Please help me fix the 60FPS @ 120Hz issue once and for all!
  5 / 6    
I have messaged helifax, who has kindly took up the challenge. Unfortunately, he is busy with another project for the duration of a week, but will start after this. I won't spoil any surprises of his current project, but from what he tells me, it's fascinating! I look forward to being proven wrong or right, or perhaps a bit of both. :) -- Shahzad.
I have messaged helifax, who has kindly took up the challenge.

Unfortunately, he is busy with another project for the duration of a week, but will start after this.

I won't spoil any surprises of his current project, but from what he tells me, it's fascinating!

I look forward to being proven wrong or right, or perhaps a bit of both. :)

-- Shahzad.

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.

#61
Posted 08/10/2013 05:21 PM   
I thought I would be able to approximate what it would look like by capturing 1080p 3D @ 60hz and then doubling the playback speed to get 120hz and finally remove all the frames that would no longer be displayed under such circumstances on a 120hz Active 3D display. I have so far been unable to capture full hd 3D at 60hz as the performance dips significantly when recording on my system. The next step of converting the Movie into single frames, stiching them together in pairs and finally rendering the final video is challanges I so far have not gotten around to. Unless I can get a solid capture it is likely I never will.
I thought I would be able to approximate what it would look like by capturing 1080p 3D @ 60hz and then doubling the playback speed to get 120hz and finally remove all the frames that would no longer be displayed under such circumstances on a 120hz Active 3D display.

I have so far been unable to capture full hd 3D at 60hz as the performance dips significantly when recording on my system.

The next step of converting the Movie into single frames, stiching them together in pairs and finally rendering the final video is challanges I so far have not gotten around to.

Unless I can get a solid capture it is likely I never will.

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

#62
Posted 08/10/2013 10:10 PM   
Hi Flugan, Interesting approach. It doesn't have to be 1080p, It could be any resolution. "and finally remove all the frames that would no longer be displayed under such circumstances on a 120hz Active 3D display." I see there is a little missunderstanding here. All the frames will be displayed. Nothing will need to be removed. It will just be that each new frame will be displayed for one eye (the other is being blocked by the shutter), and then the next (new) frame will be displayed to the other eye while the first eye is being blocked. Each frame of the 120hz 120fps will always be visible to either the left or the right eye (of course never both). You will never see 120fps in both eyes as due to hardware limitations, this would be impossible. What you will see is 60fps per eye, but the frame progression will be interleaved between the left and right eyes. The brain will combine these to give a perception of 120fps. It probably won't be as good as 120fps seen by both eyes simultaneously (i.e. 2D), but I believe it will be a significant improvement over 60fps due to frame replication that is currently the traditional method. This is the most important concept that is probably dificult to get one's head wrapped around; but if you can, I believe you will understand that logically speaking (until it can be shown in practice by the help of helifax), it should work. -- Shahzad
Hi Flugan,

Interesting approach.

It doesn't have to be 1080p, It could be any resolution.

"and finally remove all the frames that would no longer be displayed under such circumstances on a 120hz Active 3D display."

I see there is a little missunderstanding here.

All the frames will be displayed. Nothing will need to be removed.

It will just be that each new frame will be displayed for one eye (the other is being blocked by the shutter), and then the next (new) frame will be displayed to the other eye while the first eye is being blocked.

Each frame of the 120hz 120fps will always be visible to either the left or the right eye (of course never both).

You will never see 120fps in both eyes as due to hardware limitations, this would be impossible. What you will see is 60fps per eye, but the frame progression will be interleaved between the left and right eyes. The brain will combine these to give a perception of 120fps.

It probably won't be as good as 120fps seen by both eyes simultaneously (i.e. 2D), but I believe it will be a significant improvement over 60fps due to frame replication that is currently the traditional method.

This is the most important concept that is probably dificult to get one's head wrapped around; but if you can, I believe you will understand that logically speaking (until it can be shown in practice by the help of helifax), it should work.

-- Shahzad

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.

#63
Posted 08/10/2013 10:26 PM   
First of all I Believe that what you are proposing will only work if the game can sustain a very high framerate freferably 120hz. Do you really believe that it would work in a game that currently renders at around 25fps using 3D Vision. I Think you pretty much missed my point in the previous posting. Standard 3D Vision @ 60Hz gives 60 left+right images each second. To get an rude approximation to your suggestion you could increase the playback speed to 120hz making all animations playback at twice the speed. You would take left Eye image from the first stereo frame and the right stereo frame from the second stereo frame. LRLR 1234 and so on. You should recognize the pattern. There is no way to render more than 60hz in 3D with 3D Vision in current games unless there is a special case. I just looked at 3D Discoverer to see if it was possible to exceed 120hz and there should be a way to capture at exactly 120hz and then convert into grayscale and after some merging and encoding producing a 3D video according to your scheme. I didn't know the driver could work at 120hz+ while rendering both eyes. Your idea is very interesting but it's not a silver bullet to solve all problems. The solution used in the driver currently is far more stable and robust. I hope the level of misunderstandings in the thread is on the way down.
First of all I Believe that what you are proposing will only work if the game can sustain a very high framerate freferably 120hz. Do you really believe that it would work in a game that currently renders at around 25fps using 3D Vision.

