No !. The Viewmaster image has enhanced DEPTH QUEUES (contrast and shadows…) , as they chose /create the image to use for maximum effect…
The flat image produced by binoculars didn’t have the same sorts of depth queues.
I think the point was the alignment of the viewing tubes, not the illusion of depth from the stereographic slides.
For instance, most binoculars are adjustable, because not everyone’s eyes are the same distance apart. But View-Master viewers aren’t adjustable: they’re one-size-for-all. It’s not impossible that a damaged View-Master viewer was actually knocked into proper alignment for Throbert McGee’s eyes.
Throbert McGee: Clearly, more scientific research is needed! Get an old, used, cheap View-Master viewer and…do horrible things to it! See if you can reproduce the results! Reproduceability is at the heart of the scientific method!
(Only half joking!)
The part about flat images when using binoculars is certainly correct, though. Looking at something with a generally circular shape through them, like a tree, it looks very much squished in the distance direction. I don’t know if it’s 7 to 1 for binoculars with a 7-fold magnification, but it might be.
I think that might be a product of the isolated depth perception effects of binocular vision. When I was a kid and got my first glasses, and for each of the prescription changes after that when I was getting rapidly more myopic for a few years, I had the same experience of flattened images when getting a new pair.
I expect this was because uncorrected or poorly corrected my vision didn’t allow for binocular clues for distance, and suddenly having them made them dominant to my brain. With binoculars, this would be added to by real physics as the distances to different parts of the tree you’re watching will differ a lot less than your mind expects for the apparent distance, your binocular vision show you a tree that’s close and, percentage wise, flat.
Your brain goes “An ordinary round tree at that distance should have a larger variation of parallax between front and back, so it’s a flat tree.”
When I first got glasses, I was rather surprised by how 3D the world suddenly looked. It felt like everything I saw was a Viewmaster scene, with the exaggerated depth.
I had a pair of regular sunglasses once that made me feel tall. When looking forward, the level of ground down near my feet appeared to be an inch or two lower than without them on.
Interesting thread - I have only tried to use binoculars a few times in my life, and very time I have only got the “two circles” effect - I honestly thought that was how binoculars worked! This despite adjusting them every which way. I was also never able to summon up those “Magic Eye” images where you are supposed to be able to see a 3-D effect by looking at coloured squiggles on a piece of paper. And I’ve only ever seen one 3-D film, and didn’t really enjoy the 3-D part (though I did experience some of the effects, it wasn’t like I couldn’t “see” it at all).
My vision in general is very good, though - I can read things without glasses/magnification from further away than most people. Perhaps I just don’t have binocular vision?
Interesting side notes about glasses! I’m myopic, and have been getting more so for all my life. Every prescription change made me feel shorter, as if the ground were closer to my face than it should be.
(This also led to a severely bruised pair of knees when I tried to jump over a crack between two boulders. My glasses made the gap appear narrower than it really was! BANG! Ow!)
Would a prescription for far-sightedness make the wearer “feel taller” as ZenBeam describes?