Can somebody help me understand the Advanced shortcuts in 3d vision
  1 / 2    
I have a panasonic 3d tv. The UT50 and I get bad ghosting in alot of games. Im curious what the advanced settings such as convergence do?
I have a panasonic 3d tv. The UT50 and I get bad ghosting in alot of games. Im curious what the advanced settings such as convergence do?

#1
Posted 02/11/2013 09:44 PM   
Ghosting wont be cured by the advanced settings, but can be helped. Depth sets how "deep" the screen goes into the background. It does this by increasing the separation of the infinitely far objects. Convergence increases pop out. It does this by increasing the amount your eyes go cross eyed. When you have bad ghosting, increase or decrease convergence until your main character/gun is at screen depth. This will mean no ghosting on that object. It will not cure other objects ghosting however. Playing with less depth and a higher convergence seems to have less ghosting then high depth due to less separation. Full strum settings simply change how much screen is showing. Sometimes items pop in and out at the side of the screen in 3D and this can rectify that by expanding the screen, or including black bars. Hope that helps a little.
Ghosting wont be cured by the advanced settings, but can be helped.

Depth sets how "deep" the screen goes into the background. It does this by increasing the separation of the infinitely far objects.

Convergence increases pop out. It does this by increasing the amount your eyes go cross eyed.

When you have bad ghosting, increase or decrease convergence until your main character/gun is at screen depth. This will mean no ghosting on that object. It will not cure other objects ghosting however.

Playing with less depth and a higher convergence seems to have less ghosting then high depth due to less separation.

Full strum settings simply change how much screen is showing. Sometimes items pop in and out at the side of the screen in 3D and this can rectify that by expanding the screen, or including black bars.

Hope that helps a little.

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

#2
Posted 02/11/2013 09:51 PM   
Thanks a million! I was getting big time cross eyed in some games and I was like WTF is this. Thanks alot.!
Thanks a million! I was getting big time cross eyed in some games and I was like WTF is this. Thanks alot.!

#3
Posted 02/11/2013 10:00 PM   
Haha, no worries, and yes decreasing convergence will stop you going super cross eyed. Also with convergence you can decide how to play the game. E.g. Like the people to be realisticly sized? Decrease convergence. Like the game to be like a toy, with all the people liitle models? Increase convegence. Anyway glad i could help. Have fun with 3D, make sure you check out all the 3D ready games as most are superb!
Haha, no worries, and yes decreasing convergence will stop you going super cross eyed. Also with convergence you can decide how to play the game.

E.g. Like the people to be realisticly sized? Decrease convergence.
Like the game to be like a toy, with all the people liitle models? Increase convegence.

Anyway glad i could help. Have fun with 3D, make sure you check out all the 3D ready games as most are superb!

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

#4
Posted 02/11/2013 10:07 PM   
Ive been playing ghostbusters, DMC, DS3, and Dark souls, Waiting for a good RTS.
Ive been playing ghostbusters, DMC, DS3, and Dark souls, Waiting for a good RTS.

