3d Glasses and monitors - anyone tried them?
category: offtopic [glöplog]
we have all sort of stereo toys in the office (_a lot_, really) and we played a lot with all the sgi machinery for stereo (caves included, cool to see Paradise in a Cave btw). My conclusion is that they are all toys, nice to play for 5 - 10 minutes, then you get annoyed in one or another way...
I never had an N64, so the first time I played those games (like Zelda: Ocarina of Time) was in Project 64, and I used LCD 3D glasses with my monitor at 800x600 and 140hz. It was pretty awesome, and sometimes, on a few angles, things could even appear to be closer than the screen (Link's head would pop out over my keyboard).
There are a few caveats besides the ones that were mentioned:
- The most recent nvidia drivers are crappy and randomly swap the left and right eyes every 30 or so seconds for no reason. So if it doesn't look 3D, it might be because of this. You have to use the hotkey to disable and enable 3D until it happens to be correct again.
- It's hard to set up the parameters to actually give a good depth (even harder with the nvidia drivers which don't offer direct control of the parameters like the asus drivers did).
- The monitor has to be able to go very bright, because in addition to seeing it at half refresh rate, you also see it at half brightness.
- You get motion sickness far more easily, but once you get used to it, and learn to have normal breathing and posture, it's not much of a problem anymore.
- Some games end up looking way worse in 3D, like for example Dungeon Siege or Neverwinter Nights, where the illusion is broken and the characters look like tiny figurines on a tiny game board rather than like full sized characters in a real world.
I'd say that although it CAN be an amazing experience, most consumers wouldn't go to all the trouble required to make it work.
There are a few caveats besides the ones that were mentioned:
- The most recent nvidia drivers are crappy and randomly swap the left and right eyes every 30 or so seconds for no reason. So if it doesn't look 3D, it might be because of this. You have to use the hotkey to disable and enable 3D until it happens to be correct again.
- It's hard to set up the parameters to actually give a good depth (even harder with the nvidia drivers which don't offer direct control of the parameters like the asus drivers did).
- The monitor has to be able to go very bright, because in addition to seeing it at half refresh rate, you also see it at half brightness.
- You get motion sickness far more easily, but once you get used to it, and learn to have normal breathing and posture, it's not much of a problem anymore.
- Some games end up looking way worse in 3D, like for example Dungeon Siege or Neverwinter Nights, where the illusion is broken and the characters look like tiny figurines on a tiny game board rather than like full sized characters in a real world.
I'd say that although it CAN be an amazing experience, most consumers wouldn't go to all the trouble required to make it work.
Here's something I find interesting: You can get a halfway decent 3D illusion sometimes just by covering one eye.
When you look at a monitor with two eyes, it tells your brain that the far object is definitely as distant as the close object, but that it's just smaller (some other part of the brain thinks of it as more distant because it's smaller). But if you are looking at it with only one eye, then that part of the brain will at least admit that it's possible that the far object is further (though it won't confirm it, the way it would if you had 3D glasses).
When you look at a monitor with two eyes, it tells your brain that the far object is definitely as distant as the close object, but that it's just smaller (some other part of the brain thinks of it as more distant because it's smaller). But if you are looking at it with only one eye, then that part of the brain will at least admit that it's possible that the far object is further (though it won't confirm it, the way it would if you had 3D glasses).
Aliens vs Predator 2 is a blast with shutter glasses in a dark room BTW. Creeps ya out.
Quote:
Congratulations on identifying the signature look of 3D. :)and sometimes, on a few angles, things could even appear to be closer than the screen (Link's head would pop out over my keyboard).
new: http://www.zeiss.com/cinemizer
I'm thinking... Is link me beautiful a good replacemenent for 3D glasses? ;)
one of the most interesting threads here for a long time :D
nitro2k01: thanks for this link. it's a clever solution.
nitro2k01: thanks for this link. it's a clever solution.
nitro: no, but it'd be a good complement ;) That gives you correct perspective and some motion, but the image is still 2d. It looks good on a video, but in real use the targets would move around correctly but they would be flat on the tv. Add some 3d glasses, and you'd have fun :)
Quote:
I'm thinking... Is link me beautiful a good replacemenent for 3D glasses? ;)
Only if you're blind from one eye.
psonice, xernobyl: Does the lack of stereovision really do much difference in this case?
The head tracking system and 3D glasses (The colored lenses type) are essentially two different things. Coloured lenses simulate depth by emulating the difference between the eyes, but assumes a fixed viewpoint in real space. (Doesn't emulate perspective based on head position)
I think head tracking>stereo vision (Coloured glasses, shutter lenses without head tracking) for the same reason speakers>headphones, namely that you get a difference based on your head position. (Which goes for hearing as well. We can detect "perspective" based on delays between the ears and other effects)
The most desireable system is of course dual vision glasses (Two screens in the headset) with builtin headtracking. But out of the two above I'd prefer headtracking over flat stereo vision.
The head tracking system and 3D glasses (The colored lenses type) are essentially two different things. Coloured lenses simulate depth by emulating the difference between the eyes, but assumes a fixed viewpoint in real space. (Doesn't emulate perspective based on head position)
I think head tracking>stereo vision (Coloured glasses, shutter lenses without head tracking) for the same reason speakers>headphones, namely that you get a difference based on your head position. (Which goes for hearing as well. We can detect "perspective" based on delays between the ears and other effects)
The most desireable system is of course dual vision glasses (Two screens in the headset) with builtin headtracking. But out of the two above I'd prefer headtracking over flat stereo vision.
You can always mix both methods for the best possible result.
nitro: you asked if it was a replacement for 3d - no, it's a different thing as you say. And like I say, the best option is both (head tracking + 3d glasses... assuming some kind of full vr isn't an option :)
The solution shown maybe not interesting for the home viewer, because you never move around that much in front of a TV screen - you usually sit on a fixed spot.
