It is currently Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:35 pm



Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Rift Stereo Lens System 
Author Message
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Posts: 2216
Location: Irvine, CA
We were talking in another thread and Fredz brought up this little device - the Lorea 3D Lens Cap which fits into a standard mono camera lens slot and converts a mono camera into a stereo camera.

Image

The funny thing about it is that it produces images which are very similar to what the Rift expects. Vertical aspect ratio, stereo side-by-side images!

Image

So the question is, if you put spherical warping lenses on the front of it, could you optically produce images that would be Rift compatible? If so you could turn just about any video camera into a Rift camera. You could just feed the unaltered camera feed directly to the Rift allowing all types of immersive experiential videos to be recorded for the Rift. Anybody wanna try this out?

Or going a step further, it seems like you could pretty easily manufacture a custom lens package that would match the FOV and warping of the Rift perfectly. Something like this (I'm no optical expert so correct me if I'm wrong).

Attachment:
RiftCamera.jpg


Also, here's a video recorded using the Loreo if any of you DIY Rifters wanna see how it looks...



You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:21 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 76
Why not just do the warp in software? This would allow you to swap out the Rift optics at a later time for upgrades or for V2 without having to worry about swapping the second set of optics for the camera. You would still need new lens for the increased field of view, but I think you should leave the barrel distortion to software.


Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:32 pm
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11352
Cool idea. I wonder how necessary the pre-warping is. I mean, obviously its better to have it but maybe it would still look OK just as-is.

Also, I recall someone posting some footage in another thread that was sort-of fish-eyed, and would look perfect on the Rift. Can't remember the setup or thread, though.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:33 pm
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:57 pm
Posts: 429
Location: Irvine, CA
The standard FOV of this device not high enough to match that of the Rift, so we'd need spherical lenses in order to increase it, which would introduce some incidental warping.

EDIT: Nevermind, somebody else already said this.


Last edited by FingerFlinger on Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:51 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Posts: 2216
Location: Irvine, CA
Naru wrote:
Why not just do the warp in software? This would allow you to swap out the Rift optics at a later time for upgrades or for V2 without having to worry about swapping the second set of optics for the camera. You would still need new lens for the increased field of view, but I think you should leave the barrel distortion to software.


Sure. Why not. Probably easier to accomplish it that way than custom lens mounts.

If the Lereo fits a GoPro, it could make some bitchin' extreme sports videos.


Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:52 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:56 pm
Posts: 295
Location: England
I have been after a similar lens which can fit onto FPV cameras / cellphones for remote control driving and flying fun... not found one yet.

I am hoping that the SDK tools or 3rd party will include a good bit of variation in the warping effects...

_________________
My HMD Blog: http://www.wastedspace.co.uk/cms/category/projects/vintage-head-mounted-display-upgrade/


Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:46 am
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:22 am
Posts: 1515
Rift is 7 inch now..... . . . . . . . . . .

_________________
"I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."
Notch on the FaceDisgrace buyout.


Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:48 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:26 pm
Posts: 295
Location: Sweden
Okta wrote:
Rift is 7 inch now..... . . . . . . . . . .

Haha Okta, it seems that is the only thing you say lately :P I've been pondering Rift video plenty, and the fact the Rift now sports a 7" screen makes little difference except for the player you use. Sure, if the Rift has a higher FoV now a camera also with a higher FoV to fill the view will be needed, but that's a technicality. To then view it properly in the Rift the player just have to show the stereo pair at the right places.

I have also been pondering if the material should be rendered prewarped or rectilinear or with some standard warping. Rectilinear might make sense, but would also case plenty of distortion and information-loss as the center is zoomed out. Just fisheye might be better, or if surround video, cubemapped.

