Spannend. William C. Wees über das visuelle System des Films, unsere Wahrnehmung und Dreidimensionalität:

»In effect, the norms derived from perspectivist painting have denied the cinematic image much of what the eye actually sees. Spatially, they exclude virtually everything but the two-degree wedge of space directly in front of the eyes, and psychologically, they avoid the distortions of emotion and idiosyncratic points of view. They place a premium on a measured and cooly analytical approach to image making – what William Ivins calls ›the rationalization of sight.‹ Ivins argues persuasively that ›the forms produced by our modern geometrical perspective are conventions which … are only a loose general rationalization of the actual sense returns of physiological binocular vision.‹ R. L. Gregory has pushed the argument further by insisting, ›In an important sense perspective representations of three dimensions are wrong, for they do not depict the world as it is seen but rather the (idealized) images on the retina. But,‹ he reminds us, ›we do not see our retinal images.‹ We see what the eye’s ›grand scheme‹ derives from the patterns of light falling on the retina.
Therefore, the artist’s and the camera’s representations of the retinal image cannot be the equivalent of what we actually see. ›Indeed,‹ as Gregory wryly remarks, ›it is fortunate that perspective was invented before the camera, or we might have had great difficulty in accepting photographs as other than weird distortions.‹ This may be why some anthropologists have reported that photographs are initially unintelligible to people who have had no experience with pictorial representations of perspective.«

>>> William C. Wees: Light Moving in Time. Studies in the Visual Aesthetics of Avant-Garde Film