Author Archives: Torin Miner

A Euclidian vs non-Euclidian World

2 Replies

While the world around us is constructed with parallel lines running parallel, our eyes never see it that way. What we see on our retina and what is actually there before us are extremely different. Euclidian geometry represents the idea that two parallel lines will stay true to form and remain parallel as they extend into space and is a representation of the real world (Wolfe). What our retina sees though is non-Euclidian in nature and results in parallel lines extending to a common vanishing point. So a drawing using Euclidian geometries is accurate in an object’s actual construction but would never be seen in that same manner by our eyes and in a sense creates a false image.

For my freshman year in architecture I had a class that was entirely focused on accurately hand drafting architectural elements. Throughout the class we did a series of projects that focused on drawing Euclidian shapes and using Euclidian geometries to portray buildings but also did drawings that were non-Euclidian in nature and more focused on the perspective that would also be seen from a person at the building. From an architectural standpoint there are advantages to both types of drawing even though we only perceive one way.

The first drawing below is of Adolf Loos’ Rufer House in Vienna, Austria. This was drawn using Euclidian geometry to give a true sense of the space and accurate dimensions of every element within it. Even though the building would never be seen this way it can accurately portray the buildings true proportions.

adolf_loosScreen Shot 2014-04-29 at 3.01.39 PM[Image Credit http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgibin/gbi.cgi/Rufer_House.html/cid_20051213_kmm_img_7989.html]

This second drawing uses non-Euclidian geometries to represent what a person would experience if they actually visited the building. The drawing below is of the Palazzo Vecchio from the entrance of the Uffizi in Florence, Italy. If you were to actually visit the Uffizi then the normally parallel lines of the building would appear to converge on a vanishing point at Michelangelo’s David due to the monocular depth cue of linear perspective.Screen Shot 2014-04-29 at 11.43.15 AMUffizi-Gallery-(Florence)[Image Credit http://miriadna.com/preview/uffizi-gallery-(florence)]

While we may only experience the world from a non-Euclidian perspective, and the world is actually constructed from Euclidian geometries, both forms provide us with a representation of the world around us. As an architecture student it is useful to perceive the world in both ways to get a better sense of space even though our eyes only let us view it from a non-Euclidian perspective.

 

Works Cited

Wolfe, Jeremy M., Keith R. Kleunder, and Dennis M. Levi. “Sensation & Perception: Eye Structure.” Sensation & Perception: Eye Structure. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

Dark and Light Adaptation

Leave a reply

This spring break I travelled to Tucson, Arizona to visit some family. Tucson does not have very many clouds and most days have a clear sky and lots of sunshine. Since the sun is always shining your eyes get accustomed to the brightly lit environment for the length of the day. But while I was there we visited the nearby Kartchner Caverns. So when I went to the caverns and entered the dark, barely lit caves I couldn’t see a thing and my vision took a few minutes to adjust. After about three minutes my eyes were finally able to adjust and I could start to see some of the caves details. But it was a slow process and I felt impatient that I couldn’t adjust to the darker environment quickly. After touring the caves we exited back out into brightly lit desert and once again I was blinded in my new environment but this time my eyes were able to adjust and adapt much quicker than before. I was able to get a strong sense of my surroundings and was able to see clearly again within a minute.

The reason that our eyes adjust to light and dark at different rates is based on the properties of the rods and cones within our retina. Rods are very sensitive to light so when we are in dimly lit and dark areas we rely more on our rods to see, while cones on the other hand are less sensitive to light and are more dominant in well lit areas. Cones and rods also differ in their ability to regenerate, which comes into play in this scenario. Cones are able to adjust quickly as the pigment within them regenerates every six minutes, but rods are much slower. It takes their pigment about a half hour to regenerate. This difference in regeneration speed is crucial to difference between light and dark adaptation.  Since we use rods in dark places, it takes longer for our eyes to adjust to those places because the pigment takes so long to regenerate in our rods. But when going back out into a well-lit area, then our cones take over and we can adjust quickly to it’s the rapid regeneration of pigment that goes on within our cones.

So when I first entered the dark caverns from the bright desert environment my eyes had to adjust from light to dark which meant a transition from cones to rods. These rods took a while to adapt and adjust which is why I had difficulty seeing clearly for a few minutes. But once the rods within my retina were able to adjust then I had no problem seeing. And as I left the caverns and went back out into the sunlight my eyes had to once again adjust and switch back to the cones being dominant. Since the cones adjust much quicker I was able to see fine relatively quickly.