The Perception of Motion Pictures

Hochberg, Julian; Brooks, Virginia

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-161910-7.50017-5

Cited by 35 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the paradox is compounded in cinema (Hochberg & Brooks, 1978), a term used for both television and film. In fact, the paradox is sufficiently profound that I consider it the most important problem in cinema perception.…”

Section: The Central Problem In the Perception Of Cinemamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigidity in cinema seen from the front row, side aisle.

Cutting¹

1987

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

107

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pictures and cinema seen at a slant present the optics of virtual objects that are distorted and inconsistent with their real counterparts. In particular, it should not be possible for moving objects on slanted film and television screens to be seen as rigid, at least according to rules of linear perspective. Previous approaches to this problem have suggested that some process (perhaps cognitive) rectifies the optics of objects in slanted pictures to derive true shape and preserve shape constancy. The means for this rectification is usually thought to be based on recovery of true screen slant. In three experiments I show that this account is unnecessary and insufficient to explain the perception of rotating, rectangular objects in slanted cinema. I present data in favor of an alternate view, one in which the information is sufficient for perceivers to determine rigidity in an object on slanted screens, at least for parallel projections. In the human visual system, local measurements of objects are apparently made according to protective geometry, in those measurements, small amounts of certain distortions in projection are tolerated. Stimuli that appear nonrigid are ones that violate certain local principles, known as Perkins's laws, of projections of rectangular solids.Eye position is not fixed when one looks at a photograph or painting. A puzzle arises from this fact: Linear perspective, the means of representation in photos and in many works of art, is mathematically correct for only one viewpoint. I call this point the composition point; it is the point from which a photograph was taken (the perpendicular distance from the center of the photograph derived by multiplying the focal length of the lens by the degree of enlargement) or the point from which a linear perspective picture was composed according to the rules of GiambattistaAlberti(e.g., White, 1957).Fortunately, picture viewing is not limited to the composition point. In fact, a large number of positions in front of a picture will serve as reasonable viewpoints, will preserve object identity, and will allow layout within the picture to appear relatively normal. Preservation of phenomenal identity and phenomenal shape of objects in slanted pictures is fortunate, for without them the utility of pictures would be vanishingly small. Nevertheless, both are unpredicted by any theoretical application of linear perspective, and the second of these-the relatively unnoticed distortions in slanted pictures and cinema-is the focus of this article.The puzzle of unnoticed distortions in slanted images was first addressed by La Gournerie in 1859 (Pirenne, 1970);' hence

show abstract

Section: The Central Problem In the Perception Of Cinemamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigidity in cinema seen from the front row, side aisle.

Cutting¹

1987

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

107

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Work in information extraction from film and other dual media presentations, such as pictures and words, has been done by many authors, including Baker and Popham (1965); Dwyer (1968); Hochberg (1978); May and Lumsdaine (1958); Olson (1974);Peeck (1974); and Salomon (1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Encoding and Retaining Information in the Visuals and Verbals of an Educational Movie

Baggett¹,

Ehrenfeucht²

1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In a recent, thorough review of evidence for mechanisms proposed to explain visual processing of real and apparent motion, Nakayama (1985) evaluates the thesis that motion perception requires memory or persistence of position information over time (Dimmick and Karl, 1930;Kinchla and Allan, 1969): 'It is likely that the appreciation of motion as a fundamental sense was retarded by these alternative interpretations. Mounting evidence, accumulated over the past century and tft^miallv of late, however, leaves no doubt that motion is indeed a fundamental visual After reading Hochberg and Brooks (1978), what he called the only serious account of motion picture perception, Gibson (1979) expressed the ecological psychology thesis that runs counter to both the Helmholtzian and the equivalence thesis as follows:…”

Section: Dimensions Of Event Perception 371mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still more recently, as notable of a figure in perceptual psychology as Hochberg (1987) still gamely expressed support for the equivalence thesis, although certain notable differences were duly recognized (Hochberg and Brooks, 1978):…”

Section: Dimensions Of Event Perception 371mentioning

confidence: 99%