3D Cliffs Of Dover Pictures

[JG26_EZ]

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

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Les

While I did push the 3D separation about as far as I could in order to make the 3D effect as obvious as possible, I'm not sure I agree with you about what the 'correct' depth/separation should be. I have my doubts that the kind of depth separation you're describing is actually possible to create on something as small as even the largest computer monitor. I'm not even sure it happens in real-life, where there are also limits to the distance at which we can perceive things stereoscopically. Do you have any pictures to show what you mean?

I will try to put together a picture that shows what I mean (as soon as i figure out CLOD's camera controls for enough precision). But to see what I mean, just compare your screenshots to the nvidia ones (ignoring the shadows). Notice that when looking, for example, at the cockpit in Nividia's effect, it looks like it is some way in front of you - but yours look like a model right in front of you.

The 3d effect should not really be that strong anyway - in reality, as someone pointed out, far off objects are all focussed close to each other and stereoscopy is very limited - after all, how different will an object 10km away look to eyes seperated by 10cm? Hardly any stereoscopic effect will be visible at that distance.

The other problem I was describing really had to do with nvidia's old drivers on edimensional glasses in IL2 and the inability to get a decent effect along with a decent cockpit depth. I dont know if thats still the case, but your photos are being done manually anyway.

As someone pointed out, FOV might also be something that needs to be taken into account.

EDIT: Well, these are my efforts. Second has lower FOV and slight angle change, and is probably closer to the mark in terms of apparent size of the cockpit and depth outside the cockpit. Not quite right either way though.






EDIT: Best exterior shot I could get - sorry, camera controls are super fiddly. Its not much different to yours, tbh. But notice how it looks 'deeper' into the monitor, rather than appearing to 'pop out' of it. Nothing should be 'popping out' of the monitor unless its literally closer than a metre or so.




These are certainly not the height of 3d, but if you compare to yours, almost all of yours have something that appears to be closer than the bezel of my monitor. This is too close for things that, in most cases, are about 5-50m away. The 3d effect is of course stronger as a result, but its probably stronger than it would be in reality.

While watching the various screenshots here, try 'grabbing' at them (without obscuring them) with your hands - how far are you reaching when it seems you are 'touching' them?

[SQB]

Well whaddaya know, I was experimenting with some 3d pictures in Il2 just last week! I should post them up here...
imgur link

I'm confused. The pictures look the same , what am I missing?

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by machoo

I'm confused. The pictures look the same , what am I missing?

You need to go crosseyed. Take a finger in front of you, watch it with your eyes, then bring it up to your nose. Now look at the monitor and SLOWLY de-cross your eyes until the 3d picture comes into focus.

What you will see is a stereoscopic 3d image that is just as good as using Nvidia 3dvision/other shutterglasses/polarised glasses, but much more uncomfortable and much smaller. If you like this, you should look into getting 3d vision or similar.

[Les]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

...These are certainly not the height of 3d, but if you compare to yours, almost all of yours have something that appears to be closer than the bezel of my monitor. This is too close for things that, in most cases, are about 5-50m away. The 3d effect is of course stronger as a result, but its probably stronger than it would be in reality...

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.

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.

I think it'll be a while before that happens though.

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.

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.

[irR4tiOn4L]

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.

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

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.

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.

[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.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by 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.

We weren't actually discussing 3D vision per se but the 3d pictures les posted here and the ones i did - which were made by manually stitching together screenshots, not using 3D vision. We were just discussing the proper depth and seperation that should appear.

3D vision seems to have about the right depth from the photos posted by les that were made using it, but it does have some of its own issues of course like shadows and trees it seems.

Back when I tested IL2 though, the 3d effect seemed borked due to the dificulty of getting good results on both the outside world and cockpit.

[raaaid]

hey i tried stereoscopy in the game and didnt work

does the iz3d drivers work?

can you do this with the game?