3D Cliffs Of Dover Pictures

[Les]

Glad it's working for you.

I didn't calculate the distance I had to move the camera. I'm sure though it must be more than the actual distance between the average pair of eyes. I just looked at some other pictures that worked and adjusted these pictures to what I guessed was a similar amount.

I think there would definitely be an upper limit to the distance you can move the camera before the brain just can't reconcile such different images.

Am trying to see if I can recreate this in video form too, but am having difficulties dealing with the idiosyncracies of the games track playback system at the moment.

[AndyJWest]

Another technique to try is Wiggle stereoscopy, using animated gifs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggle_...le_stereoscopy). I've taken the liberty of trying this with on of Les's images:



I think that the two viewpoints are too far apart to work well, and the rate of image switching needs fine-tuning, but it shows promise. For a better example of the technique, see this one that Raaaid posted here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=43

[Les]

Wow, that gif is hyper, I get stressed out just looking at it.

Checked out some of those other wiggle pictures. Didn't get much out of them tbh.

Am uploading a 3D Cliffs of Dover test video at the moment that works using the cross-eyed technique.

[GF_Mastiff]

do you guys know if the old pair of 3D extreme glasses will work on a 28 inch LCD I havent tried yet as the connectors are from the old VGS 16 pin

So looking at the clod pictures , I can't tell the difference at all.

[JG26_EZ]

Originally Posted by winny

The photo that was linked in one of the earlier posts that has the picture of the dinosaur, best describes what irR4tiOn4L is trying to say (I think). If you look closely, you can see that the nose moves less than the rear section of the head. This is the depth perception problem that I believe is being discussed above.

So, I think that it's not just as easy as taking an image from two different angles when you've got such depth as miles of background visible. My suggestion would be, to crop the spit away from the background, and have the spitfire's amount of adjustment different than the background scenery's adjustment. (Basically, if you were 5 feet in front of a spitfire looking back at it, and you moved your head from side to side, you'd see more unseen areas of the spitfire than you'd see of the background.)

If ya get me..

(I'd set it up, but it is 100% impossible for me to see 3D with those types of images, and my eye doctor will back me up on that one.)

[Ailantd]

Having researched 3D stereoscopy myself I can tell you that 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. Of course depth is also more noticeable in close objects that in very far ones. That´s normal: you can accurately tell the distance between two close object in cm, but hardly you will do the same between two aircraft even in kilometers without using other info like apparent size.

The main probem with nvidia screenshots is the shadow. It seems that shadow map is not recalculed for the second screenshot ( don´t know if thsis is driver problem or it needs to be implementd by devs, but I would bet for the second one), so shadow projection in the second image fails.

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by JG26_EZ

The photo that was linked in one of the earlier posts that has the picture of the dinosaur, best describes what irR4tiOn4L is trying to say (I think). If you look closely, you can see that the nose moves less than the rear section of the head. This is the depth perception problem that I believe is being discussed above.

So, I think that it's not just as easy as taking an image from two different angles when you've got such depth as miles of background visible. My suggestion would be, to crop the spit away from the background, and have the spitfire's amount of adjustment different than the background scenery's adjustment. (Basically, if you were 5 feet in front of a spitfire looking back at it, and you moved your head from side to side, you'd see more unseen areas of the spitfire than you'd see of the background.)

If ya get me..

(I'd set it up, but it is 100% impossible for me to see 3D with those types of images, and my eye doctor will back me up on that one.)

Problem with that dinosaur is that 3d effect is achieved moving the dino head, and no simulating the two eyes point of view. The 3d effect is similar, but the way the model moves is not. As you noted in real stereoscopic the closer an object is to the eyes, the more shift it has between the two images.

[JG26_EZ]

Yes, and the pic was only to show the difference between the foreground vs. the background.

[Faman]

Uh what's the fuzz? I already have Nvidia 3D Vision with glasses and Acer 3D Monitor. Tested CoD longtime ago and most noticable are the in-cockpit views and it's depth. Outside views don't differ much and I rather see a 2D screen for the landscape in the background.