[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='15 May 2012 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1337076007' post='1408538']My wife took 10 seconds to adjust to the image though.[/quote]
This might be telling. Perhaps the next test is to have your wife look at your eyes while you view one of these images to see if they're diverging.
One other thing I'm curious about, how long have you been gaming with these ultra-high depth settings?
They do say everyone sees 3D differently. Frustratingly vague as that is, perhaps that's the key here?
I'm glad you liked the image, don't feel restricted to the exact settings i uploaded. You can use the shortcuts in Nvidia viewer to change the depth which is how I made those three almost identical images in the first place.
shortcuts:
d - move forwards
f - move backwards
j - save
e & r - remove camera rotation, it's hard to hold the camera exactly straight.
First of all you might be used to a different scale when it comes to depth.
After a certain point it is humanly impossible to tell the depth by separation alone.
If an article above is to be believed the image is supposed to be equivalent to a flat image beyond a distance of 70m to be realistic.
The point is not to have the highest amount of percieved depth which in reality cannot be percieved with the limitations of "fake" 3D. The eyes focus on the screen 2m away but seems to be looking at an object way beyond the screen which can make some people uneasy.
Back to discussion of realism near the camera. That fence is less than 2m away from the camera most likely around 1m as I try to follow the recoomended minimum distance of 70cm when shooting a picture like that.
I guess my primary point is to feel free to play around with the knobs.
Can you achieve a realistic distance for near objects as well.
I'm glad you liked the image, don't feel restricted to the exact settings i uploaded. You can use the shortcuts in Nvidia viewer to change the depth which is how I made those three almost identical images in the first place.
shortcuts:
d - move forwards
f - move backwards
j - save
e & r - remove camera rotation, it's hard to hold the camera exactly straight.
First of all you might be used to a different scale when it comes to depth.
After a certain point it is humanly impossible to tell the depth by separation alone.
If an article above is to be believed the image is supposed to be equivalent to a flat image beyond a distance of 70m to be realistic.
The point is not to have the highest amount of percieved depth which in reality cannot be percieved with the limitations of "fake" 3D. The eyes focus on the screen 2m away but seems to be looking at an object way beyond the screen which can make some people uneasy.
Back to discussion of realism near the camera. That fence is less than 2m away from the camera most likely around 1m as I try to follow the recoomended minimum distance of 70cm when shooting a picture like that.
I guess my primary point is to feel free to play around with the knobs.
Can you achieve a realistic distance for near objects as well.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
[quote name='Flugan' date='15 May 2012 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1337083565' post='1408592']If an article above is to be believed the image is supposed to be equivalent to a flat image beyond a distance of 70m to be realistic.[/quote]
My one gripe with that article is its use of "flat." Beyond 200 yards (70m) we don't get any additional stereoscopic cues because the 6.5cm difference between our eyes becomes negligible. That is, the left and right eye see the same thing when facing exactly forward. The article describes this as "flat," and yet while the left and right eyes can discern no difference, the convergence of the eyes does tell our brain that the object is far far off for starters. From that point, there are a myriad of 3D depth clues which don't use stereo vision which offers more information beyond this stereo limit. That's why one might guess a mountain is 2 kilometers away, despite that being far beyond the range of stereoscopic vision. The farther away an object is, the less useful stereo vision is. Things aren't at all "flat" as we normally think of the word flat at such a distance.
[quote name='Flugan' date='15 May 2012 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1337083565' post='1408592']If an article above is to be believed the image is supposed to be equivalent to a flat image beyond a distance of 70m to be realistic.
My one gripe with that article is its use of "flat." Beyond 200 yards (70m) we don't get any additional stereoscopic cues because the 6.5cm difference between our eyes becomes negligible. That is, the left and right eye see the same thing when facing exactly forward. The article describes this as "flat," and yet while the left and right eyes can discern no difference, the convergence of the eyes does tell our brain that the object is far far off for starters. From that point, there are a myriad of 3D depth clues which don't use stereo vision which offers more information beyond this stereo limit. That's why one might guess a mountain is 2 kilometers away, despite that being far beyond the range of stereoscopic vision. The farther away an object is, the less useful stereo vision is. Things aren't at all "flat" as we normally think of the word flat at such a distance.
