Convergence and compatibility 3D mode: please unlock it properly!
--snip edit: useless rant, long story short: i wanted higher convergence values for compatibility mode and was under the impression it was limited on purpose. Appears not to be the case.
--snip

edit: useless rant, long story short: i wanted higher convergence values for compatibility mode and was under the impression it was limited on purpose. Appears not to be the case.

#1
Posted 01/16/2015 08:52 AM   
The way I understand this is: The CM is missing the real "stereo-spatial" information about the objects on screen, it merely simulates/imagines it, poorly, so it has to "fudge" the exact spatial position of objects. Convergence is the ultimate manifestation of stereovision, using real spatial position coordinates, for all the facets/sides of the objects, not only their distance from the viewer's eyes and from eachother. As such, I don't think that convergence is a concept that even applies to CM. Yes, something seems to happen, something "separates" and pops out a little more, if you use the convergence hotkeys in CM, but if you're pushing it past a critical point (that Nvidia obviously knows about), the objects would have to be distorted/fudged to such an extend that they would not retain their initial shapes. The system just does not have enough information to show you the objects in stereo. So if teh hotkey is kept pressed, Nvidia made it so that "convergence" slowly steers back towards mono/2D.
The way I understand this is:

The CM is missing the real "stereo-spatial" information about the objects on screen, it merely simulates/imagines it, poorly, so it has to "fudge" the exact spatial position of objects.

Convergence is the ultimate manifestation of stereovision, using real spatial position coordinates, for all the facets/sides of the objects, not only their distance from the viewer's eyes and from eachother.

As such, I don't think that convergence is a concept that even applies to CM. Yes, something seems to happen, something "separates" and pops out a little more, if you use the convergence hotkeys in CM, but if you're pushing it past a critical point (that Nvidia obviously knows about), the objects would have to be distorted/fudged to such an extend that they would not retain their initial shapes. The system just does not have enough information to show you the objects in stereo. So if teh hotkey is kept pressed, Nvidia made it so that "convergence" slowly steers back towards mono/2D.

#2
Posted 01/16/2015 11:22 AM   
CM used to use the MonitorSize value in the registry so it was at least compatible with DepthHacks, then somewhere along the line they broke it by ignoring MonitorSize in the registry, I've ranted about it here and [url=https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/768807/3d-vision/guide-how-to-enable-depth-buffer-fake-3d-in-almost-any-dx11-game/post/4299834/#4299834]there[/url] ... so who knows where the values are coming from now. I'm not too familiar with how Convergence works with CM, I haven't messed around with CM much ... mostly to make sure whether my DepthHack was working properly or not. It seems like by what you're saying, things stop 'converging' or technically they never diverge again after they converge and just stay at screen depth. Which kind of makes sense in the way they're doing things, adding depth to a 2D image ... that said, they should easily be able to calculate the crossed views diverging once again as a negative factor, which in the worst case scenario areas might add halos on top of halos, just in the opposite eyes.
CM used to use the MonitorSize value in the registry so it was at least compatible with DepthHacks, then somewhere along the line they broke it by ignoring MonitorSize in the registry, I've ranted about it here and there ... so who knows where the values are coming from now.

I'm not too familiar with how Convergence works with CM, I haven't messed around with CM much ... mostly to make sure whether my DepthHack was working properly or not. It seems like by what you're saying, things stop 'converging' or technically they never diverge again after they converge and just stay at screen depth. Which kind of makes sense in the way they're doing things, adding depth to a 2D image ... that said, they should easily be able to calculate the crossed views diverging once again as a negative factor, which in the worst case scenario areas might add halos on top of halos, just in the opposite eyes.
#3
Posted 01/16/2015 03:29 PM   
As far as i know convergence cannot be increased in CM mode because, as Zappologist mentioned above, we have no neccessary data to "play" with. Increasing convergence still possible is such cases at cost of visual artifacts that cannot be avoid in any way. And yes, this artufacts are merely playable with.
As far as i know convergence cannot be increased in CM mode because, as Zappologist mentioned above, we have no neccessary data to "play" with.
Increasing convergence still possible is such cases at cost of visual artifacts that cannot be avoid in any way.
And yes, this artufacts are merely playable with.