It's more interesting for movies or TV productions since you can place large flat screens on a set and emulate real environments outside windows or extend corridors for that. The screens than show the view for the camera that moves around the set.
It is always off putting when you view a movie or TV series and you can tell that there is no real environment outside a window or the corridor is extended by a large painting, because it doesn't move with the camera to show the right angle.
It's more interesting for movies or TV productions since you can place large flat screens on a set and emulate real environments outside windows or extend corridors for that. The screens than show the view for the camera that moves around the set.
It is always off putting when you view a movie or TV series and you can tell that there is no real environment outside a window or the corridor is extended by a large painting, because it doesn't move with the camera to show the right angle.
Quote:
The solution shown maybe not interesting for the home viewer, because you never move around that much in front of a TV screen - you usually sit on a fixed spot.
Maybe you would if you had to. But I agree. Not many ppl have much space to play.
I think being able to move even just a little would be helpful in games as a means of having finer control of the camera. As for demos, it could be awesome, it could be worthless, I don't know. In any case, it's worth trying rather than off-handedly dismissing.
As for movies and TV, it seems unlikely, because all possible angles would have to be shot and included in the video stream, or the movie would have to be generated in realtime.
Most TV and movies wouldn't even work in stereoscopy, because of all the tricks they use in filming to save on labor. Most of those tricks would not work if the viewer had real depth perception. The only kinds of movies that could be done in stereoscopy without costing many times more are ones with no special effects (eg. When Harry Met Sally: 3D) or that are entirely computerized like Shrek.
As for movies and TV, it seems unlikely, because all possible angles would have to be shot and included in the video stream, or the movie would have to be generated in realtime.
Most TV and movies wouldn't even work in stereoscopy, because of all the tricks they use in filming to save on labor. Most of those tricks would not work if the viewer had real depth perception. The only kinds of movies that could be done in stereoscopy without costing many times more are ones with no special effects (eg. When Harry Met Sally: 3D) or that are entirely computerized like Shrek.
Even if you dont have a lot of space, you have enough that shifting your head a few cm to change the perspective would increase the level of immersiveness by a huge amount.
btw, the headset in the head tracking video looks quite a bit like the Peltor LED Light safety glasses - available in .fi at least in http://www.multisafe.fi/webshop/index.php?limit=15&listStart=15
I think for TV productions it would be suitable, because you can spare the permanent post production costs for doing green screen replacement with CGI graphics over the years of shooting on the same set on the same soundstage.
From what I saw from the video it works perfect if you record the rendered graphics with a camera back on 2D material. And todays hardware is able to render a believable envirnoment in realtime while shooting a movie or TV series.
The Star Trek series would have benefittet from something like that. I often notice the paintings in the background extending a corridor or Jeffreys Tube, because the paintings don't show the angle the camera has. Event the promenade set of Deep Space nine has a big painting at one end extending the promenade. Have this replaced with a big projection screen where the promenade is extended with live rendered computer graphics by this technic it would appear suddenly completly believable instead of screaming "PAINTING ON A SOUNDSTAGE SET!" in you face while watching the show at home.
From what I saw from the video it works perfect if you record the rendered graphics with a camera back on 2D material. And todays hardware is able to render a believable envirnoment in realtime while shooting a movie or TV series.
The Star Trek series would have benefittet from something like that. I often notice the paintings in the background extending a corridor or Jeffreys Tube, because the paintings don't show the angle the camera has. Event the promenade set of Deep Space nine has a big painting at one end extending the promenade. Have this replaced with a big projection screen where the promenade is extended with live rendered computer graphics by this technic it would appear suddenly completly believable instead of screaming "PAINTING ON A SOUNDSTAGE SET!" in you face while watching the show at home.
So let me get this straight... instead of making a CG set and use cheap and quick green-screening or whatever to add it in afterwards, you make the same CG set but spend some extra time and money making it realtime, project it somehow onto a background wall, spend even more time and money getting the colour and light just right so it blends in, and use head tracking stuff on the camera.
I can just see 3 small catches here: 1. It'd cost more, 2. It'd take longer, 3. It'd look worse.
I can just see 3 small catches here: 1. It'd cost more, 2. It'd take longer, 3. It'd look worse.
Oh, I get what you mean-- using it while filming. It seems strange to use a second camera to tell where the actual camera is in relation to the prop, when you could just use the actual camera to tell where the prop is in relation to the actual camera. Also as psonice says, getting the prop color output to still look right when it is received back into the actual camera would be really hard. When they overwrite the prop later with CG, they do the lighting by filming (with the actual camera) a spherical mirror to get an environment map for that area.
BTW, there is a non-obvious benefit to stereoscopic vision. In addition to things being 3D, you can also get a much better sense of things being shiny, or sparkly. It's very hard to capture in 2D the way something like a diamond or gold looks, because most of what makes it look so unusual in real life is that it sends completely different reflections/refractions into each eye.
Unfortunately, with modern 3D implementations, since the scene is usually not completely recalculated for each eye but simply re-painted with the polygons shifted left or right using the z value of the vertices, you don't get this benefit at all.
Unfortunately, with modern 3D implementations, since the scene is usually not completely recalculated for each eye but simply re-painted with the polygons shifted left or right using the z value of the vertices, you don't get this benefit at all.
Quote:
A very valid point! Thanks!BTW, there is a non-obvious benefit to stereoscopic vision. In addition to things being 3D, you can also get a much better sense of things being shiny, or sparkly. It's very hard to capture in 2D the way something like a diamond or gold looks, because most of what makes it look so unusual in real life is that it sends completely different reflections/refractions into each eye.
(Provided that the algorithm actually does this extra work for shiny materials)