#5
Posted 02/11/2013 10:23 PM   
Have you tried StarCraft 2? A more technical description can be found at http://docs.nvidia.com/tegra/data/Use_NVIDIA_3D_Vision_Automatic.html Changing eye separation amplifies the amount of dept and popout of all objects. With a selected eye separation the game World distance vs screen separation is an extremely unlinear function. When playing on a computer monitor which is one of the smallest 3D Screen sizes with maximum eye separation and maximum recommended convergence which is when the convergence plane is moved so to the virtual Eyes that the ingame object closest to the camera is halfway between you and the screen. With a 60cm viewing distance this will make such objects appear 30cm in fron of the screen and 30cm away from you. If you look at the tip of a pen at 30cm distance you will notice that it makes you pretty cross-eyed. 3D behaves completely different depending on screen size so I wouldn't recommend taking any recommended settings from someone using a significantly different screen size. One problem we have is that 3D depth is easily measured. The nvidia compatible measure of depth is screen separation at infinity in mm/63mm which produces 63mm separation att 100% setting. The best way to measure depth is by just looking at your screen without 3D glasses and rougly measure the infinity separation in cm. You can't blindly trust the 3D Vision depth setting as for instance Trine 2 has a lot less than 100% depth when 3D Vision is configured to 100%. It is impossible to have 100% depth in starcraft and the percieved scale in the game is that siege tanks are the size of toy tanks. We should really define convergence as a number. It is not as easy as defining 3D Depth as a number. It should nail down the maximum amount of popout. If you can get the closest object to camera to stay there it is easier. When playing Legend of Grimrock a bat basically scratches your face during an attack animation. By capturing the image Where he is closest to me I can determine the biggest popout I'm aware of in the game. If the nearest point on the nearest object is exactly at screen depth I define that to be a convergence value of 100%. Beyond this to determine a convergence value we need to measure the depth where the closest object appear. The most extreme convergence recommended by Nvidia would be 50% which places the object right between the screen and the virtual eyes. Convergence values bigger than 100% will probably be rare as the hud often sits att screen depth and becomes the nearest object. If helix mod is used to move the hud into depth a convergence number above 100% should be possible. When I first started playing Legend of Grimrock the convergence was on default and measured against that bat attacking me I would guess that convergence was as low as 25%ish. As I was using 100% depth the percieved distance to that bat from my own eyes was around 25% of my viewing distance. Given 60cm viewing distance this means 15cm away from my face. This definition is completely upside down from the current usage of the term. What people call high convergence would actually result in a very low measured value in the above definition. As the formula for percieved distance to nearest object in gameworld is Percieved distance = viewing distance / (1-depth+depth/convergence)) Finally the formulat to calculate convergence defined above: First measure the depth distance in cm. Divide by 6,3cm to get depth % Then keep trying to find the closest object that appear in the game to measure convergence. Measure the seoaration distance of the nearest object in cm. As the depth distance is positive convergence distance would almost always be negative resulting in pop-out. Calculate the final convergence as follows: convergence%=1/(1-convergence distance/(depth%*6,3)) I have plotted what happens when you change depth% for different values of convergence% Above 50% depth the curves are almost the same when only considering pop-out. http://sdrv.ms/12950FA
Have you tried StarCraft 2?

A more technical description can be found at

http://docs.nvidia.com/tegra/data/Use_NVIDIA_3D_Vision_Automatic.html


Changing eye separation amplifies the amount of dept and popout of all objects.
With a selected eye separation the game World distance vs screen separation is an extremely
unlinear function.

When playing on a computer monitor which is one of the smallest 3D Screen sizes with maximum eye separation and maximum recommended convergence which is when the convergence plane is moved so to the virtual Eyes that the ingame object closest to the camera is halfway between you and the screen.

With a 60cm viewing distance this will make such objects appear 30cm in fron of the screen and 30cm away from you. If you look at the tip of a pen at 30cm distance you will notice that it makes you pretty cross-eyed. 3D behaves completely different depending on screen size so I wouldn't recommend taking any recommended settings from someone using a significantly different screen size.

One problem we have is that 3D depth is easily measured. The nvidia compatible measure of depth is
screen separation at infinity in mm/63mm which produces 63mm separation att 100% setting.

The best way to measure depth is by just looking at your screen without 3D glasses and rougly measure the infinity separation in cm.

You can't blindly trust the 3D Vision depth setting as for instance Trine 2 has a lot less than 100% depth when 3D Vision is configured to 100%. It is impossible to have 100% depth in starcraft and the percieved scale in the game is that siege tanks are the size of toy tanks.

We should really define convergence as a number.
It is not as easy as defining 3D Depth as a number.
It should nail down the maximum amount of popout.

If you can get the closest object to camera to stay there it is easier. When playing Legend of Grimrock a bat basically scratches your face during an attack animation. By capturing the image
Where he is closest to me I can determine the biggest popout I'm aware of in the game.

If the nearest point on the nearest object is exactly at screen depth I define that to be a convergence value of 100%.

Beyond this to determine a convergence value we need to measure the depth where the closest object appear. The most extreme convergence recommended by Nvidia would be 50% which places the object right between the screen and the virtual eyes.

Convergence values bigger than 100% will probably be rare as the hud often sits att screen depth and becomes the nearest object. If helix mod is used to move the hud into depth a convergence number above 100% should be possible.

When I first started playing Legend of Grimrock the convergence was on default and measured against that bat attacking me I would guess that convergence was as low as 25%ish.

As I was using 100% depth the percieved distance to that bat from my own eyes was around 25% of my viewing distance. Given 60cm viewing distance this means 15cm away from my face.

This definition is completely upside down from the current usage of the term. What people call high convergence would actually result in a very low measured value in the above definition.

