Front, or Back?

[xhaan]

Which one do you think is the front, and which do you think is the back? State how you reach your conclusion.

Measurments are in px. Margin of error is 0-1px aprox.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Bear Warp]

I truly cannot decide. I typed up a paragraph about how the feet were my deciding factor in finding a conclusion (which was A front, B back), but after one last look, I wondered, what If the dancer is spinning on her heel? Then, my whole spiel became null and void. So, my conclusion is that..... I cannot come to a conclusion.

[DeepPurple]

I think A is the front. Her body looks more natural. The second picture the girl's left foot makes it look like she's stepping back and A looks like she's coming forward.

[xhaan]

I truly cannot decide. I typed up a paragraph about how the feet were my deciding factor in finding a conclusion (which was A front, B back), but after one last look, I wondered, what If the dancer is spinning on her heel? Then, my whole spiel became null and void. So, my conclusion is that..... I cannot come to a conclusion.

Forget about that spinning test, and try not to compare the two images, at least until you suspect one or another.

[Solaris]

A is back, B is front.

[xhaan]

A is back, B is front.
And how did you get that? ;D

Here is my perception:
She is obviously a human figure (duh).
Whether or not in A her foot is forward or not, depends on how 'close' or 'far' she is, it also depends on the height of your eye level, which is obviously not extremely low or extremely high, but seems to be from a 'standing' eye level. She is also not extremely close (you can see all of her at a 'glance') and obviously not extremely far away (unless she is a giant). Also, in A, whether her foot is in front or behind depends on how high it is raised in relation to her distance from you. The closer she is, the higher it 'needs to be'.
I suspect, based on what would be 'comfortable' for an average person (who is not super flexible) that my eye level would be around her eye level or slightly lower, that she is about six of her arm lengths away, and has her foot raised to her front, to just below the knee level of her other leg (towards us, which would make A the front) This is also based on how the angle of her foot relates to the angle of her leg.

Using these assumptions on the B image, also supports this perception.

[HarleyQuinn]

Reading Deep Purple's comment has been a blessing and a curse, heh.

My conclusion...

A = Front
B = Back

A is the front because the figure appears to be stepping forward but the body posture feels off because it's like she's leaning to her right to offset the fact that she is stepping on the next "stair" with her left foot.

B is the back behind the lifting of the right foot is too high for it to be a natural step forward with the left foot unless she were stepping over an object with her left but it's (to me) pretty clear she's stepping up with her right foot. She also seems more balanced, if not slightly favoring the right.

[ScottH]

My conclusion:
A = Front
B = Back

The measurements, when applied to assumptions based upon normal human proportions, would give us an approximation of eye level (and angle, and perhaps even distance for that matter). I have forgotten those proportions, but as they appear normal, I assumed my eye was either near midline of her body, or it was higher and she was farther away.

From that, I conclude that if she is standing with heels and toes on the ground, the front image should have toes closer (lower) than the heal. Picture A has this characteristic, hence I call i front. The same logic aplies to back (B), where the toes are farther (and hence higher).

[Firelie]

A could be either front or back, but I only see B as being the back, because the left foot looks like you're viewing the foot from the heel forward.

Something like this: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[xhaan]

A could be either front or back, but I only see B as being the back, because the left foot looks like you're viewing the foot from the heel forward.

Something like this: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Good picture, and yes, this is true, good thinking. ;D :thumbsup:

If A were facing away, with the left foot pointing away, it would be at quite a low level possibly only inches off the ground, and the opposite face would get (appear in the image) even lower, lower than the standing foot even, when she turned around, not higher, unles she moved her leg. (that's my perception anyway)

[Hdier]

A: Front B: Back

I do not know how I reached that conclusion; B 'feels' like the back (and the knee seems to be pointed away; I'm not sure why) and A 'feels' like the front (though the knee doesn't seem to be pointing in a particular direction).

[xhaan]

A: Front B: Back
(and the knee seems to be pointed away; I'm not sure why)

Probably because sub consciously you perceive from the perspective, in B, if her foot appears that high and was pointing toward you, her leg would be raised higher and the foot (and knee) would be closer to you, and more foreshortened.