Adding a few in-game pictures as well.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vf2bbmbfomvlz31
Every picture is taken with my 100% depth setting except Dirt 3.
As you have a much larger screen it should be very close to your 300% setting. While I don't recommend them with a screensize larger than 24" this is kind of the topic of this thread, your ability to play with settings used on a small screen while using a significantly larger screen. I tried to cover a number of games but was a bit lazy and just selected screens I had already captured for the most part.
On a separate note it can be difficult finding a good 3D view with a small screen as if you look at something 30cm away the view presented to each eye will be significantly different in angle and likeness.
I honestly don't know what your setup is but if I assume 720p at 100" that could be it.
My screen has a pixel density of 93pixels/inch and that setup would have only 15pixels/inch
Talking just about negative space that produces 233 different pixel separations vs only 37 using a projector making the depth information have significantly less resolution.
Every picture is taken with my 100% depth setting except Dirt 3.
As you have a much larger screen it should be very close to your 300% setting. While I don't recommend them with a screensize larger than 24" this is kind of the topic of this thread, your ability to play with settings used on a small screen while using a significantly larger screen. I tried to cover a number of games but was a bit lazy and just selected screens I had already captured for the most part.
On a separate note it can be difficult finding a good 3D view with a small screen as if you look at something 30cm away the view presented to each eye will be significantly different in angle and likeness.
I honestly don't know what your setup is but if I assume 720p at 100" that could be it.
My screen has a pixel density of 93pixels/inch and that setup would have only 15pixels/inch
Talking just about negative space that produces 233 different pixel separations vs only 37 using a projector making the depth information have significantly less resolution.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
For all intents and purposes you can estimate the distance just as well using only a 2D photo vs a 3D photo the flat photo is just as good for these additional cues for "estimating" distance.
The separation curve quickly flattens out and when rounded to the nearest pixel the a lot of objects appear at "infinity" distance but obviously the human has more tricks to determine the position of things.
Bringing it back to 3D, I recently shot an image of a football game (soccer) and the feeling between the 2D shot and 3D shot is very different. They are caught near maximum height of their jump reaching for the ball and in 3D they are really levitationg clearly separated from the background and ground.
For all intents and purposes you can estimate the distance just as well using only a 2D photo vs a 3D photo the flat photo is just as good for these additional cues for "estimating" distance.
The separation curve quickly flattens out and when rounded to the nearest pixel the a lot of objects appear at "infinity" distance but obviously the human has more tricks to determine the position of things.
Bringing it back to 3D, I recently shot an image of a football game (soccer) and the feeling between the 2D shot and 3D shot is very different. They are caught near maximum height of their jump reaching for the ball and in 3D they are really levitationg clearly separated from the background and ground.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
I have been using "high" depth settings since first I got a projector back in 2001 perhaps. With a separation of ocular distance, the scene just looks too fake to me. I'm at work right now. When I get home, I'll ask my wife to take a look at my eyes.
Many animals have eyes on the sides of their heads... ultra divergent compared to us lowly humans. I have always wondered what advantage this gave, and if they could see in 3D at all.
Flugan, with the "24", both the depth and the convergence seemed perfect. Near objects were far better perceived than with 48/96.
I have been using "high" depth settings since first I got a projector back in 2001 perhaps. With a separation of ocular distance, the scene just looks too fake to me. I'm at work right now. When I get home, I'll ask my wife to take a look at my eyes.
Many animals have eyes on the sides of their heads... ultra divergent compared to us lowly humans. I have always wondered what advantage this gave, and if they could see in 3D at all.
Flugan, with the "24", both the depth and the convergence seemed perfect. Near objects were far better perceived than with 48/96.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote name='Flugan' date='15 May 2012 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1337086793' post='1408616']I honestly don't know what your setup is but if I assume 720p at 100" that could be it.
My screen has a pixel density of 93pixels/inch and that setup would have only 15pixels/inch
Talking just about negative space that produces 233 different pixel separations vs only 37 using a projector making the depth information have significantly less resolution.
[/quote]
You've really got a handle on the math, thanks for this! But in defense of projectors (I have a 720p 3D projector at 90 inches), there's a lot less pixels per inch but a whole lot more inches (my 90 vs your 24) than a monitor. Also the viewing distance is naturally much different between the two, which is a critical factor when talking pixels per inch (ppi). In short, I don't think it's a problem of resolution. Perceived detail is relative to the resolution, size, and distance from a given display. Maximum depth (infinity), should be absolute, 6.5 cm no matter the resolution, size, or distance from a given display.
