I see mention of "fake 3D" ocasionally on here. What is it, and what are the differences
  4 / 5    
[quote="TsaebehT"]Even on my 65" screen there's a ton of screenshots that are completely 'unviewable' for me ... look at it this way, between yours and mine it's roughly a 3:1 ratio ... pixels aside, I'm pretty sure that's effectively like ripping my eyes out of my head and separating them from 3-4" to 9-12" ... :)[/quote]I think this is probably a big part of my confusion. The screen size differences. This is one part I still don't really understand, because I thought that NVidia would compensate for screen width. But maybe they only do that in game, and not for screenshots. I know I definitely have the same problem- sometimes other people's screenshots are so divergent that I cannot fuse the images. Just for more comparison, I made a screen shot of Just Cause 2, using my strict rules so that these are all directly comparable. 100% depth from NVidia ctrl-f4, convergence at default, 1920x1080. [url]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/JustCause206_85.jps[/url] @andysonofbob: please take a look at that one, and see how it compares to your usual setup for JC2. I think I bought that game on sale for $2 too, and it looks freakin' awesome in 3d. Parachuting in full S3D! Here is my Crysis 2 to Just Cause 2 maximum separation comparison (island lights in ocean): [img]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/jc2crysiscompare.PNG[/img] Similar to the last one- identical separation at the maximum depth.
TsaebehT said:Even on my 65" screen there's a ton of screenshots that are completely 'unviewable' for me ... look at it this way, between yours and mine it's roughly a 3:1 ratio ... pixels aside, I'm pretty sure that's effectively like ripping my eyes out of my head and separating them from 3-4" to 9-12" ... :)
I think this is probably a big part of my confusion. The screen size differences. This is one part I still don't really understand, because I thought that NVidia would compensate for screen width. But maybe they only do that in game, and not for screenshots. I know I definitely have the same problem- sometimes other people's screenshots are so divergent that I cannot fuse the images.

Just for more comparison, I made a screen shot of Just Cause 2, using my strict rules so that these are all directly comparable. 100% depth from NVidia ctrl-f4, convergence at default, 1920x1080.

http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/JustCause206_85.jps

@andysonofbob: please take a look at that one, and see how it compares to your usual setup for JC2. I think I bought that game on sale for $2 too, and it looks freakin' awesome in 3d. Parachuting in full S3D!

Here is my Crysis 2 to Just Cause 2 maximum separation comparison (island lights in ocean):

Image


Similar to the last one- identical separation at the maximum depth.

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

#46
Posted 08/30/2013 07:35 AM   
If you can be bothered, when you can explore a bit, take another comparison screeny which allows you to see a gradual depth increase, like your Crysis 2 screeny, with the pavements/boats moving out into the distance etc. Once that intro is over you will meet your first contact which will give a fab comparative view: a decent amount of land before a sea vista like Crysis 2. The reason I am interested in the seperation changes in the 0 - 100m distance range and concerned with crysis 2's distinct lack of change is because that is where the binocular disparity (which stereoscopic vision relies on) aspect of 3D is the most significant. See this graph [url]http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14659#p71686[/url] As you can see, looking at the binocular disparity curve, an object say 200m away will appear to have the same (as far as practicable) separation as an object 1000m away! Monitor size teasing apart!!! All I need to do to get your equivalent 3D is take a couple of steps back from my monitor! Not as much FoV as you ofc but I have to go to the end of my room to make those 3 pixels work for me, which I can now see they do, but boy is it still flat! Bo3b If you are not planning on playing JC2 for real, I seriously recommend that superman mod. You are practically a superhero anyway, imagine being able to fly like one! [url]http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/23/being-a-creep-with-just-cause-2s-superman-mod/[/url] Now 'Get back in that base!' [i]The screeny had a tool tip telling you to do this...[/i]
If you can be bothered, when you can explore a bit, take another comparison screeny which allows you to see a gradual depth increase, like your Crysis 2 screeny, with the pavements/boats moving out into the distance etc. Once that intro is over you will meet your first contact which will give a fab comparative view: a decent amount of land before a sea vista like Crysis 2.

The reason I am interested in the seperation changes in the 0 - 100m distance range and concerned with crysis 2's distinct lack of change is because that is where the binocular disparity (which stereoscopic vision relies on) aspect of 3D is the most significant. See this graph http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14659#p71686
As you can see, looking at the binocular disparity curve, an object say 200m away will appear to have the same (as far as practicable) separation as an object 1000m away!

Monitor size teasing apart!!! All I need to do to get your equivalent 3D is take a couple of steps back from my monitor! Not as much FoV as you ofc but I have to go to the end of my room to make those 3 pixels work for me, which I can now see they do, but boy is it still flat!