As the formula for percieved distance to nearest object in gameworld is
Percieved distance = viewing distance / (1-depth+depth/convergence))

Finally the formulat to calculate convergence defined above:
First measure the depth distance in cm.
Divide by 6,3cm to get depth %
Then keep trying to find the closest object that appear in the game to measure convergence.
Measure the seoaration distance of the nearest object in cm.
As the depth distance is positive convergence distance would almost always be negative resulting in pop-out.
Calculate the final convergence as follows:
convergence%=1/(1-convergence distance/(depth%*6,3))

I have plotted what happens when you change depth% for different values of convergence%
Above 50% depth the curves are almost the same when only considering pop-out.


http://sdrv.ms/12950FA

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

#6
Posted 02/12/2013 02:19 AM   
Flugan, you might be interested in this document from the NVidia developer conference: [url]http://www.nvidia.com/content/GTC-2010/pdfs/2010_GTC2010.pdf[/url] Specifically look at the section title Parallax Budget. It is related to your calculated graph of convergence pop out vs. depth. The summary is that there is only so much parallax you can effectively create, because of the human involved. Too much leads to headaches and eye strain. So, you can spend it in deep depth in the screen, or spend it in popout of the screen, but you cannot effectively do both.
Flugan, you might be interested in this document from the NVidia developer conference:

http://www.nvidia.com/content/GTC-2010/pdfs/2010_GTC2010.pdf

Specifically look at the section title Parallax Budget. It is related to your calculated graph of convergence pop out vs. depth.

The summary is that there is only so much parallax you can effectively create, because of the human involved. Too much leads to headaches and eye strain. So, you can spend it in deep depth in the screen, or spend it in popout of the screen, but you cannot effectively do both.

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

#7
Posted 02/12/2013 07:02 AM   
I could plot parallax budget as well but it can't be a single number and requires width and start stop positions. As I mentioned in my example you can handle a very brief situation with objects closer than the 50% mark. It's not as simple as discussing parallax budget as Everything Changes with viewing distance. At 10m distance (Example Hobbit 3D on 800" screen) your Eyes change very Little in angle when moving between max depth and max popout. If they attempt to poke you in the eye while staying within the recommended range of +-6,3cm it the object will appear 5m in front of you. For home use with projector/TV a viewing distance of 3-4m is not uncommon but some move significantly closer. The real extreme Point is computer monitors as we are talking viewing distances lower than 1m and often around 0,5m. Focusing on the distance is still just looking parallel through the monitor. It still is not a trivial task. The angle difference between looking at something at screen depth and at max depth is becoming really big. When we add a bit of permanent pop-out to the image the eye angle change required when refocusing from nearest to furthest becomes even larger. There is a huge reason that the nvidia recommendations differ depending on screen size. For instance small screens like my 27" the recommended range is 15%-50% depth and convergence% 50% at the low end. Finally I don't follow your conclusion from the Powerpoint that you can't have popout when you use 100% depth. Your statement makes Little sense. You are basically saying that popout is only possible when the game traps you inside a small room but as soon as you go outside or enter a long corridor pop-out becomes impossible.
I could plot parallax budget as well but it can't be a single number and requires width and start stop positions. As I mentioned in my example you can handle a very brief situation with objects closer than the 50% mark. It's not as simple as discussing parallax budget as Everything Changes with viewing distance.

At 10m distance (Example Hobbit 3D on 800" screen) your Eyes change very Little in angle when moving between max depth and max popout. If they attempt to poke you in the eye while staying within the recommended range of +-6,3cm it the object will appear 5m in front of you.

For home use with projector/TV a viewing distance of 3-4m is not uncommon but some move significantly closer. The real extreme Point is computer monitors as we are talking viewing distances lower than 1m and often around 0,5m.

Focusing on the distance is still just looking parallel through the monitor. It still is not a trivial task. The angle difference between looking at something at screen depth and at max depth is becoming really big. When we add a bit of permanent pop-out to the image the eye angle change required when refocusing from nearest to furthest becomes even larger.

There is a huge reason that the nvidia recommendations differ depending on screen size.
For instance small screens like my 27" the recommended range is 15%-50% depth and convergence% 50% at the low end.

Finally I don't follow your conclusion from the Powerpoint that you can't have popout when you use 100% depth. Your statement makes Little sense. You are basically saying that popout is only possible when the game traps you inside a small room but as soon as you go outside or enter a long corridor pop-out becomes impossible.