[quote name='Flugan' date='15 May 2012 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1337086793' post='1408616']I honestly don't know what your setup is but if I assume 720p at 100" that could be it.
My screen has a pixel density of 93pixels/inch and that setup would have only 15pixels/inch
Talking just about negative space that produces 233 different pixel separations vs only 37 using a projector making the depth information have significantly less resolution.
You've really got a handle on the math, thanks for this! But in defense of projectors (I have a 720p 3D projector at 90 inches), there's a lot less pixels per inch but a whole lot more inches (my 90 vs your 24) than a monitor. Also the viewing distance is naturally much different between the two, which is a critical factor when talking pixels per inch (ppi). In short, I don't think it's a problem of resolution. Perceived detail is relative to the resolution, size, and distance from a given display. Maximum depth (infinity), should be absolute, 6.5 cm no matter the resolution, size, or distance from a given display.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='15 May 2012 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1337088819' post='1408633']Many animals have eyes on the sides of their heads... ultra divergent compared to us lowly humans. I have always wondered what advantage this gave, and if they could see in 3D at all.[/quote]
For most animals, the advantage of having eyes on the sides of their heads means they can see pretty much 360 degrees, nothing goes unnoticed. It doesn't mean they can't see 3D, as there are plenty of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception#Monocular_cues"]monocular 3D depth cues[/url]. However, stereoscopic 3D is sort of a sixth sense that falls under the blanket of "vision," which allows for highly accurate depth perception at relatively close range. For most animals, it's more useful to have 360 vision. A horse doesn't really need highly accurate depth perception to run away from a predator. For an ape (our ancestors) jumping from tree to tree however, stereoscopic 3D means the difference between making an escape and falling to death, outrunning 3D deficient predators in a treacherous environment vs stalling to judge where to jump to safety. It's a wonderful sense perceived by only a small percentage of life, and enjoyed by an even smaller percentage of that (us 3D fans; those haters are animals! /devil.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':devil:' /> ).
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='15 May 2012 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1337088819' post='1408633']Many animals have eyes on the sides of their heads... ultra divergent compared to us lowly humans. I have always wondered what advantage this gave, and if they could see in 3D at all.
For most animals, the advantage of having eyes on the sides of their heads means they can see pretty much 360 degrees, nothing goes unnoticed. It doesn't mean they can't see 3D, as there are plenty of monocular 3D depth cues. However, stereoscopic 3D is sort of a sixth sense that falls under the blanket of "vision," which allows for highly accurate depth perception at relatively close range. For most animals, it's more useful to have 360 vision. A horse doesn't really need highly accurate depth perception to run away from a predator. For an ape (our ancestors) jumping from tree to tree however, stereoscopic 3D means the difference between making an escape and falling to death, outrunning 3D deficient predators in a treacherous environment vs stalling to judge where to jump to safety. It's a wonderful sense perceived by only a small percentage of life, and enjoyed by an even smaller percentage of that (us 3D fans; those haters are animals! /devil.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':devil:' /> ).
Using the formula from http://developer.download.nvidia.com/presentations/2009/GDC/GDC09-3DVision-The_In_and_Out.pdf
I have plotted the curve using a distance to screen of 0,5m with 93 pixels/inch vs 2m with 15pixels/inch.
One thing is certain, the 24" monitor in question has enough resolution to have a fairly smooth curve.
I just want to show that 15pixels per inch is clearly limiting when objects approach infinity.
I was hoping someone could try an experiment (I am at work so can't). I posted under the Helix mod thread a suggestion that it might be possible to set depth >100% using the Helix preset hotkey functionality:
All the information is in that thread in the few posts before the one above. I have no idea if it would work, but if it does, it will save a lot hassle.
NOTE: For those who are not familiar, Helix provided a dll that has allowed him and many others to fix problems in 3d games by modifying the shader code. However, Helix also added in the ability to define up to 9 hotkeys for convergence and separation (depth) (amongst other things). I have been using these for ages now for convergence switching in Skyrim and FNV. It never occurred to me that it might also work for depth, and 125% depth is far better for my setup when playing Skyrim.