Bo3b
If you are not planning on playing JC2 for real, I seriously recommend that superman mod. You are practically a superhero anyway, imagine being able to fly like one!
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/23/being-a-creep-with-just-cause-2s-superman-mod/

Now 'Get back in that base!'


The screeny had a tool tip telling you to do this...

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

#47
Posted 08/30/2013 10:05 AM   
I'll definitely look for a good spot that mimics the Crysis2 shot. I did get back inside the base, and blew up everything in there. I even hooked some dudes to propane bottles and watched them jet around. Awesome! Just barely into the game now at the casino. I expect to play it for real, but I'll come back for some of the mods. That separation graph is really interesting. That is similar to the graph from NVidia where they map parallax/separation to depth: [img]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/SafeParallaxRange.JPG[/img] Out at distance, the lines get pretty flat, which makes for little pixel separation. And up close, the curve is pretty steep, so small changes in depth translate to big changes in separation. This is why I am concerned about that Sleeping Dogs comparison picture. When we get far out, the left and right eye are naturally very similar, because of the shape of the curve. If we ignore the first 1/3 of the screen- the HUD, the gun, the up close items, we lose the most valuable part of the curve. That's why I don't believe that Neil's align the images is a valid test case. Especially in the motor-bike picture, aligning the images on Wei Shen on the bike throws out the important first 10m of image. Or rather, pulls all that out of screen. Here's an NVidia image that describes what I think is happening when it's aligned like that. [img]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/ParallaxFarthestPixel.JPG[/img]
I'll definitely look for a good spot that mimics the Crysis2 shot.

I did get back inside the base, and blew up everything in there. I even hooked some dudes to propane bottles and watched them jet around. Awesome! Just barely into the game now at the casino. I expect to play it for real, but I'll come back for some of the mods.

That separation graph is really interesting. That is similar to the graph from NVidia where they map parallax/separation to depth:

Image

Out at distance, the lines get pretty flat, which makes for little pixel separation. And up close, the curve is pretty steep, so small changes in depth translate to big changes in separation.


This is why I am concerned about that Sleeping Dogs comparison picture. When we get far out, the left and right eye are naturally very similar, because of the shape of the curve. If we ignore the first 1/3 of the screen- the HUD, the gun, the up close items, we lose the most valuable part of the curve.

That's why I don't believe that Neil's align the images is a valid test case. Especially in the motor-bike picture, aligning the images on Wei Shen on the bike throws out the important first 10m of image. Or rather, pulls all that out of screen.

Here's an NVidia image that describes what I think is happening when it's aligned like that.

Image

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

#48
Posted 08/30/2013 11:15 AM   
TsaebehT probably understands the screen problem. Is this as simple as the IPD of 63mm (approximately) being the same for both projector and up close screen? I ran MetroLL on my Dell in Discover, and I note that at 100%, I still get 2.5" (63mm) of separation for distant objects. That's the same as I measure on my projector, but of course that's 8 feet away. This makes sense, because infinity=eyes parallel, which would be that 63mm. So, when I look at a screenshot, it's blown up to my screen size, which makes the eye separation actually diverge because it's no longer 63mm on the wall. Conversely when andysonofbob looks at my screenshot on his close screen, the distant spots are only some 1/2" apart or 12mm or so. Really low separation relative to that max of 63mm. Is that right?
TsaebehT probably understands the screen problem.
Is this as simple as the IPD of 63mm (approximately) being the same for both projector and up close screen?

I ran MetroLL on my Dell in Discover, and I note that at 100%, I still get 2.5" (63mm) of separation for distant objects. That's the same as I measure on my projector, but of course that's 8 feet away.

This makes sense, because infinity=eyes parallel, which would be that 63mm.

So, when I look at a screenshot, it's blown up to my screen size, which makes the eye separation actually diverge because it's no longer 63mm on the wall.

Conversely when andysonofbob looks at my screenshot on his close screen, the distant spots are only some 1/2" apart or 12mm or so. Really low separation relative to that max of 63mm.

Is that right?

