 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.12.2013 18:10, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> If the Oculus Rift manages to provide a sharp image regardless of what
>> distance the eye tries to focus at, then that's a big win (and a
>> literally incredible feat).
>
> It's not like it somehow senses where you are focusing, but the lenses
> allow you to focus to the distance (even though the display is just a
> few centimeters from your eyes.)
>
> I don't know exactly how or why, but the depth effect was way better
> than with 3D movies. Objects close to the viewer really looked like
> being close to the viewer (something I have trouble getting in 3D
> movies, as I have mentioned.)
In 3D theaters you need to focus to the distance; it may be that the
Oculus gives you a clear focus somewhere in between (or you might be
adjusting it that way), as a trade-off between close & distant objects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I got to try the development version of Oculus Rift.
>
> One slight problem I have ever had with "fake" 3D, eg. with 3D movies,
> is that I don't easily get the impression of things coming "out" of the
> screen (ie. closer to me than the screen is). To some degree yes, but
> the closer the thing is supposed to be to the viewer, the less capable
> I am of seeing it like that, for some reason. (Instead, it tends to
> look blurred, even doubled.)
>
> With the Oculus Rift, however, the impression of depth was just perfect,
> no matter how far or, especially, how close the detail is supposed to be.
> Even things that are like a few centimeters from your face really looked
> like they were that close. Nothing looked like I had trouble focusing,
> nor did I get any image-doubling problems.
This is definitely the future, it's one of those things that you wonder
why it hasn't been developed sooner already. You have been able to get
1080p resolution displays for years that size, the optical principles
involved have been known for centuries...
I suspect it will have the biggest take-up in car and flight simulators
initially (I know iRacing already supports it natively). Those are the
guys who spend $$$ on multiple-monitor setups to get good FOV coverage,
if the full-HD production version is on sale for less than the price of
3 monitors then it's going to be a winner.
If it does take off then there are significant opportunities for further
development, thinner, lighter headsets, higher resolution/framerate,
wider FOV, wireless connection etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.12.2013 10:23, schrieb scott:
>> With the Oculus Rift, however, the impression of depth was just perfect,
>> no matter how far or, especially, how close the detail is supposed to be.
>> Even things that are like a few centimeters from your face really looked
>> like they were that close. Nothing looked like I had trouble focusing,
>> nor did I get any image-doubling problems.
>
> This is definitely the future, it's one of those things that you wonder
> why it hasn't been developed sooner already. You have been able to get
> 1080p resolution displays for years that size, the optical principles
> involved have been known for centuries...
I guess it's because earlier attempts to get this flying proved
unsuccessful, so the industry put the idea aside.
I've been wanting one of these ever since back in the '90s. Seems like
the time is ripe for it at last.
Looking forward for Elite: Dangerous with that headgear. (Not that I
expect to be able to afford the Oculus; I might have to beg, steal or
borrow for it.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/12/2013 10:11 AM, clipka wrote:
> I guess it's because earlier attempts to get this flying proved
> unsuccessful, so the industry put the idea aside.
>
I think that you are right, there.
> I've been wanting one of these ever since back in the '90s. Seems like
> the time is ripe for it at last.
>
In the 90's I saw people using them at tourist traps. It looked like
they were wearing "duck heads".
> Looking forward for Elite: Dangerous with that headgear. (Not that I
> expect to be able to afford the Oculus; I might have to beg, steal or
> borrow for it.)
I am with you there, too.
And I might need to review the specs for my new laptop.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This is definitely the future, it's one of those things that you wonder
>> why it hasn't been developed sooner already. You have been able to get
>> 1080p resolution displays for years that size, the optical principles
>> involved have been known for centuries...
>
> I guess it's because earlier attempts to get this flying proved
> unsuccessful, so the industry put the idea aside.
True, I imagine the big players think it's too risky to commit any
serious resources to at the moment. Hopefully the OR will take off and
then everyone will be jumping to develop their own (better, cheaper)
version.
> Looking forward for Elite: Dangerous with that headgear. (Not that I
> expect to be able to afford the Oculus; I might have to beg, steal or
> borrow for it.)
Reading on wikipedia it is rumoured to be under $300, so hopefully about
the same price as a decent monitor. This is why I'm holding off
upgrading to a 3-screen setup for sim racing :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/12/2013 09:23 AM, scott wrote:
> If it does take off then there are significant opportunities for further
> development, thinner, lighter headsets, higher resolution/framerate,
> wider FOV, wireless connection etc.
I spent all of last night reading about holographic displays.
[No, I do not mean volumetric displays. I mean a display where you
compute the interference patterns of an optical wavefront, then use some
kind of display device to produce that pattern.]
The big plus with this is that objects at different distances have
different focal depths - exactly like they do in the real world. The
machine basically generates the same light rays that the real object
would, so your eyes can respond to it the way they normally do already.
No weird glasses required. Multiple viewers possible. Etc.
The big downside is... you need an *insane* pixel pitch. And then you
need a small supercomputer if you want to draw this stuff in realtime.