I was hoping someone could try an experiment (I am at work so can't). I posted under the Helix mod thread a suggestion that it might be possible to set depth >100% using the Helix preset hotkey functionality:
All the information is in that thread in the few posts before the one above. I have no idea if it would work, but if it does, it will save a lot hassle.
NOTE: For those who are not familiar, Helix provided a dll that has allowed him and many others to fix problems in 3d games by modifying the shader code. However, Helix also added in the ability to define up to 9 hotkeys for convergence and separation (depth) (amongst other things). I have been using these for ages now for convergence switching in Skyrim and FNV. It never occurred to me that it might also work for depth, and 125% depth is far better for my setup when playing Skyrim.
About perceived depth: I still think in most games the distance between objects and the size of objects are scaled wrong. Everything is actually often set much to close to the viewer and objects are put much too close to one another. This includes the farthest away actually object and their (scaled) distance to the "backdrop". Therefore we exaggerate separation to have more depth feeling.
About perceived depth: I still think in most games the distance between objects and the size of objects are scaled wrong. Everything is actually often set much to close to the viewer and objects are put much too close to one another. This includes the farthest away actually object and their (scaled) distance to the "backdrop". Therefore we exaggerate separation to have more depth feeling.
[quote name='mike_ar69' date='21 May 2012 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1337616106' post='1411104']
I was hoping someone could try an experiment (I am at work so can't). I posted under the Helix mod thread a suggestion that it might be possible to set depth >100% using the Helix preset hotkey functionality:
All the information is in that thread in the few posts before the one above. I have no idea if it would work, but if it does, it will save a lot hassle.
NOTE: For those who are not familiar, Helix provided a dll that has allowed him and many others to fix problems in 3d games by modifying the shader code. However, Helix also added in the ability to define up to 9 hotkeys for convergence and separation (depth) (amongst other things). I have been using these for ages now for convergence switching in Skyrim and FNV. It never occurred to me that it might also work for depth, and 125% depth is far better for my setup when playing Skyrim.
[/quote]
It does not work for depth >100%. However, depth <100% can be changed in the presets, so that might still be useful for some people.
[quote name='mike_ar69' date='21 May 2012 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1337616106' post='1411104']
I was hoping someone could try an experiment (I am at work so can't). I posted under the Helix mod thread a suggestion that it might be possible to set depth >100% using the Helix preset hotkey functionality:
All the information is in that thread in the few posts before the one above. I have no idea if it would work, but if it does, it will save a lot hassle.
NOTE: For those who are not familiar, Helix provided a dll that has allowed him and many others to fix problems in 3d games by modifying the shader code. However, Helix also added in the ability to define up to 9 hotkeys for convergence and separation (depth) (amongst other things). I have been using these for ages now for convergence switching in Skyrim and FNV. It never occurred to me that it might also work for depth, and 125% depth is far better for my setup when playing Skyrim.
It does not work for depth >100%. However, depth <100% can be changed in the presets, so that might still be useful for some people.
Thanks again man!
Thanks again man!
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
This might be telling. Perhaps the next test is to have your wife look at your eyes while you view one of these images to see if they're diverging.
One other thing I'm curious about, how long have you been gaming with these ultra-high depth settings?
They do say everyone sees 3D differently. Frustratingly vague as that is, perhaps that's the key here?
This might be telling. Perhaps the next test is to have your wife look at your eyes while you view one of these images to see if they're diverging.
One other thing I'm curious about, how long have you been gaming with these ultra-high depth settings?
They do say everyone sees 3D differently. Frustratingly vague as that is, perhaps that's the key here?
shortcuts:
d - move forwards
f - move backwards
j - save
e & r - remove camera rotation, it's hard to hold the camera exactly straight.
First of all you might be used to a different scale when it comes to depth.
After a certain point it is humanly impossible to tell the depth by separation alone.
If an article above is to be believed the image is supposed to be equivalent to a flat image beyond a distance of 70m to be realistic.
The point is not to have the highest amount of percieved depth which in reality cannot be percieved with the limitations of "fake" 3D. The eyes focus on the screen 2m away but seems to be looking at an object way beyond the screen which can make some people uneasy.
