Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR

[Shifty Geezer]

You need to understand how the viewer perceives that 3D. Often it plain broke, like XMen where a tap in the foreground was all blurry due to camera DOF. It was a very unnatural experience. Films also use 3D perspectives that don't match human vision (eg. wide angle lenses with human eye spacing) and it's just weird. Given the increased price of 3D movies and a general inferior experience due to uncomfortable viewing and darker images, it's not surprising people didn't take to 3D in a big way. Sony are being sensible regard VR and realise they need the right product that has a sense of wow, and doesn't quickly become a tired, unpleasant gimmick. FPSes designed for the 2D screen will be unlikely a great a fit for VR as much as a 2D film shot in stereoscopy often made for a poor 3D experience.

 

[London Geezer]

Well as much as everyone said and is saying that 3D is dead, it doesn't seem like it's going away any time soon. Big blockbuster action movies are released in 3D and are extremely successful, all new TV's are 3D enabled.
The issue is that not many people are buying Bluray discs - 3D Bluray movies are just an extension of that trend as they're usually even more expensive than standard discs and no one is buying them. Not many people are bothered with watching 3D movies at home.
Personally, I love the occasional 3D movie night at home.

 

[jlippo]

3D movies can be great if properly made and might be even better with VR.

Been wondering about how the transition to 'proper' 3D could happen and/or how old 3D movie catalog could be converted to work with VR sets.

Biggest problem is certainly converting or viewing old stereo 3D in a VR friendly way.
Basic idea would be to create disparity field and/or depth map from stereo pair and then use it to re-project image for each frame.
This would allow small head movements and tilt of viewers head and get response at maximum hz of the display.

For future of filming 3D will be using lightfield cameras, as it allows slight movement and dynamic DoF automatically.

 

[SlimJim]

Well as much as everyone said and is saying that 3D is dead, it doesn't seem like it's going away any time soon. Big blockbuster action movies are released in 3D and are extremely successful, all new TV's are 3D enabled.
The issue is that not many people are buying Bluray discs - 3D Bluray movies are just an extension of that trend as they're usually even more expensive than standard discs and no one is buying them. Not many people are bothered with watching 3D movies at home.
Personally, I love the occasional 3D movie night at home.

I agree, but still; it's telling that Sony didn't implement PS4 3D BD viewing yet.. It looks like it's not a priority for them

 

[pjbliverpool]

Been wondering about how the transition to 'proper' 3D could happen and/or how old 3D movie catalog could be converted to work with VR sets.

I think a virtual cinema would be pretty cool. Keep the film itself in 2D but stick it on a giant virtual IMAX type screen. You could even make the screen slightly larger than the persons field of view and allow head movements to look around the screen like you need to do at a real IMAX.

Or even better, make the screen size customisable by the user. Perhaps add in a customisable audience as well. Man VR has so much potential even on mundane things like watching 80's films!

 

[Arwin]

I agree, but still; it's telling that Sony didn't implement PS4 3D BD viewing yet.. It looks like it's not a priority for them

True. But when they do, it might be in a manner that takes VR 3D into account right away.

 

[London Geezer]

I agree, but still; it's telling that Sony didn't implement PS4 3D BD viewing yet.. It looks like it's not a priority for them

The bigger paradox is that personally, the vast majority of Bluray movie viewing I do is 3D Blurays. I can get good enough HD from Amazon/Flix. Which makes the lack of 3D playback on PS4 even more annoying for me, but I'm sure I'm just a special case.

 

[ERP]

The bigger paradox is that personally, the vast majority of Bluray movie viewing I do is 3D Blurays. I can get good enough HD from Amazon/Flix. Which makes the lack of 3D playback on PS4 even more annoying for me, but I'm sure I'm just a special case.

Nope that's true of me as well.
about the only things I purchase on BD are 3D, anything else I'll stream because it's good enough, and I try and minimize the amount of physical media I have to deal with.

 

[Globalisateur]

At least with VR games developers won't have to worry about cinematic effects and that could even save GPU time with no more processed and tweaked:

- motion blur
- DOF
- Bloom
- Chromatic aberrations
- lens flares
- drops of water/liquid/blood on virtual camera glass/lens
- Colors modifications (desaturation?)
- Contrasts modifications
- cinematic filters
etc.

How much do you think you can save on the GPU if you turn off all previously mentionned effects?

Take a game like Destiny: from what I have watched roughly 3/4 of the (noticeable) visual effects in the game are (useless for VR) cinematics effects. That should even simplify development of VR games for indies, the only thing they'll have to worry is the 3D.

If, of course, they really intend to do realistic games with the Virtual Reality devices...(realistic=reality here).

Because if they stubbornly continue to waste precious GPU ressources with those cinematics effects even for VR, they'll hear me complaining...a lot

 

[idsn6]

Those effects are probably not going away. The physical sensation of wearing a VR headset is constantly present, so it would not be surprising to have games play into that by simulating goggles, helmets, and facemasks, with all the attendant visual flairs those entail.

 

[DieH@rd]

At least with VR games developers won't have to worry about cinematic effects and that could even save GPU time with no more processed and tweaked:

- motion blur
- DOF
- Bloom
- Chromatic aberrations
- lens flares
- drops of water/liquid/blood on virtual camera glass/lens
- Colors modifications (desaturation?)
- Contrasts modifications
- cinematic filters
etc.

How much do you think you can save on the GPU if you turn off all previously mentionned effects?

And how many developers will chose to use majority of those effects if their playing character is wearing a helmet with a see-through visor?

 

[SlimJim]

What about a .... android which is controlled trough a human, wearing a VR helmet?

That would be quite immersive, and would realistically allow for almost all simulated lens optics ever created

 

[Globalisateur]

What about a .... android which is controlled trough a human, wearing a VR helmet?

That would be quite immersive, and would realistically allow for almost all simulated lens optics ever created

Well, that setup is not Virtual Reality anymore.

 

[Cyan]

Boobs on your face, a new form of Virtual Reality. I don't think this will make the cut on consoles, but anyways...

An ex Valve employee who worked on the tech says that Virtual Reality is antisocial. He calls it a cyberpunk future, and people will be a target for advertising now more than ever.

(he makes a reference to Facebook but I didn't know where to post this)

http://www.gameplanet.com.au/news/g...s-ex-Valve-programmer-who-worked-on-the-tech/

A programmer contracted by Valve on two separate occasions to work on its augmented reality and virtual reality projects has described the latter technology as "bad news".

Fabien Giesen made the remark over Twitter, and explained his opinion further on GitHub.

"With AR, there’s a variety of information display/visualization applications, all of which are at the very least interesting and could turn out to be tremendously empowering in various ways," said Giesen. "The endpoint of VR, on the other hand – all engineering practicalities of first aiming for a seemingly easier goal aside – seems to be fundamentally anti-social, completing the sad trajectory of entertainment moving further and further away from shared social experiences.

"So imagine a shared universe MMORPG, expressly operated by a company that *already knows all your friends*, that’s trying to maximize your engagement ('hey, all your friends are playing right now, don’t you want to join too?')."

Earlier this year, Facebook acquired Rift headset creator Oculus VR for approximately US$2 billion in cash and stock.

These companies will go about "selling your attention to advertisers," continued Giesen. "And by the way, also building a detailed profile on everything you do so they can do all of this even better in the future. It’s okay, go on doing whatever you want, we just want to watch! (Through your own eyeballs if possible)."

"That's a very cyberpunk future all right, but one I'd prefer not to live in."

 

[SlimJim]

Well, that setup is not Virtual Reality anymore.

I mean a game which represents that. As a player you control a character that is wearing a VR helmet

 

[orangpelupa]

oh so like Crysis 9 VR edition. The player is seeing through nanomachine eyes inside the helmet so those optical effects still need to be simulated. Especially every time an EMP hit the nanosuit

 

[rockaman]

You need to understand how the viewer perceives that 3D. Often it plain broke, like XMen where a tap in the foreground was all blurry due to camera DOF.It was a very unnatural experience. Films also use 3D perspectives that don't match human vision (eg. wide angle lenses with human eye spacing) and it's just weird. Given the increased price of 3D movies and a general inferior experience due to uncomfortable viewing and darker images, it's not surprising people didn't take to 3D in a big way. Sony are being sensible regard VR and realise they need the right product that has a sense of wow, and doesn't quickly become a tired, unpleasant gimmick. FPSes designed for the 2D screen will be unlikely a great a fit for VR as much as a 2D film shot in stereoscopy often made for a poor 3D experience.

Not true, but most people would make the same mistake. Most aren't really that familiar with what the eye can and can't do well.

Watch your computer screen, and keep focused on it. Then put a finger a few cm in front of one eye, and see just how sharp it is. Try it with one eye closed too.

You'll have to put your finger quite close to your point of focus before it merges into "one finger" with your binary vision, or simply becomes perfectly clear with one eye closed or not.

You can use a similar technique to look for your blind spot, but that's not a phenomenon of just the "eye." It uses your brain as well.

The only difference in real life is you can change focus on a different point, and your "eye camera" adjusts very rapidly.

As to the quality of the depth perception, I will not say it's perfect. But it's not that it's unrealistic or unnatural. Exaggerated often, but that is the same as in many 2D movies as well. Focus blur is as exciting as smoke to a movie director maybe.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not true, but most people would make the same mistake. Most aren't really that familiar with what the eye can and can't do well.

Watch your computer screen, and keep focused on it. Then put a finger a few cm in front of one eye, and see just how sharp it is. Try it with one eye closed too.

We're not talking about a tap that was a few cms in front of the eye and blurry. We're talking a tap that was, from the viewers' perspective, some 15 feet in front of them, and the rest of the scene some 10+ feet beyond that. The only way to achieve that level of DOF blur (large COC) at those distances is a wide aperture and/or zoom lens. These are common optical features used in cinematography that don't at all mesh with the viewer's own very limited optical system (approximately fixed 50mm focal length and f8 aperture in bright light). The moment you try forcing optical 3D on the eyes, they spazz out. With 2D it doesn't matter because the eye+brain know it's a 2D view on a plane perceived as such.

