why are you putting the VSX-820 in the equation , does it have an effect on the picture?
I also have the same pj model and a different pio and was just wondering.
100% depth is fine by me with a tad of convergence.
Pity convergence isnt identified in a bar like depth, i would like to compare it with other folks on the forum. (or is it?)
Will try the tool out just for fun.
Damn, every time I hear about these depth hacks I get excited, but I've never been able to figure them out.
I know the paths, I'm there, but I just don't know what to do with these scripts...You put up a good explanation but didn't really offer a step-by-step.
Thanks for the tools though, I'll keep...messing around and hope I don't screw anything up
Damn, every time I hear about these depth hacks I get excited, but I've never been able to figure them out.
I know the paths, I'm there, but I just don't know what to do with these scripts...You put up a good explanation but didn't really offer a step-by-step.
Thanks for the tools though, I'll keep...messing around and hope I don't screw anything up
I'm Win 7 64 as well, the instructions are a bit confusing for me, I consider myself tech savvy, but I've never messed around with registry's before so it's all very new to me.
First step says to hotkey run block.bat shortcut, but I can't even open the HotkeyPlus you included, I click and it does nothing. At first I figured I needed to drop the scripts into the registry, but it wouldn't let me.
Sorry if I'm missing something completely painfully obvious, I really appreciate the help though.
I'm Win 7 64 as well, the instructions are a bit confusing for me, I consider myself tech savvy, but I've never messed around with registry's before so it's all very new to me.
First step says to hotkey run block.bat shortcut, but I can't even open the HotkeyPlus you included, I click and it does nothing. At first I figured I needed to drop the scripts into the registry, but it wouldn't let me.
Sorry if I'm missing something completely painfully obvious, I really appreciate the help though.
Doubleclicking HotKeyPlus will put it in the system tray (bottom right hand side of the taskbar). Right clicking on its icon you can configure the hotkeys.
Some games such as Skyrim lock the keyboard so hotkeys may not work, in which case, just alt-tab and run the block.bat and allow.bat scripts separately.
Remember to look up your Monitor Size value, half that (as a good beginning point), and put that figure into the block.txt and allow.txt files.
Doubleclicking HotKeyPlus will put it in the system tray (bottom right hand side of the taskbar). Right clicking on its icon you can configure the hotkeys.
Some games such as Skyrim lock the keyboard so hotkeys may not work, in which case, just alt-tab and run the block.bat and allow.bat scripts separately.
Remember to look up your Monitor Size value, half that (as a good beginning point), and put that figure into the block.txt and allow.txt files.
Any more questions, please let me know :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
There is only two ways to increase the maximum percieved depth.
Getting the distance at infinity as close as possible to your occular distance.
I attach a graph calculated using some trigonometry showing how the maximum depth in meters increases with distance from the screen on the x axis measured in decimeters.
I've using the value of 6,5 for actual occular distance and as you approach it you clearly get more depth.
Personally staying within 6-7 decimeters from the screen with 6,3 on screen with when pushing 100% I might get about 20m depth approx. While I don't get the depth I am able to get things pretty close with popout.
I can obviously move 3 meters away but trying to test a 24" screen from that distance is not very fun.
Big projector screens are not suitet to try the less than a meter distance experience.
I can not by using math calculate the focusing distance where both eyes are looking at if the max width is pushed beyond the ocular distance. If both eyes are pointing inwards they will eventually meed far beyond the screen.
It will never happen but it would be nice to try the big screen experience with 100m or more depth. Less ghosting as the images are less separated (infinity pixel separation) really big popout of 1m or more and a picture size adapted for 2-3m distance.
The fact that depth changes with distance might make you try to compensate and with a big distance the eyes would diverge less when exceeding the occular width making it probably fairly comfortable.
There is only two ways to increase the maximum percieved depth.
Getting the distance at infinity as close as possible to your occular distance.
I attach a graph calculated using some trigonometry showing how the maximum depth in meters increases with distance from the screen on the x axis measured in decimeters.
I've using the value of 6,5 for actual occular distance and as you approach it you clearly get more depth.
Personally staying within 6-7 decimeters from the screen with 6,3 on screen with when pushing 100% I might get about 20m depth approx. While I don't get the depth I am able to get things pretty close with popout.
I can obviously move 3 meters away but trying to test a 24" screen from that distance is not very fun.
Big projector screens are not suitet to try the less than a meter distance experience.
I can not by using math calculate the focusing distance where both eyes are looking at if the max width is pushed beyond the ocular distance. If both eyes are pointing inwards they will eventually meed far beyond the screen.
It will never happen but it would be nice to try the big screen experience with 100m or more depth. Less ghosting as the images are less separated (infinity pixel separation) really big popout of 1m or more and a picture size adapted for 2-3m distance.
The fact that depth changes with distance might make you try to compensate and with a big distance the eyes would diverge less when exceeding the occular width making it probably fairly comfortable.
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?
Tonight I have just did a quick test but can't unfortunately investigate till this weekend.
I can confirm that my "Very Comfortable" physical viewing separation is 280mm.
Measured with digital callipers.
That's right! 4.5x my ocular separation.
Something is wrong and, hopefully, with the help of you guys, we can get to the bottom of this.
===
Update,
My wife who has pretty much never played anything in 3d (only a couple of movies watched in 3D in her whole life), found this separation of 280mm quite comfortable.
She and I both estimated the distant mountains (in skyrim) to be many kilometres away.
It can't be that that only I have managed to comfortably diverge my eyes through over a decade of use. She can do it with virtually no training.
A point of note - I never use popout. I like the window to the 3D world. The ground in skyrim, for example, starts just a little beyond screen depth.
I would love to investigate this over the weekend...
Tonight I have just did a quick test but can't unfortunately investigate till this weekend.
I can confirm that my "Very Comfortable" physical viewing separation is 280mm.
Measured with digital callipers.
That's right! 4.5x my ocular separation.
Something is wrong and, hopefully, with the help of you guys, we can get to the bottom of this.
