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.

(The Oculus Rift uses lenses so that you can focus your eyes to the
distance, and the image will look sharp like that. It would obviously
not work at all if it didn't have such lenses.)

The only problem with the development version is that it has a
ridiculously small resolution. The final version will apparently have
a full-hd 1080p resolution, so it ought to look much better.

I am actually eagerly awaiting for the final version to come out.
I really want to play games like Portal 2 with one. (Even if it turns
out to be just a temporary fad, a curiosity that's in practice unsuitable
to be used for long periods of time to play games eg. because it's too
straining, I think that it will still be cool enough to purchase, even
if it's expensive.)

I really hope that they do the smart thing in games that have direct
support for it, ie. that you don't turn by turning your head, but turning
your head just turns the "camera" (not the direction where you are pointing
at, ie. the direction that your weapon points to and where you walk when
you press the forward key.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 14/12/2013 9:40 PM, Warp wrote:
> I really hope that they do the smart thing in games that have direct
> support for it, ie. that you don't turn by turning your head, but turning
> your head just turns the "camera" (not the direction where you are pointing
> at, ie. the direction that your weapon points to and where you walk when
> you press the forward key.)

I was reading about Oculus Rift yesterday as Elite: Dangerous will 
support it. The impression I got was that it will do the smart thing, as 
you put it. Do you know if you can wear glasses with Oculus Rift?
The write up sounds impressive.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I was reading about Oculus Rift yesterday as Elite: Dangerous will 
> support it. The impression I got was that it will do the smart thing, as 
> you put it. Do you know if you can wear glasses with Oculus Rift?
> The write up sounds impressive.

I don't know the details, but it might be that you don't need to.
(I don't know if the lenses will be adjustable, like those of binoculars,
or something else. I doubt you would be able to wear normal glasses
while wearing the device.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 15/12/2013 00:06, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> I was reading about Oculus Rift yesterday as Elite: Dangerous will
>> support it. The impression I got was that it will do the smart thing, as
>> you put it. Do you know if you can wear glasses with Oculus Rift?
>> The write up sounds impressive.
>
> I don't know the details, but it might be that you don't need to.
> (I don't know if the lenses will be adjustable, like those of binoculars,
> or something else. I doubt you would be able to wear normal glasses
> while wearing the device.)
>

... which rules me out

John (aka 4 eyes)

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 15/12/2013 00:06, Warp wrote:
> > Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> >> I was reading about Oculus Rift yesterday as Elite: Dangerous will
> >> support it. The impression I got was that it will do the smart thing, as
> >> you put it. Do you know if you can wear glasses with Oculus Rift?
> >> The write up sounds impressive.
> >
> > I don't know the details, but it might be that you don't need to.
> > (I don't know if the lenses will be adjustable, like those of binoculars,
> > or something else. I doubt you would be able to wear normal glasses
> > while wearing the device.)
> >

> ... which rules me out

> John (aka 4 eyes)

Adjustable lenses rules you out?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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

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

> 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.

You can often see holograms in the paintwork of cars on a sunny day, it 
looks like an odd lens flare effect that is hovering some distance above 
the paintwork. It is caused by poor washing technique which drags grit 
across the paint creating tiny (but nothing like the wavelength of light 
tiny) grooves in the paint.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2013 02:37 PM, scott wrote:
>> 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 :-)

Knock yourself out:

http://corticalcafe.com/software_onlineCGHinstructions.htm

They demo it with a red laser; I don't know if that's crucial. (The 
laser wavelength is probably adjustable in the program...)

>> 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.

Yeah, I've been sat here trying to figure out what the actual DPI of one 
of these disks is. I guess it requires knowing how many inches per meter 
there are. :-P

>> 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).

Doesn't LightScribe help here? Or does that only allow you to specify a 
grey level, which the device itself then dithers?

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.12.2013 16:18, schrieb scott:
>> 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.
>
> You can often see holograms in the paintwork of cars on a sunny day, it
> looks like an odd lens flare effect that is hovering some distance above
> the paintwork. It is caused by poor washing technique which drags grit
> across the paint creating tiny (but nothing like the wavelength of light
> tiny) grooves in the paint.

Yup, that's essentially the method they use for it - except that they do 
it on purpose :-P

Post a reply to this message

> Knock yourself out:
>
> http://corticalcafe.com/software_onlineCGHinstructions.htm
>
> They demo it with a red laser; I don't know if that's crucial. (The
> laser wavelength is probably adjustable in the program...)

Bookmarked - will definitely try that. I wonder if an ink-jet will work 
just as well...

> Yeah, I've been sat here trying to figure out what the actual DPI of one
> of these disks is.

I estimated 7e9 bits of data (probably an underestimate due to error 
correction bits etc) and an area of 17 square inches. sqrt(7e9/17) is 
about 20000 dpi.

> Doesn't LightScribe help here? Or does that only allow you to specify a
> grey level, which the device itself then dithers?

Maybe, but you'd probably still have to hack the hardware significantly 
to allow the lightscribe functionality to work on the data side of the 
disc at a much higher resolution.

Post a reply to this message

>> Knock yourself out:
>>
>> http://corticalcafe.com/software_onlineCGHinstructions.htm
>>
>> They demo it with a red laser; I don't know if that's crucial. (The
>> laser wavelength is probably adjustable in the program...)
>
> Bookmarked - will definitely try that. I wonder if an ink-jet will work
> just as well...

I suspect you'll find it nearly impossible to convince an inkjet to put 
the dots exactly where *you* asked for them.

>> Yeah, I've been sat here trying to figure out what the actual DPI of one
>> of these disks is.
>
> I estimated 7e9 bits of data (probably an underestimate due to error
> correction bits etc) and an area of 17 square inches. sqrt(7e9/17) is
> about 20000 dpi.

...or you could just look up the pit width figure from the spec sheet, 
and work out how many times that fits into an inch. ;-)

>> Doesn't LightScribe help here? Or does that only allow you to specify a
>> grey level, which the device itself then dithers?
>
> Maybe, but you'd probably still have to hack the hardware significantly
> to allow the lightscribe functionality to work on the data side of the
> disc at a much higher resolution.

That sounds like just a firmware nudge to me...

Post a reply to this message