Specifying IPD with 3D vision
  2 / 3    
[quote="Cookybiscuit"]I play at just above 9cm's, have done for a few months and have had someone check my eyes for divergence, experiance no discomfort what so ever.[/quote] Uhuh ... I did a little CSIshop on your avatar the jig is up man! Lol.
Cookybiscuit said:I play at just above 9cm's, have done for a few months and have had someone check my eyes for divergence, experiance no discomfort what so ever.


Uhuh ... I did a little CSIshop on your avatar the jig is up man! Lol.
#16
Posted 03/07/2013 05:34 PM   
[quote="Cookybiscuit"]I know its perhaps not directly related to what your asking, but... We've had this discussion before but I'm still not buying the 6cm rule. Think about when you go the cinema, 6cm seperation on a 100' IMAX screen is absolutely nothing, it has to be more than that.[/quote] Lol, oh no, here we go! I also thought this Cookybiscuit, but after long debate with Airion I went and did the maths. It simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In nature, you simply will never, ever, period, see objects with a greater separation than your eyes have. If separation is above your IPD the angle will be >90, which would imply 2 things: What your seeing is not natural or Your face is concave and your eyes are both pointing inwards (meaning they have to diverge to look at an object in front of you). Your focal point is a narrow cone, so if your screen is above your IPD, you may still be able to focus on it, but it will be unnatural to your eyes. The further away you are from the screen the larger this separation can be as that 1 degree takes up more visual space. I thought your point about the cinema too, but went to see hobbit in 3D, the separation on a massive screen was just a couple of inches on the MAX depth scenes. Go to imax, get to the front and check it out yourself. (Don't forget, converged scenes where objects are coming out of the screen will be huge in imax, what you need to look for is separation caused with depth). There is clearly a degree of error in what you see that the brain can correct and compensate for, and for you the experience is better, but it's definitely different to what you could see in real life without a concave face :-) Either way, what works for you works for you.
Cookybiscuit said:I know its perhaps not directly related to what your asking, but... We've had this discussion before but I'm still not buying the 6cm rule. Think about when you go the cinema, 6cm seperation on a 100' IMAX screen is absolutely nothing, it has to be more than that.


Lol, oh no, here we go! I also thought this Cookybiscuit, but after long debate with Airion I went and did the maths. It simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In nature, you simply will never, ever, period, see objects with a greater separation than your eyes have. If separation is above your IPD the angle will be >90, which would imply 2 things:

What your seeing is not natural or
Your face is concave and your eyes are both pointing inwards (meaning they have to diverge to look at an object in front of you).

Your focal point is a narrow cone, so if your screen is above your IPD, you may still be able to focus on it, but it will be unnatural to your eyes. The further away you are from the screen the larger this separation can be as that 1 degree takes up more visual space.

I thought your point about the cinema too, but went to see hobbit in 3D, the separation on a massive screen was just a couple of inches on the MAX depth scenes. Go to imax, get to the front and check it out yourself. (Don't forget, converged scenes where objects are coming out of the screen will be huge in imax, what you need to look for is separation caused with depth).

There is clearly a degree of error in what you see that the brain can correct and compensate for, and for you the experience is better, but it's definitely different to what you could see in real life without a concave face :-)

Either way, what works for you works for you.

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

#17
Posted 03/07/2013 06:10 PM   
Unless his stereo effect is reversed and he's just become accustomed to viewing the actual stereo effect in reverse, so by him adding depth he's actually adding convergence. edit: I just whipped up a simple 3D test image L on left and R on right.
Unless his stereo effect is reversed and he's just become accustomed to viewing the actual stereo effect in reverse, so by him adding depth he's actually adding convergence.

edit: I just whipped up a simple 3D test image L on left and R on right.
#18
Posted 03/07/2013 08:04 PM   
I have to say, this sparked a great discussion. Thanks both for your answers and guidance! I greatly appreciate it. TsabethT that is an interesting approach to the experiment, I hadn't even thought of that, I will discuss with my partner and see where it goes. Again, thanks!!
I have to say, this sparked a great discussion. Thanks both for your answers and guidance! I greatly appreciate it. TsabethT that is an interesting approach to the experiment, I hadn't even thought of that, I will discuss with my partner and see where it goes. Again, thanks!!

#19
Posted 03/07/2013 08:38 PM   
I will definitely be using this forum again!
I will definitely be using this forum again!

#20
Posted 03/07/2013 08:39 PM   
[quote="brisklemonade53"]I have to say, this sparked a great discussion. Thanks both for your answers and guidance! I greatly appreciate it. TsabethT that is an interesting approach to the experiment, I hadn't even thought of that, I will discuss with my partner and see where it goes. Again, thanks!![/quote] You're welcome, let us know how it goes.
brisklemonade53 said:I have to say, this sparked a great discussion. Thanks both for your answers and guidance! I greatly appreciate it. TsabethT that is an interesting approach to the experiment, I hadn't even thought of that, I will discuss with my partner and see where it goes. Again, thanks!!


