blacknet
Contributor
Hello,
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
beyond 39 feet this 2/3's the distance and 33% larger does not hold water. Under 39 feet this rule applies; however it is NOT true that the virtual image is perceived at that range (2/3's and 33%)
Subsequent studies by Kent (1966), Luria et al (1967), and Luria and Kinney (1970) were in agreement that distance estimates for objects closer than one meter were, in fact, too small, but beyond one meter the perceived distances were too large!! Moreover, the distance overestimates increase both with object distance and water turbidity.
further research:
S. M. Luria, J. A. S. Kinney, and S. Weissman,'Estimates of Size and Distance Underwater', Amer. J. Psychol. 80, 282 (1967).
S. M. Luria and Jo Ann S. Kinney,'Underwater Vision', Science, 167:14, 1454 (1970).
H. E. Ross, S. S. Franklin, G. Weltman, and P. Lennie, 'Adaptation of Divers to Size Distortion Under Water', Br. J. Psychol. (1970), 61, pp. 365-373.
Ed
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
beyond 39 feet this 2/3's the distance and 33% larger does not hold water. Under 39 feet this rule applies; however it is NOT true that the virtual image is perceived at that range (2/3's and 33%)
Subsequent studies by Kent (1966), Luria et al (1967), and Luria and Kinney (1970) were in agreement that distance estimates for objects closer than one meter were, in fact, too small, but beyond one meter the perceived distances were too large!! Moreover, the distance overestimates increase both with object distance and water turbidity.
further research:
S. M. Luria, J. A. S. Kinney, and S. Weissman,'Estimates of Size and Distance Underwater', Amer. J. Psychol. 80, 282 (1967).
S. M. Luria and Jo Ann S. Kinney,'Underwater Vision', Science, 167:14, 1454 (1970).
H. E. Ross, S. S. Franklin, G. Weltman, and P. Lennie, 'Adaptation of Divers to Size Distortion Under Water', Br. J. Psychol. (1970), 61, pp. 365-373.
Ed