 12:26 PM UTC
    Aren't mirrors a distortion of actual reality? Like the tarot card The Moon warns about,

    viewing reality in a mirror is seeing it flipped around - to view it as it would look takes a photograph or moving film, or video.

    Viewing yourself in a mirror is not the way you look to other people, this is to do with facial symmetry - the two sides of the face ( axis taken from forehead to chin ) are not the same as each other.

    When you look in a mirror, the left side of your face is on the left side of the mirror ; now, imagine that you were to turn around 180 so that you are 'matched' with your reflection as it was when you faced the mirror - the left side of your face is on the right side now, the right side of the mirror in terms of if you are looking into it.

    [ Reply to This ]
  • the illusion - Authored by: David on Friday, April 15 2005 @ 03:35 PM UTC
  • the illusion - Authored by: eben on Sunday, April 17 2005 @ 02:53 AM UTC
  • Mirror, Mirror
    Authored by: wai_xing_ren on Wednesday, July 06 2005 @ 10:56 AM UTC
    I was just reading about steroscopic 3D and came across a discussion on using Flash to create web graphics with a subtle 3D effect. The example provided is shaky, but it does give a sense of dimensionality.

    http://wiggle.sourceforge.net/

    Wouldn't it be great to employ something like this in games? It would have to be subtle, more a dream-like haze than an attempt at true 3D, but this could lend a hyperrealistic feel to videogame graphics.

    The great advantage of using this in a game engine is that the cameras exist only in code, eliminating the need to precisely align the cameras, align the images, and so on. The effect, if applied selectively, say, on trees or grass in the distant background, or on particle effects, could impart a hyperrealistic dream-like haze to the gameworld, without being too distracting. It would at least be more effective than light bloom.
    [ Reply to This ]
         What's Related   
  • More by David
  • More from Areas of Interest

  •      Story Options   
  • Mail Story to a Friend
  • Printable Story Format


  •  : site-index : Copyright © 2007 buzzcut.com
     All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Powered By Geeklog 
    Assimilated by Aeonserv 
    Created this page in 0.49 seconds