You're welcome, let us know how it goes.
#21
Posted 03/07/2013 08:48 PM   
[quote="brisklemonade53"]I will definitely be using this forum again![/quote] Glad to here it brisklemonade53, if you have the time it would be great to hear how you confucted the test and what results you got. Take care.
brisklemonade53 said:I will definitely be using this forum again!


Glad to here it brisklemonade53, if you have the time it would be great to hear how you confucted the test and what results you got.

Take care.

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

#22
Posted 03/07/2013 08:53 PM   
lalalalala cant hear you over my super over the top 3D effects. :) In all seriousness, I just don't believe it. A tonne of people use depth hacks, and if it did effect your eyes somehow I'd probably be blind by now.
lalalalala cant hear you over my super over the top 3D effects. :)

In all seriousness, I just don't believe it. A tonne of people use depth hacks, and if it did effect your eyes somehow I'd probably be blind by now.

#23
Posted 03/08/2013 12:16 AM   
[quote="Cookybiscuit"]lalalalala cant hear you over my super over the top 3D effects. :) In all seriousness, I just don't believe it. A tonne of people use depth hacks, and if it did effect your eyes somehow I'd probably be blind by now.[/quote] Why would you be blind? Just said it would be un-natural. You don't have to believe me, check it out yourself. Either: A) go to imax, check out max seperation B) draw 2 eyes and an object on a peice of paper. Draw triangle view pionts from each eye. Measure the angles to the same single object. They will always be <90. This is true no matter on how far the object is away from the viewpoint (further away the closer the angle gets to 90, but never gets closer than 89.9 recurring. Doesn't mean the the effect you'e achieving is harmful, and hell, if everything they said about what makes you go blindis true, we'd all be short sighted ;-)
Cookybiscuit said:lalalalala cant hear you over my super over the top 3D effects. :)

In all seriousness, I just don't believe it. A tonne of people use depth hacks, and if it did effect your eyes somehow I'd probably be blind by now.


Why would you be blind? Just said it would be un-natural. You don't have to believe me, check it out yourself. Either:

A) go to imax, check out max seperation
B) draw 2 eyes and an object on a peice of paper. Draw triangle view pionts from each eye. Measure the angles to the same single object. They will always be <90. This is true no matter on how far the object is away from the viewpoint (further away the closer the angle gets to 90, but never gets closer than 89.9 recurring.

Doesn't mean the the effect you'e achieving is harmful, and hell, if everything they said about what makes you go blindis true, we'd all be short sighted ;-)

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

#24
Posted 03/08/2013 05:59 AM   
You used this example yourself, how do you manage to focus the dots on the moon, that are craters miles wide? Focus a star thats several million miles wide, your eyes don't diverge a million miles. Its all based on where you are in comparison. But yes obviously you don't want your eyes going further than 90 degrees.
You used this example yourself, how do you manage to focus the dots on the moon, that are craters miles wide? Focus a star thats several million miles wide, your eyes don't diverge a million miles. Its all based on where you are in comparison.

But yes obviously you don't want your eyes going further than 90 degrees.

#25
Posted 03/08/2013 07:05 AM   
[quote="Cookybiscuit"]You used this example yourself, how do you manage to focus the dots on the moon, that are craters miles wide? Focus a star thats several million miles wide, your eyes don't diverge a million miles. Its all based on where you are in comparison. But yes obviously you don't want your eyes going further than 90 degrees.[/quote] I used the example myself, which is why you will hopefully know my opinion is not biased, i was proved wrong by Airion. Earlier, i made a mistake with the maths, sat down and worked it out, and Airion was 100% correct. You can focus on a spot on the moon because your eyes focal point is not 1 'retinal pixel' (that is a made up word, but I think you will understand my meaning.) Your focal point is about the same size as the moon in the sky, aka, a small cone. The further something is away the closer it will get to infinity away from your eyes (e.g. Both eyes looking at 90 degrees.) Your eyes with regards to any object the universe will never (normally) be 90 degrees, although on very distant objects will be so close to 90 to make it irrelevant. E.g. Draw a traingle to the moon, with the the hyp your IPD and obj and adj equal sides meeting at a point on the moon. The angle would be 89.999999 etc. Look at a star ir would be 89.9e20 for example. It would never be 90 degrees, as that would mean you are litterally looking at an object infinitly far away, and infinity is only a concept. There is no possible way to get to an infinite point, as you could always add 1 that number. So 91 degrees is simply impossible, unless your eyes are on a concave face. As i said, map it out with real objects on a peice of paper, traingles and two eyes. Move the object away or closer to the eyes, what happens? Your 1-2 degree focal point (I don't know what it is exactly) is what lets you focus on greater distances when the object is further away. You could play with a seperation of many miles if the screen was on the moon. It would still be only a small % of a degree of your visual focus though, much like your current seperation on your screen is. Don't let this suggest what your doing is harmful or to the detriment of 3D. Your divegence would be tiny, it may not even be diverging your eyes, maybe you are focusing on the outer edges of your focal cone. It is simply that in reality you will never see an object in 3D space like that. Our brains work in wonderful way, and your brain may very well make that image look better to you. That is subjective. I have read many people saying they play with 7+cm seperation to their benefit. I also read thay apparntly a large % of people would find any divergence impossible to focus on. To sum up, if it works for you, do it and don't worry about it ;-)
Cookybiscuit said:You used this example yourself, how do you manage to focus the dots on the moon, that are craters miles wide? Focus a star thats several million miles wide, your eyes don't diverge a million miles. Its all based on where you are in comparison.

