Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep doing that and you'll go blind

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#21

Post by tocomment »

rationalbeaver wrote: post #17
JunkDNA wrote: post #7

I really wish there was a way to do 3D that allowed your eyes and brain to naturally do what they do in the real world, though perhaps we're a long way from that? Anyone familiar with or doing any research on better mechanisms for 3D? I have yet to experience any sort of 3D entertainment that isn't (at least initially) disorienting. The need to wear glasses constantly ruins the experience. But even beyond that, the u…

To your point about camera focus: I believe that this was addressed in Avatar by rendering the whole scene in focus (which makes it look cartoony if you aren't viewing in 3D). To your main point: The 3D still didn't feel completely natural. I did not feel like the camera was forcing me to focus on anything in particular, but I did feel like the whole thing was slightly blurry. Maybe it was my position in the theater…

No, Avatar did seem to focus only on one thing at a time to me. I noticed it distinctly. I was in a non-imax though.

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#22

Post by tocomment »

JunkDNA wrote: post #7

I really wish there was a way to do 3D that allowed your eyes and brain to naturally do what they do in the real world, though perhaps we're a long way from that? Anyone familiar with or doing any research on better mechanisms for 3D? I have yet to experience any sort of 3D entertainment that isn't (at least initially) disorienting. The need to wear glasses constantly ruins the experience. But even beyond that, the u…

I completely agree with you. 3D would be so much more immersive if I could look around.

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#24

Post by eru »

tocomment wrote: post #19
gjm11 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Updating them in real time is difficult. You need a feature size comparable to the wavelength of the light being used, which would mean somewhat less than 1um. The smallest pixel sizes in LCDs these days are on the order of 5um across or so. Other kinds of imagers (DLP, for instance) are comparable or worse.

I don't understand. Can't we just have holograms with lower resolution?

Holograms don't work that way. It's a bit like a fourier-transform: One pixel on your holographic display does not correspond to one tiny feature in your image.

(Perhaps you can find more answers in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Generated_Holography and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography for the basics.)

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#25

Post by xenonite »

moving your head doesn't change the picture.

another limitation: the surrounding light of your living room doesn't influence the screen.

This would be the only current limitations, right?

Those devices could change that: "Towards Passive 6D Reflectance Field Displays" http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/prfdisplays/

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#26

Post by winthrowe »

tocomment wrote: post #21
rationalbeaver wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your point about camera focus: I believe that this was addressed in Avatar by rendering the whole scene in focus (which makes it look cartoony if you aren't viewing in 3D). To your main point: The 3D still didn't feel completely natural. I did not feel like the camera was forcing me to focus on anything in particular, but I did feel like the whole thing was slightly blurry. Maybe it was my position in the theater…

No, Avatar did seem to focus only on one thing at a time to me. I noticed it distinctly. I was in a non-imax though.

Having been able to see it both formats, I found that I was able to shift my gaze and focus on something in the foreground or background in a well positioned imax seat. The other 3d format (RealD?) was far more locked to a chosen foreground object it seemed to me. YMMV

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#27

Post by sp332 »

barrkel wrote: post #10
sdfx wrote: post #4

From the article: The Wikipedia entry on depth perception (an excellent read) lists ten different cues that your brain uses to figure out exactly how far away something is. Parallax is just one of them. Since the various movie and television display technologies only offer parallax-based depth cues, your brain basically has to ignore several other cues while you're immersed in the world of Avatar. This is why the 3D…

From the Wikipedia article, of the 13 depth cues, only 2 aren't properly present in 3D films - accommodation (having to focus the eyes) and peripheral vision - and the peripheral vision cue is also missing from regular cinema, TV etc. So are there more things going on here? It seems unlikely to me that the focus of the eye lens is having a big impact.

Accommodation makes a big difference if you're near- or far-sighted.

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#28

Post by epochwolf »

xenonite wrote: post #25

moving your head doesn't change the picture. another limitation: the surrounding light of your living room doesn't influence the screen. This would be the only current limitations, right? Those devices could change that: "Towards Passive 6D Reflectance Field Displays" http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/prfdisplays/

There is an additional limitation I noticed with 3D movies. You are stuck with the focus of the camera used, you can't bring distant objects into focus because they are out of focus on the film.

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#29

Post by Splines »

gjm11 wrote: post #16
tocomment wrote: post #6

I wish we could just move to holograms. What's holding us back exactly? I could never find a straight answer.

Updating them in real time is difficult. You need a feature size comparable to the wavelength of the light being used, which would mean somewhat less than 1um. The smallest pixel sizes in LCDs these days are on the order of 5um across or so. Other kinds of imagers (DLP, for instance) are comparable or worse.

I played a 3-d game that had the same game mechanics as Dragon's Lair (the protagonist was a time-traveling cowboy).

While each scene was pre-rendered (it was pre-recorded live action), the effect was impressive, especially considering this was probably about 15 years ago.

edit: Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Traveler_(video_game)

Re: Keep doing that and you'll go blind

#30

Post by daveungerer »

tocomment wrote: post #20
daveungerer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did we read the same article? 2D TV doesn't trick the brain into thinking it's 3D. Your brain can clearly see it's 2D. When you view fake 3D, the brain thinks it's 3D. But now that your brain is in 3D mode, it has to turn off processing for a lot of cues it would normally take into account, due to the fake 3D not being a complete simulation of reality.

The article says there are 10 depth perception cues. ONE of them is showing different images to each eye. 2D images do have some of the 10 cues. What is special about this ONE cue and not the ones that a 2D image has? I.e., why does your brain turn off processing for the differing images to each eye cue but not for the parralax cue, etc?

What's special about this ONE cue? Ummm... how about the fact that it can trick your brain into believing it's viewing 3D without including most of the others? I mean... you just said a 2D image doesn't have this one cue, but has the others. That, by definition, makes it special.

But your second paragraph show's me this is all based on confusion. The parallax cue and processing different images for each eye are the same thing, not 2 different things as you're implying. And that's the one of the cues that's NOT turned off.

I'm not defending what the author is saying. I just feel you should read the article again, because your statements don't seem to address anything said in the article.

Post reply on HN