I did see a demo of a commercial offering which is supposed to be coming
to market soon - but it uses eye-tracking to slash the amount of
processing power required. (I.e., it won't actually work in the real
world and so will never be commercially viable.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> [No, I do not mean volumetric displays. I mean a display where you
> compute the interference patterns of an optical wavefront, then use some
> kind of display device to produce that pattern.]
A friend from university did this:
http://lightblueoptics.com/videos/holographic-laser-projection-technology/
Judging by the (lack of) recent updates it didn't really take off.
FWIW before this, his research project at university was to modify a CD
burner to burn holograms onto a CD. I guess the "pixel pitch" on a CD is
enough for it.
> I did see a demo of a commercial offering which is supposed to be coming
> to market soon - but it uses eye-tracking to slash the amount of
> processing power required. (I.e., it won't actually work in the real
> world and so will never be commercially viable.)
Yes, eye tracking always introduces further issues. One demo I saw,
which I'm surprised hasn't taken off, is to use the video feed from a
camera as an environment map texture. This demo was running on a laptop
using the inbuilt webcam and the way shiny surfaces reflected your face
and what was behind you in the room was very believable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/12/2013 01:58 PM, scott wrote:
>> [No, I do not mean volumetric displays. I mean a display where you
>> compute the interference patterns of an optical wavefront, then use some
>> kind of display device to produce that pattern.]
>
> A friend from university did this:
>
> http://lightblueoptics.com/videos/holographic-laser-projection-technology/
>
> Judging by the (lack of) recent updates it didn't really take off.
Indeed.
I also found a website with software for computing interference
patterns. They claim that if you take something like a 600 DPI laser
printer and print the pattern onto a transparency, you can shine a laser
pointer through it and get a very fuzzy, very grainy hologram. (Assuming
your printer doesn't try to interpolate or otherwise alter the precisely
computed pixel patterns!)
> FWIW before this, his research project at university was to modify a CD
> burner to burn holograms onto a CD. I guess the "pixel pitch" on a CD is
> enough for it.
CD? Perhaps not; CDs don't use visible light, they use infra-red, so the
dot pitch might not be small enough. A DVD, on the other hand, uses a
red laser, so it certainly ought to be able to do a red-light hologram
without difficulty. (Provided you can convince the drive to put the dots
where you want them!)
>> I did see a demo of a commercial offering which is supposed to be coming
>> to market soon - but it uses eye-tracking to slash the amount of
>> processing power required. (I.e., it won't actually work in the real
>> world and so will never be commercially viable.)
>
> Yes, eye tracking always introduces further issues. One demo I saw,
> which I'm surprised hasn't taken off, is to use the video feed from a
> camera as an environment map texture. This demo was running on a laptop
> using the inbuilt webcam and the way shiny surfaces reflected your face
> and what was behind you in the room was very believable.
When I was at university, we were told that several companies had 3D TV
technology that was "nearly ready for market". That was ten years ago.
(I suppose they were probably talking about the laughably primitive
lenticular lens technology that you occasionally see in shops and stuff.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I also found a website with software for computing interference
> patterns. They claim that if you take something like a 600 DPI laser
> printer and print the pattern onto a transparency, you can shine a laser
> pointer through it and get a very fuzzy, very grainy hologram.
Oooh that sounds interesting, might have to give that a go. I got one of
those cheap $20 green laser pointers, if you focus it it's enough to
light a match or melt your name into anything plastic :-)
> CD? Perhaps not; CDs don't use visible light, they use infra-red, so the
> dot pitch might not be small enough.
Well if a 600dpi print just about works, then by my rough estimations a
CD should be about 20000 dpi. Maybe not perfect, but it works.
> A DVD, on the other hand, uses a
> red laser, so it certainly ought to be able to do a red-light hologram
> without difficulty. (Provided you can convince the drive to put the dots
> where you want them!)
You can't without modifying the drive. IIRC they had to bypass pretty
much the whole signal path and just drive the laser directly (well not
quite, but you get the idea).
> When I was at university, we were told that several companies had 3D TV
> technology that was "nearly ready for market". That was ten years ago.
> (I suppose they were probably talking about the laughably primitive
> lenticular lens technology that you occasionally see in shops and stuff.)
10 years ago the company I used to work for was already selling a laptop
and mobile phone with a parallax barrier 3D screen (that could be
switched between 2D and 3D mode). That technology has developed into the
dispay in the Nintendo 3DS and LG Optimus 3D today. That type of 3D is
fine for single-user applications (because no glasses are needed), but
for multi-viewer it obviously doesn't work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.12.2013 15:14, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> I also found a website with software for computing interference
> patterns. They claim that if you take something like a 600 DPI laser
> printer and print the pattern onto a transparency, you can shine a laser
> pointer through it and get a very fuzzy, very grainy hologram. (Assuming
> your printer doesn't try to interpolate or otherwise alter the precisely
> computed pixel patterns!)
There are even people out there who, using nothing but a compass with a
sharp tip, cut patterns into acrylic glass to produce simple
stereographic images (point clouds actually).
And yes, it appears to actually work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
