HDR Displays?
- Thread starter BlackAngus
- Start date
two eyes + brain that only truly processes images from one eye at a time and uses the other as sort of a giant field of peripheral vision + display that displays two totally different images in each eye = OH MY GOD THE HEADACHE.
Sorry for the slightly offtopic, but I'm with Baron on this one. Actually, a lot of people are single-eye dominant and thus any stereoscopic visual approach is usually rendered utterly useless for them. This isn't necessarily only the case for those that are extreme (i.e.- one eye is 0-10% functional), but even if one is 30-40% you can get behavior he describes above. Hell, I'm like 60%/40% left eye dominant and any form of '3d' viewing that relies on 2 distinct image displays is painful. Makes me want to go look up some stats......
So how is it that you manage to drive to work every day? Or even walk down a hallway? Or go to a mall? How can you do ANY of this without getting the most powerful migraine ever conceived in the history of mankind?Bubba said:
Because your eyes, believe it or not, are seeing two different images right now as you're reading my post on your monitor. Just as they see two different images when driving, when walking, when reading the pricetag on a book, and while fumbling for the Excedrin.
Stereoscopic imaging is supposed to give your eyes the information that they are accustomed to seeing -- the same scene from two viewpoints that are seperated by only a few inches. What you're seemingly describing is one of those nasty flat-paper "dot matrix" pictures where you have to cross your eyes in order for it to be visible as 3D.
That's not what we're talking about here. And anyone who's seen a pair of stereoscopic goggles working would know better.
davepermen
Regular
Bubba said:
uhm.. and how do you see 3d then? the only way to percept 3d is due the actual image (with the shading, and all that..), and the stereoscopic effect of your two eyes. thats the way we percept the real world, so where's the difference?
looking outside the window would be painful for you if your statement of "2 district image displays is painful" would be true.
The difference between VR goggles and reality isn't perceiving two different images, but that those images are fixed on a single focal plane. You can't focus on an object to see it in more detail. All objects are as sharp as it gets, and your eyes are permanently focused on something very close.
This might be a cause of headache for some, but I don't see this being any different with any kind of single-eye dominance.
This might be a cause of headache for some, but I don't see this being any different with any kind of single-eye dominance.
davepermen said:
You don't see things in 3d really due to stereoscopic effect. The max distance it really works at all is about 15 ft and it really desn't add much beyond a few feet of your eyes where depth perception ends up being more defined by monocular clues. This is of course based on the idea that the stereo seperation used is correct and not exagerated (the effect can be exagerated by increasing the distance between the eyes).
Considering how boring most games are at a distance of a few feet it would be almost completely worthless (though games are getting better at having various objects to add to the environment but nothing like the few thousand different objects I just see around me at the moment though).
Stereoscopic vision is great for scientific visualizations where one is often manipulating an object that is supposed to be only a foot or so away from the person face.
Is anyone really interested in knowing how dominant-eye people (like myself) get along with seeing in everyday life? I wouldn't think so, but if you are, I'll be happy to explain. It would require a more accurate and specific description. Certainly looking out the window, perceiving depth of field, etc. is not painful.
Suffice it to say that the comments were a bit off topic and described as so. And, you're right. I have never seen nor used any steroscopic goggles. If something like that could actually give my eyes the visual experience they are accustomed to, then I wouldn't think there would be a problem.
The applicability in my comments are more appropriately directed to "those nasty dot-matrix pictures", any crappy 3d movie you'd see in a theater, some 3d microscopes, etc.
Suffice it to say that the comments were a bit off topic and described as so. And, you're right. I have never seen nor used any steroscopic goggles. If something like that could actually give my eyes the visual experience they are accustomed to, then I wouldn't think there would be a problem.
The applicability in my comments are more appropriately directed to "those nasty dot-matrix pictures", any crappy 3d movie you'd see in a theater, some 3d microscopes, etc.
Mintmaster
Veteran
I think we're barking up the wrong tree with these HDR displays. I don't see the average computer user finding much use in them (though the contrast ratio is nice compared to todays LCD's), so it seems like it'd be a niche product.
The fact is we are very satisfied with the portrayal of reality provided by TV's and movie screens, which don't produce extremely high brightness when showing things like the sun. Sure, CRT's are indeed capable of essentially infinite contrast ratio, but other display technologies aren't, and they're generally more desireable, showing the consumer doesn't put dynamic range high on their priority list. Add to that the need for a different broadcast format, and I don't see widespread usage in the near future, be it for PC's or home theatre.
We should be aiming for reaching the realism captured by video cameras first. Both hardware and software need to make big advances here. I think HDR displays are mostly just a gimmick, and will remain so for at least a decade (aside from specialized applications, e.g. the military).
The fact is we are very satisfied with the portrayal of reality provided by TV's and movie screens, which don't produce extremely high brightness when showing things like the sun. Sure, CRT's are indeed capable of essentially infinite contrast ratio, but other display technologies aren't, and they're generally more desireable, showing the consumer doesn't put dynamic range high on their priority list. Add to that the need for a different broadcast format, and I don't see widespread usage in the near future, be it for PC's or home theatre.
We should be aiming for reaching the realism captured by video cameras first. Both hardware and software need to make big advances here. I think HDR displays are mostly just a gimmick, and will remain so for at least a decade (aside from specialized applications, e.g. the military).
Fred da Roza
Newcomer
Bubba said:
The company I work for has a set of Sim Eye XL100A goggles.
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/keo/SIMEYE100A.htm
Haven't used them but I haven't heard anyone complain of headaches caused by the binocular displays. However one known problem with using HMDs (with a head tracker) is the nausea caused by latency when you move your head, especially rapid head movements. The motion sickness effect can linger depending on the how long you use them
Fred da Roza
Newcomer
Mintmaster said:
Just curious, but have you actually seen a HDR display and do you have a link? I've seen requirements for the military to output 16 bit monochrome video to simulate sensors but never seen a commercially available HDR display.
35 posts till Cell comes up. is that a record?
The Baron said:
I don't know, but I'm really hopefull something develops on the HDR display front to make it mainstream. This technology comes across as one of the coolest things I've read about in a long time.
One of my favorite games is Rainbow 6. I could see a HDR display making the gameplay experience far more immersive. The flashbang effect would be awesome. Muzzle flashes, sparks from bullets impacting certain materials, night vision modes, and glowing tracer rounds streaking across a map would really stand out.
Mintmaster
Veteran
No, I haven't seen one. I'm just assuming that if this technology does take off, that's probably where it'll be used first. They could probably simulate outdoor environments better for pilots. I doubt we'll see HDR in the consumer space for at least a decade, because you need a new signal standard.Fred da Roza said:
Mintmaster
Veteran
I don't think this TV has HDR in mind (though it seems to be a natural extension). LCD's have quite poor contrast ratios (and hence poor black levels), and this would circumvent that problem. It also helps with the colour reproduction.Brimstone said:
