[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]

	Originally Posted by Bear Warp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	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]

	Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A is back, B is front.

And how did you get that?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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]

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


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]

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

[Bear Warp]

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

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

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]

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

And how did you get that? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 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]

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

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]

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


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]

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

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 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]

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

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

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.