Where did everybody go?

[bastian74]

This used to be a pretty active board.
I also noticed that there is virtually no activity on ATI/AMD's own 3d board.
Is 3d actually dead?

[Fredz]

Seems so. I guess VR grabbed all the attention.

[Matthew]

I don't think that VR is going to catch on now the way 3D has.

Sure, there's been a lot about it in the press. But how many people do you know who actually have, or have used, a VR headset?

Is 3d actually dead?

Seems so. I guess VR grabbed all the attention.

Well actually, you know what? VR is 3D. And 3D is VR -- if it's done right. If 3D displays are large enough, and properly configured, and the 3D content is properly done, it will create a VR experience just like the Oculus Rift, except without head tracking. The Oculus Rift is another type of 3D display.

The problem is, most people don't configure 3D displays properly. And most 3D content is not properly done.

Although I've never used a VR headset, I've owned a Zalman Trimon monitor for many years, and got an Asus VG278HE monitor and an nVidia 3D Vision 2 system a few weeks ago. I've wondered how good the visual quality and 3D effect with the Oculus Rift actually is. I have a hard time believing it could be as good as a modern flat-panel monitor (assuming the 3D was set up properly). Sure, there's no crosstalk, but OLED displays, LCDs with Lightboost technology, and DLP projectors have very little crosstalk when used with shutter glasses.

[bastian74]

I've tried VR a long time ago, when the mall of america opened and 3d graphics were on par with Minecraft.
The unit I tried had head-tracking and gun-tracking which you held in your right hand. Based on the position of the gun it rendered a VR arm connected to it.
The sensation was quite surreal, because the virtual placement of my right arm was pretty close to dead on. I could twist my wrist and look at the underside of my forearm and everything.

Oculus is the same resolution as smart phones, since that's what drives the display. So 1080P side by side half res. It's a pretty wide field of view, so your angular resolution is pretty low still, but better than what we've had the last 10 years, which is pretty much vga.

I'm very hopeful for the product.

[bastian74]

Also, it seems a lot of people moved over the guru3d... at least that board has several posts per day still.

[cybereality]

Yep, seems pretty slow now. Not so many people talking about 3D anymore.

[Fredz]

If 3D displays are large enough, and properly configured, and the 3D content is properly done, it will create a VR experience just like the Oculus Rift, except without head tracking.

The point of VR is to transport someone in another place, you need to be able to provide stereoscopic imagery over 360° for that. But that's not possible with a single display, even of infinite size (180° at most). You can use a CAVE system composed of several projectors or a Varrier with a lot of 3D monitors, but HMDs are a magnitude less expensive than those.

The problem is, most people don't configure 3D displays properly. And most 3D content is not properly done.

I can agree on that, although there are also practical limits that you can't enforce with a 3D monitor, because of the vergence-accomodation conflict. And you also need head-tracking to be able to provide the missing motion parallax cues for depth perception.

I've wondered how good the visual quality and 3D effect with the Oculus Rift actually is. I have a hard time believing it could be as good as a modern flat-panel monitor

I own both the DK1 and the DK2 and they are clearly inferior to a 3D monitor in terms of image quality, there is no debate on this. The 3D effect is also less impressive because you don't have a plane of reference (the display surface), but everything looks "real" inside. I've also had that sensation with 3D displays, but I don't feel immersed and I neither experienced presence with those.

Sure, there's no crosstalk, but OLED displays, LCDs with Lightboost technology, and DLP projectors have very little crosstalk when used with shutter glasses.

There is still the problem of alternating images with active S3D. It's not present with passive S3D using dual projectors but that brings others problems (ghosting, cost).

[Matthew]

I can agree on that, although there are also practical limits that you can't enforce with a 3D monitor, because of the vergence-accomodation conflict.

