Gripe i have with 3D...why many 3D solutions are nonsense

[Freke1]

Hello,
Long time reader, first time poster Just my two cents about screen size perception. In stereovision.net days there was one discussion how to make monitor feel like big screen. Process was fairly simple. If you make stereo-pair from ordinary 2d picture or movie file with slightly horizontaly offset image in left and in opposite direction for right eye. Later viewing it with any stereoscopic solution will produce image either closer or farther than actual screen. So by movin picture for each eye more apart, you can simulate feeling of looking at large screen, but albeit thru window of monitor frame .

I think You're right 8)

[Sabre2552]

However, is there a difference between attaching a dome LCD with high pixel density and being presented with an extremely high quality video, and standing still at the exact same location and viewing the landscape with one eye? Note, I am only talking about visuals, not any of the other senses, and I am dealing only with the focus of a single eye in real life versus the focus of a single eye on a 2D image, no other variables.

[Freke1]

yes that's what I want to know too.

[cybereality]

However, is there a difference between attaching a dome LCD with high pixel density and being presented with an extremely high quality video, and standing still at the exact same location and viewing the landscape with one eye? Note, I am only talking about visuals, not any of the other senses, and I am dealing only with the focus of a single eye in real life versus the focus of a single eye on a 2D image, no other variables.

No, its not the same. In real-life your eyes will focus on objects of interest (even just with one eye). Like say this monitor you are reading right now. You can see the monitor fine, but your hands and the room are out of focus. Just try it right now. Put your hand right between you and the screen. Now close one eye. You can still choose to focus on your either your hand or the screen. A photograph will be at a fixed focus. So you cannot simulate the way the eye sees with a static image. If it was a picture of a forest, for example, and say the whole photo was clearly in focus. In real life, when you move your eyes to look at say a tree, then look at a rock, you eye will focus on the object you are concentrating on. In many cases this will mean the rest of the view gets out of focus. This happens naturally, although you can adjust it yourself (like looking at the magic eye book or whatever). In order for a simulation to handle this it would need to adjust the focus of the game to where you look using headtrackers or CV algorithms with a webcam. But it would need to be dynamic and adjust for every movement. Some newer games have depth-of-field blurring (which helps) but its not dynamic so it doesn't work like your real eyes do.

That said, assuming you had these high-res dual eye domes, with cameras inside that could track the users eyes (to produce dynamic convergence), then its theoretically possible to do this. Assuming it was a perfectly rendered image, I don't see how the mind could tell the difference. Although I guess *you* would still know it wasn't real, but aside from that it should be convincing.

[Kiree]

In order for a simulation to handle this it would need to adjust the focus of the game to where you look using headtrackers or CV algorithms with a webcam. But it would need to be dynamic and adjust for every movement. Some newer games have depth-of-field blurring (which helps) but its not dynamic so it doesn't work like your real eyes do.

That said, assuming you had these high-res dual eye domes, with cameras inside that could track the users eyes (to produce dynamic convergence), then its theoretically possible to do this. Assuming it was a perfectly rendered image, I don't see how the mind could tell the difference. Although I guess *you* would still know it wasn't real, but aside from that it should be convincing.

That's hardly a good solution. I doubt the mind would accept it.

What you really want is to shape the wavefront of the light for every pixel. You can read more here:
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/

I have no idea when such technology will hit the market at affordable prices. But until then, I'm sticking with 2D displays.

[Freke1]

That's probably really really hard to create because allthough it doesn't look like it, the 3D gameworld is rendered at the monitor/screen distance. It's not like gameobjects are created in real life outside the monitor - so we have to look/focus on the monitor/screen. Which gives us an all focused 3D gameworld. Same in 2D - all is in focus.

[cybereality]

In order for a simulation to handle this it would need to adjust the focus of the game to where you look using headtrackers or CV algorithms with a webcam. But it would need to be dynamic and adjust for every movement. Some newer games have depth-of-field blurring (which helps) but its not dynamic so it doesn't work like your real eyes do.

That said, assuming you had these high-res dual eye domes, with cameras inside that could track the users eyes (to produce dynamic convergence), then its theoretically possible to do this. Assuming it was a perfectly rendered image, I don't see how the mind could tell the difference. Although I guess *you* would still know it wasn't real, but aside from that it should be convincing.

That's hardly a good solution. I doubt the mind would accept it.

What you really want is to shape the wavefront of the light for every pixel. You can read more here:
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/

I have no idea when such technology will hit the market at affordable prices. But until then, I'm sticking with 2D displays.