Back to discussion of realism near the camera. That fence is less than 2m away from the camera most likely around 1m as I try to follow the recoomended minimum distance of 70cm when shooting a picture like that.
I guess my primary point is to feel free to play around with the knobs.
Can you achieve a realistic distance for near objects as well.
shortcuts:
d - move forwards
f - move backwards
j - save
e & r - remove camera rotation, it's hard to hold the camera exactly straight.
First of all you might be used to a different scale when it comes to depth.
After a certain point it is humanly impossible to tell the depth by separation alone.
If an article above is to be believed the image is supposed to be equivalent to a flat image beyond a distance of 70m to be realistic.
The point is not to have the highest amount of percieved depth which in reality cannot be percieved with the limitations of "fake" 3D. The eyes focus on the screen 2m away but seems to be looking at an object way beyond the screen which can make some people uneasy.
Back to discussion of realism near the camera. That fence is less than 2m away from the camera most likely around 1m as I try to follow the recoomended minimum distance of 70cm when shooting a picture like that.
I guess my primary point is to feel free to play around with the knobs.
Can you achieve a realistic distance for near objects as well.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
My one gripe with that article is its use of "flat." Beyond 200 yards (70m) we don't get any additional stereoscopic cues because the 6.5cm difference between our eyes becomes negligible. That is, the left and right eye see the same thing when facing exactly forward. The article describes this as "flat," and yet while the left and right eyes can discern no difference, the convergence of the eyes does tell our brain that the object is far far off for starters. From that point, there are a myriad of 3D depth clues which don't use stereo vision which offers more information beyond this stereo limit. That's why one might guess a mountain is 2 kilometers away, despite that being far beyond the range of stereoscopic vision. The farther away an object is, the less useful stereo vision is. Things aren't at all "flat" as we normally think of the word flat at such a distance.
My one gripe with that article is its use of "flat." Beyond 200 yards (70m) we don't get any additional stereoscopic cues because the 6.5cm difference between our eyes becomes negligible. That is, the left and right eye see the same thing when facing exactly forward. The article describes this as "flat," and yet while the left and right eyes can discern no difference, the convergence of the eyes does tell our brain that the object is far far off for starters. From that point, there are a myriad of 3D depth clues which don't use stereo vision which offers more information beyond this stereo limit. That's why one might guess a mountain is 2 kilometers away, despite that being far beyond the range of stereoscopic vision. The farther away an object is, the less useful stereo vision is. Things aren't at all "flat" as we normally think of the word flat at such a distance.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vf2bbmbfomvlz31
Every picture is taken with my 100% depth setting except Dirt 3.
As you have a much larger screen it should be very close to your 300% setting. While I don't recommend them with a screensize larger than 24" this is kind of the topic of this thread, your ability to play with settings used on a small screen while using a significantly larger screen. I tried to cover a number of games but was a bit lazy and just selected screens I had already captured for the most part.
On a separate note it can be difficult finding a good 3D view with a small screen as if you look at something 30cm away the view presented to each eye will be significantly different in angle and likeness.
I honestly don't know what your setup is but if I assume 720p at 100" that could be it.
My screen has a pixel density of 93pixels/inch and that setup would have only 15pixels/inch
Talking just about negative space that produces 233 different pixel separations vs only 37 using a projector making the depth information have significantly less resolution.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vf2bbmbfomvlz31
Every picture is taken with my 100% depth setting except Dirt 3.
As you have a much larger screen it should be very close to your 300% setting. While I don't recommend them with a screensize larger than 24" this is kind of the topic of this thread, your ability to play with settings used on a small screen while using a significantly larger screen. I tried to cover a number of games but was a bit lazy and just selected screens I had already captured for the most part.
On a separate note it can be difficult finding a good 3D view with a small screen as if you look at something 30cm away the view presented to each eye will be significantly different in angle and likeness.
I honestly don't know what your setup is but if I assume 720p at 100" that could be it.
My screen has a pixel density of 93pixels/inch and that setup would have only 15pixels/inch
Talking just about negative space that produces 233 different pixel separations vs only 37 using a projector making the depth information have significantly less resolution.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
The separation curve quickly flattens out and when rounded to the nearest pixel the a lot of objects appear at "infinity" distance but obviously the human has more tricks to determine the position of things.