All stereoscopic viewing technologies in use today decouple accommodation and vergence, including the Oculus Rift. (Although the Rift has a higher focal distance than typical 3D displays; it's still a single focal plane.) This isn't a problem, though, because the eye can easily adapt to that. It helps if you have a larger screen (I recommend at least 27"). To avoid decoupling of accommodation and vergence, you would need light-field displays, which aren't commercially available and won't be anytime soon.

I've also had that sensation with 3D displays, but I don't feel immersed and I neither experienced presence with those.

If you don't feel immersed, that's probably because the 3D isn't configured properly.

The screen separation should always be set so that the left and right images of an object at infinite distance will be about 6 cm apart (just slightly less than the distance between the human eyes, to minimize eyestrain).

When I set up 3D content, I always make sure this is the case, usually by measuring with a ruler, or just entering the number of pixels if the left and right eye images are already eye-centered.

There is still the problem of alternating images with active S3D.

The only issue with this is that it creates strobe artifacts when you move your eyes rapidly (similar to how the image on a CRT display appears distorted when you move your eyes rapidly). This isn't a big problem, though. It would be reduced if active stereo systems operated at higher refresh rates (240 Hz would be great, and 480 Hz would be ideal).

When I got my new 3D monitor, I found it irritating and discomforting at first, but over the last few weeks, my eyes have adapted to it, and I'm comfortable with it. (I had used shutter glasses before, but not in a long time.)

The original CAVE system uses shutter glasses.

[Fredz]

All stereoscopic viewing technologies in use today decouple accommodation and vergence, including the Oculus Rift. (Although the Rift has a higher focal distance than typical 3D displays; it's still a single focal plane.) This isn't a problem, though, because the eye can easily adapt to that.

We've already had this discussion and I don't think it's true for most people. It's not for me at least and I've been using S3D since 1995.

To avoid decoupling of accommodation and vergence, you would need light-field displays, which aren't commercially available and won't be anytime soon.

Or Compressive Accommodation Displays or Vari-Focal Plane Displays which are a little bit more practical.

If you don't feel immersed, that's probably because the 3D isn't configured properly.

Hem...
Immersion is the perception of being physically present in a non-physical world, you'll never be able to achieve that with a 3D monitor.

The screen separation should always be set so that the left and right images of an object at infinite distance will be about 6 cm apart (just slightly less than the distance between the human eyes, to minimize eyestrain).

Ah, so you agree that decoupling convergence from accommodation is a problem ? Nice.
But even with this value it's uncomfortable for most people.

The only issue with this is that it creates strobe artifacts when you move your eyes rapidly (similar to how the image on a CRT display appears distorted when you move your eyes rapidly). This isn't a big problem, though.

I was not refering to this but to the fact that the image for each eye is not displayed at the same time. It produces distortion artifacts when there is motion or when the eyes are moving over the image.

But strobing is certainly a problem anyway, there is a reason why there are 144Hz monitors and 144Hz is used in movie theaters as well (72Hz per eye). Oculus is also using 75Hz and is shooting for more (apparently 90Hz).

[Matthew]

We've already had this discussion and I don't think it's true for most people. It's not for me at least and I've been using S3D since 1995.

Ah, so you agree that decoupling convergence from accommodation is a problem ? Nice.
But even with this value it's uncomfortable for most people.

I was recommending that it be slightly less because if it's only slightly less than the distance between the eyes, it will still give a good effect, but if it's even slightly greater, it will be unnatural and can cause eyestrain, because the eyes may have to diverge.

I think people can adapt to it if it's this way. The main thing that causes eyestrain is if the eyes have to diverge.

In any case, current VR headsets have the same issue. The only thing the Oculus Rift does to improve this is to use lenses to create the effect of a larger and more distant screen which is rounded.

Immersion is the perception of being physically present in a non-physical world, you'll never be able to achieve that with a 3D monitor.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "immersion".

nVidia actually calls 3D Vision "immersive".

I was not refering to this but to the fact that the image for each eye is not displayed at the same time. It produces distortion artifacts when there is motion or when the eyes are moving over the image.