I Think you pretty much missed my point in the previous posting.

Standard 3D Vision @ 60Hz gives 60 left+right images each second.

To get an rude approximation to your suggestion you could increase the playback speed to 120hz making all animations playback at twice the speed. You would take left Eye image from the first stereo frame and the right stereo frame from the second stereo frame.

LRLR
1234
and so on.

You should recognize the pattern.

There is no way to render more than 60hz in 3D with 3D Vision in current games unless there is a special case.

I just looked at 3D Discoverer to see if it was possible to exceed 120hz and there should be a way to capture at exactly 120hz and then convert into grayscale and after some merging and encoding producing a 3D video according to your scheme. I didn't know the driver could work at 120hz+ while rendering both eyes.

Your idea is very interesting but it's not a silver bullet to solve all problems. The solution used in the driver currently is far more stable and robust. I hope the level of misunderstandings in the thread is on the way down.

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

#64
Posted 08/10/2013 11:41 PM   
Hi Flugan, You are correct that one would need powerful hardware to run games at 120fps, but that is the same argument against 120Hz gaming monitors. There are many people who are happy with or do not see the difference of higher than 60fps. Good for them. There are also people who prefer 120fps or as close to, or even beyond. There is a reason for gaming monitors being 120Hz and beyond (some ASUS monitors are 144Hz as standard);- gamers, especially young ones with fast brain processing speeds do see the difference. I have a brother who is an ex world champion of Quake 2 from a decade ago, when all the hype was all around CRTs. His clan could tell the difference between 110fps and 120fps. LCDs were shunned due to their low 60Hz (60fps) refresh rates and latency issues. There are people such as myself out there who have the power for 120fps, and we want it :) Even low end PCs can run 120fps in old games. If you had the option, why not? I don't know what capturing software you are using. I assumed it would be similar to FRAPS @ 60fps. I am recording half width in the same frame. From what I gather from your post, you have a specialized setup which records separate frames for the left and the right eyes? I have up-converted the frame rate to 120fps by speeding up the video using virtuadub. The resulting video is 2.5GB in size, and virtualdub compatible codecs are unable to compress it further. No other conversion software seems to be able to compress this file @120fps except maybe GoPro, which costs money. One compatible with H.264 would be ideal. I have created a 3GB RAMdisk to be able to play this file from. It plays at 120fps just fine in 2D players such as MPC etc. I am trying to get StereoPlayer to work without the nVidia driver by using the "software pageflipping" option as the viewing method, together with my DLP-Link glasses on a 120Hz projector. Its working fine however one of the codecs is making any movie file be capped at 60fps, ironically. Investigating... [quote="Flugan"]Your idea is very interesting but it's not a silver bullet to solve all problems. The solution used in the driver currently is far more stable and robust. I hope the level of misunderstandings in the thread is on the way down.[/quote] I am glad that more people are understanding the idea. I never said that it would solve any problems, except help attain double the FPS. There would be a huge immediate advantage for 3D play users who are limited to 24fps. Instantly, they will be able to play at 48fps, which is actually playable. Immediately, people who couldn't game due to low fps on their 3D TVs, now might try it. It may be a shot in the arm of S3D that it so desperately needs. Maybe it will all amount to nothing, but I would rather give it a go than not. We have something to gain but what is there to lose? The 60fps solution may be robust and stable, but only because the 120fps solution hasn't even been tested yet. Who is to say that it won't be just as robust and stable, yet provide double the frame rates? I hope indeed that time will tell, one way or the other. -- Shahzad.
Hi Flugan,

You are correct that one would need powerful hardware to run games at 120fps, but that is the same argument against 120Hz gaming monitors. There are many people who are happy with or do not see the difference of higher than 60fps. Good for them. There are also people who prefer 120fps or as close to, or even beyond. There is a reason for gaming monitors being 120Hz and beyond (some ASUS monitors are 144Hz as standard);- gamers, especially young ones with fast brain processing speeds do see the difference. I have a brother who is an ex world champion of Quake 2 from a decade ago, when all the hype was all around CRTs. His clan could tell the difference between 110fps and 120fps. LCDs were shunned due to their low 60Hz (60fps) refresh rates and latency issues.

There are people such as myself out there who have the power for 120fps, and we want it :)
Even low end PCs can run 120fps in old games. If you had the option, why not?

I don't know what capturing software you are using. I assumed it would be similar to FRAPS @ 60fps. I am recording half width in the same frame. From what I gather from your post, you have a specialized setup which records separate frames for the left and the right eyes?