In the end I think it would just be best if players are customizable enough for custom settings for different media files. Just like subtitles, media designed for the Rift could be accompanied by a .rft file (or .cfg whatever) with display properties. I.E. if the feed is static, stereo separation, cubemapped, panorama, half-panorama, spherical, panomorphic etc. As well as overlap / stereo adjustments and perhaps a warp profile for different HMDs haha... so much to think about.


Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:19 am
Profile WWW
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:22 am
Posts: 1515
BOLL wrote:
Okta wrote:
Rift is 7 inch now..... . . . . . . . . . .

Haha Okta, it seems that is the only thing you say lately :P I've been pondering Rift video plenty, and the fact the Rift now sports a 7" screen makes little difference except for the player you use. Sure, if the Rift has a higher FoV now a camera also with a higher FoV to fill the view will be needed, but that's a technicality. To then view it properly in the Rift the player just have to show the stereo pair at the right places.

I have also been pondering if the material should be rendered prewarped or rectilinear or with some standard warping. Rectilinear might make sense, but would also case plenty of distortion and information-loss as the center is zoomed out. Just fisheye might be better, or if surround video, cubemapped.

In the end I think it would just be best if players are customizable enough for custom settings for different media files. Just like subtitles, media designed for the Rift could be accompanied by a .rft file (or .cfg whatever) with display properties. I.E. if the feed is static, stereo separation, cubemapped, panorama, half-panorama, spherical, panomorphic etc. As well as overlap / stereo adjustments and perhaps a warp profile for different HMDs haha... so much to think about.


And you will have to crop the centres and zoom in to match the offset view.

_________________
"I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."
Notch on the FaceDisgrace buyout.


Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:37 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:26 pm
Posts: 295
Location: Sweden
Okta wrote:
And you will have to crop the centres and zoom in to match the offset view.

That's what I meant with
BOLL wrote:
To then view it properly in the Rift the player just have to show the stereo pair at the right places.

Sorry if it was diffuse, I keep posting from distracting places, this time the airport.

I see it as displaying a video feed in a viewport, which just means framing it properly in the viewer. I agree that it will be a bit more complicated than just playing back a video with the correct prewarp, but that would also mean the media would only be compatible with one version of the Rift.

As I mentioned earlier perhaps some intermediate format is better so different amounts of warp can be applied, to work with both the dev and consumer Rift as well as different DIY Rifts.

I think it's still up for debate what the best solution for Rift media is, much because it's not dynamically generated like a game. I'm guessing it will depend on which cameras people will use, what software gets popular for playback and how much we can work between the two with editing software.

So far I have identified a few different categories of video that can be created, much depending on camera gear.
  1. Material recorded at a lower FoV than the Rift (any movie basicaly) which would be displayed on a virtual screen, not filling the entire view. OVL NAMP
  2. Material recorded in a FoV matching the rift so no tracking is needed. If the media is matched it can be played back with any player, but would be bad for compatibility.
  3. Material recorded at a high FoV that can be displayed on a virtual sphere/etc with headtracking enabled. VRMP

The benefit of #1 and #2 is that they can easily be stereoscopic. The benefit with #2 is that it can successfully use binaural sound as you would pretty much be inside the scene. The benefit with #1 and #3 is that you get headtracking, which should increase immersion, though for #1 probably more for the place containing the screen.

The downside with #1 is that it will be like normal movie watching, except with stereoscopic flicks that will have no ghosting. The downside with #2 is that there is no headtracking, at least without getting a rectangular viewport. The downside with #3 is no stereoscopy and the need for complex camera systems.

For #1 and #3 there is also the thing with surround sound, you'd have to emulate speakers as you can rotate your head. I'm not sure what happens if you emulate speakers with binaural sound, but sounds like it should not work very well. Then if you want to record in surround instead of binaural, I'm not sure which kind of microphone(s) you would need... hmh.

Also, super offtopic and longwinded AGAIN, very sorry -_- too many thoughts rushing through my brain.


Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:25 am
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
BOLL wrote:
The downside with #3 is no stereoscopy and the need for complex camera systems.
I don't see a reason why #3 would have no stereoscopy. With a 360° FOV that would certainly not be possible, but with a 180° FOV that shouldn't be a problem (think Omnimax 3D).

In fact I think that would be the only type of movies I would enjoy watching on the Rift. #1 doesn't seem to give any practical advantage over 3D TVs and #2 feels limited in comparison to #3.


Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:32 pm
Profile WWW
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:26 pm
Posts: 295
Location: Sweden
Fredz wrote:
BOLL wrote:
The downside with #3 is no stereoscopy and the need for complex camera systems.
I don't see a reason why #3 would have no stereoscopy. With a 360° FOV that would certainly not be possible, but with a 180° FOV that shouldn't be a problem (think Omnimax 3D).

In fact I think that would be the only type of movies I would enjoy watching on the Rift. #1 doesn't seem to give any practical advantage over 3D TVs and #2 feels limited in comparison to #3.

If you have full headtracking with a 180° view you could still look far to the side, at which point your eyes no longer match up with the virtual eyes, which are the original camera placements. This means looking to the side will have depth parallax difference instead of a sideways parallax, you know how we see reality unless one-eyed.

I'm not sure how uncomfortable that is, but it doesn't sound optimal. It could be a negligible depth disparity, especially if you have no close subjects to the sides, but it would not be correct stereoscopic 3D unless you are looking straight ahead which would pretty much make is #2 except with your own headshake. Edz explained the same issue in this post, perhaps with more clarity.


Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:56 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
The technique I describe is basically what is used in Omnimax 3D theaters, ie. projection of 3D movies with a 180x123° FOV. It's certainly not perfect but that's the closest approximation to reality I've ever seen on a screen. I think it would be a perfect fit for the Rift, much better than standard 3D movies or 90° FOV movies.

Stereoscopy should be mostly wrong at the edges as you said, but in a central FOV of 90° everything should be okay. The extra FOV would add more immersion since you wouldn't see the edges when rotating your head a bit to the sides. It would also help if the actual FOV of the Rift is bigger than expected, which seems to be the case. It would also be future proof for an eventual consumer version with a much larger FOV (120° for example).

As for camera modifications to use for this, I guess it should be a combination of beam splitters and wide angle lenses, but I don't know if that's easy to build.

There are several interesting projects on kickstarter that could give some ideas to get started :
- lens clip (for macro lens but the principle could be used for any type of lens) : http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/172 ... e?ref=live
- for 360° 2D videos : http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/110 ... f=category
- beam splitter for iPhone : http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/149 ... our-iphone
- another clip idea for wide FOV lenses : http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pat ... f=category

The easiest solution would probably be to use existing 3D cameras such as the Fuji W3 and only add a wide FOV lens on top of each objective. I'll receive my HTC Evo 3D in some days and I'll see if I can experiment a bit with that.


Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:21 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
It seems someone already tried something that could be interesting :
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/stereo/3dgallery11.htm

The rig :
Image

Basically he used a Loreo 3D Lens In a Cap with its limited FOV of 17° and mounted 0.7x wideangle adapters on it to increase the FOV to 36°. The end result is not great and the FOV is very limited but I guess it could be possible to build upon this for a better solution.

Cross-eye example :
Image

He even mentionned using an anamorphic design that was used for Cinemascope movies to squeeze the image horizontally, which should be very helpful for the compressed views on the Rift.

I guess it sums up pretty well what is needed to obtain a Rift-compatible 3D rig using a single camera. Now we need to brush up on maths and acquire some solid crafting skills to build something like this... :)


Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:26 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Posts: 2216
Location: Irvine, CA
Good find.

Too bad the various Loreo models are not available. There are more than a few brave souls here that are not squeamish about ripping into the guts of these things.


Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:26 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
My idea of using a Fuji W3 with wide lenses has in fact seen an implementation, the Auxiliary Lens Adapter for Fuji W3 & W1 :
http://www.cyclopital3d.com/Fuji-W3-Aux ... apter.html

It looks like this :
Image

And it gives results like this :
Image

Photo from the same spot without the adapter :
Image

Unfortunately it's quite costly at $199.96 ($419,95 total with the $219.99 Fuji W3 on Amazon), but at least it shows that it's possible to get a wide FOV 3D camera. I still wonder what the final FOV is for each eye though, I didn't find any information about this on the website.


Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:17 pm
Profile WWW
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 57
so, is it possible to make some sort of mirror system that split the image in 2?
Maybe with some prisms (as it happens in binocular technology) could help...just my 2 cents (really noob cents :P )


Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:42 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
A cheaper solution for the Fuji W1 and wide angle lenses, made by the guy who tried the Loreo 3D Lens in a Cap mod :
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/stereo/3dgallery19.htm

The rig :
Image

The result :
Image

He said the FOV should be around 67° (starting from the 45° wide mode), I guess there should be adequate lenses available to obtain a 90°+ FOV. It may also be possible to find lenses that produce the same kind of distortion than the Rift optics, so I guess that would be a matter of trial & error with the several models available.

At first I was thinking that the 77mm separation of the W1 was way too high for the Rift, but then I remembered that the separation of the Imax 3D cameras was 72.4 mm, so I guess it shouldn't be a problem. The W3 has even a lower separation at 75mm which should be better in this regard.


Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:43 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
torc wrote:
so, is it possible to make some sort of mirror system that split the image in 2?
Sure, here is how the Loreo is supposed to work, using mirrors only (scroll down to "Technical notes" at the end of the page) :
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/stereo/3dgallery5.htm

Image

torc wrote:
Maybe with some prisms (as it happens in binocular technology) could help...just my 2 cents (really noob cents :P )
Yes it should also be possible with prisms I guess, using the same method than for the fluid-based prismatic stereoscopic goggles :
http://www.vrtifacts.com/build-your-own ... c-goggles/

Image

Or using off-the-shelf prism glasses : http://www.amazon.com/3-D-Stereo-Prism- ... B00465OY3Y

Image

Prisms could also be used to compress the images horizontally as is expected for the Rift, with an anamorphic design :
http://www.zuggsoft.com/theater/prism.htm

Image

We had a discussion about this already on MTBS3D by the way : viewtopic.php?f=26&t=5582


Last edited by Fredz on Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:57 pm
Profile WWW
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:51 am
Posts: 401
Is there some video aswell? I couldn't find it.
It might be good material to test visual odometry


Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:07 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
mahler wrote:
Is there some video aswell? I couldn't find it.
brantlew posted a video of the Loreo in the first post, but I didn't find videos taken with the wide angle adapter.
mahler wrote:
It might be good material to test visual odometry
Yep, possibly. But I think the material is quite secondary for now, it's already possible to use stereo webcams like the Minoru to test the concept. I think the software part will be by far the most complicated one, when it's done it should be easy to adapt to other materials.


Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:39 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Posts: 2216
Location: Irvine, CA
These are some great finds Fredz! I agree that the video content possibilities are more exciting than the image processing possibilities at this point.


Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:46 pm
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11352
@Fredz: That adapter doesn't come with lenses. You have to get your own (which could add a few extra hundred to the cost). But that also means you could get a wide-angle and/or fish-eye lens. I think with a fish-eye lens it would warp it to look good on the Rift.