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

#49
Posted 08/30/2013 12:00 PM   
IIRC the older drivers, or maybe it was Voodoo drivers, let you set the screen size, which 'could' help set a relative IPD at the screen, distance from the screen doesn't matter as much ... unless you have you face mashed against the screen. :) ... and even then I don't think it matters at all. It's all relative to the separation of your eyes. You can set the depth/separation/backplane of 3D higher than the distance between your eyes to a point but I'd really be surprised if you can actually 'focus' on it. It'll look ok but if you cover your right eye and then quickly shift to covering your left eye, and back and forth, you will see a shift in the backplane, meaning you're really not 'focusing' on it all. Sorry about the 'size' teasing andysonofbob but unfortunately ... it really does matter, distance has nothing to do with the depth, maybe with convergence and possibly toyification, but not depth. I can look at screenshot made on a smaller monitor if they're smaller, say in a window, and get the same results as you but you can't really zoom into a screenshot made on a bigger monitor and get the same results as me ... you might be able to change the depth in the viewer, I can't really remember off the top of my head, but even then that would kill any sense of depth convergence had added by 'compressing' the scene. The way I look at it is Depth is just the separation at the furthest point, depth alone only gives you a sliver of 'depth', and convergence compresses more gradients of depth into, and out of, the scene creating more of a sense of depth. The one thing I am jealous about smaller monitors is toyification, I don't imagine the effect works nearly as well on larger screens. I'm pretty sure that just like IPD is relative to depth, it's also relative to the convergence, primarily the popout, and that anything past your IPD becomes uncomfortable to view.
IIRC the older drivers, or maybe it was Voodoo drivers, let you set the screen size, which 'could' help set a relative IPD at the screen, distance from the screen doesn't matter as much ... unless you have you face mashed against the screen. :) ... and even then I don't think it matters at all.

It's all relative to the separation of your eyes. You can set the depth/separation/backplane of 3D higher than the distance between your eyes to a point but I'd really be surprised if you can actually 'focus' on it. It'll look ok but if you cover your right eye and then quickly shift to covering your left eye, and back and forth, you will see a shift in the backplane, meaning you're really not 'focusing' on it all.

Sorry about the 'size' teasing andysonofbob but unfortunately ... it really does matter, distance has nothing to do with the depth, maybe with convergence and possibly toyification, but not depth. I can look at screenshot made on a smaller monitor if they're smaller, say in a window, and get the same results as you but you can't really zoom into a screenshot made on a bigger monitor and get the same results as me ... you might be able to change the depth in the viewer, I can't really remember off the top of my head, but even then that would kill any sense of depth convergence had added by 'compressing' the scene.

The way I look at it is Depth is just the separation at the furthest point, depth alone only gives you a sliver of 'depth', and convergence compresses more gradients of depth into, and out of, the scene creating more of a sense of depth.

The one thing I am jealous about smaller monitors is toyification, I don't imagine the effect works nearly as well on larger screens. I'm pretty sure that just like IPD is relative to depth, it's also relative to the convergence, primarily the popout, and that anything past your IPD becomes uncomfortable to view.
#50
Posted 08/30/2013 01:50 PM   
[quote="TsaebehT"]IIRC the older drivers, or maybe it was Voodoo drivers, let you set the screen size, which 'could' help set a relative IPD at the screen, distance from the screen doesn't matter as much ... unless you have you face mashed against the screen. :) ... and even then I don't think it matters at all.[/quote] It does for me! If I take a couple of steps back away from my monitor, the scenes gets a lot deeper! You can see it stretching into the distance. Doesn't this happen when you walk away from your screens then? ----------- Fair dos though! :) At the end of the day, something about playing Crysis 2 (and 3), Res Evil 5 and Metro on my monitor, makes my eyes feel funny. I can't game in 2D anymore. Fake 3D or low convergence, it feels like I am gaming in 2D. So much so, I give up playing them. :(
TsaebehT said:IIRC the older drivers, or maybe it was Voodoo drivers, let you set the screen size, which 'could' help set a relative IPD at the screen, distance from the screen doesn't matter as much ... unless you have you face mashed against the screen. :) ... and even then I don't think it matters at all.


It does for me! If I take a couple of steps back away from my monitor, the scenes gets a lot deeper! You can see it stretching into the distance. Doesn't this happen when you walk away from your screens then?

-----------

Fair dos though! :)

At the end of the day, something about playing Crysis 2 (and 3), Res Evil 5 and Metro on my monitor, makes my eyes feel funny. I can't game in 2D anymore. Fake 3D or low convergence, it feels like I am gaming in 2D. So much so, I give up playing them. :(

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

#51
Posted 08/30/2013 03:50 PM   
You don't walk away from screens that big! Lol. :) I don't know, it might be an optical illusion. Seriously I think the most I can go back is about 2-3' tops.
You don't walk away from screens that big! Lol. :)

I don't know, it might be an optical illusion. Seriously I think the most I can go back is about 2-3' tops.
#52
Posted 08/30/2013 05:59 PM   
[quote="TsaebehT"]You don't walk away from screens that big! Lol. :)[/quote] Grrrr! [quote="TsaebehT"]I don't know, it might be an optical illusion.[/quote] Ha! I see what you did there! Coz ofc stereoscopic is an... ;D [quote="TsaebehT"]Seriously I think the most I can go back is about 2-3' tops.[/quote] It is way more noticable on smaller screens. That is way people don't grumble about it at the cinema.
TsaebehT said:You don't walk away from screens that big! Lol. :)

Grrrr!

