It's rather about skewing a bit, as your eyes will continue to see the same two images from everywhere, but they'll be less and less correct as you move away from the center.
The sense of depth won't change though.
The future of stereoscopic gaming
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
It's rather about skewing a bit, as your eyes will continue to see the same two images from everywhere, but they'll be less and less correct as you move away from the center.
The sense of depth won't change though.
Sure it can. Given the right visual cues the brain is quite willing to "see" things "pop out" from a flat projected surface. Head tracking along with some quite simple perspective adjustment tricks can give quite an impressive 3D effect (for the one whose head is being tracked -- it'll look weird for anyone else watching the same image). Not sure how feasible this is for complex interactive game scenes on current console hardware, though.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Itll be useful in motion controlled games where you will be moving about. Picture a tennis game but with PSMC/Natal being able to detect where you are in 3d space body positioning could be important to gameplay rather than the simple swinging about we have currently, this in turn would be forcing you to move about lots. With this the effect could be very impressive. Only problem is one of performance, will the headtracking be quik and precise enough?
Why would my head be moving when playing a console game on my stationary TV?
Even if it were moving, would it be moving voluntarily and in a way that won't just aggravatingly push the camera in a random direction?
Even if it were moving, would it be moving voluntarily and in a way that won't just aggravatingly push the camera in a random direction?
Stereoscopic is an optical technique to achieve 3D illusion. Head tracking can be used to present or augment that illusion too. The Johnny Lee Wiimote demo is rather convincing as a 3D immersion experiment.
Anyway, I bought Caroline (the Blu-ray movie) yesterday. It comes with 4 pairs of 3D glasses. Will see how well it works at home.
We took the little boy to a 3D movie in Disneyland months ago. It was too scary for him. He screamed and bolted for the door when the show started (Heh). I also think that the current tech is not suitable for long playtime yet.
The "only" advantage of holograms is that they offer true 3D. The light you see is spatially indistinguishable from having the real object in front of you scattering the light itself.
People get used to prescription glasses because they wear them all the time. The optics in 3D glasses are too full of fatiguing visual artifacts (be they anaglyphic, polarization, or alternating shutter) for people to wear on a regular basis.
Phat
How does head tracking alone send one image to the left eye and another image to the right eye? Without that, you won't perceive depth.
Phat
The brain determines depth through several means. I think people are getting hung up on slight semantics. Parallax and other cues give a notion of depth, such that a one eyed man can still catch a ball thrown at them. However, you can't see depth with sterescopic vision. This thread is specifically about the stereoscopic methods.
There are visual cues in a 2D image that can be used to infer depth, but depth is "sensed" viscerally only through stereoscopic vision.
A one-eyed man is at a huge disadvantage in depth perception compared to a two-eyed individual. The next time you're in stop-and-go traffic, close one eye and see how comfortable you are that you won't rear-end the car in front of you.
The sense of depth is exactly what stereoscopy is meant to provide.
Phat
The original Johnny Lee demo used a pair of 3D glasses with IR LED attached to its sides. It should be possible to use both together (One for depth, the other for [user] perspective ?)
The question is whether (or rather, how badly) that depth perception will breakdown if I view it from a far corner.
The question is whether (or rather, how badly) that depth perception will breakdown if I view it from a far corner.
The eye however can not resolve in 3D at a single point in time ... as long as you can put it at the right focal length a "normal" 2D image is all you need to give same result in the retina.
Last edited by a moderator:
One eye can't sense depth, but two eyes can. You don't have to be moving your head to see that, for example, the view outside your window is farther away than the window frame around it. The slight parallax discrepancies between what each eye sees is what you sense as depth. This is the whole principle behind stereoscopic 3D.
A stereoscopic image is always going to have the problem of the cameras not seeing the world as each of a particular persons eyes do, just because different peoples eyes are different widths apart. this could be calibrated in computer games but not in movies. If you leave this in the users hands you're probably going to get alot of miscalibration tho.
It's the best that can be done right now since the bandwidth required for holography would be massive.
I tried it.
The stereoscopic vision works rather well. However our eyes got fatique about 15 minutes into the movie. There is a little bleeding around the edge sometimes, but for the most part, the 3D illusion works better than I expected, even from near the corner.
We switched to the 2D movie once our eyes grew tired.
Is it possible to remove the fatique by calibration ?
Sony plans to put 3D TVs in homes by end of 2010
Sony is planning to use “active shutter” technology, which uses electronic glasses containing small shutters that blink rapidly in time with a television image to create a three-dimensional effect.
Er, that doesn't sound too good...
Sony is planning to use “active shutter” technology, which uses electronic glasses containing small shutters that blink rapidly in time with a television image to create a three-dimensional effect.
Er, that doesn't sound too good...