[Tsuru]

My first impression was that A was the front because "B's" hands had a back-facing perspective. It will be interesting to read others' reasons. :)

[Bear Warp]

Forget about that spinning test, and try not to compare the two images, at least until you suspect one or another.

I should have been more descriptive. But it was late, wanted to go to bed, blah blah blah...

Anyway....at first glance I'd say picture A is a frontal view. Why? Because the dancer's feet (in picture A) look a little triangular, which is what feet like from the front. Triangular. So, if picture A is a frontal view, then picture B must be a rear view. At a glance, yes. But, to me, the foot on the left in picture B can be seen as a frontal view of a foot and a rear view of a foot (frontal being the dancer standing on her right heel and rear being the dancer standing on her left toes). This is the cause of my indecision.

Am I making sense? I feel like I'm rambling and nitpicking, but, I can't help but do things like that when I'm trying to make a point.

[ssfanatic]

I taken this quiz before. It tells whether you are right or left brained. if you think the left is the front you are left brained, and vice-versa.
But a is obviously the front.

[xhaan]

I should have been more descriptive. But it was late, wanted to go to bed, blah blah blah...

Anyway....at first glance I'd say picture A is a frontal view. Why? Because the dancer's feet (in picture A) look a little triangular, which is what feet like from the front. Triangular. So, if picture A is a frontal view, then picture B must be a rear view. At a glance, yes. But, to me, the foot on the left in picture B can be seen as a frontal view of a foot and a rear view of a foot (frontal being the dancer standing on her right heel and rear being the dancer standing on her left toes). This is the cause of my indecision.

Am I making sense? I feel like I'm rambling and nitpicking, but, I can't help but do things like that when I'm trying to make a point.

You are correct, it can be both (and I'd totally agree with you) except that if B were the front, that would make the foreshortening incorrect.

Not that you have to be right or wrong, I'm just looking for how peoples' minds work.

[Solaris]

And how did you get that? ;D

Here is my perception:
She is obviously a human figure (duh).
Whether or not in A her foot is forward or not, depends on how 'close' or 'far' she is, it also depends on the height of your eye level, which is obviously not extremely low or extremely high, but seems to be from a 'standing' eye level. She is also not extremely close (you can see all of her at a 'glance') and obviously not extremely far away (unless she is a giant). Also, in A, whether her foot is in front or behind depends on how high it is raised in relation to her distance from you. The closer she is, the higher it 'needs to be'.
I suspect, based on what would be 'comfortable' for an average person (who is not super flexible) that my eye level would be around her eye level or slightly lower, that she is about six of her arm lengths away, and has her foot raised to her front, to just below the knee level of her other leg (towards us, which would make A the front) This is also based on how the angle of her foot relates to the angle of her leg.

Using these assumptions on the B image, also supports this perception.

Well, first, I started comparing the two images (a seemingly natural inclination). Then, realized that I would/could keep finding things to support any reasoning by this method -- in other words, it wasn't an effective method, so I changed tactics. Like others, I focused in on the feet, as the hands were no help. Based on my perception of the shape of the shadow in comparison to the feet, I made my choice. I didn't use the measurements at all in my consideration actually. I had started to, but didn't find it helpful to me. As a martial artist, I'm programmed more to evaluate body positioning than the average person, maybe that's why I went with the method I did. I can't say for sure.

[xhaan]

Well, first, I started comparing the two images (a seemingly natural inclination). Then, realized that I would/could keep finding things to support any reasoning by this method -- in other words, it wasn't an effective method, so I changed tactics. Like others, I focused in on the feet, as the hands were no help. Based on my perception of the shape of the shadow in comparison to the feet, I made my choice. I didn't use the measurements at all in my consideration actually. I had started to, but didn't find it helpful to me. As a martial artist, I'm programmed more to evaluate body positioning than the average person, maybe that's why I went with the method I did. I can't say for sure.