I have up-converted the frame rate to 120fps by speeding up the video using virtuadub. The resulting video is 2.5GB in size, and virtualdub compatible codecs are unable to compress it further. No other conversion software seems to be able to compress this file @120fps except maybe GoPro, which costs money. One compatible with H.264 would be ideal.

I have created a 3GB RAMdisk to be able to play this file from. It plays at 120fps just fine in 2D players such as MPC etc. I am trying to get StereoPlayer to work without the nVidia driver by using the "software pageflipping" option as the viewing method, together with my DLP-Link glasses on a 120Hz projector. Its working fine however one of the codecs is making any movie file be capped at 60fps, ironically.

Investigating...

Flugan said:Your idea is very interesting but it's not a silver bullet to solve all problems. The solution used in the driver currently is far more stable and robust. I hope the level of misunderstandings in the thread is on the way down.


I am glad that more people are understanding the idea. I never said that it would solve any problems, except help attain double the FPS. There would be a huge immediate advantage for 3D play users who are limited to 24fps. Instantly, they will be able to play at 48fps, which is actually playable. Immediately, people who couldn't game due to low fps on their 3D TVs, now might try it. It may be a shot in the arm of S3D that it so desperately needs. Maybe it will all amount to nothing, but I would rather give it a go than not. We have something to gain but what is there to lose?

The 60fps solution may be robust and stable, but only because the 120fps solution hasn't even been tested yet. Who is to say that it won't be just as robust and stable, yet provide double the frame rates?

I hope indeed that time will tell, one way or the other.

-- Shahzad.

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.

#65
Posted 08/11/2013 12:13 AM   
As an experiment that any of you SBS people can try, you can use the older Vireio driver right now to get this effect. Look for the 1.1 version of the driver, the last, best one with the alternate eye rendering. Vireio supports SBS format as well as anaglyph as well as Rift. It's not specific to Rift. There is no frame-sequential version. You can unpack Vireio and run it in any of the supported games. If you have a SBS TV setup for example, you can try it directly. There is no FPS cap, and no requirement for a Rift. Maybe a good experiment would be to play anaglyph on your 120Hz monitor. It's a bold statement that this will work, when the top three makers, AMD/Tridef, 3D Vision, and OpenGL (quad buffer) all specifically avoid it. And, the last one standing, Vireio is changing to match. But, it's worth some experiments.
As an experiment that any of you SBS people can try, you can use the older Vireio driver right now to get this effect. Look for the 1.1 version of the driver, the last, best one with the alternate eye rendering. Vireio supports SBS format as well as anaglyph as well as Rift. It's not specific to Rift. There is no frame-sequential version.

You can unpack Vireio and run it in any of the supported games. If you have a SBS TV setup for example, you can try it directly. There is no FPS cap, and no requirement for a Rift.

Maybe a good experiment would be to play anaglyph on your 120Hz monitor.


It's a bold statement that this will work, when the top three makers, AMD/Tridef, 3D Vision, and OpenGL (quad buffer) all specifically avoid it. And, the last one standing, Vireio is changing to match.

But, it's worth some experiments.

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

#66
Posted 08/11/2013 01:04 AM   
Update: I *think* I have done it, but I can't be sure as Painkiller video I have made is 2x sped up, and there is too much going on. The 3D quality is indistinguishable from 60fps, but is now apparently running at 120fps... I think. FRAPS certainly seems to think so, as unreliable as people make it out to be. The 14 second file is uncompressed and is 2.5GB in size. My SSDs seem to be able to just about handle it but some without fast enough hard drives may wish to use a RAM disk for reading the video. It only works when the nVidia 3D vision driver is disabled, and StereoPlayer is put into "Software Pageflipping output" mode. If the nVidia driver is not disabled, the video is capped at 60fps and half the frames are of course dropped. 3D vision glasses would obviously not work... I am using DLP-Link glasses with a 3D projector. It's late here... 3AM. It could be that the video being displayed on the screen is still 60fps even though FRAPS is reporting it at 120. The double speed, low resolution, and chaotic environment makes it difficult to tell. The reasoning behind this experiment is to emulate a progressive frame shown to each eye without any duplicated frames (with differing perspectives). In theory, each dual image (SBS) frame is dropped immediately after being shown to one eye. The left eye will see the left half of the SBS image. The frame is then completely dropped before being able to be shown to the other eye. The right eye will then see the right half of a completely new frame, not the right half of the frame which was shown to the left eye. Those who are experienced with SBS image frames will hopefully know what I mean. How, and to where can I upload this file so that an independent tester can verify? I wonder if someone with a non 3D Vision S3D setup using shutter glasses would be interested... Good night.
Update:

I *think* I have done it, but I can't be sure as Painkiller video I have made is 2x sped up, and there is too much going on.