TsaebehT said:I don't know, it might be an optical illusion.

Ha! I see what you did there! Coz ofc stereoscopic is an... ;D

TsaebehT said:Seriously I think the most I can go back is about 2-3' tops.

It is way more noticable on smaller screens. That is way people don't grumble about it at the cinema.

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

#53
Posted 08/30/2013 07:44 PM   
OK, I think I'm starting to understand. @andysonofbob: Please take a look at this experimental MetroLL picture. If I'm right, I think you will find this image to demonstrate a lot of depth and be pretty good. [url]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/MetroLL33_85.jps[/url] The big difference here is that I put this on my 1600x1200 monitor using Discover, and Separation at 100%, and convergence as high as I could take it. I took a snapshot on that monitor, which has the distant objects wildly farther apart than I'm used to with my projector. When I put that image on my projector, it's essentially unviewable for me. If I concentrate for a minute or so I can fuse the distant objects, but it's definitely straining the eyes. Here is my comparison shot of the prior 1920x1080 from the projector at max separation, to the 1600x1200 shot at maximum depth- projector vs. monitor. [img]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/metro1600to1920.PNG[/img] I had to move to a different spot to keep the broken building visible, but compare the delta between the two images. The 7 or 8 story building with the masts on top is farthest pixel. Is it really that simple? The images saved from one system are not really usable on another unless the screens match?
OK, I think I'm starting to understand.

@andysonofbob: Please take a look at this experimental MetroLL picture. If I'm right, I think you will find this image to demonstrate a lot of depth and be pretty good.

http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/MetroLL33_85.jps


The big difference here is that I put this on my 1600x1200 monitor using Discover, and Separation at 100%, and convergence as high as I could take it. I took a snapshot on that monitor, which has the distant objects wildly farther apart than I'm used to with my projector.

When I put that image on my projector, it's essentially unviewable for me. If I concentrate for a minute or so I can fuse the distant objects, but it's definitely straining the eyes.

Here is my comparison shot of the prior 1920x1080 from the projector at max separation, to the 1600x1200 shot at maximum depth- projector vs. monitor.

Image


I had to move to a different spot to keep the broken building visible, but compare the delta between the two images. The 7 or 8 story building with the masts on top is farthest pixel.

Is it really that simple? The images saved from one system are not really usable on another unless the screens match?

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

#54
Posted 08/31/2013 02:12 AM   
Yes! The 3D effect and the sense of changing depth throughout the scene on that screeny feels about right. In fact the max depth might be too high! I recon if you were to reduce depth to how it would be on your pj, as long as the convergence remained relative, I bet it would still look good. The problem is the gun; it pops out far too much! Remove the gun and that 3D scene would look great. I had this problem with Battlefield 3, the weapons have been rendered too near, meaning you need to reduce convergence to a point where it makes the 3D look flat! Increasing the 3D to an acceptable level causes the gun to split too much. Incidently, games are penalised quite heavily for this on GG3D. [i]Edit: In fact, because my monitor is about 40cm from my face I struggle with 'permanent' popout. When guns popout, even a little, they are too close for me. Spells, flying arrows, leaves and temporary things = yes; Guns, hands, HUD elements and permanant stuff = no. I try to position weapons so they're in depth (zero popout). Two worlds 2's popout only 3D was aweful for me! Near objects, like your character for instance was about 25cm from my face; talk about eyestrain! I imagine people with screens further away than a monitor would be far more comfortable with it...[/i] What do you think of these Skyrim screenies? [url]http://speedy.sh/eDzya/Skyrim.zip[/url] I have set Depth to around 20 - 25% (for you big screeners), one image has 'good' convergence (IMO) and another has convergence reduced to a point my eyes feel funny like they do when I play a game in 2D. IMO the good convergence one represents good 3D the other very poor 3D. [i](If anyone cares, at my optimum convergence, I need to play Skyrim in 3rd person because the weapons etc split too much in 1st person. However reducing convergence to play first person doesn't make my eyes feel funny as there is sufficent convergence.)[/i] I have also attempted to simulate fake 3D. If you can look beyond the crudeness of my fake attempt and imagine clever editing techniques to soften the edges of the layers to make them look less like cardboard cut outs, this (to me!!) feels like Crysis2.
Yes!

The 3D effect and the sense of changing depth throughout the scene on that screeny feels about right. In fact the max depth might be too high! I recon if you were to reduce depth to how it would be on your pj, as long as the convergence remained relative, I bet it would still look good.

