RE: How about concretization?

Brandon Van every (vanevery@rbdc.rbdc.com)
Tue, 25 Apr 95 16:08 EDT

The problem with some of Escher's works, however, is that he takes
advantage of the inaccuracies deliberately introduced into a 2D
representation while converting from 3D. Such drawings result in
impossible buildings, and endless climbing staircases. If these are
converted back to 3D, the effect would be lost once the viewer moves away
from the original point of view.

Then we have to modify the scene as the viewer moves, so as to retain
the illusion. Maintaining the illusion for multiple viewers would be
a real challenge. Essentially, you'd have to have everyone view a
"4D" world: that's 3D + extra processing.

I think that any illusion generated on a 2D piece of paper, could find
a moving analogue on a 2D computer screen. Proving/disproving this
assertion would be an interesting math problem, and is left to the
reader as an exercise. :-)

Cheers,
Brandon