Try this: stand in front of a mirror, and try to duplicate each position simultaneously. i.e. the foot is at the same "physical" height in the front and back image, but one will look lower, and one will look higher, unless you change your body positions.

Also, the measurements help show that she is standing pretty well straight up, i.e. she is not leaning very far forward or backward on her 'standing foot'.

[Pkz]

That is harder with the rotating GIF version, haha.

A looks like it faces forward mostly, and B backwards.

[xhaan]

That is harder with the rotating GIF version, haha.

A looks like it faces forward mostly, and B backwards.

Yup, the problem with that gif is there actually IS a front and back view, so it will be biased to right brained thinking because the right brain will pick up on that (spatial awareness).

If the B frame is the back, then she MUST be going clockwise.
I still think this is a 3D model with zero surface lighting, either that, or someone was incredibly good at drawing frame transitions.

[stasis]

Heh, xhaan. This has really taken you, hasn't it? Again, in being a two-dimensional object, there is no objective depth to it. The assumption people make about which direction the figure is 'facing' in the screenshot above would be arbitrary, for the same reason that the assumption made about which direction the dancer 'spins' in the animated version (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is arbitrary. Why so determined to find a way around that fact?



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Did you know that Square A and Square B above are actually the exact same shade of gray, despite that you're probably conceptualizing them as being rather different?

[1OFMANY]

They are both back..the one on the left is obvious. The one on the right HAS to be back to be correct because of the heel spin..if it was front it wouldn't be anatomically correct.

EDIT: I would like to see you prove they are the same shade of grey. I just chopped the squares and put them side by side apart from the pic. Looks fake...I think its a scam. :)

EDIT 2 : OK..i isolated the colors and removed the letters inside. They are indeed the same color of grey!! well I'll be :P

[xhaan]

Heh, xhaan. This has really taken you, hasn't it? Again, in being a two-dimensional object, there is no objective depth to it. The assumption people make about which direction the figure is 'facing' in the screenshot above would be arbitrary, for the same reason that the assumption made about which direction the dancer 'spins' in the animated version (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is arbitrary. Why so determined to find a way around that fact?

Did you know that Square A and Square B above are actually the exact same shade of gray, despite that you're probably conceptualizing them as being rather different?


Yes, but that is a different form of illusion. I've seen it innumerable times.

If it is a 3D model, it has virtual depth, regardless of whether you perceive that depth or not. Light reflection and eye anatomy follow very specific rules, which is why foreshortening works, it duplicates specific ray angles which translate into perceived depth, it matches the same angles you would see on a 3D object from a specific viewpoint. Provided that the proportions are correct, and that you are viewing it from the intended perspective, the only way you can really tell the difference between something 3D and something 2D is its surrounding context, and the fact that you can perceive that the light rays are coming from the same, flat surface, but translating into the illusion of depth. Depth perception is just as much a subjective mechanic even if you are looking at something 3D.

[stasis]

Depth perception is just as much a subjective mechanic even if you are looking at something 3D.
Depth is a physical property of space. Our perception of it is selective indeed, but you seem to be missing the point. I can not understand why you are repeatedly chopping this image up and adding illustrative bits to it (which also bias) and reformatting it over and over again to somehow 'prove' that the perception of clockwise rotation is more correct than the perception of counterclockwise rotation when, in reality, it does not rotate, is objectively flat, is designed to be depth-neutral and succeeds in being so. It's almost as if you can't accept the purely assumptive nature of your perception of the object, which is why I linked the image above.

[xhaan]

Depth is a physical property of space. Our perception of it is selective indeed, but you seem to be missing the point. I can not understand why you are repeatedly chopping this image up and adding illustrative bits to it (which also bias) and reformatting it over and over again to somehow 'prove' that the perception of clockwise rotation is more correct than the perception of counterclockwise rotation when, in reality, it does not rotate, is objectively flat, is designed to be depth-neutral and succeeds in being so. It's almost as if you can't accept the purely assumptive nature of your perception of the object, which is why I linked the image above.

No, I'm trying to say the reality of it is irrelevant, because both are percieved by specific subjective mechanics.