But yes obviously you don't want your eyes going further than 90 degrees.


I used the example myself, which is why you will hopefully know my opinion is not biased, i was proved wrong by Airion. Earlier, i made a mistake with the maths, sat down and worked it out, and Airion was 100% correct.

You can focus on a spot on the moon because your eyes focal point is not 1 'retinal pixel' (that is a made up word, but I think you will understand my meaning.) Your focal point is about the same size as the moon in the sky, aka, a small cone. The further something is away the closer it will get to infinity away from your eyes (e.g. Both eyes looking at 90 degrees.) Your eyes with regards to any object the universe will never (normally) be 90 degrees, although on very distant objects will be so close to 90 to make it irrelevant.

E.g. Draw a traingle to the moon, with the the hyp your IPD and obj and adj equal sides meeting at a point on the moon. The angle would be 89.999999 etc.

Look at a star ir would be 89.9e20 for example. It would never be 90 degrees, as that would mean you are litterally looking at an object infinitly far away, and infinity is only a concept. There is no possible way to get to an infinite point, as you could always add 1 that number.

So 91 degrees is simply impossible, unless your eyes are on a concave face. As i said, map it out with real objects on a peice of paper, traingles and two eyes. Move the object away or closer to the eyes, what happens?

Your 1-2 degree focal point (I don't know what it is exactly) is what lets you focus on greater distances when the object is further away. You could play with a seperation of many miles if the screen was on the moon. It would still be only a small % of a degree of your visual focus though, much like your current seperation on your screen is.

Don't let this suggest what your doing is harmful or to the detriment of 3D. Your divegence would be tiny, it may not even be diverging your eyes, maybe you are focusing on the outer edges of your focal cone. It is simply that in reality you will never see an object in 3D space like that. Our brains work in wonderful way, and your brain may very well make that image look better to you. That is subjective.

I have read many people saying they play with 7+cm seperation to their benefit. I also read thay apparntly a large % of people would find any divergence impossible to focus on.

To sum up, if it works for you, do it and don't worry about it ;-)

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

#26
Posted 03/08/2013 02:03 PM   
I'm useless at maths so I'm not even going to try working anything out. I have diverged my eyes before, you've probably done it yourself too sitting too close or playing with depth. Its immidiately obvious when it happens and it hurts like hell, its not like "Hmm my eyes aren't feeling right". Maybe you are right and my eyes are diverging by such a small amount I can't feel it. When I was setting up my depth I sat closer than I usually sit, and set the depth up further than it should go. Just sat with music on and stared into space for about an hour. No discomfort. To me my eyes feel tbe same between the Nvidia preset and my preset at 9cm's, theres no extra effor to focus it, and I've actually had it quite a bit higher with comfort, but play at the level I do just incase I'm going too far and don't know I'm doing myself damage. The only reason I'm not believing the maths you propose is that the 100% level provided by Nvidia is greater than the average persons pupilary distance, mine included. If it were to cause damage to eyes it seems absolutely wreckless that Nvidia would give people the ammo to shoot at theirselves, just don't think they'd be that lazy. Considering the majority of 3D Vision users probably crank the slider to 100% the second they get the kit, I'd assume it would have been front page news after Nvidia caused 10's of thousands of deaths from exploding heads :)
I'm useless at maths so I'm not even going to try working anything out. I have diverged my eyes before, you've probably done it yourself too sitting too close or playing with depth. Its immidiately obvious when it happens and it hurts like hell, its not like "Hmm my eyes aren't feeling right".