===
Update,
My wife who has pretty much never played anything in 3d (only a couple of movies watched in 3D in her whole life), found this separation of 280mm quite comfortable.
She and I both estimated the distant mountains (in skyrim) to be many kilometres away.
It can't be that that only I have managed to comfortably diverge my eyes through over a decade of use. She can do it with virtually no training.
A point of note - I never use popout. I like the window to the 3D world. The ground in skyrim, for example, starts just a little beyond screen depth.
I would love to investigate this over the weekend...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I use a depth hack and only increase convergence to the closest point possible like the "tip of the nose" is in positive space. Depth hack would def. cause issues for people on high convergence settings. I like going 150% and staying in the positive space when I use a depth hack. If I dont use a depth hack I am more liberal with going into negative space.
100% Depth on your monitor is less then screen size on all displays. I don't know the actual percent but its like if you have a 24" screen. Nvidia assigns depth of like a 27" screen(54).
I think there is some confusion though but let me just say tridef allows higher depth settings and most users who go high depth go over nvidia's max settings.
I use a depth hack and only increase convergence to the closest point possible like the "tip of the nose" is in positive space. Depth hack would def. cause issues for people on high convergence settings. I like going 150% and staying in the positive space when I use a depth hack. If I dont use a depth hack I am more liberal with going into negative space.
100% Depth on your monitor is less then screen size on all displays. I don't know the actual percent but its like if you have a 24" screen. Nvidia assigns depth of like a 27" screen(54).
I think there is some confusion though but let me just say tridef allows higher depth settings and most users who go high depth go over nvidia's max settings.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
[quote name='tropico' date='14 May 2012 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1337003167' post='1408137']Airion , why are you putting the VSX-820 in the equation , does it have an effect on the picture?[/quote]
I noticed that 70% depth when connected through the receiver is the same as near 100% depth when connecting directly to the projector. Nvidia seems to assign a different default screen size for the two. I don't think it matters for this discussion, but I included it for the sake of full disclosure, in case I'm missing something.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='14 May 2012 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1337002978' post='1408134']
Thanks for that. What happens when you change the depth to ~60% so that you are comfortable?[/quote]
That 70% setting is actually completely comfortable for me and that's the setting I always use. Any less than 70% and distant objects will be separated less than my interocular distance, making them appear distant but not at infinity.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='14 May 2012 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1337002978' post='1408134']Now, in theory, if you move in and out, the depth of the scene should change. The further back you are, the deeper into the screen the rear of the scene should be.
A box, for example, which seems to have 1m depth should have 2m depth if you move further out.
[/quote]
This is true for most things in the scene, especially the box. It's true for everything [i]except[/i] objects at infinity (I assume the box is closer!). I think infinity should be infinity no matter where you are, otherwise it wasn't really infinity.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='15 May 2012 - 07:13 AM' timestamp='1337033609' post='1408296']I can confirm that my "Very Comfortable" physical viewing separation is 280mm.[/quote]
Theory aside, it's hard to argue against practical impressions like this, especially if you wife agrees (it confirms it's not just because you're used to it)! I don't have a clear answer to this, but a few things to maybe consider:
1. There should be no problem viewing closer and less distant objects. Only when looking at the most distant objects might your eyes need to diverge and threaten your comfort. If you and your wife spent most of the time looking at the foreground instead of the extreme background, as you naturally would anyway, then you wouldn't notice any problem.
2. It is said that only a small percentage of the population can diverge their eyes, perhaps you and your wife just happen to belong to that percentage and it just naturally presents no problem.
3. As Flugan suggested, if you're sitting far enough back even 280mm might require minimal divergence and minimal discomfort.
[quote name='Flugan' date='15 May 2012 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1337029579' post='1408269']The fact that depth changes with distance might make you try to compensate and with a big distance the eyes would diverge less when exceeding the occular width making it probably fairly comfortable.
[/quote]
One other thing you said before that I thought was a little odd:
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='13 May 2012 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1336913488' post='1407733']
One of the best methods I use is to sit in my normal viewing position and hold my index fingers on each hand vertical in front of each eye. This will project onto a screen how far apart a distant object in the game should be. This would be the real value at which your eyes would diverge.
So how does that correlate to the real value I use in game? [b]The in game separation I set about to 1/2 to 2/3 that distance for comfort.[/b] That is still about 300% max separation.
[/quote]
I think if your depth is accurately set to a realistic value, then your eyes won't be tasked to work any differently then they do every day in the natural world (except to focus on the plane of the screen regardless where they're converging). I don't think there's any good reason for there to be discomfort with realistic stereoscopic 3D, especially when we're talking depth and not pop-out. If you were new to this then it would make sense, as there's a certain adjustment period for stereoscopic 3D (probably partly due to that focus/convergence mismatch), but it's hard to believe that a 15 year veteran of stereoscopic 3D gaming would have to use 1/2 of realistic values to be comfortable. It just suggests to me again that you're probably simply miscalculating that realistic value.
Anyway, very interesting discussion, I love this stuff (nerd)! I hope we can all get to the bottom of this!
[quote name='tropico' date='14 May 2012 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1337003167' post='1408137']Airion , why are you putting the VSX-820 in the equation , does it have an effect on the picture?
I noticed that 70% depth when connected through the receiver is the same as near 100% depth when connecting directly to the projector. Nvidia seems to assign a different default screen size for the two. I don't think it matters for this discussion, but I included it for the sake of full disclosure, in case I'm missing something.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='14 May 2012 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1337002978' post='1408134']
Thanks for that. What happens when you change the depth to ~60% so that you are comfortable?
That 70% setting is actually completely comfortable for me and that's the setting I always use. Any less than 70% and distant objects will be separated less than my interocular distance, making them appear distant but not at infinity.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='14 May 2012 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1337002978' post='1408134']Now, in theory, if you move in and out, the depth of the scene should change. The further back you are, the deeper into the screen the rear of the scene should be.
A box, for example, which seems to have 1m depth should have 2m depth if you move further out.