#4
Posted 01/16/2015 08:36 PM   
[quote="Zappologist"] The CM is missing the real "stereo-spatial" information about the objects on screen, it merely simulates/imagines it, poorly, so it has to "fudge" the exact spatial position of objects. Convergence is the ultimate manifestation of stereovision, using real spatial position coordinates, for all the facets/sides of the objects, not only their distance from the viewer's eyes and from eachother. As such, I don't think that convergence is a concept that even applies to CM. [/quote] [quote="TsaebehT"]CM used to use the MonitorSize value in the registry so it was at least compatible with DepthHacks, then somewhere along the line they broke it by ignoring MonitorSize in the registry, I've ranted about it here and [url=https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/768807/3d-vision/guide-how-to-enable-depth-buffer-fake-3d-in-almost-any-dx11-game/post/4299834/#4299834]there[/url] ... so who knows where the values are coming from now. I'm not too familiar with how Convergence works with CM, I haven't messed around with CM much ... mostly to make sure whether my DepthHack was working properly or not. It seems like by what you're saying, things stop 'converging' or technically they never diverge again after they converge and just stay at screen depth. Which kind of makes sense in the way they're doing things, adding depth to a 2D image ... that said, they should easily be able to calculate the crossed views diverging once again as a negative factor, which in the worst case scenario areas might add halos on top of halos, just in the opposite eyes. [/quote] [quote="ksyon"]As far as i know convergence cannot be increased in CM mode because, as Zappologist mentioned above, we have no neccessary data to "play" with. Increasing convergence still possible is such cases at cost of visual artifacts that cannot be avoid in any way. And yes, this artufacts are merely playable with.[/quote] Fair enough. I was actually comparing tridef z-buffer mode to compatibility mode earlier and tridef seems to allow higher convergence values which i like more. Also artifacts were in fact less because i was using less depth on tridef. Same 2d distortion when rotating camera near wall in 3rd person game for examble doesnt happen in tridef either, that is why i thought this was just some way to prevent excessive haloing. That said i still prefer compatibility mode to tridef power3d, just because tridef still has auto focus on and AFAIK cannot be disabled when using p3d. But yeah, ill just have to accept the fact that i have to run lower convergence when using CM.
Zappologist said:

The CM is missing the real "stereo-spatial" information about the objects on screen, it merely simulates/imagines it, poorly, so it has to "fudge" the exact spatial position of objects.

Convergence is the ultimate manifestation of stereovision, using real spatial position coordinates, for all the facets/sides of the objects, not only their distance from the viewer's eyes and from eachother.

As such, I don't think that convergence is a concept that even applies to CM.



TsaebehT said:CM used to use the MonitorSize value in the registry so it was at least compatible with DepthHacks, then somewhere along the line they broke it by ignoring MonitorSize in the registry, I've ranted about it here and there ... so who knows where the values are coming from now.

I'm not too familiar with how Convergence works with CM, I haven't messed around with CM much ... mostly to make sure whether my DepthHack was working properly or not. It seems like by what you're saying, things stop 'converging' or technically they never diverge again after they converge and just stay at screen depth. Which kind of makes sense in the way they're doing things, adding depth to a 2D image ... that said, they should easily be able to calculate the crossed views diverging once again as a negative factor, which in the worst case scenario areas might add halos on top of halos, just in the opposite eyes.


ksyon said:As far as i know convergence cannot be increased in CM mode because, as Zappologist mentioned above, we have no neccessary data to "play" with.
Increasing convergence still possible is such cases at cost of visual artifacts that cannot be avoid in any way.
And yes, this artufacts are merely playable with.


Fair enough. I was actually comparing tridef z-buffer mode to compatibility mode earlier and tridef seems to allow higher convergence values which i like more. Also artifacts were in fact less because i was using less depth on tridef. Same 2d distortion when rotating camera near wall in 3rd person game for examble doesnt happen in tridef either, that is why i thought this was just some way to prevent excessive haloing. That said i still prefer compatibility mode to tridef power3d, just because tridef still has auto focus on and AFAIK cannot be disabled when using p3d.

But yeah, ill just have to accept the fact that i have to run lower convergence when using CM.

#5
Posted 01/16/2015 09:00 PM   
I personally ignore CM mode. Geometric 3D or 2D or not playing at all. I feel a bit... strange and disoriented playing things like CM
I personally ignore CM mode. Geometric 3D or 2D or not playing at all. I feel a bit... strange and disoriented playing things like CM

#6
Posted 01/17/2015 11:06 AM   
Yeah, I got that feeling too the very short time I tried it on FarCry 3 when it first came out ... everything was just off ... CM was really rough around the edges then, I should hope it's at least a little better now. A true stereoscopic scene is filled with so many subtle variations along the landscape ... every tree, every branch, every leaf, every blade of grass has it's own specific Depth, it's not just *pop* here's a flat bush ... *pop* here's a flat tree ... *pop* here's a flat ostrich ... oh no wait, that's just one of the guys from the 3D Vision Dept. Lol. Seriously though you take an IPD/Depth of 2.5" and a 27" screen @ 1080p that's about 207 pixels of Separation, multiple that by about half the screen's height and that's just over 111k pixels that are affected by a single line going to infinity only halfway up the screen, a scene in a game far more complex and it gets pretty insane when trying to fathom all the possible variations in the volumetric space stereoscopic rendering creates ... but your eyes/brain knows what's up. :)
Yeah, I got that feeling too the very short time I tried it on FarCry 3 when it first came out ... everything was just off ... CM was really rough around the edges then, I should hope it's at least a little better now.

A true stereoscopic scene is filled with so many subtle variations along the landscape ... every tree, every branch, every leaf, every blade of grass has it's own specific Depth, it's not just *pop* here's a flat bush ... *pop* here's a flat tree ... *pop* here's a flat ostrich ... oh no wait, that's just one of the guys from the 3D Vision Dept. Lol.

Seriously though you take an IPD/Depth of 2.5" and a 27" screen @ 1080p that's about 207 pixels of Separation, multiple that by about half the screen's height and that's just over 111k pixels that are affected by a single line going to infinity only halfway up the screen, a scene in a game far more complex and it gets pretty insane when trying to fathom all the possible variations in the volumetric space stereoscopic rendering creates ... but your eyes/brain knows what's up. :)
#7
Posted 01/17/2015 07:48 PM   
Scroll To Top