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

#8
Posted 02/12/2013 08:47 AM   
Well, just to be clear, I'm not an expert here, I'm still learning. I'm also not certain that I understand the NVidia PowerPoint, the lack of the speaker makes it harder. If I'm reading the document correctly though, the parallax budget is the maximum amount of eyestrain your user would accept. As you note, it does vary dramatically with screen size. The description and their graphs suggest that you cannot have true infinity and pop out at the same time. The bounding box has to move away from infinity in order to support pop-out without strain. Note that that would only be for an outside situation. Anything inside, even a long hall, would not have infinite depth. I suppose we can have an infinite hall, but I think you get my point. The reason these are related is because when we turn up convergence, we also impact separation, making it wider. My understanding is that this is the essence of the parallax budget, you can't change one without changing the other. Look at slide 41. The difference between the farthest/deepest pixel and the nearest/shallowest pixel defines the parallax budget. Slide 42. If you go to infinity, you lose your out of screen effects because you have to push the box too deep. Remember this is all to avoid eyestrain. It's entirely possible that as long time stereo users, we have adapted and can handle much more extreme cases than they suggest. Slide 45. If we have a specific convergence we are pinned too, a specific out of screen effect we need to show, then the maximum separation will be limited. You can turn up separation to make the in-screen effects more compelling by changing the curve. Pinning to 100 as a max seems fairly arbitrary to me, but I still don't fully understand all the pieces. There is also the ability to dynamically change the depth to match the situation. NVidia discourages that, but it is possible to change the parallax box to match the farthest distance seen. That would automatically give you more ability to use pop-out in cases where it made sense. Not sure. This train of thought just explains what I think I see in some games like Sleeping Dogs and Deus Ex, where there were a lot of complaints about it not having enough depth. I think that happened because it has true infinity, and then the bounding box for parallax had to move too far into depth, which cut off the depth up close, and killed pop-out altogether. In NVidias example, it made the max difference much higher on the curve, and so max difference between deepest and shallowest was 10% or so, instead of the 75% we have when inside.
Well, just to be clear, I'm not an expert here, I'm still learning. I'm also not certain that I understand the NVidia PowerPoint, the lack of the speaker makes it harder.

If I'm reading the document correctly though, the parallax budget is the maximum amount of eyestrain your user would accept. As you note, it does vary dramatically with screen size.

The description and their graphs suggest that you cannot have true infinity and pop out at the same time. The bounding box has to move away from infinity in order to support pop-out without strain. Note that that would only be for an outside situation.

Anything inside, even a long hall, would not have infinite depth. I suppose we can have an infinite hall, but I think you get my point.

The reason these are related is because when we turn up convergence, we also impact separation, making it wider. My understanding is that this is the essence of the parallax budget, you can't change one without changing the other.

Look at slide 41. The difference between the farthest/deepest pixel and the nearest/shallowest pixel defines the parallax budget.

Slide 42. If you go to infinity, you lose your out of screen effects because you have to push the box too deep. Remember this is all to avoid eyestrain. It's entirely possible that as long time stereo users, we have adapted and can handle much more extreme cases than they suggest.

Slide 45. If we have a specific convergence we are pinned too, a specific out of screen effect we need to show, then the maximum separation will be limited. You can turn up separation to make the in-screen effects more compelling by changing the curve. Pinning to 100 as a max seems fairly arbitrary to me, but I still don't fully understand all the pieces.


There is also the ability to dynamically change the depth to match the situation. NVidia discourages that, but it is possible to change the parallax box to match the farthest distance seen. That would automatically give you more ability to use pop-out in cases where it made sense.


Not sure. This train of thought just explains what I think I see in some games like Sleeping Dogs and Deus Ex, where there were a lot of complaints about it not having enough depth. I think that happened because it has true infinity, and then the bounding box for parallax had to move too far into depth, which cut off the depth up close, and killed pop-out altogether.

In NVidias example, it made the max difference much higher on the curve, and so max difference between deepest and shallowest was 10% or so, instead of the 75% we have when inside.

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

#9
Posted 02/12/2013 10:08 AM   
I have to say I use 100% depth roughly relative to my eyes (90% for my 27inch screen) and convergence I usually wack up to as high as possible so that the worse case scenario of pop up in the game is as far as I can go cross eyed and still be able to focus. For 1st person I prefer to decrease the convergence until the people look roughly lifesize. But all in all, you definitely can have infinity depth plus pop out, and I love it ;-) I'm pretty sure they only put such conservative estimates to stop Nvidia getting sued for eye strain caused.
I have to say I use 100% depth roughly relative to my eyes (90% for my 27inch screen) and convergence I usually wack up to as high as possible so that the worse case scenario of pop up in the game is as far as I can go cross eyed and still be able to focus.