This is true for most things in the scene, especially the box. It's true for everything except objects at infinity (I assume the box is closer!). I think infinity should be infinity no matter where you are, otherwise it wasn't really infinity.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='15 May 2012 - 07:13 AM' timestamp='1337033609' post='1408296']I can confirm that my "Very Comfortable" physical viewing separation is 280mm.
Theory aside, it's hard to argue against practical impressions like this, especially if you wife agrees (it confirms it's not just because you're used to it)! I don't have a clear answer to this, but a few things to maybe consider:
1. There should be no problem viewing closer and less distant objects. Only when looking at the most distant objects might your eyes need to diverge and threaten your comfort. If you and your wife spent most of the time looking at the foreground instead of the extreme background, as you naturally would anyway, then you wouldn't notice any problem.
2. It is said that only a small percentage of the population can diverge their eyes, perhaps you and your wife just happen to belong to that percentage and it just naturally presents no problem.
3. As Flugan suggested, if you're sitting far enough back even 280mm might require minimal divergence and minimal discomfort.
[quote name='Flugan' date='15 May 2012 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1337029579' post='1408269']The fact that depth changes with distance might make you try to compensate and with a big distance the eyes would diverge less when exceeding the occular width making it probably fairly comfortable.
One other thing you said before that I thought was a little odd:
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='13 May 2012 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1336913488' post='1407733']
One of the best methods I use is to sit in my normal viewing position and hold my index fingers on each hand vertical in front of each eye. This will project onto a screen how far apart a distant object in the game should be. This would be the real value at which your eyes would diverge.
So how does that correlate to the real value I use in game? The in game separation I set about to 1/2 to 2/3 that distance for comfort. That is still about 300% max separation.
I think if your depth is accurately set to a realistic value, then your eyes won't be tasked to work any differently then they do every day in the natural world (except to focus on the plane of the screen regardless where they're converging). I don't think there's any good reason for there to be discomfort with realistic stereoscopic 3D, especially when we're talking depth and not pop-out. If you were new to this then it would make sense, as there's a certain adjustment period for stereoscopic 3D (probably partly due to that focus/convergence mismatch), but it's hard to believe that a 15 year veteran of stereoscopic 3D gaming would have to use 1/2 of realistic values to be comfortable. It just suggests to me again that you're probably simply miscalculating that realistic value.
Anyway, very interesting discussion, I love this stuff (nerd)! I hope we can all get to the bottom of this!
Here's an interesting read that I think supports what I'm saying about 6.5cm being the max:
[url="http://www.siggraph.org/publications/newsletter/volume/stereoscopic-3d-film-and-animationgetting-it-right"]Stereoscopic 3D Film and Animation - Getting It Right[/url]
About running batch files: Is running the allow.bat and block.bat files supposed to minimize the game you're playing? Not a really big deal, but it would be cool if you could somehow run those files without minimizing the current game. I'm running the files via the G keys on my Logitech G15 keyboard.
Also, the files don't seem to alter any permissions in my registry. My registry path matches the batch files' "\Registry\Machine\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D" path, but the permissions don't seem to change by running the batch files. I still have to rely on my old routine of:
[list=1]
[*]Setting and saving a game's optimum convergence
[*]Changing the "monitorsize" value to [i]100[/i] from the default [i]220[/i]
[*]Denying the SYSTEM set value and create subkey permissions in regedit
[/list]
About running batch files: Is running the allow.bat and block.bat files supposed to minimize the game you're playing? Not a really big deal, but it would be cool if you could somehow run those files without minimizing the current game. I'm running the files via the G keys on my Logitech G15 keyboard.
Also, the files don't seem to alter any permissions in my registry. My registry path matches the batch files' "\Registry\Machine\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D" path, but the permissions don't seem to change by running the batch files. I still have to rely on my old routine of:
[list=1]
Setting and saving a game's optimum convergence
Changing the "monitorsize" value to 100 from the default 220
Denying the SYSTEM set value and create subkey permissions in regedit
I felt like adding some data to test with in the form of a 3D image I shot in central Gothenburg.
All three images are the same but with different convergence.
The first one has a infinity distance of 65mm on my 23,6".
The next has an infinity distance of 32mm and should give the correct occular distance on a screen twice as big.
The final image has an infinity distance of just 16mm and should be appropriate on a huge projector screen.
Only the last image have objects in positive space.
Because the images are static the effect of adjusting depth gives a very different result than the interactive behaviour of changing depth when playing with 3D Vision.
When playing you would get the most extreme differences between images when playing on a small screen. Imagewise 100% (63mm) on my 23,6" monitor is equivalent to playing on a 100" screen with a separation of 265mm which obviously is way above any living persons occular width.
Use the nvidia 3d picture viewer in full screen mode to get the intended view of the mpo file.
Failed to attached so here is mediafire link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?d9hje8nn18aq6wr
Obviously if you use the 24" file on a large screen you will exceed the occular distance which is the topic of this discussion.
Assuming you might have a distance to the screen of 3m your 28cm on screen distance translates to the equivalent eye divergence as an on screen distance of 8cm at 0,5m distance assuming your 62mm occular distance.
Clearly increasing depth beyond 100% is only possible if you are far away from the screen.
For cinema much more conservative figures are used to decrease the chance of nausia in the movie theatre. Some people are very sensitive to to viewing 3D on a fix flat screen.
I felt like adding some data to test with in the form of a 3D image I shot in central Gothenburg.
All three images are the same but with different convergence.
The first one has a infinity distance of 65mm on my 23,6".
The next has an infinity distance of 32mm and should give the correct occular distance on a screen twice as big.
The final image has an infinity distance of just 16mm and should be appropriate on a huge projector screen.
Only the last image have objects in positive space.
Because the images are static the effect of adjusting depth gives a very different result than the interactive behaviour of changing depth when playing with 3D Vision.
When playing you would get the most extreme differences between images when playing on a small screen. Imagewise 100% (63mm) on my 23,6" monitor is equivalent to playing on a 100" screen with a separation of 265mm which obviously is way above any living persons occular width.
Use the nvidia 3d picture viewer in full screen mode to get the intended view of the mpo file.