This actually is what I meant by "strobe artifacts". Strobe artifacts are artifacts caused by strobing, not the strobing itself.

But strobing is certainly a problem anyway, there is a reason why there are 144Hz monitors and 144Hz is used in movie theaters as well (72Hz per eye). Oculus is also using 75Hz and is shooting for more (apparently 90Hz).

I have a 144 Hz monitor, but it, and all other 144 Hz LCD monitors I know of, only supports 3D in 120 Hz mode. I know DLP projectors support 144 Hz 3D, but not LCD monitors. Why is this? Are LCDs just not fast enough yet?

[Fredz]

In any case, current VR headsets have the same issue. The only thing the Oculus Rift does to improve this is to use lenses to create the effect of a larger and more distant screen which is rounded.

The Oculus Rift is quite different from other HMDs, the Oculus SDK specifically measures the IPD for each user so it can render orthoscopic images for which they won't be divergence.

I know DLP projectors support 144 Hz 3D, but not LCD monitors. Why is this? Are LCDs just not fast enough yet?

Maybe because games are generally rendering at 60Hz in 2D, so 120Hz in S3D makes more sense. Possible also that pixel switching times of LCD produce ghosting at 144Hz.

[bastian74]

In any case, current VR headsets have the same issue. The only thing the Oculus Rift does to improve this is to use lenses to create the effect of a larger and more distant screen which is rounded.

The Oculus Rift is quite different from other HMDs, the Oculus SDK specifically measures the IPD for each user so it can render orthoscopic images for which they won't be divergence.

I know DLP projectors support 144 Hz 3D, but not LCD monitors. Why is this? Are LCDs just not fast enough yet?

Maybe because games are generally rendering at 60Hz in 2D, so 120Hz in S3D makes more sense. Possible also that pixel switching times of LCD produce ghosting at 144Hz.

Yes,
24fps * 6 (3 exposures per eye per frame) = 144
60fps * 2 (1 exposure per eye per frame) = 120

[bastian74]

Since sci-fi movies are already produced with significant portions rendered, it makes sense that they'll be able to have the entire environment rendered in VR. Imagine an oculus rift movie where you're free to wander the scene.

On another note,
People place a lot of value on resolution as they key to virtual reality, or at least rendered reality, but why does a tv show on a 360p CRT TV look more real than our most advanced game on a 4k monitor?

Instead of focusing on more and more pixels, how about making the pixels we have more accurately rendered?

[cybereality]

Yes, I've always made this point how VHS tapes on a CRT TV looked totally real. Realism has almost nothing to do with resolution.

[mayaman]

What happened to the RIFT forum here, it was really active. Don't see it anymore.

[geekmaster]

What happened to the RIFT forum here, it was really active. Don't see it anymore.

I think it got renamed. I have not been active in these forums this past year due to requests that I post exclusively elsewhere, however those days are over and I plan to resume posting here. Perhaps I can stimulate more activity by sharing my passion of VR and 3D (and robotics) with folks here once again. I have many projects in progress to share, including huge advances in my "fresnel lens stack" projects. Sadly, some folks seem to be trying to patent ideas I have shared here, so I a not sure how to proceed.

EDIT: Yes, new name but same forum number 140:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=140

I think most alpha posters were hired by Oculus and do not publicly post their ideas openly very often due to IP concerns.

[LukePC1]

This used to be a pretty active board.
I also noticed that there is virtually no activity on ATI/AMD's own 3d board.
Is 3d actually dead?

Not for me. I'm just happy its working without as much hussle and workarounds as in 2009 when Nvidia stopped all support for "its" driver. For that reason I can focus on gaming rather than writing/reading 3D stuff

I hope more people have it running without problems, but most seem to prefear playing 2D.
It's a bit like walking around all day with one eye closed

[mrbryce]

nvidia killed mainstream stereoscopy. simple as that.