The 3D quality is indistinguishable from 60fps, but is now apparently running at 120fps... I think. FRAPS certainly seems to think so, as unreliable as people make it out to be.

The 14 second file is uncompressed and is 2.5GB in size. My SSDs seem to be able to just about handle it but some without fast enough hard drives may wish to use a RAM disk for reading the video.

It only works when the nVidia 3D vision driver is disabled, and StereoPlayer is put into "Software Pageflipping output" mode. If the nVidia driver is not disabled, the video is capped at 60fps and half the frames are of course dropped.

3D vision glasses would obviously not work... I am using DLP-Link glasses with a 3D projector.

It's late here... 3AM. It could be that the video being displayed on the screen is still 60fps even though FRAPS is reporting it at 120. The double speed, low resolution, and chaotic environment makes it difficult to tell.

The reasoning behind this experiment is to emulate a progressive frame shown to each eye without any duplicated frames (with differing perspectives).

In theory, each dual image (SBS) frame is dropped immediately after being shown to one eye. The left eye will see the left half of the SBS image. The frame is then completely dropped before being able to be shown to the other eye. The right eye will then see the right half of a completely new frame, not the right half of the frame which was shown to the left eye. Those who are experienced with SBS image frames will hopefully know what I mean.

How, and to where can I upload this file so that an independent tester can verify? I wonder if someone with a non 3D Vision S3D setup using shutter glasses would be interested...

Good night.

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.

#67
Posted 08/11/2013 02:03 AM   
Dynamic resolution rendering involves adjusting the resolution to which you render the 3D scene by constraining the rendering to a portion of a render target using a viewport, and then scaling this to the output back buffer. Graphical user interface components can then be rendered at the back buffer resolution, as these are typically less expensive elements to draw. The end result is that stable high frame rates can be achieved with high quality GUIs. http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/dynamic-resolution-rendering-article/ http://research.scee.net/files/presentations/Stereoscopic_3D/FMX-Final.pdf It seems that you can create better performance using half resolution back buffered images. At half the resolution it's less demanding. "• Generating two separate images – Sometime using half-height screen buffer and the HW upscaler – Combine with anti-aliasing produces excellent results in 3D – Process is easier if the game support split screen • Reprojection – Good trade-off quality / performance"
Dynamic resolution rendering involves adjusting the resolution to which you render the 3D scene by constraining the rendering to a portion of a render target using a viewport, and then scaling this to the output back buffer. Graphical user interface components can then be rendered at the back buffer resolution, as these are typically less expensive elements to draw. The end result is that stable high frame rates can be achieved with high quality GUIs.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/dynamic-resolution-rendering-article/

http://research.scee.net/files/presentations/Stereoscopic_3D/FMX-Final.pdf

It seems that you can create better performance using half resolution back buffered images. At half the resolution it's less demanding.

"• Generating two separate images
– Sometime using half-height screen buffer and the HW upscaler
– Combine with anti-aliasing produces excellent results in 3D
– Process is easier if the game support split screen

• Reprojection
– Good trade-off quality / performance"

#68
Posted 08/11/2013 02:05 AM   
So, digging through that MTBS thread, the short summary is that doing alternate eye rendering instead of both at once causes you to lose fusion on fast moving images. If you see a car zooming past you on the street, if you only get one image in one eye, then a delayed one in the other eye, you can no longer fuse the two into a stereo image because they are totally different. As an alternate example, here is a City 17 image: [img]http://i.imgur.com/L3AV1lK.jpg[/img] Note how the image on the hologram TV is completely different in each eye because of the time delay. For slow moving items it's not a problem, but fast moving items get too far out of sync and you lose stereo fusion.
So, digging through that MTBS thread, the short summary is that doing alternate eye rendering instead of both at once causes you to lose fusion on fast moving images.

If you see a car zooming past you on the street, if you only get one image in one eye, then a delayed one in the other eye, you can no longer fuse the two into a stereo image because they are totally different.

As an alternate example, here is a City 17 image:

Image

Note how the image on the hologram TV is completely different in each eye because of the time delay. For slow moving items it's not a problem, but fast moving items get too far out of sync and you lose stereo fusion.