Yeah, that was more what I was thinking about, but I didn't know the technical terms. You are right, the only way to do it 100% would be with true holographic 3d displays. I was merely commenting on one possible method to emulate this experience with existing technogy, similar to the way that modern games emulate HDR to simulate the way the eye perceives light. Obviously if we had *real* volumetric 3d displays all this discussion would be moot.

[Kiree]

Yeah, that was more what I was thinking about, but I didn't know the technical terms. You are right, the only way to do it 100% would be with true holographic 3d displays. I was merely commenting on one possible method to emulate this experience with existing technogy, similar to the way that modern games emulate HDR to simulate the way the eye perceives light. Obviously if we had *real* volumetric 3d displays all this discussion would be moot.

Well, dome displays with 1000 megapixels or so do not fall under existing technology either, do they?

Actually, I don't understand why true 3D HMDs haven't been commercialized already. The technology seems simple and cheap in theory.
(edit) I mean, consider the almost ridiculously complex structure of TFT LCDs. Adding a deformable lens for each pixel shouldn't be that hard or expensive.

[cybereality]

Well, dome displays with 1000 megapixels or so do not fall under existing technology either, do they?

No. But they are an extension of existing tech. If a company wanted to build something like this today, its probably possible.

Real holographic displays are a few years off at least.

[Kiree]

I'm pretty sure "holographic" is not the correct term for what we are discussing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography
I don't think "volumetric" is suitable either, since the display is essentially 2D and the volumetric effect is an optical illusion. I really don't know what to call it, "stereo display with per pixel wavefront shaping" is too long and awkward.

Anyway, I consider stereoscopy alone to be a half-assed solution. Cater to both convergence and accomodation, or stick with 2D.

[cybereality]

Anyway, I consider stereoscopy alone to be a half-assed solution. Cater to both convergence and accomodation, or stick with 2D.

What stereo3d solutions did you try that gave you this impression? Have you seen Beowulf 3D in the theaters?!?! Its for reals!

[Kiree]

None. I just know what depth-of-field looks like in the real world, and I can notice when it's missing. Not that it really matters, reaching high FOV at affordable prices is a much bigger obstacle.

[yuriythebest]

None. I just know what depth-of-field looks like in the real world, and I can notice when it's missing. Not that it really matters, reaching high FOV at affordable prices is a much bigger obstacle.

it's not really fair to judge something you haven't actually experienced. Buy a pair of 10$ shutterglasses at least or something. All statisticts/numbers/technical specifications aside I can tell you that stereo3d on even a 19' monitor looks amazing. sort of like having a 19' window that expands around 1/2 of a meter inside the screen, maybe more. Basically what you are saying can be compared to someone refusing to switch from b/w to color without ever seeing a color tv simply because "the RGB outputs of todays monitors cannot fully output all the colors an eye can see". Again, I'm not trying to offend you, but please experience some 3d solution (not anaglyph) before judging.

[crim3]

What you really want is to shape the wavefront of the light for every pixel. You can read more here:
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/

That's a great tech! What a leap forward. With such a display maybe none would need training to see in stereo like now.
It's the piece that left to be the output method for everybody.

[cybereality]

None. I just know what depth-of-field looks like in the real world, and I can notice when it's missing. Not that it really matters, reaching high FOV at affordable prices is a much bigger obstacle.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you should really make an effort to try something before you knock it. Existing stereo3d solutions are what they are. Its not like the holodeck; you're not going to jack into the matrix or anything like that. Fine. But stereo 3d gaming can still be cool on its own right. Just like there are some people that build gaming cockpits with triple-screens and flight-sticks, etc. Its just like that. They do that to get "into the game". Stereo 3d is just another tool for immersing yourself in the game. But its still just a game, an illusion. Its only as real as you let it be.

In addition, could you please not piss in the cool-aid. Some of us here are actually drinking it.

[flexy]

>>>
But its still just a game, an illusion. Its only as real as you let it be.
>>>
yes of course I am also not *really* a Warlock

But the point is that using some wrongly applied 3D techniques it can even create a less "realistic" experience...as i described in my post, since the illusion of 3D (say, in a game) makes something like a game-character appear appear "real", instead of flat in 2D on the screen. But the 3D could make me subjectively think that my game-character is actually the size of barbie - while i am playing in flat 2D this "illusion" does not apply since in 2D we're used to assume that a shape, whatever real physical size on the flat screen, COULD be life-size. So..the 3D distorts our perception, kind of
(Or, simple: The difference in perception of reality could be the same as if i'd to play with a real, physical doll-house (everything 3D ...but this doesnt make it more "realistic", at all. I am not "against" 3D, actually i am getting my first 3D DLP delivered in the next minutes....i am just saying it needs to be applied right, and FOV is important and small screens could be hindering.