Image
http://lensbaby.com/optics-fisheye

I already have the W3 (but don't use it much). Might be cool to see what can be done with that attachment.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:12 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
cybereality wrote:
@Fredz: That adapter doesn't come with lenses. You have to get your own (which could had a few extra hundred to the cost).
Ah, my bad, missed that. It's even less interesting now considering the cost of the added lenses. :/

cybereality wrote:
I already have the W3 (but don't use it much). Might be cool to see what can be done with that attachment.
Don't hesitate to keep us informed if you get to something interesting with this. You may have a look at cheaper solutions for fisheye lenses too :

With a peephole :

and


With glasses :

and
http://www.instructables.com/id/Fisheye ... and-cheap/

Image

A summary of the different possibilities :
http://nestorprado.tumblr.com/post/8749 ... lternative

The best result seems to be obtained with full-frame fisheye :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_le ... me_fisheye

Circular vs full-frame fisheye lens :
Image
But I don't know if we can obtain this kind of result with cheap solutions yet.


Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:16 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
It was a lot less complicated than I expected, in fact circular vs full-frame fisheye concerns the correspondence between the size of the fisheye lens and the size of the image sensor.

Image

So it's only a matter of choosing the right lens for a specific camera. In the end it's also possible to simply crop the circular image in software to get a full-frame image.

Now it's time to buy some peepholes and start to experiment I guess...


Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:27 pm
Profile WWW
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:26 pm
Posts: 295
Location: Sweden
It would be fun to build a system with a pair of ImmerVision Panomorph lenses and perhaps Point Grey Flea 3 cameras (CS mount) if they are compatible. I think the lenses are about $750 a piece (VAT included) and the cameras, no idea... but probably very expensive. A kit that would be neat, but very far from realistic for a hobby user :P just figured I'd drop this in here, hehe.


Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:17 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
brantlew wrote:
Too bad the various Loreo models are not available. There are more than a few brave souls here that are not squeamish about ripping into the guts of these things.
Seems it's very much possible to build a beam splitter for a lower price than the Loreo one ($45 total for the mirrors, newer Loreo models costs $150). Have a look at this PDF :
http://www.3dphoto.net/forum/index.php? ... ttach=4752

Original thread here :
http://www.3dphoto.net/forum/index.php?topic=1019.0

The concept drawing :
Image

What it looks like :
Image

A pic taken with it (cross-eye) :
Image


Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:49 pm
Profile WWW
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 57
supposing to have a system like this working for an HMD, i wonder if you need even 2 different rendered images splitted sbs or you can avoid to use softwares


Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:36 am
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
You can't use the beam splitter only because the FOV would be too low for the HMD (17° vs 90° horizontal). If you add a peephole to get a wider FOV the distortion would be opposite to the one the HMD is expected (barrel instead of pincushion), so you'll still need software to transform the image. But that can be done in realtime using the feed image directly I guess.


Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:07 am
Profile WWW
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 57
Fredz wrote:
You can't use the beam splitter only because the FOV would be too low for the HMD (17° vs 90° horizontal). If you add a peephole to get a wider FOV the distortion would be opposite to the one the HMD is expected (barrel instead of pincushion), so you'll still need software to transform the image. But that can be done in realtime using the feed image directly I guess.


Thanks for the reply...
FOV aside, my question is more related to the stereoscopic view...i mean having the same image splitted to both eyes avoiding renderi the image with softwares, is it possible having a 3d image or the image needs to be rendered via software?


Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:12 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 53
torc wrote:
supposing to have a system like this working for an HMD


interesting way to get your eyes centred to a larger screen so who's gonna be the 1st to strap an upsidedown laptop to ther head?...


Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:48 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 57
ChrisP wrote:
torc wrote:
supposing to have a system like this working for an HMD


interesting way to get your eyes centred to a larger screen so who's gonna be the 1st to strap an upsidedown laptop to ther head?...


I am really noob regading this arguments...so forgive me if i say some stupid questions (and my bad english too :P )...

Anyway as i said before,my questions are more related to the stereoscopic theory than the fisheye lens or FOV.
Just wanna know if the same exact image rendered in both eyes will give stereo feeling or it have to be rendered via software necessarily.


Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:58 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 53
yeah, I didn't mean to come of as ignorant with that quote. in order to get a 3D effect with 2 images both need to have a slight offset, viewing an object from slightly different angle's. when they use these beam splitters the left side of the image is slightly off centre to the left and the right side slightly to the right so each eye see's a different image. when a game is used with this method software renders the polygons on both sides of the screen with a different angle causing the same 3D effect


Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:59 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 57
ChrisP wrote:
yeah, I didn't mean to come of as ignorant with that quote. in order to get a 3D effect with 2 images both need to have a slight offset, viewing an object from slightly different angle's. when they use these beam splitters the left side of the image is slightly off centre to the left and the right side slightly to the right so each eye see's a different image. when a game is used with this method software renders the polygons on both sides of the screen with a different angle causing the same 3D effect


So, basically you need the polygons rendered differently in both screens correct?
i was thinking that in some games you have background as skyboxes or 2d images like an HUD...this 2d content will be recieved focused at infinity (as it should be) or it needs to be changed inside the game code?


Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:08 pm
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
ChrisP wrote:
torc wrote:
supposing to have a system like this working for an HMD


interesting way to get your eyes centred to a larger screen so who's gonna be the 1st to strap an upsidedown laptop to ther head?...


I have done it. :P


Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:07 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:55 pm
Posts: 302
Looking at some of the examples in this thread, it makes me realize how little significance stereoscopy has without any close objects.

Proper FOV > Proper Distortion > Proper stereo


Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:44 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:06 pm
Posts: 204
I particularity love stereo for what it does for outdoor scenery and large, far away objects, like mountains. The level in Crysis where you start off with a tank is a good example, the distant "mountain" your heading to has a fantastic feel in 3D. The Presidium (7:30)in Mass Effect is another good example. As a side note, at one point I actually raised my depth up so the max separation was about 12% greater than my interocular, making the Presidium feel even larger.

_________________
Metro 2033 3D screens - Mass Effect 1 3D scenery - High FoV 46" Sony 3DTV


Last edited by Libertine on Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:01 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 57
PalmerTech wrote:
ChrisP wrote:
torc wrote:
supposing to have a system like this working for an HMD


interesting way to get your eyes centred to a larger screen so who's gonna be the 1st to strap an upsidedown laptop to ther head?...


I have done it. :P


Haha... great job Palmer! now i feel better :D


Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:08 am
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Fredz wrote:
If you add a peephole to get a wider FOV the distortion would be opposite to the one the HMD is expected (barrel instead of pincushion), so you'll still need software to transform the image.
Stupid remark here, adding a peephole would in fact produce the correct type of distortion, don't know what I was thinking here...


Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:24 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
I tried to film with a peephole but it doesn't seem to be possible to use them with non DSLR cameras because the lens is too far from the camera lens to obtain a big image with no blur.

Then I saw this video and wondered if it would be possible to use a similar rig to create 3D content for the Rift :



I asked the author and he said he was using a Sony Bloggie 3D with Super wide angle lenses from Zykkor.

So I bought a Sony Bloggie 3D, they can be found for quite cheap now. The separation is quite limited (around 20mm), but all the reviews I saw showed the quality was better than the Fuji W1 or W3. I my have to create a beam splitter to account for this in the future.

I was tempted to buy the Zykkor lenses but they look quite big which could create an heavy rig and makes it difficult to attach them to the Bloggie. They are not that cheap either (around $30 each) and the quality is not really impressive, there is a lot of chromatic abberation in this video and the images are quite blurry.

So I searched for other lenses and found these Wide Angle Fish Eye Lens for Compact Digital Cameras from DealExtreme. The results were much more convincing I'd say, here are two videos shot with them :





They are magnetic so it should be easy to attach them to the Bloggie, and they also produce full frame images so I guess the chromatic abberations on the edges will be very limited.

I found them on Amazon at $6.12, so I bought two of them :
http://www.amazon.com/Detachable-180%C2 ... B005C3CSSM

I'll post some results when I get them.


Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:55 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.