For 1st person I prefer to decrease the convergence until the people look roughly lifesize.

But all in all, you definitely can have infinity depth plus pop out, and I love it ;-)

I'm pretty sure they only put such conservative estimates to stop Nvidia getting sued for eye strain caused.

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

#10
Posted 02/12/2013 02:05 PM   
I you misinterpret the graphs in nvidias Powerpoint. The reason you can't have any object at infinity is because you can't render a gameworld and position something at an infinite distance from the player. That object would be further away than the furthest star which would be greater than billions of lightyears, try to model that in a game Engine. My main point is to be able to quantify the 3D settings completely. I'm using high convergence could mean anything as the amount of convergence is never specified at all. To accurately communicate what 3D settings you use the following needs to be specified depth% convergence% viewing distance Screen size The last one is necessary to determine the fov of the display. The difference between loosely describing your settings and actually measuring them is similar to the difference between describing a building as tall or saying it is a 42-story building. I imagine that most people using 3D try different settings and being able to share your personally prefered settings in an accurate way should be useful. Especially for the purpose of discussion or comparing the experience of people using different screensizes.
I you misinterpret the graphs in nvidias Powerpoint.

The reason you can't have any object at infinity is because you can't render a gameworld and position something at an infinite distance from the player. That object would be further away than the furthest star which would be greater than billions of lightyears, try to model that in a game Engine.

My main point is to be able to quantify the 3D settings completely. I'm using high convergence could mean anything as the amount of convergence is never specified at all.

To accurately communicate what 3D settings you use the following needs to be specified
depth%
convergence%
viewing distance
Screen size

The last one is necessary to determine the fov of the display.

The difference between loosely describing your settings and actually measuring them is similar to
the difference between describing a building as tall or saying it is a 42-story building.

I imagine that most people using 3D try different settings and being able to share your personally prefered settings in an accurate way should be useful. Especially for the purpose of discussion or comparing the experience of people using different screensizes.

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

#11
Posted 02/12/2013 11:25 PM   
I've done a few convergence calculations on screenshots taken using different settings in Legends of Grimrock. Suprisingly the game is pretty playable on at least one of these as the creature quickly attacks and immideatelly retreats. These screnshots will only replicate my settings if viewed under the same condition (27", 50cm distance) http://sdrv.ms/XIbB3Y The same depth and convergence setting on a projector setup would produce a very different image. If I spend some time I should be able to create a screenshot with the same depth and convergence setting as it would appear on a projector by reducing the depth setting on my monitor to the right amount if I know which screen size to target. I don't know how useful this would be as only people like eqzitara who have both a projector and a monitor. If you don't have both you can't compare.
I've done a few convergence calculations on screenshots taken using different settings in Legends of Grimrock. Suprisingly the game is pretty playable on at least one of these as the creature quickly attacks and immideatelly retreats.

These screnshots will only replicate my settings if viewed under the same condition (27", 50cm distance)


http://sdrv.ms/XIbB3Y


The same depth and convergence setting on a projector setup would produce a very different image.
If I spend some time I should be able to create a screenshot with the same depth and convergence setting as it would appear on a projector by reducing the depth setting on my monitor to the right amount if I know which screen size to target. I don't know how useful this would be as only people like eqzitara who have both a projector and a monitor. If you don't have both you can't compare.

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

#12
Posted 02/13/2013 12:07 AM   
Flugan, of course you can have 3D games focus at infinity, the seperation need only be the exact width of your eyes, its really that simple. Your eyes do not see 3D to infinity, you can only see good 3D for 100 metres or so, after that our brains use other queues to give us 3D depth such as shadows etc. stars in the sky vary from several to 100,s of light years away, but we cant tell that right? they all look exactly the same depth? thats becuase your eyes are focussing to the exact "virtually" same angle. therefore, for all realistic interpretations, you are focussing at infinity. if there was a massive object at the edge of our universe that we could see, it would look at the same depth as all the stars you see. about quantifying convergence, ive thought about this before, is it not really really difficult? where as depth only has a small amount of room (eg up to 100-200 metres) of accurate depth perecption via 3D alone, convergence has an infinite variable. why? becuase convergence is basically, how far are your eyes apart. they can be infinitly close, or 0, or can be infinitly wide across. you can test this out by keep on increasing convergence in game, you wil end up with one eye on one side of the map, and your other eye on the other... like being a really really massive hammerhead shark. Im sure it would be very easy to slap in an arbitary number for convergece, perhaps start at 0 and add a 1 for every pixel, but like depth this wouldnt reflect pixel size or screen size. for perfect, usable numbers, the number would need to reflect 1) how big your screen is 2) how wide your eyes are apart 3) how far you are sat away 2) how big your pixels are with all these factors taken into account, the driver could devise a number for depth and convergence that would be cross transferable too all monitor, projector sizes and eye sizes.
Flugan, of course you can have 3D games focus at infinity, the seperation need only be the exact width of your eyes, its really that simple.