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

#69
Posted 08/11/2013 10:18 AM   
Hi bo3b, You are correct for a certain scenario. I have mentioned this before, but would you not agree that it would significantly depend on the frame rate and how fast the object was moving? Maybe this would be a problem at 30fps or 60fps, but I doubt it would be too much a problem at 120fps. Would you not concede that as the fps tends towards infinity, the smaller this problem gets? At which point it disappears from noticeability would be a matter of opinion from person to person, as everyone processes images differently at different speeds? At 120fps, would one's mind be able to pick the images apart? Also, as I have stated before, jps stereo pair images would never work. It is best to stop thinking of this as a set of SBS images, but rather a constant stream of fluid video motion delivered to each eye. As I have also said before, with the Rift, you are seeing the screen with both eyes simultaneously which is a huge advantage. Of course, "alternate frame" shown would not look as good as "same frame", hence the change of the driver. But, we are talking about shutter glasses here, where one will never see the whole image with both eyes simultaneously. I would be inclined to agree with you if this was not so. I am saying that 120fps method would be superior to the 60fps method with shutter glasses. As you say, probably not so for the Rift, but unfortunately we don't have the advantage of being able to see the whole scene with both eyes simultaneously. Also, what was the refresh rate on the Rift when this was being tested and the decisions were being made? IIRC, the Oculus Rift uses one single display panel and splits the image into 2 halves, a half for each eye. Am I correct? If so, then the dev version of the display probably has a max refresh of 60Hz. [i]If alternate frames were used, then each eye would only be getting 30fps, and the problem would be compounded by the fact that the other eye is seeing a discrepancy in motion (both eyes are seeing a different image) [u]simultaneously[/u], (whereas with shutter glasses the other eye would have the shutter closed and would be blank).[/i] In this case, I believe the problem you state would be very apparent - due to the way the Rift works. As soon as they switched to 60fps "same frame" for the whole panel, of course the results would be quite superb. One would question why they would use "alternate frame" in the first place if the screen is just one panel showing images to both eyes simultaneously. This is pure conjecture of course, as I do not know the internal specs of the Rift. -- Shahzad
Hi bo3b,

You are correct for a certain scenario. I have mentioned this before, but would you not agree that it would significantly depend on the frame rate and how fast the object was moving? Maybe this would be a problem at 30fps or 60fps, but I doubt it would be too much a problem at 120fps.

Would you not concede that as the fps tends towards infinity, the smaller this problem gets? At which point it disappears from noticeability would be a matter of opinion from person to person, as everyone processes images differently at different speeds? At 120fps, would one's mind be able to pick the images apart?

Also, as I have stated before, jps stereo pair images would never work. It is best to stop thinking of this as a set of SBS images, but rather a constant stream of fluid video motion delivered to each eye.

As I have also said before, with the Rift, you are seeing the screen with both eyes simultaneously which is a huge advantage. Of course, "alternate frame" shown would not look as good as "same frame", hence the change of the driver.

But, we are talking about shutter glasses here, where one will never see the whole image with both eyes simultaneously.

I would be inclined to agree with you if this was not so. I am saying that 120fps method would be superior to the 60fps method with shutter glasses. As you say, probably not so for the Rift, but unfortunately we don't have the advantage of being able to see the whole scene with both eyes simultaneously.

Also, what was the refresh rate on the Rift when this was being tested and the decisions were being made? IIRC, the Oculus Rift uses one single display panel and splits the image into 2 halves, a half for each eye. Am I correct? If so, then the dev version of the display probably has a max refresh of 60Hz.

If alternate frames were used, then each eye would only be getting 30fps, and the problem would be compounded by the fact that the other eye is seeing a discrepancy in motion (both eyes are seeing a different image) simultaneously, (whereas with shutter glasses the other eye would have the shutter closed and would be blank).

In this case, I believe the problem you state would be very apparent - due to the way the Rift works. As soon as they switched to 60fps "same frame" for the whole panel, of course the results would be quite superb. One would question why they would use "alternate frame" in the first place if the screen is just one panel showing images to both eyes simultaneously. This is pure conjecture of course, as I do not know the internal specs of the Rift.

-- Shahzad

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.

#70
Posted 08/11/2013 11:54 AM   
Yes, I'd agree that as the frame rate goes up, the delta between eyes drops. And there probably is an upper limit to what the visual system will care about. We do know that 60fps is too slow, that was noted as objectionable during fights by numerous users. I don't have any sense for where that upper limit might lie, but we do know that our visual system is acutely tuned to notice differences, particularly movement. My observation would be that even if we can get it to 120Hz where we cannot consciously notice a delta between eyes, we might still feel odd or have eyestrain in some way. No way to know that without experimenting. Please note that Vireio is not Rift specific. Here are the display formats supported: [img]http://3dvision-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/vireio-perception-stereoscopic-3d-driver.jpg[/img] I would still encourage someone to try Vireio driver on their 3D TV at 120Hz for at least an hour and see if it's objectionable.
Yes, I'd agree that as the frame rate goes up, the delta between eyes drops. And there probably is an upper limit to what the visual system will care about.

We do know that 60fps is too slow, that was noted as objectionable during fights by numerous users.

I don't have any sense for where that upper limit might lie, but we do know that our visual system is acutely tuned to notice differences, particularly movement. My observation would be that even if we can get it to 120Hz where we cannot consciously notice a delta between eyes, we might still feel odd or have eyestrain in some way. No way to know that without experimenting.


Please note that Vireio is not Rift specific. Here are the display formats supported:

Image


I would still encourage someone to try Vireio driver on their 3D TV at 120Hz for at least an hour and see if it's objectionable.

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

#71
Posted 08/12/2013 12:05 AM   
[quote="RAGEdemon"][b]I believe that everyone here is of the opinion that at 120Hz, in S3D, the game is showing 120FPS.[/quote] I don't think anyone here is of that opinion. I think everyone understands that it's showing at 60FPS. If you want 120FPS, you'll need to play in 2D, or get a 240Hz monitor. I sometimes choose to play certain games in 2D, because I enjoy how much smoother they feel in 120hz. [quote="RAGEdemon"][b]Guys, I have thought of a good way to demonstrate that you do not in fact need to view the same frame (from a different perspective) to be able to view 3D. It's simple: Activate your 3D glasses and put them on. Walk around your room! Can you see everything in perfect fluid 3D or not? Guess what? No 2 "frames" you are seeing are the same, but everything is perfect, fluid 3D! Furthermore, you are seeing it all at true 120fps ;-)[/b] [/quote]When I do that, my android screen flickers and has moire patterns, and my LCD watch becomes unreadable (almost totally black). These are perhaps separate issues, though they illustrate that out-of-sync frames are indeed a real problem....at least in some specific scenarios. But anyway, I don't think you can't compare real 3D (your room) with fake 3D (your monitor). Fake 3D is always going to require a more controlled environment to be pulled off successfully. For one thing, here's a significant flaw in your experiment: when I play a game in 3D, I look at a wide gamut of objects, from those right in front of me (eg. my gun) to things on the horizon (hundreds of metres away). Furthermore, I look at these from a fast-moving camera. Meanwhile, when I wave my hand across my face, I'm sitting still, and merely looking at something that's 20 cm away from my face. If I look around my room, I See only things from about 20cm-3m away. Ostensibly, I could solve this problem by simply looking out the window - then I could see both close and faraway objects. But we still have the problem of a relatively stationary 'camera'. For your experiment to be valid, you would need to better recreate the experience of a game. In other words, you'd have to turn the glasses on, go outside, and run around really fast. And only THEN would you be able to deduce whether or not the glasses are impacting the experience of true 3D. I suspect that you are partially right, but only to a point. In some cases, the sort of 3D you're talking about (120 fps with a change of camera at every single frame) would probably look ok. But I suspect that it would still be *somewhat* more unnatural and/or disconcerting than the current 60fps system. Maybe this would manifest in more headaches or eye fatigue. Maybe the 3D would be slightly less realistic (simulated 3D already isn't totally realistic - I wouldn't want it to be even less so). Maybe the subtle 'flickering' effect that 3Dvision always has (for me at least, but I assume for others too) would be amplified. Maybe it would all be just fine, except in racing games where the camera is moving 300km/h. Maybe the feeling of depth would be lessened, or more inaccurate. Either way, I don't know for sure what side effects there would be, nor whether there would be any at all. But I suspect that there probably would be some, and that there's at least a half-good reason why the way it does for a reason. My guess is that it's not as simple as you think. You don't seem to be operating on much more than a hunch, and an assumption that the majority of people are stupider than you. All things considered, that's not a particularly compelling base to be making such a wide-ranging claim from.
RAGEdemon said:I believe that everyone here is of the opinion that at 120Hz, in S3D, the game is showing 120FPS.
I don't think anyone here is of that opinion. I think everyone understands that it's showing at 60FPS. If you want 120FPS, you'll need to play in 2D, or get a 240Hz monitor.

I sometimes choose to play certain games in 2D, because I enjoy how much smoother they feel in 120hz.


RAGEdemon said:[b]Guys, I have thought of a good way to demonstrate that you do not in fact need to view the same frame (from a different perspective) to be able to view 3D.

It's simple: Activate your 3D glasses and put them on. Walk around your room!

Can you see everything in perfect fluid 3D or not?

Guess what? No 2 "frames" you are seeing are the same, but everything is perfect, fluid 3D!

Furthermore, you are seeing it all at true 120fps ;-)

When I do that, my android screen flickers and has moire patterns, and my LCD watch becomes unreadable (almost totally black). These are perhaps separate issues, though they illustrate that out-of-sync frames are indeed a real problem....at least in some specific scenarios.

But anyway, I don't think you can't compare real 3D (your room) with fake 3D (your monitor). Fake 3D is always going to require a more controlled environment to be pulled off successfully.



For one thing, here's a significant flaw in your experiment: when I play a game in 3D, I look at a wide gamut of objects, from those right in front of me (eg. my gun) to things on the horizon (hundreds of metres away). Furthermore, I look at these from a fast-moving camera.

Meanwhile, when I wave my hand across my face, I'm sitting still, and merely looking at something that's 20 cm away from my face. If I look around my room, I See only things from about 20cm-3m away. Ostensibly, I could solve this problem by simply looking out the window - then I could see both close and faraway objects. But we still have the problem of a relatively stationary 'camera'.

For your experiment to be valid, you would need to better recreate the experience of a game. In other words, you'd have to turn the glasses on, go outside, and run around really fast. And only THEN would you be able to deduce whether or not the glasses are impacting the experience of true 3D.


I suspect that you are partially right, but only to a point. In some cases, the sort of 3D you're talking about (120 fps with a change of camera at every single frame) would probably look ok. But I suspect that it would still be *somewhat* more unnatural and/or disconcerting than the current 60fps system. Maybe this would manifest in more headaches or eye fatigue. Maybe the 3D would be slightly less realistic (simulated 3D already isn't totally realistic - I wouldn't want it to be even less so). Maybe the subtle 'flickering' effect that 3Dvision always has (for me at least, but I assume for others too) would be amplified. Maybe it would all be just fine, except in racing games where the camera is moving 300km/h. Maybe the feeling of depth would be lessened, or more inaccurate.

Either way, I don't know for sure what side effects there would be, nor whether there would be any at all. But I suspect that there probably would be some, and that there's at least a half-good reason why the way it does for a reason. My guess is that it's not as simple as you think.

You don't seem to be operating on much more than a hunch, and an assumption that the majority of people are stupider than you. All things considered, that's not a particularly compelling base to be making such a wide-ranging claim from.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#72
Posted 08/12/2013 12:59 AM   
Little late on joining this, but anyway. I jumped (quite) straight to the last page after correctly understanding the point - and yes you're so right as usual Rage ;) I see the discussion is still going on whether 2 different subsequent frames displayed to each eye would harm 3D experience and just on a brief not it will not - quite contrary. In the beginning when ther was no 3D TV around there was atechnique called Pulfrich to fake 3D experience using glasses with a slightly shaded glass on one eye. The foundation o9f that was that the brain perceives darker frames with as slightly delayed and in the end will receive the [i]same[/i] frame displayed at different times. On horizontal moving objects (or extensively moving cameras on the horizontal plane - which was an essential key-technique when shooting "Pulfrich" 3D movies) this would generate a 3D effect. So, there you have it. If any, generally delayed frames should rather help to increase 3D depth rather than to harm.... One culprit though... as (horizontally) moving objects on subsequent frames definitely will have an impact on the perceived scene depth or the objects position in space, it is clear to see that those objects will "jump" forth and back if the GFX card cannot steadily deliver 120 frames - because on lower fps there is no ohter choice than to fall back to 11223344 pattren at 2x60Hz. You might consider this effect something like "3D depth tearing" if you like. It remains to be seen if that is more distracting than bringing a benefit.
Little late on joining this, but anyway. I jumped (quite) straight to the last page after correctly understanding the point - and yes you're so right as usual Rage ;)
I see the discussion is still going on whether 2 different subsequent frames displayed to each eye would harm 3D experience and just on a brief not it will not - quite contrary.
In the beginning when ther was no 3D TV around there was atechnique called Pulfrich to fake 3D experience using glasses with a slightly shaded glass on one eye. The foundation o9f that was that the brain perceives darker frames with as slightly delayed and in the end will receive the same frame displayed at different times. On horizontal moving objects (or extensively moving cameras on the horizontal plane - which was an essential key-technique when shooting "Pulfrich" 3D movies) this would generate a 3D effect.

So, there you have it. If any, generally delayed frames should rather help to increase 3D depth rather than to harm....

One culprit though... as (horizontally) moving objects on subsequent frames definitely will have an impact on the perceived scene depth or the objects position in space, it is clear to see that those objects will "jump" forth and back if the GFX card cannot steadily deliver 120 frames - because on lower fps there is no ohter choice than to fall back to 11223344 pattren at 2x60Hz. You might consider this effect something like "3D depth tearing" if you like. It remains to be seen if that is more distracting than bringing a benefit.

#73
Posted 08/12/2013 11:22 AM   
@quadropheniX: Interesting. Though it sounds like a dodgy, clumsy way to do 3D, and I'm sure the end experience was far from ideal. And it sounds very different to 3Dvision, not least because - as you describe it - it required a special type of filming, and those out-of-sync frames no doubt had to be managed quite carefully. It seems a bit spurious to me to extrapolate from this very specific, obsolete and somewhat flawed tech that 3D-vision with out-of-sync frames would always look good. @RAGEdemon: I just did your hand-waving experiment for the first time. The results weren't very promising. I got very strong ghosting, and the movement of my hand was much harder to follow than it is without glasses. Overall, the experience was much less smooth and fluid than a 3D game in 60fps. For me, this experiment does your hypothesis no favours.
@quadropheniX: Interesting. Though it sounds like a dodgy, clumsy way to do 3D, and I'm sure the end experience was far from ideal. And it sounds very different to 3Dvision, not least because - as you describe it - it required a special type of filming, and those out-of-sync frames no doubt had to be managed quite carefully. It seems a bit spurious to me to extrapolate from this very specific, obsolete and somewhat flawed tech that 3D-vision with out-of-sync frames would always look good.

