Post Reply 
Loss of 3D...?
Author Message
ZiNgA BuRgA
Smart Alternative

Posts: 17,024.1882
Threads: 1,174
Joined: 19th Jan 2007
Reputation: -1.71391
E-Pigs: 446.1887
Offline
Post: #9
RE: Loss of 3D...?
(31/08/2011 06:26 PM)SkyDX Wrote:  it would be just interesting to know if this kind of technology can ever "emulate" all aspects wee need for real 3D as it evolves.

Quote:Humans use at least 5 tricks to determine the three-dimensional makeup of a scene:
1. Focal depth: based on how much the eye's lens has to focus
2. Convergence: based on the slight differences in pointing of the two eyes to a target
3. Stereopsis (static parallax): based on the slight differences between the left and right eye images
4. Motion parallax: based on the different displacements/motions of objects at different distances (e.g. as you move your head)
5. Visual inference: reconstructing using cues like occlusion, lighting, etc.

In the real world, all 5 of those systems work in concert, giving you a consistent understanding of your environment. The problem with modern 3D implementations is that they only trick you using only two, or maybe three, of the above. For instance "3D glasses" are showing you different left/right images, creating fake stereopsis, but the focal distance is still "to the screen" and doesn't match the apparent parallax-based distance to objects. So your brain is rightly confused because the various systems are giving conflicting answers. Amazingly our brains have no problem looking at two-dimensional images like pictures and conventional movies: in such cases 1-4 don't work, and our brains instead just use #5 to fully reconstruct/guess at the three-dimensional nature of the scene. A few optical illusions notwithstanding, this works remarkably well.

[...]

In principle wee could combine techniques to make for a more convincing sort of 3D. E.g. combine motion parallax (eye tracking) with stereopsis (3D glasses). But it won't be truly convincing (and thus headache-free) until wee fully reconstruct the three-dimensional light-field that should properly be emanating from the virtual objects. Doing this requires some very good holography, to fully reconstruct the required light waveforms, or something like anisotropic pixels that can control their emission as a function of viewing angle. In the meantime, 3D will remain a bit of a gimmick outside of some niche applications.
31/08/2011 07:14 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
Loss of 3D...? - SkyDX - 30/08/2011, 05:31 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - lembas - 30/08/2011, 05:40 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - SkyDX - 30/08/2011, 05:42 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - lembas - 30/08/2011, 06:43 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - ZiNgA BuRgA - 30/08/2011, 09:24 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - trademark91 - 31/08/2011, 12:08 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - krystabegnalie - 31/08/2011, 02:57 AM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - SkyDX - 31/08/2011, 06:26 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - ZiNgA BuRgA - 31/08/2011 07:14 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - SkyDX - 02/09/2011, 05:09 PM
RE: Loss of 3D...? - ZiNgA BuRgA - 04/09/2011, 02:57 AM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

 Quick Theme: