[quote="Paul3D"]IPD doesn't matter much at all.
Percieved depth is a factor of the parallax. (the width between points that should converge)
Parallax changes based on how big the image is, and how far you are away from it.
If you're watching a movie, the maximum parallax might be 1%.
If you're watching on a desktop, the max p might be 4-10%![/quote]Well, this is true, but only up to a point. You can't change IPD in any normal way, but that wasn't my point.
My point is that the movie makers film with an average to smallish IPD in mind, and that directly impacts the depth we can see on smaller screens. It's the same problem as sharing screenshots from my projector with someone who has a monitor.
So, I agree that a specific person's IPD is essentially irrelevant, but the fact that the maximum parallax has already been chosen for us is extremely important.
Percieved depth is a factor of the parallax. (the width between points that should converge)
Parallax changes based on how big the image is, and how far you are away from it.
If you're watching a movie, the maximum parallax might be 1%.
If you're watching on a desktop, the max p might be 4-10%!
Well, this is true, but only up to a point. You can't change IPD in any normal way, but that wasn't my point.
My point is that the movie makers film with an average to smallish IPD in mind, and that directly impacts the depth we can see on smaller screens. It's the same problem as sharing screenshots from my projector with someone who has a monitor.
So, I agree that a specific person's IPD is essentially irrelevant, but the fact that the maximum parallax has already been chosen for us is extremely important.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
[quote="birthright"] Well I tried PowerDVD 12 with man of steel 3d on powerdvd 12 and with some tweaking it actually made the 3d effect better, nothing outstanding but noticeable indeed, thanks chtiblue![/quote]
You're welcome, my 0,2 cents in this huge favorite forum ;)
I'm just asking me perhaps we could a little zoom in the picture to have less side's black borders?
By the way, yesterday I've seen Gravity in 3D in theater and this movie is excellent and unique but the 3D was so little and very disapointed.
Sadly I don't have IMAX theater in the neighborhood and it would certainly render better in Imax because of the lack of depth due to the close scenery of the shuttles.
birthright said: Well I tried PowerDVD 12 with man of steel 3d on powerdvd 12 and with some tweaking it actually made the 3d effect better, nothing outstanding but noticeable indeed, thanks chtiblue!
You're welcome, my 0,2 cents in this huge favorite forum ;)
I'm just asking me perhaps we could a little zoom in the picture to have less side's black borders?
By the way, yesterday I've seen Gravity in 3D in theater and this movie is excellent and unique but the 3D was so little and very disapointed.
Sadly I don't have IMAX theater in the neighborhood and it would certainly render better in Imax because of the lack of depth due to the close scenery of the shuttles.
Heres a few other problems I see with 3D in movies and watching them on smaller display:
3D position not matching their perspective (ie, size): When the camera zooms in, as it does in close-ups shots (Gravity was full of close up shots of Sandra Bullock), BUT.... the 3D position of her head is at screen depth or behind, on a 50 foot theater sized screen, thats probably never going to look quite right because 3D gives our brains size as well as distance cues. In that case the only normal position for her head when it covers that much of your FOV (sometimes almost the entire IMAX screen), would be when you were kissing her. But the 3D used put her head near the screen, giving her head the size of the screen. Mass Effect is similar with its heavy use of close up shots.
On smaller displays, "perspective" again gets in the way because it is a human depth cue. When human beings look as small as they do on a 24" monitor, in real life they would be perhaps 40 feet away from us. I believe it is the primary reason behind the increase in perceived depth when backing away from a 3D display.
By perspective, basically i mean the term used to describe how much arc something takes up in your FOV at varying distances.
Another problem is very little difference between max and min (or near and far) parallax. Making it so even if you could push out the far objects to their proper position, the near objects and everything inbetween may get pushed too far outward because of a lack of difference the separation. Like Crysis 2, but making surroundings look okay (properly sized and distances) but pushing things up close like your gun, etc away from you and looking way too large/in wrong position etc.
When i heard about how good Gravity's 3D was. I got exited because i half expected there to be "full time" pop-out. In other words, I thought because of the limited number of objects on the screen, the could put all the objects in the scene a few meters away from you ALMOST AT ALL TIMES! :D I also thought the stars and Earth would be 6.5cm at least...
Theres another problem, but i can't remember what it was...
But anyway, this is why im so glad i found the "3D effect" setting (aka: 3D position, 3D perspective) for 3D movies, which i am a little exited to watch now, because despite the problems, I can now at least put what i like the most in the movies at a proper depth. For me its the scenery, so i crank up the depth to the the over-all scene its most realistic size/distance, better matching its "perspective" it has on the screen.
For small monitors when gaming, lowering the FOV will result in objects having a larger 2D size and may result in a more realistic looking scene. Thats at least what i experienced in Mass Effect when testing out different FOV values testing out my old 27". Getting closer to the screen helped a lot in Deus EX too.
Its worth noting that in the end, i choose a crosstalk riddled, dim, 720p with high input lag on a 46" TV over 1080p on a bright 27" monitor. I think it was mainly the difference in perspective that formed that decision.
Heres a few other problems I see with 3D in movies and watching them on smaller display:
3D position not matching their perspective (ie, size): When the camera zooms in, as it does in close-ups shots (Gravity was full of close up shots of Sandra Bullock), BUT.... the 3D position of her head is at screen depth or behind, on a 50 foot theater sized screen, thats probably never going to look quite right because 3D gives our brains size as well as distance cues. In that case the only normal position for her head when it covers that much of your FOV (sometimes almost the entire IMAX screen), would be when you were kissing her. But the 3D used put her head near the screen, giving her head the size of the screen. Mass Effect is similar with its heavy use of close up shots.
On smaller displays, "perspective" again gets in the way because it is a human depth cue. When human beings look as small as they do on a 24" monitor, in real life they would be perhaps 40 feet away from us. I believe it is the primary reason behind the increase in perceived depth when backing away from a 3D display.
By perspective, basically i mean the term used to describe how much arc something takes up in your FOV at varying distances.
Another problem is very little difference between max and min (or near and far) parallax. Making it so even if you could push out the far objects to their proper position, the near objects and everything inbetween may get pushed too far outward because of a lack of difference the separation. Like Crysis 2, but making surroundings look okay (properly sized and distances) but pushing things up close like your gun, etc away from you and looking way too large/in wrong position etc.
When i heard about how good Gravity's 3D was. I got exited because i half expected there to be "full time" pop-out. In other words, I thought because of the limited number of objects on the screen, the could put all the objects in the scene a few meters away from you ALMOST AT ALL TIMES! :D I also thought the stars and Earth would be 6.5cm at least...
Theres another problem, but i can't remember what it was...
But anyway, this is why im so glad i found the "3D effect" setting (aka: 3D position, 3D perspective) for 3D movies, which i am a little exited to watch now, because despite the problems, I can now at least put what i like the most in the movies at a proper depth. For me its the scenery, so i crank up the depth to the the over-all scene its most realistic size/distance, better matching its "perspective" it has on the screen.
For small monitors when gaming, lowering the FOV will result in objects having a larger 2D size and may result in a more realistic looking scene. Thats at least what i experienced in Mass Effect when testing out different FOV values testing out my old 27". Getting closer to the screen helped a lot in Deus EX too.
Its worth noting that in the end, i choose a crosstalk riddled, dim, 720p with high input lag on a 46" TV over 1080p on a bright 27" monitor. I think it was mainly the difference in perspective that formed that decision.
[quote="Paul3D"]IPD doesn't matter much at all.[/quote]
Interpupilary distance is the distance between the eyes. Your eyes are the points which determine the angle the eyes turn in when viewing said parallax points. I don't see how they wouldn't matter, especially when for me in games even tiny changes in convergence, which result in slight changes to that angle, have such a big impact on the 3D dimensions of the scene.
[quote]Perceived depth is a factor of the parallax.[/quote] Also the motion of the eye, perspective and at least a few others.
[quote]Yes, you can change the general convergence plane (that's when you'll get black bars!) but you can never adjust the actual 3D effect itself.[/quote]
Yes and No. You can change the position of whats been given to you, inward and outward, and you can therefore match up the most interesting objects in the movie with its visual perspective based on your screen size. IE, you can push a human that was at screen depth and looking too small, back "into" the TV and giving it, and hopefully the majority of the rest of the scene, its proper size/distance, making the screen look more like a window to a real world. Said another way, it matches up the distance (3D position) with the expected distance the brain expects it to be based on its arc over your FOV, aka perspective.
This has been my experience with viewing Avatar and other 3D movies on youtube. They ALL look better/more realistic with when i crank the separation as far as it can go. This viewing within 7'. On your projector you don't have to crank it up so much.
[quote]Thus, if I'm sitting in front of my 3D projector, and it takes up all my vision -
and you're in front of your 27" monitor and it takes up all your vision -
My screen will look way more 3D, because I'm focusing on 3D effects much farther away from my face than you are - making it appear way more 3D.[/quote]
Two things: One, i think the focus of the eye may play a part in human depth perception, but only a small part, because otherwise Oculus Rift reviews from 3D Vision users wouldn't have reported that the Rift offered less 3D dimensionality that their 3D Vision setups.
Two: I think smaller monitors offer MORE "perceived" depth for the same scene, depending on a few factors. That was the first think i noticed when i tried out the 27" VG278H monitor after using a 46" monitor. I was amazed by the difference viewing screen shots. I also think that it has to do with "perspective" as a depth cue, rather than eye focus, ie, how things take up more FOV when they are close and less when they are farther away.
[quote]The only way to make your 27" monitor look as good as my projector is if you move your eyes closer together. ( with mirrors or prisms or periscopes or something)[/quote] This is actually a very good idea to try. I don't know how you would do it though.
Interpupilary distance is the distance between the eyes. Your eyes are the points which determine the angle the eyes turn in when viewing said parallax points. I don't see how they wouldn't matter, especially when for me in games even tiny changes in convergence, which result in slight changes to that angle, have such a big impact on the 3D dimensions of the scene.
Perceived depth is a factor of the parallax.
Also the motion of the eye, perspective and at least a few others.
Yes, you can change the general convergence plane (that's when you'll get black bars!) but you can never adjust the actual 3D effect itself.
Yes and No. You can change the position of whats been given to you, inward and outward, and you can therefore match up the most interesting objects in the movie with its visual perspective based on your screen size. IE, you can push a human that was at screen depth and looking too small, back "into" the TV and giving it, and hopefully the majority of the rest of the scene, its proper size/distance, making the screen look more like a window to a real world. Said another way, it matches up the distance (3D position) with the expected distance the brain expects it to be based on its arc over your FOV, aka perspective.
This has been my experience with viewing Avatar and other 3D movies on youtube. They ALL look better/more realistic with when i crank the separation as far as it can go. This viewing within 7'. On your projector you don't have to crank it up so much.
Thus, if I'm sitting in front of my 3D projector, and it takes up all my vision -
and you're in front of your 27" monitor and it takes up all your vision -
My screen will look way more 3D, because I'm focusing on 3D effects much farther away from my face than you are - making it appear way more 3D.
Two things: One, i think the focus of the eye may play a part in human depth perception, but only a small part, because otherwise Oculus Rift reviews from 3D Vision users wouldn't have reported that the Rift offered less 3D dimensionality that their 3D Vision setups.
Two: I think smaller monitors offer MORE "perceived" depth for the same scene, depending on a few factors. That was the first think i noticed when i tried out the 27" VG278H monitor after using a 46" monitor. I was amazed by the difference viewing screen shots. I also think that it has to do with "perspective" as a depth cue, rather than eye focus, ie, how things take up more FOV when they are close and less when they are farther away.
The only way to make your 27" monitor look as good as my projector is if you move your eyes closer together. ( with mirrors or prisms or periscopes or something)
This is actually a very good idea to try. I don't know how you would do it though.
My point is that the movie makers film with an average to smallish IPD in mind, and that directly impacts the depth we can see on smaller screens. It's the same problem as sharing screenshots from my projector with someone who has a monitor.
So, I agree that a specific person's IPD is essentially irrelevant, but the fact that the maximum parallax has already been chosen for us is extremely important.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
You're welcome, my 0,2 cents in this huge favorite forum ;)
I'm just asking me perhaps we could a little zoom in the picture to have less side's black borders?
By the way, yesterday I've seen Gravity in 3D in theater and this movie is excellent and unique but the 3D was so little and very disapointed.