@RAGEdemon: I just did your hand-waving experiment for the first time. The results weren't very promising. I got very strong ghosting, and the movement of my hand was much harder to follow than it is without glasses. Overall, the experience was much less smooth and fluid than a 3D game in 60fps. For me, this experiment does your hypothesis no favours.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#74
Posted 08/12/2013 01:21 PM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"]I got very strong ghosting, and the movement of my hand was much harder to follow than it is without glasses.[/quote] Wait... Ghosting is made by the second image from the screen being shown to the eye it wasn't meant for. Reality doesn't have a second image, and so there is no ghosting... Dude, what have you been smoking? ;-) Ofcourse movement with the glasses on is going to be harder to follow than without the glasses, i mean, duh? You clearly haven't understood the point of rage's "experiment", lol. Sorry to be making fun of you, but the tone of your comments is filled with vitriol. The guy has an idea which might work (should work imo). Without proof yourself, you deliberately misconstrue his experiment to conjure up evidence against it. Wtf man, uncool. I don't see you coming up with ideas. Why do you feel that he owes you an explanation? Are you some high king who will bestow him with riches if it works? No, you are a common man who will enjoy what he and others have created for free. You have nothing to lose but a significant something to gain, but you mock those who would provide it. Its pathetic. You aren't the first in this thread either. Less said about that the better I think. dont wanna derail the thread into a flame war. too much negativity in this thread already. Me thinks the people who are worst are the ones who are angry that they don't understand/cant think through what rage is saying. They cant face the fact that they might not be as smart as they think, and so try to make the idea guy feel stupid because of their own insecurities. Some people are just so unperceptive of new ideas that they fight against them purely from primitive tribal emotion rather than reason... Its funny, its the same people who wonder why everyone is so unperceptive to 3D sterescopic without even trying it. You only need look within yourselves. I cant believe that i have to say this but if you dont agree with an idea, and you can't contribute something positive to the discussion of said idea, then move along. I have always been offended by the socially inept stereotype of us gamers, but I am beginning to see where it comes from :/ rage, i hope your idea works man. even if it doesnt, we'll all have learned something. someone wise once said that its the journey that counts, not the destination. Journeys are good to have with the right people, but can turn into a right nightmare with the wrong crowd.
Volnaiskra said:I got very strong ghosting, and the movement of my hand was much harder to follow than it is without glasses.


Wait... Ghosting is made by the second image from the screen being shown to the eye it wasn't meant for. Reality doesn't have a second image, and so there is no ghosting... Dude, what have you been smoking? ;-)

Ofcourse movement with the glasses on is going to be harder to follow than without the glasses, i mean, duh?

You clearly haven't understood the point of rage's "experiment", lol.

Sorry to be making fun of you, but the tone of your comments is filled with vitriol. The guy has an idea which might work (should work imo). Without proof yourself, you deliberately misconstrue his experiment to conjure up evidence against it. Wtf man, uncool. I don't see you coming up with ideas.

Why do you feel that he owes you an explanation? Are you some high king who will bestow him with riches if it works? No, you are a common man who will enjoy what he and others have created for free. You have nothing to lose but a significant something to gain, but you mock those who would provide it. Its pathetic.

You aren't the first in this thread either. Less said about that the better I think. dont wanna derail the thread into a flame war. too much negativity in this thread already.

Me thinks the people who are worst are the ones who are angry that they don't understand/cant think through what rage is saying. They cant face the fact that they might not be as smart as they think, and so try to make the idea guy feel stupid because of their own insecurities.

Some people are just so unperceptive of new ideas that they fight against them purely from primitive tribal emotion rather than reason... Its funny, its the same people who wonder why everyone is so unperceptive to 3D sterescopic without even trying it.

You only need look within yourselves.

I cant believe that i have to say this but if you dont agree with an idea, and you can't contribute something positive to the discussion of said idea, then move along.

I have always been offended by the socially inept stereotype of us gamers, but I am beginning to see where it comes from :/

rage, i hope your idea works man. even if it doesnt, we'll all have learned something. someone wise once said that its the journey that counts, not the destination. Journeys are good to have with the right people, but can turn into a right nightmare with the wrong crowd.

Intel Core i7 3770K | Corsair H80 liquid cooler | ASUS P8Z77V with UEFI 1606 | 16GB Samsung Green RAM | Creative X-Fi | SLI EVGA Geforce GTX 670 4GB | Windows 8 Pro 64bit

#75
Posted 08/12/2013 11:00 PM   
  5 / 6    
Scroll To Top