Maybe you are right and my eyes are diverging by such a small amount I can't feel it. When I was setting up my depth I sat closer than I usually sit, and set the depth up further than it should go. Just sat with music on and stared into space for about an hour. No discomfort. To me my eyes feel tbe same between the Nvidia preset and my preset at 9cm's, theres no extra effor to focus it, and I've actually had it quite a bit higher with comfort, but play at the level I do just incase I'm going too far and don't know I'm doing myself damage.

The only reason I'm not believing the maths you propose is that the 100% level provided by Nvidia is greater than the average persons pupilary distance, mine included. If it were to cause damage to eyes it seems absolutely wreckless that Nvidia would give people the ammo to shoot at theirselves, just don't think they'd be that lazy. Considering the majority of 3D Vision users probably crank the slider to 100% the second they get the kit, I'd assume it would have been front page news after Nvidia caused 10's of thousands of deaths from exploding heads :)

#27
Posted 03/08/2013 02:29 PM   
Why would it damage eyes? I've heard of a few exploding heads while gaming with nvidia, but I always attributed that with the sheer amazingness of 3D being too much for some people ;-) In all seriousness though, diverging your eyes is unlikely to cause too many problems. My wife does it for a party trick, and we all did all kind of wonky things with our eyes for fun at school. My brothers eye 'diverges' when he's tired or drunk. Many people suffer lazy eye, which is essentially divergence. I think if the image was so separated it 'could' be harmful, the person could simply not focus on it. The eyes would only diverge to a certain point. Trying to force your eyes after that point would probably require a ton of willpower, so if damage is possible YOU would have to be trying for it. I would bet at worse it strains your eyes, i'm pretty sure nvidia would have consulted at least one optician before sticking their name on 3D vision.
Why would it damage eyes? I've heard of a few exploding heads while gaming with nvidia, but I always attributed that with the sheer amazingness of 3D being too much for some people ;-)

In all seriousness though, diverging your eyes is unlikely to cause too many problems. My wife does it for a party trick, and we all did all kind of wonky things with our eyes for fun at school. My brothers eye 'diverges' when he's tired or drunk. Many people suffer lazy eye, which is essentially divergence.

I think if the image was so separated it 'could' be harmful, the person could simply not focus on it. The eyes would only diverge to a certain point. Trying to force your eyes after that point would probably require a ton of willpower, so if damage is possible YOU would have to be trying for it.

I would bet at worse it strains your eyes, i'm pretty sure nvidia would have consulted at least one optician before sticking their name on 3D vision.

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

#28
Posted 03/08/2013 02:45 PM   
[quote="Cookybiscuit"]The only reason I'm not believing the maths you propose is that the 100% level provided by Nvidia is greater than the average persons pupilary distance, mine included. If it were to cause damage to eyes it seems absolutely wreckless that Nvidia would give people the ammo to shoot at theirselves, just don't think they'd be that lazy. Considering the majority of 3D Vision users probably crank the slider to 100% the second they get the kit, I'd assume it would have been front page news after Nvidia caused 10's of thousands of deaths from exploding heads :)[/quote] Is 100% really greater than the average IPD? What's the average person using, a 24" monitor? On my 65" I game comfortably at 50%, I could go higher as it's lower than my IPD at the screen. 65 divided by 24 is roughly a 2.7:1 ratio, do if I took my 50% and multiplied it by 2.7 that'd be equal to 135% separation on a 24" monitor, right? Even at 27" that's 2.4:1, which would take 120% separation to achieve my 50%. At my 50% it would take a monitor half it's size to equal it at 100%, and that's not even my max.
Cookybiscuit said:The only reason I'm not believing the maths you propose is that the 100% level provided by Nvidia is greater than the average persons pupilary distance, mine included. If it were to cause damage to eyes it seems absolutely wreckless that Nvidia would give people the ammo to shoot at theirselves, just don't think they'd be that lazy. Considering the majority of 3D Vision users probably crank the slider to 100% the second they get the kit, I'd assume it would have been front page news after Nvidia caused 10's of thousands of deaths from exploding heads :)


Is 100% really greater than the average IPD? What's the average person using, a 24" monitor? On my 65" I game comfortably at 50%, I could go higher as it's lower than my IPD at the screen. 65 divided by 24 is roughly a 2.7:1 ratio, do if I took my 50% and multiplied it by 2.7 that'd be equal to 135% separation on a 24" monitor, right? Even at 27" that's 2.4:1, which would take 120% separation to achieve my 50%. At my 50% it would take a monitor half it's size to equal it at 100%, and that's not even my max.
#29
Posted 03/09/2013 06:52 PM   
I'm using a 27" and maximum depth without registry edits is somewhere around 6.8cm's.
I'm using a 27" and maximum depth without registry edits is somewhere around 6.8cm's.

#30
Posted 03/09/2013 08:35 PM   
  2 / 3    
Scroll To Top