"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht
> news:4dc2eece$1@news.povray.org...
> > In my understanding, the "uncanny valey" apply almost uniquely to the
> > rendering of human and animal figures. Our brain is made to recognise
> > natural things. When you reproduce a face, it's OK if the face is
> > stylised, abstracted, exagerated or obviously non-human.
> > If that face is to good to pass as stylised or exagerated, but not quite
> > good enough, you feel uneasy.
>
> This is why I feel there is so much UV in the real world today....  :-)
>
> Thomas

I don't think, that the UV-Problem applies only to human or animal figures. It
applies to all the things in our perception, but not in the same amount. It
applies to grasses, to glasses, to ceramic pots. Look through the old
IRTC-entries for pleasing and annoying examples. If we recognize a thing (every
thing) as real or as an obvious model, we accept it, as real or as a model. If
we recognize it as a bad model, we reject it. That's the "Uncanny Valley". It
applies to humans, to apples, to screws or whatever we know in our everyday
life. It's a psychological issue, not a mathematical one. As a mathematician, I
have my problems to understand it really, but you cannot constrain it to human
or animal figures only.

Regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message