Depth is a physical property of space, but you can replicate the EXACT, yes EXACT! perception of these properties, virtually. So whether it is 'real' or not, isn't the point whatsoever.

[stasis]

No, I'm trying to say the reality of it is irrelevant, because both are percieved by specific subjective mechanics.

Depth is a physical property of space, but you can replicate the EXACT, yes EXACT! perception of these properties, virtually. So whether it is 'real' or not, isn't the point whatsoever.
Hrm. The point seems to be that you can't accept the arbitrary assumption implicit in your perception of the abstracted orientation of the object, and want to demonstrate by way of sophistic contorting across several (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) threads that it wasn't assumptive at all. I mean, don't get me wrong, it is an amusing issue to discuss and there's really nothing wrong with that. I like spatial problemsolving too. It's just that I don't understand why this particular object seems to perplex and preoccupy you so. This is pretty straightforward.

[xhaan]

Hrm. The point seems to be that you can't accept the arbitrary assumption implicit in your perception of the of the abstracted orientation of object, and want to demonstrate by way of sophistic contorting across several threads that it wasn't assumptive at all. I mean, don't get me wrong, it is an amusing issue to discuss and there's really nothing wrong with that. I like spatial problemsolving too. It's just that I don't understand why this particular object seems to perplex and preoccupy you so. This is pretty straightforward.

I'm not being assumptive, whatsoever, or contorting anything.
I am researching, and trying to figure out what other people think about it, and trying to think of ways to convert my intuitive knowledge into specific data. I'm preoccupied because I know there is a way, but I can't seem to communicate well enough to explain it.

You could do the exact same thing with the image of a physical mannequin, and mannequins are not vague, or flat. I'm trying to find out all the specific ways one can percieve which coincide with actual, physical laws. Yes, it is subjective. Yes, most of the frames appear to be vague. Yes, it does trick you into thinking it goes both ways, but if you assume that her body does not change positions or proportion, only one of those ways can be the 'correct' one, which in itself skews the test. It would have been done better if it were something more ambiguous.

[Jack]

What's the prize?..B is Back.

[stasis]

Yes, it does trick you into thinking it goes both ways, but if you assume that her body does not change positions or proportion, only one of those ways can be the 'correct' one, which in itself skews the test. It would have been done better if it were something more ambiguous.
It doesn't skew the test because which way is 'correct' depends entirely upon a depth-based assumption, and the depth of the object is nonexistent - both objectively and by design. It is meant to abstract neutral depth, but you want to believe it is somehow more than that. Which would be somewhat like my building a square box and your subsequently attempting to discover how round it really is. Sure, if you hold it at a specific angle, at a specific distance from the viewer, with specific bits covered up and specific bits exaggerated and certain sections highlighted and labeled left to right as being primary (A) or secondary (B), some people will be inclined to conclude that it's roundish. But I wouldn't exactly call that "research".

[xhaan]

It doesn't skew the test because which way is 'correct' depends entirely upon a depth-based assumption, and the depth of the image is nonexistent - both objectively and by design. It is meant to abstract neutral depth, but you want to believe it is somehow more than that. Which would be somewhat like my building a square box and your subsequently attempting to discover how round it really is. Sure, if you hold it at a specific angle, at a specific distance from the viewer, with specific bits covered up and specific bits exaggerated and certain sections highlighted and labeled left to right as being primary (A) or secondary (B), some people will be inclined to conclude that it's roundish. But I wouldn't exactly call that "research".

You're arguing for the sake of arguing now, and getting absurd. Boxes are square, not round. I'm not trying to change what it is.
And you're right, it is objectively not depth based by design, as a whole, because they intentionally mess with the depth perception itself.

Edit:
And yes, I said depth perception. She has no depth, I'm not trying to say otherwise.

[stasis]

You're arguing for the sake of arguing now, and getting absurd. Boxes are square, not round. I'm not trying to change what it is.
Nah. All I am saying is that by your (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) own admission (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) across each of these three threads on the subject, you are looking for skewing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and failings (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in the image which would externally support your assumption about what the object "must (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" abstract. Since both superficially contrary assumptions are supported by the object physically and by design, and neither is correct to the exclusion of the other, the premise underlying your search is invalid. And so I don't understand what's up with your specific interest in this example.