I also think that many 3d systems (this is mostly a software issue) do it "wrong" since they only create a "behind screen" fish-tank effect....there is no reason to do this.

The problem is that a screen-size limits us in size of an object to be displayed...but the 3D tech allows us to shift the perceived "distance", and at some point it becomes unrealistic - thus contributing to a "wrong" illusion.

Example: According my PC screen, a person completely displayed from head-to toe could be assumed to MAXIMALLY stand 3ft in front of me, since in real life the person, 3ft away, would fill the same FOV as the person displayed on screen.

Now if i keep the person displayed (on the screen), but i shift the 3d-impression so the person comes "closer"....the person will shrink, since size stays the same...but the brain assumes it is closer.

A FOV filling screen has more "headroom" for this, it would allow me to shift the person closer and perceive it as "real size" and 3D.

[cybereality]

But the 3D could make me subjectively think that my game-character is actually the size of barbie - while i am playing in flat 2D this "illusion" does not apply since in 2D we're used to assume that a shape, whatever real physical size on the flat screen, COULD be life-size. So..the 3D distorts our perception, kind of
(Or, simple: The difference in perception of reality could be the same as if i'd to play with a real, physical doll-house (everything 3D ...but this doesnt make it more "realistic", at all.

I totally understand what you are saying, and I agree, if you are talking about a reality simulation. In order for true virtual reality, it would need to be at a 1:1 scale. But that doesn't mean that stereo 3d can't add a significant level of realism, all other things being equal.

[Freke1]

There are some cool "sideeffects" about 3D that ppl rarely mention:

1. The monitor glass vanishes. You can't see it. Offcause if yesterdays pizzaslice is stuck there You will notice it.

2. Your mind focusses on things that seems many meters away - not just 1.5 feet. You can compare it to looking at a big photo (also noticing the frame) and seeing through a window (You don't notice the framing but focusses on what happens outside the window.

3. If a game has a FOV of 80 degrees and Your monitor has a FOV of 80 degrees You see the objects in correct size - they take up as much of Your view as they would in real life.

4. Popout is the same a 3D deep inside the monitor. The only difference is that the object is closer to You than the monitor. But it is the same 3D. A popout 3D object doesn't change as it moves away through the (invisible) monitor glass into the "depth" of Our monitor. It stays correct 3D all the way.

5. You will duck when someone swings a sword at You and You stomach will turn when You jump of a high tower.
I've been knifed many times in 3D and I HATE it.

6. The image quality is much better (I would say 1024*768 in 3D is as beautyfull as 1600*1200 in 2D.

Am I the only one noticing these kool "sideeffects"? (don't think so but it's rarely mentioned though)
3D is pretty darn good, although not perfect. How about this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_p69UwO ... video.html
(it's Hornet from Nvidia's 3D forum I think)

[yuriythebest]

Am I the only one noticing these kool "sideeffects"? (don't think so but it's rarely mentioned though)
3D is pretty darn good, although not perfect. How about this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_p69UwO ... video.html
(it's Hornet from Nvidia's 3D forum I think)

wow that dual stereoscopic projector system rulez!!! that game must really be scary!

[crim3]

6. The image quality is much better (I would say 1024*768 in 3D is as beautyfull as 1600*1200 in 2D.

It was commented often at the z800 forums. It's only 800x600, but you only notice it when you focus on small things like letters, cockpit instruments or heads of distant enemies. The blocky effect of that low resolution is not evident.

[LukePC1]

I think Z800 has some problems:
- lack of drivers
- the resolution is not supported by any game. And it won't become more (in %)
- price rose to high for consumers...

I'm certain it would be a nice product otherwise.

[Kiree]

it's not really fair to judge something you haven't actually experienced. Buy a pair of 10$ shutterglasses at least or something.

I don't have any CRT around.

Basically what you are saying can be compared to someone refusing to switch from b/w to color without ever seeing a color tv simply because "the RGB outputs of todays monitors cannot fully output all the colors an eye can see". Again, I'm not trying to offend you, but please experience some 3d solution (not anaglyph) before judging.

I'm not refusing to switch. If I could just walk into a nearby electronics shop and have it demoed, maybe I'd change my mind.

[cybereality]

I'm not refusing to switch. If I could just walk into a nearby electronics shop and have it demoed, maybe I'd change my mind.

You are completely entitled to your opinion. I agree that many times 3D is sold as a gimmick or isn't even real 3d, so many people might have got the wrong impression. If possible, wait until the next RealD release in theaters. I believe they are showing U2:3D right now in select theaters. Also, do a search for "IMAX3D" there are a number of theaters across the US that show movies in real 3d. You might be surprised how far the technology has come.