Your eyes do not see 3D to infinity, you can only see good 3D for 100 metres or so, after that our brains use other queues to give us 3D depth such as shadows etc. stars in the sky vary from several to 100,s of light years away, but we cant tell that right? they all look exactly the same depth? thats becuase your eyes are focussing to the exact "virtually" same angle. therefore, for all realistic interpretations, you are focussing at infinity.

if there was a massive object at the edge of our universe that we could see, it would look at the same depth as all the stars you see.

about quantifying convergence, ive thought about this before, is it not really really difficult? where as depth only has a small amount of room (eg up to 100-200 metres) of accurate depth perecption via 3D alone, convergence has an infinite variable.

why?

becuase convergence is basically, how far are your eyes apart. they can be infinitly close, or 0, or can be infinitly wide across. you can test this out by keep on increasing convergence in game, you wil end up with one eye on one side of the map, and your other eye on the other... like being a really really massive hammerhead shark.

Im sure it would be very easy to slap in an arbitary number for convergece, perhaps start at 0 and add a 1 for every pixel, but like depth this wouldnt reflect pixel size or screen size.

for perfect, usable numbers, the number would need to reflect

1) how big your screen is
2) how wide your eyes are apart
3) how far you are sat away
2) how big your pixels are

with all these factors taken into account, the driver could devise a number for depth and convergence that would be cross transferable too all monitor, projector sizes and eye sizes.

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

#13
Posted 02/13/2013 12:32 PM   
also the reason why it doesn't look the same on your monitor and projector is because of said reasons, perspective makes distant objects smaller. therefore when your eyes are parallel with two dots on a piece of paper when held close, they will not be parallel "relative to your view" when held far away. your eyes will move inwards. a good way to test this is game in 3D really close to your monitor. now move really far away, you see something completely different! why? because your brain is still seeing the exact same image, but from far away, so it makes different assumptions about depth, convergence of the objects on the screen. another test is to turn your head to one side, no longer 3D.. why? because again your head is on its side but yet, your still seeing the exact same thing, it does not compute as your eyes are side by side, not over and above, so your brain fails to build a 3D image. which is why i really hope future 3D devices incorporate these differences to allow games to be correctly configured. of course, with the OR or other eye gear, most of these problems are made unimportant, as screen size and user distance is set in stone.
also the reason why it doesn't look the same on your monitor and projector is because of said reasons,

perspective makes distant objects smaller. therefore when your eyes are parallel with two dots on a piece of paper when held close, they will not be parallel "relative to your view" when held far away. your eyes will move inwards.

a good way to test this is game in 3D really close to your monitor. now move really far away, you see something completely different! why?
because your brain is still seeing the exact same image, but from far away, so it makes different assumptions about depth, convergence of the objects on the screen.

another test is to turn your head to one side, no longer 3D.. why? because again your head is on its side but yet, your still seeing the exact same thing, it does not compute as your eyes are side by side, not over and above, so your brain fails to build a 3D image.

which is why i really hope future 3D devices incorporate these differences to allow games to be correctly configured. of course, with the OR or other eye gear, most of these problems are made unimportant, as screen size and user distance is set in stone.

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

#14
Posted 02/13/2013 12:46 PM   
@ Foreverseeking This might help illustrate your point. You can see a rapid 3D sensitivity drop sfter 100m using binocular disparity as a depth cue. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-546.pdf turn to pg 31 (Page 13 in the paper)
@ Foreverseeking

This might help illustrate your point. You can see a rapid 3D sensitivity drop sfter 100m using binocular disparity as a depth cue.


http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-546.pdf


turn to pg 31 (Page 13 in the paper)

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#15
Posted 02/13/2013 04:26 PM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top