Augmented Reality as Perceptual Reality
As shown in Paul Milgram et al’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum (1994), Augmented Reality occupies a very unique status in the spectrum of Mixed Reality. Unlike Virtual Reality, which is completely made up of the virtual and has been the most important theme for both research and practical applications, theoretical approach for Augmented Reality seems to be not keeping up with the technical development. In this paper, two qualities of Augmented Reality, which are virtuality of Augmented Reality and reality of Augmented Reality, are restated with reference to film and animation studies. In spite of the common and essential factor, computer generated images or virtual images, studies in computer vision appear to be set apart from other fields of studies. The object of this paper is to make an experimental conjunction for Augmented Reality and the concepts of Perceptual Reality, Second-order Reality, and possible world theory. It is expected to be useful particularly for studying artistic potentials and applications of Augmented Reality.
KeywordsAugmented Reality virtuality reality perceptual reality second-order reality possible world theory
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bazin, A.: What is Camera? vol. 1. University of California Press, Berkeley (1968)Google Scholar
- 2.Buckland, W.: Between Science Fact and Science Fiction: Spielberg’s digital dinosaurs, possible worlds, and the new aesthetic realism. Screen 40, 2 (summer 1999)Google Scholar
- 3.Darley, A.: Second-order Realism and Post-modernist Aesthetics in Computer Animation. A Reader in Animation Studies, ch. 3 (1993)Google Scholar
- 4.Heim, M.: The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. Oxford University Press Inc., New York (1993)Google Scholar
- 5.Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., Kishino, F.: Augmented Reality: A class displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In: SPIE, Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, vol. 2351 (1994)Google Scholar
- 6.Prince, S.: True Lies: Perceptual realism, digital images and film theory. Film Quarterly 49(3) (1996)Google Scholar