Failed to attached so here is mediafire link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?d9hje8nn18aq6wr
Obviously if you use the 24" file on a large screen you will exceed the occular distance which is the topic of this discussion.
Assuming you might have a distance to the screen of 3m your 28cm on screen distance translates to the equivalent eye divergence as an on screen distance of 8cm at 0,5m distance assuming your 62mm occular distance.
Clearly increasing depth beyond 100% is only possible if you are far away from the screen.
For cinema much more conservative figures are used to decrease the chance of nausia in the movie theatre. Some people are very sensitive to to viewing 3D on a fix flat screen.
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?
[quote]
About running batch files: Is running the allow.bat and block.bat files supposed to minimize the game you're playing? Not a really big deal, but it would be cool if you could somehow run those files without minimizing the current game. I'm running the files via the G keys on my Logitech G15 keyboard.[/quote]
Hi Pyrocles,
This is because the batch files are not being run minimised!
Create a shortcut to the bat files, go to properties of the shortcuts and make sure you select to run "minimised". Set the gkeys to launch the shortcut instead of the .bat. That will mean that games will no longer minimise :)
[quote]Also, the files don't seem to alter any permissions in my registry. My registry path matches the batch files' "\Registry\Machine\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D" path, but the permissions don't seem to change by running the batch files. I still have to rely on my old routine of:[/quote]
The script should be changing the permissions of Stereo3D Key. Could it be that the path is incorrect? Sometimes the driver doesn't use the "wow64" part of the path, so you may have to take that part out.
If you look at the regini.exe commands (google), it should be working.
About running batch files: Is running the allow.bat and block.bat files supposed to minimize the game you're playing? Not a really big deal, but it would be cool if you could somehow run those files without minimizing the current game. I'm running the files via the G keys on my Logitech G15 keyboard.
Hi Pyrocles,
This is because the batch files are not being run minimised!
Create a shortcut to the bat files, go to properties of the shortcuts and make sure you select to run "minimised". Set the gkeys to launch the shortcut instead of the .bat. That will mean that games will no longer minimise :)
Also, the files don't seem to alter any permissions in my registry. My registry path matches the batch files' "\Registry\Machine\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D" path, but the permissions don't seem to change by running the batch files. I still have to rely on my old routine of:
The script should be changing the permissions of Stereo3D Key. Could it be that the path is incorrect? Sometimes the driver doesn't use the "wow64" part of the path, so you may have to take that part out.
If you look at the regini.exe commands (google), it should be working.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote name='Airion' date='15 May 2012 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1337045658' post='1408393']
Theory aside, it's hard to argue against practical impressions like this, especially if you wife agrees (it confirms it's not just because you're used to it)! I don't have a clear answer to this, but a few things to maybe consider:
1. There should be no problem viewing closer and less distant objects. Only when looking at the most distant objects might your eyes need to diverge and threaten your comfort. If you and your wife spent most of the time looking at the foreground instead of the extreme background, as you naturally would anyway, then you wouldn't notice any problem.[/quote]
That was not the case as that would defeat the purpose of the experiment :)
We were both focussing on the furthest things we could see, which were the peaks of very distant mountains in skyrim. I measured the distance between the peaks (separated) to get the 280mm value.
[quote]2. It is said that only a small percentage of the population can diverge their eyes, perhaps you and your wife just happen to belong to that percentage and it just naturally presents no problem.[/quote]
Interesting!!
[quote]One other thing you said before that I thought was a little odd:
I think if your depth is accurately set to a realistic value, then your eyes won't be tasked to work any differently then they do every day in the natural world (except to focus on the plane of the screen regardless where they're converging). I don't think there's any good reason for there to be discomfort with realistic stereoscopic 3D, especially when we're talking depth and not pop-out. If you were new to this then it would make sense, as there's a certain adjustment period for stereoscopic 3D (probably partly due to that focus/convergence mismatch), but it's hard to believe that a 15 year veteran of stereoscopic 3D gaming would have to use 1/2 of realistic values to be comfortable. It just suggests to me again that you're probably simply miscalculating that realistic value.[/quote]
It does sound odd indeed. When I put my index fingers in front of my pupils (best guess) to look forward, and project the 2 index fingers onto the screen, the separation I get from the screen 2m away is ~500mm. Not very scientific, as you can't accurately tell when the fingers are exactly in front of a pupil, but it has always gave me good results for adjustment.
More interesting:
Flugan:
As it so happens, my projected screen is exactly 99 inches. Lets call it 100" for the sake of this experiment.
The 48 and 96 don't give me enough depth. But, 24 is an amazing view full screen on the 99" projected screen with me sitting ~2m away.
I have measured the distance between the aerials on the furthest buildings with callipers. 300mm!
My wife took 10 seconds to adjust to the image though. She thanks you for the image. She says it's very beautiful.
If my wife and I are unique in this (I don't believe we are), then here is the interesting part. I see the world through my eyes as very close to the 24 (admittedly the depth is just a tad too high for long term comfort). Images 48/96 are far too unrealistic compared to how I see the world as they simply do not have nearly enough depth.
[quote name='Airion' date='15 May 2012 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1337045658' post='1408393']
Theory aside, it's hard to argue against practical impressions like this, especially if you wife agrees (it confirms it's not just because you're used to it)! I don't have a clear answer to this, but a few things to maybe consider:
1. There should be no problem viewing closer and less distant objects. Only when looking at the most distant objects might your eyes need to diverge and threaten your comfort. If you and your wife spent most of the time looking at the foreground instead of the extreme background, as you naturally would anyway, then you wouldn't notice any problem.
That was not the case as that would defeat the purpose of the experiment :)
We were both focussing on the furthest things we could see, which were the peaks of very distant mountains in skyrim. I measured the distance between the peaks (separated) to get the 280mm value.
2. It is said that only a small percentage of the population can diverge their eyes, perhaps you and your wife just happen to belong to that percentage and it just naturally presents no problem.
Interesting!!