The problem is the gun; it pops out far too much! Remove the gun and that 3D scene would look great. I had this problem with Battlefield 3, the weapons have been rendered too near, meaning you need to reduce convergence to a point where it makes the 3D look flat! Increasing the 3D to an acceptable level causes the gun to split too much. Incidently, games are penalised quite heavily for this on GG3D.

Edit: In fact, because my monitor is about 40cm from my face I struggle with 'permanent' popout. When guns popout, even a little, they are too close for me. Spells, flying arrows, leaves and temporary things = yes; Guns, hands, HUD elements and permanant stuff = no. I try to position weapons so they're in depth (zero popout). Two worlds 2's popout only 3D was aweful for me! Near objects, like your character for instance was about 25cm from my face; talk about eyestrain! I imagine people with screens further away than a monitor would be far more comfortable with it...

What do you think of these Skyrim screenies? http://speedy.sh/eDzya/Skyrim.zip

I have set Depth to around 20 - 25% (for you big screeners), one image has 'good' convergence (IMO) and another has convergence reduced to a point my eyes feel funny like they do when I play a game in 2D. IMO the good convergence one represents good 3D the other very poor 3D. (If anyone cares, at my optimum convergence, I need to play Skyrim in 3rd person because the weapons etc split too much in 1st person. However reducing convergence to play first person doesn't make my eyes feel funny as there is sufficent convergence.)

I have also attempted to simulate fake 3D. If you can look beyond the crudeness of my fake attempt and imagine clever editing techniques to soften the edges of the layers to make them look less like cardboard cut outs, this (to me!!) feels like Crysis2.

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

#55
Posted 08/31/2013 08:54 AM   
[quote="andysonofbob"] The problem is the gun; it pops out far too much! Remove the gun and that 3D scene would look great. I had this problem with Battlefield 3, the weapons have been rendered too near, meaning you need to reduce convergence to a point where it makes the 3D look flat! Increasing the 3D to an acceptable level causes the gun to split too much. Incidently, games are penalised quite heavily for this on GG3D. [i]Edit: In fact, because my monitor is about 40cm from my face I struggle with 'permanent' popout. When guns popout, even a little, they are too close for me. Spells, flying arrows, leaves and temporary things = yes; Guns, hands, HUD elements and permanant stuff = no. I try to position weapons so they're in depth (zero popout). Two worlds 2's popout only 3D was aweful for me! Near objects, like your character for instance was about 25cm from my face; talk about eyestrain! I imagine people with screens further away than a monitor would be far more comfortable with it...[/i] [/quote]Here are a couple of experimental shots where I reduced the convergence/popout, but left depth at max. I [i]think [/i]these should seem pretty great to your viewing. This one is with convergence at zero, when aiming with iron sights. Uses Chiri's mod. [url]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/zeroConvergence.jps[/url] This one is with convergence bumped up just a little, but not extreme popout. I went up next to a wall, for a more closeup look. [url]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/smallConvergence.jps[/url]
andysonofbob said:
The problem is the gun; it pops out far too much! Remove the gun and that 3D scene would look great. I had this problem with Battlefield 3, the weapons have been rendered too near, meaning you need to reduce convergence to a point where it makes the 3D look flat! Increasing the 3D to an acceptable level causes the gun to split too much. Incidently, games are penalised quite heavily for this on GG3D.

Edit: In fact, because my monitor is about 40cm from my face I struggle with 'permanent' popout. When guns popout, even a little, they are too close for me. Spells, flying arrows, leaves and temporary things = yes; Guns, hands, HUD elements and permanant stuff = no. I try to position weapons so they're in depth (zero popout). Two worlds 2's popout only 3D was aweful for me! Near objects, like your character for instance was about 25cm from my face; talk about eyestrain! I imagine people with screens further away than a monitor would be far more comfortable with it...
Here are a couple of experimental shots where I reduced the convergence/popout, but left depth at max. I think these should seem pretty great to your viewing.


This one is with convergence at zero, when aiming with iron sights. Uses Chiri's mod.

http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/zeroConvergence.jps


This one is with convergence bumped up just a little, but not extreme popout. I went up next to a wall, for a more closeup look.

http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/smallConvergence.jps

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

#56
Posted 09/01/2013 12:58 AM   
[quote="bo3b"][quote="andysonofbob"] [url]http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/zeroConvergence.jps[/url][/quote] I just wanna hop in late game to say one thing and ask another. That shot, with eyes crossed, that area looks really, really fantastic. I wish that shot had a bit more depth, but that area looks incredible. Secondly, what are you using to take 3D screenshots? I have fraps but it always takes 2D shots so I set Fraps to record video in 3D and then just record like a half of a a second of footage.
bo3b said:
andysonofbob said:

http://bo3b.net/Crysis2/zeroConvergence.jps


I just wanna hop in late game to say one thing and ask another.