You can use a similar technique to look for your blind spot, but that's not a phenomenon of just the "eye." It uses your brain as well.

The blind spot is very much a feature of the eye. It's where the nerves cluster into the eyeball's output at a region where there are no sensors - it's a spot in the eye with no physical ability to detect light. The brain's contribution is only to fill in the missing detail, but it's doing that all across the visible image, with image inversion, blood vessel removal, and peripheral image reconstruction.

The only difference in real life is you can change focus on a different point, and your "eye camera" adjusts very rapidly.

That, but also in addition there are limits to how much DOF a person will encounter in everyday vision that are massively exceeded by fancy cinematography.

As to the quality of the depth perception, I will not say it's perfect. But it's not that it's unrealistic or unnatural. Exaggerated often.

Which is what makes it unnatural! You are presented with a 3D scene that doesn't conform to real-life perspective, and which keeps changing perspective from shot to shot. Real life is fixed to a singular focal length. For a realistic 3D, you'd have to limit yourself to one focal length closely approximating the human eye if you want to be natural. Which would be a very bland looking piece of cinema on the whole and with no 2D value either.

 

[rockaman]

We're not talking about a tap that was a few cms in front of the eye and blurry. We're talking a tap that was, from the viewers' perspective, some 15 feet in front of them, and the rest of the scene some 10+ feet beyond that. The only way to achieve that level of DOF blur (large COC) at those distances is a wide aperture and/or zoom lens. These are common optical features used in cinematography that don't at all mesh with the viewer's own very limited optical system (approximately fixed 50mm focal length and f8 aperture in bright light).

Is that then a discussion about the quality of the 3D effect, or the quality of the director's use of the 3D effect? 2D movies will do the same thing, it's just we're "culturally accustomed" to having 2D movies decide where our focus is. The 3D movie is in fact, doing the same thing.

The moment you try forcing optical 3D on the eyes, they spazz out. With 2D it doesn't matter because the eye+brain know it's a 2D view on a plane perceived as such.

Hmmm... who told you the bolded, or is that your personal experience? You can very much trick a brain into perceiving a 2D image as a 3D one, particularly while using parallax effects with an image very close to the eyes. Works best with one eye though.

The blind spot is very much a feature of the eye. It's where the nerves cluster into the eyeball's output at a region where there are no sensors - it's a spot in the eye with no physical ability to detect light. The brain's contribution is only to fill in the missing detail, but it's doing that all across the visible image, with image inversion, blood vessel removal, and peripheral image reconstruction.

So you described why the blind spot phenomena is not only the about the eye, if it was only about the eye, there would be no "filling in of detail" which is really the brain guessing what is there, not as you say... filling in detail

That, but also in addition there are limits to how much DOF a person will encounter in everyday vision that are massively exceeded by fancy cinematography.

In part because the viewer does not choose the point of focus in the movie, 2D or 3D. You are underestimating just how poor peripheral vision is, and simultaneously not appreciating that in real life, your brain, or rather centers in your brainstem are diverting your eyes constantly, and at other times you are voluntarily choosing what to focus on. Try reading this post without your eyes directly on the words. Your brain will actually try to stop you from doing this

Which is what makes it unnatural! You are presented with a 3D scene that doesn't conform to real-life perspective, and which keeps changing perspective from shot to shot. Real life is fixed to a singular focal length. For a realistic 3D, you'd have to limit yourself to one focal length closely approximating the human eye if you want to be natural. Which would be a very bland looking piece of cinema on the whole and with no 2D value either.

Does it not? I've seen many movies in 2D which do not conform to real-life perspective either. Green turns blue, yellow into orange, stretching of the scene, field of view insanity, scenes blurred in and blurred out, many forms of "unreal perspective." Coincidence? Not really. I think those are called "special effects", one of many weapons in the repertoire of a film director.

If you found said effect unpleasant or unrealistic in a particular scene, then your qualm may not entirely be laid against the technology, but also in equal parts against the director's cinematic choices maybe? Is that harder to admit for an engineer?

 

[MrFox]

Is that then a discussion about the quality of the 3D effect, or the quality of the director's use of the 3D effect? 2D movies will do the same thing, it's just we're culturally accustomed to having 2D movies decide where our focus is.

No they don't. 2D is identical between the left and right eyes, and depth of focus is the same as the screen edge, the feedback loop in your brain is stable, and the eyes relax. No matter what happens on screen there's no stimuli that would cause the brain to try to focus any differently. In 3D there are stimuli that changes convergence, and a strong convergence is linked with close focusing. This is where headaches happen, because it's a reflex and it's a feedback loop between your eyes and your brain, which is severely imbalanced with close 3D objects (or Avatar-like crossed background which was extremely stupid).