One other thing you said before that I thought was a little odd:
I think if your depth is accurately set to a realistic value, then your eyes won't be tasked to work any differently then they do every day in the natural world (except to focus on the plane of the screen regardless where they're converging). I don't think there's any good reason for there to be discomfort with realistic stereoscopic 3D, especially when we're talking depth and not pop-out. If you were new to this then it would make sense, as there's a certain adjustment period for stereoscopic 3D (probably partly due to that focus/convergence mismatch), but it's hard to believe that a 15 year veteran of stereoscopic 3D gaming would have to use 1/2 of realistic values to be comfortable. It just suggests to me again that you're probably simply miscalculating that realistic value.
It does sound odd indeed. When I put my index fingers in front of my pupils (best guess) to look forward, and project the 2 index fingers onto the screen, the separation I get from the screen 2m away is ~500mm. Not very scientific, as you can't accurately tell when the fingers are exactly in front of a pupil, but it has always gave me good results for adjustment.
More interesting:
Flugan:
As it so happens, my projected screen is exactly 99 inches. Lets call it 100" for the sake of this experiment.
The 48 and 96 don't give me enough depth. But, 24 is an amazing view full screen on the 99" projected screen with me sitting ~2m away.
I have measured the distance between the aerials on the furthest buildings with callipers. 300mm!
My wife took 10 seconds to adjust to the image though. She thanks you for the image. She says it's very beautiful.
If my wife and I are unique in this (I don't believe we are), then here is the interesting part. I see the world through my eyes as very close to the 24 (admittedly the depth is just a tad too high for long term comfort). Images 48/96 are far too unrealistic compared to how I see the world as they simply do not have nearly enough depth.
The plot thickens...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
why are you putting the VSX-820 in the equation , does it have an effect on the picture?
I also have the same pj model and a different pio and was just wondering.
100% depth is fine by me with a tad of convergence.
Pity convergence isnt identified in a bar like depth, i would like to compare it with other folks on the forum. (or is it?)
Will try the tool out just for fun.
why are you putting the VSX-820 in the equation , does it have an effect on the picture?
I also have the same pj model and a different pio and was just wondering.
100% depth is fine by me with a tad of convergence.
Pity convergence isnt identified in a bar like depth, i would like to compare it with other folks on the forum. (or is it?)
Will try the tool out just for fun.
I know the paths, I'm there, but I just don't know what to do with these scripts...You put up a good explanation but didn't really offer a step-by-step.
Thanks for the tools though, I'll keep...messing around and hope I don't screw anything up
I know the paths, I'm there, but I just don't know what to do with these scripts...You put up a good explanation but didn't really offer a step-by-step.
Thanks for the tools though, I'll keep...messing around and hope I don't screw anything up
What operating system do you have?
If it's Windows 7 64 bit, then the instructions are at the bottom under usage scenarios, with bold headings :)
What operating system do you have?
If it's Windows 7 64 bit, then the instructions are at the bottom under usage scenarios, with bold headings :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
First step says to hotkey run block.bat shortcut, but I can't even open the HotkeyPlus you included, I click and it does nothing. At first I figured I needed to drop the scripts into the registry, but it wouldn't let me.
Sorry if I'm missing something completely painfully obvious, I really appreciate the help though.
First step says to hotkey run block.bat shortcut, but I can't even open the HotkeyPlus you included, I click and it does nothing. At first I figured I needed to drop the scripts into the registry, but it wouldn't let me.
Sorry if I'm missing something completely painfully obvious, I really appreciate the help though.
Some games such as Skyrim lock the keyboard so hotkeys may not work, in which case, just alt-tab and run the block.bat and allow.bat scripts separately.
Remember to look up your Monitor Size value, half that (as a good beginning point), and put that figure into the block.txt and allow.txt files.
Any more questions, please let me know :)
Some games such as Skyrim lock the keyboard so hotkeys may not work, in which case, just alt-tab and run the block.bat and allow.bat scripts separately.
Remember to look up your Monitor Size value, half that (as a good beginning point), and put that figure into the block.txt and allow.txt files.
Any more questions, please let me know :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Getting the distance at infinity as close as possible to your occular distance.
I attach a graph calculated using some trigonometry showing how the maximum depth in meters increases with distance from the screen on the x axis measured in decimeters.
I've using the value of 6,5 for actual occular distance and as you approach it you clearly get more depth.
Personally staying within 6-7 decimeters from the screen with 6,3 on screen with when pushing 100% I might get about 20m depth approx. While I don't get the depth I am able to get things pretty close with popout.
I can obviously move 3 meters away but trying to test a 24" screen from that distance is not very fun.
Big projector screens are not suitet to try the less than a meter distance experience.
I can not by using math calculate the focusing distance where both eyes are looking at if the max width is pushed beyond the ocular distance. If both eyes are pointing inwards they will eventually meed far beyond the screen.
It will never happen but it would be nice to try the big screen experience with 100m or more depth. Less ghosting as the images are less separated (infinity pixel separation) really big popout of 1m or more and a picture size adapted for 2-3m distance.
The fact that depth changes with distance might make you try to compensate and with a big distance the eyes would diverge less when exceeding the occular width making it probably fairly comfortable.
Getting the distance at infinity as close as possible to your occular distance.
I attach a graph calculated using some trigonometry showing how the maximum depth in meters increases with distance from the screen on the x axis measured in decimeters.
I've using the value of 6,5 for actual occular distance and as you approach it you clearly get more depth.
Personally staying within 6-7 decimeters from the screen with 6,3 on screen with when pushing 100% I might get about 20m depth approx. While I don't get the depth I am able to get things pretty close with popout.
I can obviously move 3 meters away but trying to test a 24" screen from that distance is not very fun.
Big projector screens are not suitet to try the less than a meter distance experience.
I can not by using math calculate the focusing distance where both eyes are looking at if the max width is pushed beyond the ocular distance. If both eyes are pointing inwards they will eventually meed far beyond the screen.
It will never happen but it would be nice to try the big screen experience with 100m or more depth. Less ghosting as the images are less separated (infinity pixel separation) really big popout of 1m or more and a picture size adapted for 2-3m distance.