That shot, with eyes crossed, that area looks really, really fantastic. I wish that shot had a bit more depth, but that area looks incredible.

Secondly, what are you using to take 3D screenshots? I have fraps but it always takes 2D shots so I set Fraps to record video in 3D and then just record like a half of a a second of footage.

#57
Posted 09/01/2013 05:13 AM   
[quote="Alo81"]I just wanna hop in late game to say one thing and ask another. That shot, with eyes crossed, that area looks really, really fantastic. I wish that shot had a bit more depth, but that area looks incredible. Secondly, what are you using to take 3D screenshots? I have fraps but it always takes 2D shots so I set Fraps to record video in 3D and then just record like a half of a a second of footage. [/quote]Cool, good to know that works for you too. That shot will only look good on a monitor, I think. On a projector it's too much depth, maybe unviewable. To take a stereo snapshot, best bet is to use the built in NVidia screen shot of Alt-F1. (If that's too annoying you can edit the registry to change the key.) You'll want to change the defautl JPG compression though, it defaults to a mostly unusable 50%. Since we are nearly always more interested in fidelity than storage I don't understand why they make this poor choice. You can use this script or just edit the registry entry directly. I set it to 85%. [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/544995/handy-batch-file-to-fix-3d-settings/[/url]
Alo81 said:I just wanna hop in late game to say one thing and ask another.

That shot, with eyes crossed, that area looks really, really fantastic. I wish that shot had a bit more depth, but that area looks incredible.

Secondly, what are you using to take 3D screenshots? I have fraps but it always takes 2D shots so I set Fraps to record video in 3D and then just record like a half of a a second of footage.
Cool, good to know that works for you too. That shot will only look good on a monitor, I think. On a projector it's too much depth, maybe unviewable.

To take a stereo snapshot, best bet is to use the built in NVidia screen shot of Alt-F1.

(If that's too annoying you can edit the registry to change the key.) You'll want to change the defautl JPG compression though, it defaults to a mostly unusable 50%. Since we are nearly always more interested in fidelity than storage I don't understand why they make this poor choice. You can use this script or just edit the registry entry directly. I set it to 85%.

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/544995/handy-batch-file-to-fix-3d-settings/

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

#58
Posted 09/01/2013 08:31 AM   
[quote="andysonofbob"]What do you think of these Skyrim screenies? [url]http://speedy.sh/eDzya/Skyrim.zip[/url] I have set Depth to around 20 - 25% (for you big screeners), one image has 'good' convergence (IMO) and another has convergence reduced to a point my eyes feel funny like they do when I play a game in 2D. IMO the good convergence one represents good 3D the other very poor 3D. [i](If anyone cares, at my optimum convergence, I need to play Skyrim in 3rd person because the weapons etc split too much in 1st person. However reducing convergence to play first person doesn't make my eyes feel funny as there is sufficent convergence.)[/i] I have also attempted to simulate fake 3D. If you can look beyond the crudeness of my fake attempt and imagine clever editing techniques to soften the edges of the layers to make them look less like cardboard cut outs, this (to me!!) feels like Crysis2.[/quote]Really interesting! I do see what you mean by low-convergence (bad) to optimum-convergence (good). It's a little like toyification, but not as extreme. It seems to me that this is mostly just added depth though. (could be wrong, of course.) In that with some convergence, you are stretching the image out of the screen a bit. You don't see anything popout, because of 3rd person, but there is invisible popout happening. If you stand next to a wall, I would expect you to see the wall popout. How did you make the low-convergence shot? When I look at it with StereoPhotoMaker it's actually the 2D at depth we were talking about. If I slide the left over the right and align the images, they are literally identical. You can see this in any anaglyph viewer as well, where the delta between red and cyan is exactly the same for the character as well as the far trees. Not sure I completely understand this one as a bad example of low-convergence, since it doesn't actually have any divergence. This is not what I see with Crysis 2, even with their low max separation. This is not the same as the Metro shots for example. I also see what you are presenting with the edited fake version. That would be what I'm calling billboard effect. You see stuff painted onto flat surfaces. This isn't what I'm seeing with Crysis 2, but it seems likely that's what happens when you crank up the depth. From that earlier discussion, the reason I don't see a problem with these is because of the projector. It allows me use their hard-coded max depth and it's actually about right for my projector. On a monitor, you need at least 5x more separation to make it good. I also looked at Deus Ex, as it was reportedly low depth as well. Same problem. It works fine on the projector because their 'max' is the same as my NVidia max. Both Deus Ex and Crysis 2 have botched taking into account the screen size.
andysonofbob said:What do you think of these Skyrim screenies? http://speedy.sh/eDzya/Skyrim.zip

I have set Depth to around 20 - 25% (for you big screeners), one image has 'good' convergence (IMO) and another has convergence reduced to a point my eyes feel funny like they do when I play a game in 2D. IMO the good convergence one represents good 3D the other very poor 3D. (If anyone cares, at my optimum convergence, I need to play Skyrim in 3rd person because the weapons etc split too much in 1st person. However reducing convergence to play first person doesn't make my eyes feel funny as there is sufficent convergence.)