Bringing it back to 3D, I recently shot an image of a football game (soccer) and the feeling between the 2D shot and 3D shot is very different. They are caught near maximum height of their jump reaching for the ball and in 3D they are really levitationg clearly separated from the background and ground.
The separation curve quickly flattens out and when rounded to the nearest pixel the a lot of objects appear at "infinity" distance but obviously the human has more tricks to determine the position of things.
Bringing it back to 3D, I recently shot an image of a football game (soccer) and the feeling between the 2D shot and 3D shot is very different. They are caught near maximum height of their jump reaching for the ball and in 3D they are really levitationg clearly separated from the background and ground.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
I have been using "high" depth settings since first I got a projector back in 2001 perhaps. With a separation of ocular distance, the scene just looks too fake to me. I'm at work right now. When I get home, I'll ask my wife to take a look at my eyes.
Many animals have eyes on the sides of their heads... ultra divergent compared to us lowly humans. I have always wondered what advantage this gave, and if they could see in 3D at all.
Flugan, with the "24", both the depth and the convergence seemed perfect. Near objects were far better perceived than with 48/96.
I have been using "high" depth settings since first I got a projector back in 2001 perhaps. With a separation of ocular distance, the scene just looks too fake to me. I'm at work right now. When I get home, I'll ask my wife to take a look at my eyes.
Many animals have eyes on the sides of their heads... ultra divergent compared to us lowly humans. I have always wondered what advantage this gave, and if they could see in 3D at all.
Flugan, with the "24", both the depth and the convergence seemed perfect. Near objects were far better perceived than with 48/96.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
My screen has a pixel density of 93pixels/inch and that setup would have only 15pixels/inch
Talking just about negative space that produces 233 different pixel separations vs only 37 using a projector making the depth information have significantly less resolution.
[/quote]
You've really got a handle on the math, thanks for this! But in defense of projectors (I have a 720p 3D projector at 90 inches), there's a lot less pixels per inch but a whole lot more inches (my 90 vs your 24) than a monitor. Also the viewing distance is naturally much different between the two, which is a critical factor when talking pixels per inch (ppi). In short, I don't think it's a problem of resolution. Perceived detail is relative to the resolution, size, and distance from a given display. Maximum depth (infinity), should be absolute, 6.5 cm no matter the resolution, size, or distance from a given display.
My screen has a pixel density of 93pixels/inch and that setup would have only 15pixels/inch
Talking just about negative space that produces 233 different pixel separations vs only 37 using a projector making the depth information have significantly less resolution.
You've really got a handle on the math, thanks for this! But in defense of projectors (I have a 720p 3D projector at 90 inches), there's a lot less pixels per inch but a whole lot more inches (my 90 vs your 24) than a monitor. Also the viewing distance is naturally much different between the two, which is a critical factor when talking pixels per inch (ppi). In short, I don't think it's a problem of resolution. Perceived detail is relative to the resolution, size, and distance from a given display. Maximum depth (infinity), should be absolute, 6.5 cm no matter the resolution, size, or distance from a given display.
For most animals, the advantage of having eyes on the sides of their heads means they can see pretty much 360 degrees, nothing goes unnoticed. It doesn't mean they can't see 3D, as there are plenty of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception#Monocular_cues"]monocular 3D depth cues[/url]. However, stereoscopic 3D is sort of a sixth sense that falls under the blanket of "vision," which allows for highly accurate depth perception at relatively close range. For most animals, it's more useful to have 360 vision. A horse doesn't really need highly accurate depth perception to run away from a predator. For an ape (our ancestors) jumping from tree to tree however, stereoscopic 3D means the difference between making an escape and falling to death, outrunning 3D deficient predators in a treacherous environment vs stalling to judge where to jump to safety. It's a wonderful sense perceived by only a small percentage of life, and enjoyed by an even smaller percentage of that (us 3D fans; those haters are animals!
For most animals, the advantage of having eyes on the sides of their heads means they can see pretty much 360 degrees, nothing goes unnoticed. It doesn't mean they can't see 3D, as there are plenty of monocular 3D depth cues. However, stereoscopic 3D is sort of a sixth sense that falls under the blanket of "vision," which allows for highly accurate depth perception at relatively close range. For most animals, it's more useful to have 360 vision. A horse doesn't really need highly accurate depth perception to run away from a predator. For an ape (our ancestors) jumping from tree to tree however, stereoscopic 3D means the difference between making an escape and falling to death, outrunning 3D deficient predators in a treacherous environment vs stalling to judge where to jump to safety. It's a wonderful sense perceived by only a small percentage of life, and enjoyed by an even smaller percentage of that (us 3D fans; those haters are animals!
I have plotted the curve using a distance to screen of 0,5m with 93 pixels/inch vs 2m with 15pixels/inch.
One thing is certain, the 24" monitor in question has enough resolution to have a fairly smooth curve.
I just want to show that 15pixels per inch is clearly limiting when objects approach infinity.
I have plotted the curve using a distance to screen of 0,5m with 93 pixels/inch vs 2m with 15pixels/inch.
One thing is certain, the 24" monitor in question has enough resolution to have a fairly smooth curve.
I just want to show that 15pixels per inch is clearly limiting when objects approach infinity.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=222386&view=findpost&p=1411084
All the information is in that thread in the few posts before the one above. I have no idea if it would work, but if it does, it will save a lot hassle.
NOTE: For those who are not familiar, Helix provided a dll that has allowed him and many others to fix problems in 3d games by modifying the shader code. However, Helix also added in the ability to define up to 9 hotkeys for convergence and separation (depth) (amongst other things). I have been using these for ages now for convergence switching in Skyrim and FNV. It never occurred to me that it might also work for depth, and 125% depth is far better for my setup when playing Skyrim.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=222386&view=findpost&p=1411084
All the information is in that thread in the few posts before the one above. I have no idea if it would work, but if it does, it will save a lot hassle.
NOTE: For those who are not familiar, Helix provided a dll that has allowed him and many others to fix problems in 3d games by modifying the shader code. However, Helix also added in the ability to define up to 9 hotkeys for convergence and separation (depth) (amongst other things). I have been using these for ages now for convergence switching in Skyrim and FNV. It never occurred to me that it might also work for depth, and 125% depth is far better for my setup when playing Skyrim.
Rig: Intel i7-8700K @4.7GHz, 16Gb Ram, SSD, GTX 1080Ti, Win10x64, Asus VG278
Current Rig: |Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.6GHz, EVGA X58 Classified 4-way SLI, 6 GB ram, Geforce GTX670| -> |Acer H5360 + Nvidia 3D Vision|
i5 2500K/16gb/GTX 970/Asus VG278H + Sony HMZ-T1
I was hoping someone could try an experiment (I am at work so can't). I posted under the Helix mod thread a suggestion that it might be possible to set depth >100% using the Helix preset hotkey functionality:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=222386&view=findpost&p=1411084
All the information is in that thread in the few posts before the one above. I have no idea if it would work, but if it does, it will save a lot hassle.
NOTE: For those who are not familiar, Helix provided a dll that has allowed him and many others to fix problems in 3d games by modifying the shader code. However, Helix also added in the ability to define up to 9 hotkeys for convergence and separation (depth) (amongst other things). I have been using these for ages now for convergence switching in Skyrim and FNV. It never occurred to me that it might also work for depth, and 125% depth is far better for my setup when playing Skyrim.
[/quote]
It does not work for depth >100%. However, depth <100% can be changed in the presets, so that might still be useful for some people.
I was hoping someone could try an experiment (I am at work so can't). I posted under the Helix mod thread a suggestion that it might be possible to set depth >100% using the Helix preset hotkey functionality:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=222386&view=findpost&p=1411084
All the information is in that thread in the few posts before the one above. I have no idea if it would work, but if it does, it will save a lot hassle.
NOTE: For those who are not familiar, Helix provided a dll that has allowed him and many others to fix problems in 3d games by modifying the shader code. However, Helix also added in the ability to define up to 9 hotkeys for convergence and separation (depth) (amongst other things). I have been using these for ages now for convergence switching in Skyrim and FNV. It never occurred to me that it might also work for depth, and 125% depth is far better for my setup when playing Skyrim.
It does not work for depth >100%. However, depth <100% can be changed in the presets, so that might still be useful for some people.
Rig: Intel i7-8700K @4.7GHz, 16Gb Ram, SSD, GTX 1080Ti, Win10x64, Asus VG278