The fact that depth changes with distance might make you try to compensate and with a big distance the eyes would diverge less when exceeding the occular width making it probably fairly comfortable.
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
VERY, VERY BAD IDEA :-)
but on 150: OMG!!!!
Thanks for the tip!!!
VERY, VERY BAD IDEA :-)
but on 150: OMG!!!!
Thanks for the tip!!!
Tonight I have just did a quick test but can't unfortunately investigate till this weekend.
I can confirm that my "Very Comfortable" physical viewing separation is 280mm.
Measured with digital callipers.
That's right! 4.5x my ocular separation.
Something is wrong and, hopefully, with the help of you guys, we can get to the bottom of this.
===
Update,
My wife who has pretty much never played anything in 3d (only a couple of movies watched in 3D in her whole life), found this separation of 280mm quite comfortable.
She and I both estimated the distant mountains (in skyrim) to be many kilometres away.
It can't be that that only I have managed to comfortably diverge my eyes through over a decade of use. She can do it with virtually no training.
A point of note - I never use popout. I like the window to the 3D world. The ground in skyrim, for example, starts just a little beyond screen depth.
I would love to investigate this over the weekend...
Tonight I have just did a quick test but can't unfortunately investigate till this weekend.
I can confirm that my "Very Comfortable" physical viewing separation is 280mm.
Measured with digital callipers.
That's right! 4.5x my ocular separation.
Something is wrong and, hopefully, with the help of you guys, we can get to the bottom of this.
===
Update,
My wife who has pretty much never played anything in 3d (only a couple of movies watched in 3D in her whole life), found this separation of 280mm quite comfortable.
She and I both estimated the distant mountains (in skyrim) to be many kilometres away.
It can't be that that only I have managed to comfortably diverge my eyes through over a decade of use. She can do it with virtually no training.
A point of note - I never use popout. I like the window to the 3D world. The ground in skyrim, for example, starts just a little beyond screen depth.
I would love to investigate this over the weekend...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
100% Depth on your monitor is less then screen size on all displays. I don't know the actual percent but its like if you have a 24" screen. Nvidia assigns depth of like a 27" screen(54).
I think there is some confusion though but let me just say tridef allows higher depth settings and most users who go high depth go over nvidia's max settings.
100% Depth on your monitor is less then screen size on all displays. I don't know the actual percent but its like if you have a 24" screen. Nvidia assigns depth of like a 27" screen(54).
I think there is some confusion though but let me just say tridef allows higher depth settings and most users who go high depth go over nvidia's max settings.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
I noticed that 70% depth when connected through the receiver is the same as near 100% depth when connecting directly to the projector. Nvidia seems to assign a different default screen size for the two. I don't think it matters for this discussion, but I included it for the sake of full disclosure, in case I'm missing something.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='14 May 2012 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1337002978' post='1408134']
Thanks for that. What happens when you change the depth to ~60% so that you are comfortable?[/quote]
That 70% setting is actually completely comfortable for me and that's the setting I always use. Any less than 70% and distant objects will be separated less than my interocular distance, making them appear distant but not at infinity.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='14 May 2012 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1337002978' post='1408134']Now, in theory, if you move in and out, the depth of the scene should change. The further back you are, the deeper into the screen the rear of the scene should be.
A box, for example, which seems to have 1m depth should have 2m depth if you move further out.
[/quote]
This is true for most things in the scene, especially the box. It's true for everything [i]except[/i] objects at infinity (I assume the box is closer!). I think infinity should be infinity no matter where you are, otherwise it wasn't really infinity.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='15 May 2012 - 07:13 AM' timestamp='1337033609' post='1408296']I can confirm that my "Very Comfortable" physical viewing separation is 280mm.[/quote]
Theory aside, it's hard to argue against practical impressions like this, especially if you wife agrees (it confirms it's not just because you're used to it)! I don't have a clear answer to this, but a few things to maybe consider:
1. There should be no problem viewing closer and less distant objects. Only when looking at the most distant objects might your eyes need to diverge and threaten your comfort. If you and your wife spent most of the time looking at the foreground instead of the extreme background, as you naturally would anyway, then you wouldn't notice any problem.
2. It is said that only a small percentage of the population can diverge their eyes, perhaps you and your wife just happen to belong to that percentage and it just naturally presents no problem.
3. As Flugan suggested, if you're sitting far enough back even 280mm might require minimal divergence and minimal discomfort.
[quote name='Flugan' date='15 May 2012 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1337029579' post='1408269']The fact that depth changes with distance might make you try to compensate and with a big distance the eyes would diverge less when exceeding the occular width making it probably fairly comfortable.
[/quote]
One other thing you said before that I thought was a little odd:
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='13 May 2012 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1336913488' post='1407733']
One of the best methods I use is to sit in my normal viewing position and hold my index fingers on each hand vertical in front of each eye. This will project onto a screen how far apart a distant object in the game should be. This would be the real value at which your eyes would diverge.
So how does that correlate to the real value I use in game? [b]The in game separation I set about to 1/2 to 2/3 that distance for comfort.[/b] That is still about 300% max separation.
[/quote]
I think if your depth is accurately set to a realistic value, then your eyes won't be tasked to work any differently then they do every day in the natural world (except to focus on the plane of the screen regardless where they're converging). I don't think there's any good reason for there to be discomfort with realistic stereoscopic 3D, especially when we're talking depth and not pop-out. If you were new to this then it would make sense, as there's a certain adjustment period for stereoscopic 3D (probably partly due to that focus/convergence mismatch), but it's hard to believe that a 15 year veteran of stereoscopic 3D gaming would have to use 1/2 of realistic values to be comfortable. It just suggests to me again that you're probably simply miscalculating that realistic value.
Anyway, very interesting discussion, I love this stuff (nerd)! I hope we can all get to the bottom of this!
I noticed that 70% depth when connected through the receiver is the same as near 100% depth when connecting directly to the projector. Nvidia seems to assign a different default screen size for the two. I don't think it matters for this discussion, but I included it for the sake of full disclosure, in case I'm missing something.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='14 May 2012 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1337002978' post='1408134']
Thanks for that. What happens when you change the depth to ~60% so that you are comfortable?
