Developing a realistic POV (point of view)

[N3xtG3nGam3r]

Is it possible to get even more on the screen, or to get a better field of view than we see in most FPS nowadays, without increasing the screen size, or pixels?

I dont intend to sound out of this world, or noobish by asking stuff like this, but i think this has a huge part in realism, especially in FPS.

As far as depth of field goes, would it be possible to simulate 2 static cameras, as 2 eyes, which focus on the same points at one time in order to achieve ''real'' DoF, or a ''real'' POV?

Discuss.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you mean on a TV, then no. You need a virtual reality display, something like this

http://www.dannychoo.com/blog_entry/eng/661/Toshiba+Helmet/

And because VR looks utterly ridiculous, it's never got anywhere!

 

[Arwin]

The quickest thing I can come up with is using a form of a fish-eye lens. I actually remember a game called Warhead which employed it way back in the 80s on the 16 bit computers of the time (Atari ST / Amiga). It might just work for FPS games to expand the information you get on a widescreen TV into something that matches what you can see from your own eyes. Also, I think something like the added tilt controls in for instance the PS3's sixaxis controller could help add a way of looking around you that is separate from moving and strafing but can still be easily performed at the same time. Combining the two should help a great deal in improving the POV.

Beyond that you'd get to the realm of true 3d stuff, with 3d glasses.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Fish-eye lenses of TVs tend to make people want to chuck, rather than add to realism. The human eye has a perspective equivalent to about a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, while with a field of view of 180 degrees. To get that 180 degrees onto a TV screen, you get a camera with a very warped perspective that totally screws distance. The only way the fish-eye would work is if you had the TV placed very close to the eye to fill the FOV, and set your camera settings to suit, I think. And then you'd need independent views for each eye, and basically you need a VR headset.

 

[N3xtG3nGam3r]

Well, i guess that brings me to the next question. How hard is it to render 3d, in 3d? I dont know much about literal 3d and the glasses, but i know that looking at a screen without the goggles, it has like a few dimensions, like a screen layed over a screen. Would this mean that they would have to render the environment or the picture 2 times?

Also think about it. If you had two cameras, i take back the fact that they are static, we'll say they are dynamic cameras, that move wherever the crosshair is, wouldnt that mean that the eyes would cross at close distance, blending, and blurring the image that was out of focus, therefore creating a realistic depth look on the screen, and in turn making it look more 3 dimensional when you would focus? The DoF effects in CoD3 are nice, and a step forward, but what im thinking of would be perfect. It has to be possible some way.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, i guess that brings me to the next question. How hard is it to render 3d, in 3d? I dont know much about literal 3d and the glasses, but i know that looking at a screen without the goggles, it has like a few dimensions, like a screen layed over a screen. Would this mean that they would have to render the environment or the picture 2 times?

Yes. It's a simple doubling of rendering requirements as you render the same scene twice with a slightly offset camera for each eye.

Also think about it. If you had two cameras, i take back the fact that they are static, we'll say they are dynamic cameras, that move wherever the crosshair is, wouldnt that mean that the eyes would cross at close distance, blending, and blurring the image that was out of focus, therefore creating a realistic depth look on the screen, and in turn making it look more 3 dimensional when you would focus? The DoF effects in CoD3 are nice, and a step forward, but what im thinking of would be perfect. It has to be possible some way.

DOF is awkward, as the eye focusses on whatever it's looking at, which isn't necessarily the centre of the image, or average distance from far to near point. If you are trying to look into the distance but the game sets the focus on the nearby wall, you'll see fuzz. You'd need eyetracking to get that realistic. Canon have for years had that in some of their cameras to set the focus point I believe, though I've never tried it.

 

[N3xtG3nGam3r]

Something i have noticed, and i dont know exactly why, is that i have been adapting to the motion blur, and DoF and HDR effects in my games. The motion blur, its not even barely noticeable for me anymore, whereas when i played R6:V and PGR3 for the first time, i was like...WTF dude...i cant see when i turn?? Now i dont even see it. Playing CoD 3, i get more impressed by their DoF and it wasnt that impressive the first time i picked it up. I know what you are saying, and the problem you named does exist, but would it really be something that we wouldnt eventually see through, and see as realistic? When i aim down my rifle in CoD3, it honestly couldnt look much better for that game, IMO. It blurs stuff in the foreground, as well in the backround, which is what i was looking for in DoF, while not making it akward. Then again, maybe its just me adjusting to it.