I have also attempted to simulate fake 3D. If you can look beyond the crudeness of my fake attempt and imagine clever editing techniques to soften the edges of the layers to make them look less like cardboard cut outs, this (to me!!) feels like Crysis2.
Really interesting! I do see what you mean by low-convergence (bad) to optimum-convergence (good). It's a little like toyification, but not as extreme.

It seems to me that this is mostly just added depth though. (could be wrong, of course.) In that with some convergence, you are stretching the image out of the screen a bit. You don't see anything popout, because of 3rd person, but there is invisible popout happening. If you stand next to a wall, I would expect you to see the wall popout.


How did you make the low-convergence shot? When I look at it with StereoPhotoMaker it's actually the 2D at depth we were talking about. If I slide the left over the right and align the images, they are literally identical. You can see this in any anaglyph viewer as well, where the delta between red and cyan is exactly the same for the character as well as the far trees.

Not sure I completely understand this one as a bad example of low-convergence, since it doesn't actually have any divergence. This is not what I see with Crysis 2, even with their low max separation. This is not the same as the Metro shots for example.


I also see what you are presenting with the edited fake version. That would be what I'm calling billboard effect. You see stuff painted onto flat surfaces. This isn't what I'm seeing with Crysis 2, but it seems likely that's what happens when you crank up the depth.

From that earlier discussion, the reason I don't see a problem with these is because of the projector. It allows me use their hard-coded max depth and it's actually about right for my projector. On a monitor, you need at least 5x more separation to make it good.

I also looked at Deus Ex, as it was reportedly low depth as well. Same problem. It works fine on the projector because their 'max' is the same as my NVidia max. Both Deus Ex and Crysis 2 have botched taking into account the screen size.

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

#59
Posted 09/01/2013 08:41 AM   
Hello again! That last screeny, 'small convergence', is spot on. It would be churlish of me to say I would prefer zero weapon pop out so I wont ;P (saying that, it looks like a longer weapon and I bet most of the others are in depth...) At the end of the day, that's a pretty good representation of a screeny I would take using my monitor showing the convergence/depth settings the way I like it! And you can probably guess that I personally couldn't game, with settings as per your 'zero convergence shot'. It makes my eyes feel funny. :) [quote="bo3b"]It seems to me that this is mostly just added depth though. (could be wrong, of course.) In that with some convergence, you are stretching the image out of the screen a bit. You don't see anything popout, because of 3rd person, but there is invisible popout happening. If you stand next to a wall, I would expect you to see the wall popout.[/quote] I completely agree with you here. Adding convergence seems to me to add to sense of depth by 'stretching' the scene. Your also right about the convergence setting causing alot of popout. (I thought I mentioned that I couldn't game like this is 1st Person because of the popout splitting too much...) RE: convergence adding to depth... [quote="bo3b"]How did you make the low-convergence shot? When I look at it with StereoPhotoMaker it's actually the 2D at depth we were talking about. If I slide the left over the right and align the images, they are literally identical. You can see this in any anaglyph viewer as well, where the delta between red and cyan is exactly the same for the character as well as the far trees.[/quote] This shot was made by just pressing the F5 (- convergence) for about 10 seconds! When convergence is set so low, it appears to render the scene in 2D but with at your depth! I guess this makes sense seeing that convegence settings seem to centrol the depth of the scene which is at the monitor depth (is that called the natural or normal point or something?) so assuming depth is constant pulling that point back by lowering convergence means the scene will tend towards the depth point. [quote="bo3b"]I also see what you are presenting with the edited fake version. That would be what I'm calling billboard effect. You see stuff painted onto flat surfaces. This isn't what I'm seeing with Crysis 2, but it seems likely that's what happens when you crank up the depth.[/quote] What I see with crysis 2 is the billboard effect but masked. The HUD and near objects seem to be rendered separated from the (more distant) rest of the scene. The rest of the scene seems to have very low convergence. The point the near objects blend into the scene on the image we have been scrutinising seems to be just beyond the start of the metal railings on the left. In fact, when we allign the objects on the ring or somewhere, the way the railing split reminds me of how the lines of Anisotropic Filtering moves up the screen as you increase it! I think my mind has been changed and now believe there is depth going on in the rest of the scene it is just seriously softened by what I think is very low convergence beyond the foreground. [quote="bo3b"]I also looked at Deus Ex, as it was reportedly low depth as well.[/quote] Mate, the 3D is 'true' 3D alright but the reason DE's 3D is rubbish is because the 3D is rubbish! Your telling me you haven't noticed the skybox drawn too near, dodgy lazer sights which work now and again, multiple glitchy lighting effects, subtle HDR-like effects that are rendered in 2D etc. Oh and the convergence is too low because adding more causing the gun to split. [i][b][Rant=andysonofbob!] What galls me rotten is nvidia saying these games (DE and Crysis 2) have excellent 3D. I remember asking about Crysis 2 and ManualG (or another nvidia dude) saying they increased the 3D because of the patch which increased the visuals resulting in better 3D. I find out the patch was the texture pack!!! What nvidia? Texture packs magically improve 3D by just being texture packs do they? Rrright! [/rant][/b][/i] Sorry about that. TBH I thought they gave DE excellent because they hadn't noticed the dismal 3D because it was hidden by such low depth... How does DE's 3D (depth/convergence) compare to JC2 on the pj?
Hello again!

That last screeny, 'small convergence', is spot on. It would be churlish of me to say I would prefer zero weapon pop out so I wont ;P (saying that, it looks like a longer weapon and I bet most of the others are in depth...) At the end of the day, that's a pretty good representation of a screeny I would take using my monitor showing the convergence/depth settings the way I like it!

And you can probably guess that I personally couldn't game, with settings as per your 'zero convergence shot'. It makes my eyes feel funny. :)

bo3b said:It seems to me that this is mostly just added depth though. (could be wrong, of course.) In that with some convergence, you are stretching the image out of the screen a bit. You don't see anything popout, because of 3rd person, but there is invisible popout happening. If you stand next to a wall, I would expect you to see the wall popout.

I completely agree with you here. Adding convergence seems to me to add to sense of depth by 'stretching' the scene. Your also right about the convergence setting causing alot of popout. (I thought I mentioned that I couldn't game like this is 1st Person because of the popout splitting too much...)

RE: convergence adding to depth...

bo3b said:How did you make the low-convergence shot? When I look at it with StereoPhotoMaker it's actually the 2D at depth we were talking about. If I slide the left over the right and align the images, they are literally identical. You can see this in any anaglyph viewer as well, where the delta between red and cyan is exactly the same for the character as well as the far trees.


This shot was made by just pressing the F5 (- convergence) for about 10 seconds! When convergence is set so low, it appears to render the scene in 2D but with at your depth! I guess this makes sense seeing that convegence settings seem to centrol the depth of the scene which is at the monitor depth (is that called the natural or normal point or something?) so assuming depth is constant pulling that point back by lowering convergence means the scene will tend towards the depth point.

bo3b said:I also see what you are presenting with the edited fake version. That would be what I'm calling billboard effect. You see stuff painted onto flat surfaces. This isn't what I'm seeing with Crysis 2, but it seems likely that's what happens when you crank up the depth.


What I see with crysis 2 is the billboard effect but masked. The HUD and near objects seem to be rendered separated from the (more distant) rest of the scene. The rest of the scene seems to have very low convergence. The point the near objects blend into the scene on the image we have been scrutinising seems to be just beyond the start of the metal railings on the left. In fact, when we allign the objects on the ring or somewhere, the way the railing split reminds me of how the lines of Anisotropic Filtering moves up the screen as you increase it!

I think my mind has been changed and now believe there is depth going on in the rest of the scene it is just seriously softened by what I think is very low convergence beyond the foreground.


bo3b said:I also looked at Deus Ex, as it was reportedly low depth as well.

Mate, the 3D is 'true' 3D alright but the reason DE's 3D is rubbish is because the 3D is rubbish! Your telling me you haven't noticed the skybox drawn too near, dodgy lazer sights which work now and again, multiple glitchy lighting effects, subtle HDR-like effects that are rendered in 2D etc. Oh and the convergence is too low because adding more causing the gun to split.

[Rant=andysonofbob!]
What galls me rotten is nvidia saying these games (DE and Crysis 2) have excellent 3D.

I remember asking about Crysis 2 and ManualG (or another nvidia dude) saying they increased the 3D because of the patch which increased the visuals resulting in better 3D. I find out the patch was the texture pack!!! What nvidia? Texture packs magically improve 3D by just being texture packs do they? Rrright! [/rant]


Sorry about that. TBH I thought they gave DE excellent because they hadn't noticed the dismal 3D because it was hidden by such low depth... How does DE's 3D (depth/convergence) compare to JC2 on the pj?

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

#60
Posted 09/01/2013 07:55 PM   
  4 / 5    
Scroll To Top