Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
I think I see what you mean. The depth on your pictures is set from the point of view of the camera, as if the monitor screen itself is where our eyes are placed. This results in a more realistic sense of depth from an in-game point of view. Whereas the depth on my pictures is set as if looking from my own actual eyes at objects on a monitor, making them look more like little models seen from 'outside' the game world.
|
Its actually something different, and the lack of 'pop out' in my pictures is by accident, not design. Basically, my seperation (the shift between the left and right eye perspectives) is set based on an approximation of how far the pilot's eyes, ingame, would be apart. I try and shift the camera by about 10 ingame centimetres, regardless of monitor/where my own eyes are.
In practice, this makes for a fairly realistic depth and seperation that then means there's no popout - objects appearing to be closer to me than my own monitor - because ingame, there were no objects that actually came that close to the camera's position! In other words, because you are looking at planes that are 5-50m away, you are not supposed to have them appearing to be closer than the 1m or so you sit from your monitor!
In your photos, you seem to have shifted the perspectives more than 10 ingame cm's or so and this has the effect of making everything look smaller - because relative to the gap between your eyes, everything IS smaller!
Imagine if you measured the world based upon the distance between your eyes (which we kind of do when it comes to 3d) - if the distance between your eyes increases, the world will suddenly appear smaller!
So that's why your photos seem more like tiny models - because your seperation might be as much as an ingame meter or two, not roughly 10cm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
Of course, which of these depths, or some level inbetween, people prefer to actually use or see, is up to them. To show off the 3D effect in the most obvious way I'd probably push it as far as I did in the pictures I posted. But if I were to actually game in 3D, I'd probably use a setting closer to the ones you've shown, as I generally do prefer to see things depicted in a more immersive life-like way.
|
This is definitely true. 3D effects are of course much stronger with larger seperations. If you are dealing with objects 50+ m away, and your depth perception only goes to say a km (by which point there is too little difference between the left and right eye perspectives to see stereoscopic depth), then making everything appear smaller so that objects previously 50m away are now 5m away and objects 10km away are now a 1km away will definitely improve the 3d effect.
But it wont be realistic, everything will look small and itll be tiring on the eyes.
Still, many people like this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
I think Aliantd summed it up well - "...for a realistic effect two things are needed: First, the shift between the two virtual cameras should be the same in game that in real between the two eyes. With only this you have a "realistic" representation of depth in game, BUT an unrealistic feeling of it, because... the fov and monitor size. For a realistic and natural feeling you also need to fit the fov to a realistic value AND use a surface where that realistic fov actually fits your real field of view. If you do both you will have a complete being there feeling with a nice and beliable depth effect..."
Until we can screen things life-size, with a life-like resolution or amount of detail, and using a life-like FOV, there's always going to be a compromise required when trying to recreate a realistic in-game world, especially in 3D.
|
Thats true and in practice you can generally set these things with 3d vision and the like.
However, the most impressive effects - generally the tiny model effect which maximises depth - is really hard on the eyes longer term when playing these games. Its also unrealistic any way you cut it. Hence why I think, generally, a small amount of seperation for a realistic appearance is best for longer term play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les
We can't forget either that it's actually other (probably currently impossible) in-game details we require in order to determine three-dimensionality, especially when it comes to perceiving depth at distances beyond our capability to resolve it stereoscopically. Shadowing, relative size (of known objects), colour or tone (how it changes over distance) are what we use in real life to determine where objects are in relation to each other, and if that information is lacking in-game the 3D illusion won't be complete regardless of the level or accuracy of the (comparitively limited) stereoscopic effects.
There are even physiological cues we get from our eyes that help us determine three dimensionality in our surroundings, muscles that expand and contract in our eyes and which we can actually feel. If the 3D illusion doesn't trigger those responses it will always seem a little bit off somehow, or even worse, cause discomfort or strain.
All in all there's a long way to go yet.
|
True, but having said that, many of these are already present making the 3d effect pretty darn good.
Generally strain is not bad with realistic seperation (Again, making the planes appear a metre from you is very hard on the eyes) and mostly comes from the flickering/darkening of the image.
You can even improve depth perception WITHOUT stereoscopic 3d by using a fresnel lens in front of your monitor. This basically straightens the light coming out of the monitor to appear as if its source was further back and makes the monitor appear like a large surface some distance from you - which apparently has benefits for our perception of depth in the image.