Sadly I don't have IMAX theater in the neighborhood and it would certainly render better in Imax because of the lack of depth due to the close scenery of the shuttles.
http://photos.3dvisionlive.com/chtiblue/album/530b52d4cb85770d6e000049/3Dvision with 49" Philips 49PUS7100 interlieved 3D (3840x2160) overide mode, GTX 1080 GFA2 EXOC, core i5 @4.3GHz, 16Gb@2130, windows 7&10 64bit, Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 Marantz 6010 AVR
i5 2500K/16gb/GTX 970/Asus VG278H + Sony HMZ-T1
3D position not matching their perspective (ie, size): When the camera zooms in, as it does in close-ups shots (Gravity was full of close up shots of Sandra Bullock), BUT.... the 3D position of her head is at screen depth or behind, on a 50 foot theater sized screen, thats probably never going to look quite right because 3D gives our brains size as well as distance cues. In that case the only normal position for her head when it covers that much of your FOV (sometimes almost the entire IMAX screen), would be when you were kissing her. But the 3D used put her head near the screen, giving her head the size of the screen. Mass Effect is similar with its heavy use of close up shots.
On smaller displays, "perspective" again gets in the way because it is a human depth cue. When human beings look as small as they do on a 24" monitor, in real life they would be perhaps 40 feet away from us. I believe it is the primary reason behind the increase in perceived depth when backing away from a 3D display.
By perspective, basically i mean the term used to describe how much arc something takes up in your FOV at varying distances.
Another problem is very little difference between max and min (or near and far) parallax. Making it so even if you could push out the far objects to their proper position, the near objects and everything inbetween may get pushed too far outward because of a lack of difference the separation. Like Crysis 2, but making surroundings look okay (properly sized and distances) but pushing things up close like your gun, etc away from you and looking way too large/in wrong position etc.
When i heard about how good Gravity's 3D was. I got exited because i half expected there to be "full time" pop-out. In other words, I thought because of the limited number of objects on the screen, the could put all the objects in the scene a few meters away from you ALMOST AT ALL TIMES! :D I also thought the stars and Earth would be 6.5cm at least...
Theres another problem, but i can't remember what it was...
But anyway, this is why im so glad i found the "3D effect" setting (aka: 3D position, 3D perspective) for 3D movies, which i am a little exited to watch now, because despite the problems, I can now at least put what i like the most in the movies at a proper depth. For me its the scenery, so i crank up the depth to the the over-all scene its most realistic size/distance, better matching its "perspective" it has on the screen.
For small monitors when gaming, lowering the FOV will result in objects having a larger 2D size and may result in a more realistic looking scene. Thats at least what i experienced in Mass Effect when testing out different FOV values testing out my old 27". Getting closer to the screen helped a lot in Deus EX too.
Its worth noting that in the end, i choose a crosstalk riddled, dim, 720p with high input lag on a 46" TV over 1080p on a bright 27" monitor. I think it was mainly the difference in perspective that formed that decision.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
Interpupilary distance is the distance between the eyes. Your eyes are the points which determine the angle the eyes turn in when viewing said parallax points. I don't see how they wouldn't matter, especially when for me in games even tiny changes in convergence, which result in slight changes to that angle, have such a big impact on the 3D dimensions of the scene.
Also the motion of the eye, perspective and at least a few others.
Yes and No. You can change the position of whats been given to you, inward and outward, and you can therefore match up the most interesting objects in the movie with its visual perspective based on your screen size. IE, you can push a human that was at screen depth and looking too small, back "into" the TV and giving it, and hopefully the majority of the rest of the scene, its proper size/distance, making the screen look more like a window to a real world. Said another way, it matches up the distance (3D position) with the expected distance the brain expects it to be based on its arc over your FOV, aka perspective.
This has been my experience with viewing Avatar and other 3D movies on youtube. They ALL look better/more realistic with when i crank the separation as far as it can go. This viewing within 7'. On your projector you don't have to crank it up so much.
Two things: One, i think the focus of the eye may play a part in human depth perception, but only a small part, because otherwise Oculus Rift reviews from 3D Vision users wouldn't have reported that the Rift offered less 3D dimensionality that their 3D Vision setups.
Two: I think smaller monitors offer MORE "perceived" depth for the same scene, depending on a few factors. That was the first think i noticed when i tried out the 27" VG278H monitor after using a 46" monitor. I was amazed by the difference viewing screen shots. I also think that it has to do with "perspective" as a depth cue, rather than eye focus, ie, how things take up more FOV when they are close and less when they are farther away.
This is actually a very good idea to try. I don't know how you would do it though.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530