That 70% setting is actually completely comfortable for me and that's the setting I always use. Any less than 70% and distant objects will be separated less than my interocular distance, making them appear distant but not at infinity.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='14 May 2012 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1337002978' post='1408134']Now, in theory, if you move in and out, the depth of the scene should change. The further back you are, the deeper into the screen the rear of the scene should be.
A box, for example, which seems to have 1m depth should have 2m depth if you move further out.
This is true for most things in the scene, especially the box. It's true for everything except objects at infinity (I assume the box is closer!). I think infinity should be infinity no matter where you are, otherwise it wasn't really infinity.
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='15 May 2012 - 07:13 AM' timestamp='1337033609' post='1408296']I can confirm that my "Very Comfortable" physical viewing separation is 280mm.
Theory aside, it's hard to argue against practical impressions like this, especially if you wife agrees (it confirms it's not just because you're used to it)! I don't have a clear answer to this, but a few things to maybe consider:
1. There should be no problem viewing closer and less distant objects. Only when looking at the most distant objects might your eyes need to diverge and threaten your comfort. If you and your wife spent most of the time looking at the foreground instead of the extreme background, as you naturally would anyway, then you wouldn't notice any problem.
2. It is said that only a small percentage of the population can diverge their eyes, perhaps you and your wife just happen to belong to that percentage and it just naturally presents no problem.
3. As Flugan suggested, if you're sitting far enough back even 280mm might require minimal divergence and minimal discomfort.
[quote name='Flugan' date='15 May 2012 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1337029579' post='1408269']The fact that depth changes with distance might make you try to compensate and with a big distance the eyes would diverge less when exceeding the occular width making it probably fairly comfortable.
One other thing you said before that I thought was a little odd:
[quote name='RAGEdemon' date='13 May 2012 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1336913488' post='1407733']
One of the best methods I use is to sit in my normal viewing position and hold my index fingers on each hand vertical in front of each eye. This will project onto a screen how far apart a distant object in the game should be. This would be the real value at which your eyes would diverge.
So how does that correlate to the real value I use in game? The in game separation I set about to 1/2 to 2/3 that distance for comfort. That is still about 300% max separation.
I think if your depth is accurately set to a realistic value, then your eyes won't be tasked to work any differently then they do every day in the natural world (except to focus on the plane of the screen regardless where they're converging). I don't think there's any good reason for there to be discomfort with realistic stereoscopic 3D, especially when we're talking depth and not pop-out. If you were new to this then it would make sense, as there's a certain adjustment period for stereoscopic 3D (probably partly due to that focus/convergence mismatch), but it's hard to believe that a 15 year veteran of stereoscopic 3D gaming would have to use 1/2 of realistic values to be comfortable. It just suggests to me again that you're probably simply miscalculating that realistic value.
Anyway, very interesting discussion, I love this stuff (nerd)! I hope we can all get to the bottom of this!
[url="http://www.siggraph.org/publications/newsletter/volume/stereoscopic-3d-film-and-animationgetting-it-right"]Stereoscopic 3D Film and Animation - Getting It Right[/url]
Stereoscopic 3D Film and Animation - Getting It Right
Also, the files don't seem to alter any permissions in my registry. My registry path matches the batch files' "\Registry\Machine\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D" path, but the permissions don't seem to change by running the batch files. I still have to rely on my old routine of:
[list=1]
[*]Setting and saving a game's optimum convergence
[*]Changing the "monitorsize" value to [i]100[/i] from the default [i]220[/i]
[*]Denying the SYSTEM set value and create subkey permissions in regedit
[/list]
Also, the files don't seem to alter any permissions in my registry. My registry path matches the batch files' "\Registry\Machine\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D" path, but the permissions don't seem to change by running the batch files. I still have to rely on my old routine of:
[list=1]
All three images are the same but with different convergence.
The first one has a infinity distance of 65mm on my 23,6".
The next has an infinity distance of 32mm and should give the correct occular distance on a screen twice as big.
The final image has an infinity distance of just 16mm and should be appropriate on a huge projector screen.
Only the last image have objects in positive space.
Because the images are static the effect of adjusting depth gives a very different result than the interactive behaviour of changing depth when playing with 3D Vision.
When playing you would get the most extreme differences between images when playing on a small screen. Imagewise 100% (63mm) on my 23,6" monitor is equivalent to playing on a 100" screen with a separation of 265mm which obviously is way above any living persons occular width.
Use the nvidia 3d picture viewer in full screen mode to get the intended view of the mpo file.
Failed to attached so here is mediafire link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?d9hje8nn18aq6wr
Obviously if you use the 24" file on a large screen you will exceed the occular distance which is the topic of this discussion.
Assuming you might have a distance to the screen of 3m your 28cm on screen distance translates to the equivalent eye divergence as an on screen distance of 8cm at 0,5m distance assuming your 62mm occular distance.
Clearly increasing depth beyond 100% is only possible if you are far away from the screen.
For cinema much more conservative figures are used to decrease the chance of nausia in the movie theatre. Some people are very sensitive to to viewing 3D on a fix flat screen.
All three images are the same but with different convergence.
The first one has a infinity distance of 65mm on my 23,6".
The next has an infinity distance of 32mm and should give the correct occular distance on a screen twice as big.
The final image has an infinity distance of just 16mm and should be appropriate on a huge projector screen.
Only the last image have objects in positive space.
Because the images are static the effect of adjusting depth gives a very different result than the interactive behaviour of changing depth when playing with 3D Vision.
When playing you would get the most extreme differences between images when playing on a small screen. Imagewise 100% (63mm) on my 23,6" monitor is equivalent to playing on a 100" screen with a separation of 265mm which obviously is way above any living persons occular width.
Use the nvidia 3d picture viewer in full screen mode to get the intended view of the mpo file.
Failed to attached so here is mediafire link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?d9hje8nn18aq6wr
Obviously if you use the 24" file on a large screen you will exceed the occular distance which is the topic of this discussion.
