On 15/12/2013 07:44, Warp wrote:
>
> Adjustable lenses rules you out?
>

Sorry. I misread your post.

John

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I got to try the development version of Oculus Rift.
>
> One slight problem I have ever had with "fake" 3D

it's no more fake 3D than your own stereoscopic vision

holographic projection is still way off so static stereoscopic recording is
still our best bet

still I indeed believe photorealistic 3D imagery plus Oculus Rift-like tech will
become much more affordable than holography

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.12.2013 19:22, schrieb nemesis:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> I got to try the development version of Oculus Rift.
>>
>> One slight problem I have ever had with "fake" 3D
>
> it's no more fake 3D than your own stereoscopic vision

You're mistaken there: Depth perception is not only a matter of 
parallax, but - at distances of <5m or so - also of focus.

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).

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > I got to try the development version of Oculus Rift.
> >
> > One slight problem I have ever had with "fake" 3D

> it's no more fake 3D than your own stereoscopic vision

It's quite lacking compared to actual 3D geometry because the eye can
discern distance also by how it has to focus on the object. None of
these technologies can (yet) distinguish where you are focusing with
your eyes, and modify the image accordingly.

I don't know why I have trouble seeing objects close to the viewer
in 3D movies (it's not *impossible*, but I have to make some effort
to make it happen) but it might be at least partially related to this.

Btw, given that 3D movies are being (AFAIK) published in BluRay format,
it seems that Oculus Rift would be the perfect way of watching them.
Significantly more immersive than just a 3D TV (because the field of
vision with OR is pretty large.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> 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.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.12.2013 18:10, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> 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