But if you are really attempting to collect data for the sake of acquiring a better understanding of trends in the assumption being made, contrary to what this seems to be all about, then you should probably remove all of the biasing marks and order-of-importance modifications as they are building your perception into the results and making that data similarly invalid.

[xhaan]

Nah. All I am saying is that by your (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) own admission (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) across each of these three threads on the subject, you are looking for skewing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and failings (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in the image which would externally support your assumption about what the object "must (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" abstract. Since both superficially contrary assumptions are supported by the object physically and by design, and neither is correct to the exclusion of the other, the premise underlying your search is invalid. And so I don't understand what's up with your specific interest in this example.

But if you are really attempting to collect data for the sake of acquiring a better understanding of trends in the assumption being made, contrary to what this seems to be all about, then you should probably remove all of the biasing marks and order-of-importance modifications as they are building your perception into the results and making that data similarly invalid.

No. You are assuming what I am doing yourself.
The reason I'm putting these 'biasing marks' as you say, is to show that they used a subject wich can be perceived as having a specific depth, and I want to show WHY this depth MIGHT be perceived, in a way that people can actually know what they are 'seeing'.

For example, many people may not realize that they perceive specific arcs of perspective motion (which ARE illusions, yes), or that they are seeing specific foreshortening techniques (which are illusions to illustrate a specific depth). These things are undeniably in the picture, and I'm simply pointing them out, so that people can say 'well maybe THAT is why I see it the way I do'.

I especialy hate the statement they make on the test, that 'most people will see it as counter-clockwise', while as I've researched other findings on this 'test', the results people get seem to go the OTHER way. And I think it's because there actually is a sense of depth that the subconscious mind will catch, but then they screw with the image to try and produce a different result (which I have NOT done, except to show proportion, and the path which she travels. I have left the figure herself completely alone and with the same proportions she has always had in the image.)

Edit:
Though, you are right about the A vs B, that could be biasing, but I hadn't thought about it or intended it to be so... they are only so people can specify which image they are referring to. Maybe I should have used greek letters instead, or used something besides 'B' for the second image, because 'B' could make you tend to think 'back'.

Another edit:
I had pretty much given up anyway and had gotten past it, until you came here (which you have every right to do, being and admin.. no disrespect) and brought it up again, almost three days later. :laugh: I was also making different threads to keep them properly themed and not clutter up the topics.

My theory is:
That people TEND to see it more clockwise, because that is what the figure lends itself to the most (I'm not stating that this is 100% correct, even I still haven't figured it out with 100% certainty, but nearly every objective aspect of the figure which I have analyzed lends itself to this when combined, and I HAVE tried to make them work the other way, believe me I have.)

Also that the people who can make it go the opposite way, are not necessarily fooled by the figure, but by the bobbing up and down (which changes the normal perspective motion she would have) and the mirror image at the bottom, and/or by being more detail oriented, and not seeing how everything comes together.

But, my tests are inconclusive, though I have found that:
Most people don't take in all the objective properties of the image at the same time, even when looking at it as a whole (even myself, which is why I haven't reached a higher probability on it)

Most people don't seem to recognize that the bobbing effect works against seeing the figure itself in a more objective way (changes the percieved arc of rotation to what it otherwise would not be, makes it harder to understand any foreshortening or sense of proportion)

Most people do not consciously see the image in its entirety, their conclusions seem to come from select frames only.

Most people do not connect minute details which relate to eachother in order to achieve a perspective.


Anyway, I'm done with it. It's too much work. :p

[The Rose]

Which one do you think is the front, and which do you think is the back? State how you reach your conclusion.

Measurments are in px. Margin of error is 0-1px aprox.I think B is facing back because I don't think you can do that move facing forward.

I've seen this shadow when it's twirling.
It took me a really long time to get it to turn the other way.

[Over]

Both are both.