Assuming you might have a distance to the screen of 3m your 28cm on screen distance translates to the equivalent eye divergence as an on screen distance of 8cm at 0,5m distance assuming your 62mm occular distance.
Clearly increasing depth beyond 100% is only possible if you are far away from the screen.
For cinema much more conservative figures are used to decrease the chance of nausia in the movie theatre. Some people are very sensitive to to viewing 3D on a fix flat screen.
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
About running batch files: Is running the allow.bat and block.bat files supposed to minimize the game you're playing? Not a really big deal, but it would be cool if you could somehow run those files without minimizing the current game. I'm running the files via the G keys on my Logitech G15 keyboard.[/quote]
Hi Pyrocles,
This is because the batch files are not being run minimised!
Create a shortcut to the bat files, go to properties of the shortcuts and make sure you select to run "minimised". Set the gkeys to launch the shortcut instead of the .bat. That will mean that games will no longer minimise :)
[quote]Also, the files don't seem to alter any permissions in my registry. My registry path matches the batch files' "\Registry\Machine\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D" path, but the permissions don't seem to change by running the batch files. I still have to rely on my old routine of:[/quote]
The script should be changing the permissions of Stereo3D Key. Could it be that the path is incorrect? Sometimes the driver doesn't use the "wow64" part of the path, so you may have to take that part out.
If you look at the regini.exe commands (google), it should be working.
Hi Pyrocles,
This is because the batch files are not being run minimised!
Create a shortcut to the bat files, go to properties of the shortcuts and make sure you select to run "minimised". Set the gkeys to launch the shortcut instead of the .bat. That will mean that games will no longer minimise :)
The script should be changing the permissions of Stereo3D Key. Could it be that the path is incorrect? Sometimes the driver doesn't use the "wow64" part of the path, so you may have to take that part out.
If you look at the regini.exe commands (google), it should be working.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Theory aside, it's hard to argue against practical impressions like this, especially if you wife agrees (it confirms it's not just because you're used to it)! I don't have a clear answer to this, but a few things to maybe consider:
1. There should be no problem viewing closer and less distant objects. Only when looking at the most distant objects might your eyes need to diverge and threaten your comfort. If you and your wife spent most of the time looking at the foreground instead of the extreme background, as you naturally would anyway, then you wouldn't notice any problem.[/quote]
That was not the case as that would defeat the purpose of the experiment :)
We were both focussing on the furthest things we could see, which were the peaks of very distant mountains in skyrim. I measured the distance between the peaks (separated) to get the 280mm value.
[quote]2. It is said that only a small percentage of the population can diverge their eyes, perhaps you and your wife just happen to belong to that percentage and it just naturally presents no problem.[/quote]
Interesting!!
[quote]One other thing you said before that I thought was a little odd:
I think if your depth is accurately set to a realistic value, then your eyes won't be tasked to work any differently then they do every day in the natural world (except to focus on the plane of the screen regardless where they're converging). I don't think there's any good reason for there to be discomfort with realistic stereoscopic 3D, especially when we're talking depth and not pop-out. If you were new to this then it would make sense, as there's a certain adjustment period for stereoscopic 3D (probably partly due to that focus/convergence mismatch), but it's hard to believe that a 15 year veteran of stereoscopic 3D gaming would have to use 1/2 of realistic values to be comfortable. It just suggests to me again that you're probably simply miscalculating that realistic value.[/quote]
It does sound odd indeed. When I put my index fingers in front of my pupils (best guess) to look forward, and project the 2 index fingers onto the screen, the separation I get from the screen 2m away is ~500mm. Not very scientific, as you can't accurately tell when the fingers are exactly in front of a pupil, but it has always gave me good results for adjustment.
More interesting:
Flugan:
As it so happens, my projected screen is exactly 99 inches. Lets call it 100" for the sake of this experiment.
The 48 and 96 don't give me enough depth. But, 24 is an amazing view full screen on the 99" projected screen with me sitting ~2m away.
I have measured the distance between the aerials on the furthest buildings with callipers. 300mm!
My wife took 10 seconds to adjust to the image though. She thanks you for the image. She says it's very beautiful.
If my wife and I are unique in this (I don't believe we are), then here is the interesting part. I see the world through my eyes as very close to the 24 (admittedly the depth is just a tad too high for long term comfort). Images 48/96 are far too unrealistic compared to how I see the world as they simply do not have nearly enough depth.
The plot thickens...
Theory aside, it's hard to argue against practical impressions like this, especially if you wife agrees (it confirms it's not just because you're used to it)! I don't have a clear answer to this, but a few things to maybe consider:
1. There should be no problem viewing closer and less distant objects. Only when looking at the most distant objects might your eyes need to diverge and threaten your comfort. If you and your wife spent most of the time looking at the foreground instead of the extreme background, as you naturally would anyway, then you wouldn't notice any problem.
That was not the case as that would defeat the purpose of the experiment :)
We were both focussing on the furthest things we could see, which were the peaks of very distant mountains in skyrim. I measured the distance between the peaks (separated) to get the 280mm value.
Interesting!!
It does sound odd indeed. When I put my index fingers in front of my pupils (best guess) to look forward, and project the 2 index fingers onto the screen, the separation I get from the screen 2m away is ~500mm. Not very scientific, as you can't accurately tell when the fingers are exactly in front of a pupil, but it has always gave me good results for adjustment.
More interesting:
Flugan:
As it so happens, my projected screen is exactly 99 inches. Lets call it 100" for the sake of this experiment.
The 48 and 96 don't give me enough depth. But, 24 is an amazing view full screen on the 99" projected screen with me sitting ~2m away.
I have measured the distance between the aerials on the furthest buildings with callipers. 300mm!
My wife took 10 seconds to adjust to the image though. She thanks you for the image. She says it's very beautiful.
If my wife and I are unique in this (I don't believe we are), then here is the interesting part. I see the world through my eyes as very close to the 24 (admittedly the depth is just a tad too high for long term comfort). Images 48/96 are far too unrealistic compared to how I see the world as they simply do not have nearly enough depth.
The plot thickens...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.