|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|  |
| |
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?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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."