Passive 3D or Active 3D - "True 1080p" aside - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 102 Old 10-09-2013, 09:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11867581:

"RESULTS:A consistent ocular counterroll corresponding to the amount of head tilt was observed in all subjects. Maximum torsional amplitude was 10 degrees at a 45-degree head tilt. The relative amount of compensation ranged between 13% and 22% of the actual head tilt, decreasing with increasing head tilt."

So while our eyes roll when we tilt our heads, they only compensate a very small amount. Devedander's illustration a few posts above (the rightmost depiction) would appear to be largely incorrect. This seems to agree with what I found above, that we can fuse only a small amount of vertical disparity.

It was exaggerated as I was trying to make the point visible while drawing with ms paint on a trackpad.

That said the point is your eyes are not attached rigidly to your skull like the two cameras would be that are used to take stereo imaging and vertical parallax is something that is introduced on a regular basis of every day viewing. We do not always see in perfect left right parallax only.

I think I really need to just crank out the test images because all this theoretical debate gets us nowhere and not even fast. I am perfect ready to accept that I cannot actually perceive depth from vertical parallax alone however all my experiences watching 3D movies up until this point (some of them indeed lying down) makes me really need to see the test done right to believe it. Because I am absolutely sure I could feel the depth difference with my eyes of foreground objects in hugo while lying on my side.

I think what a lot of people are missing out on is that I am not making a simple argument from A to D, I am doing A to B to C to D.

That's why tgm keeps thinking what I bring up is a red hearing... I think he thinks it's my argument, it's not, it's a supporting argument for the direction I am going.

Basically what I am saying is Thesis: You are able to extrapolate real depth information from purely vertical parallax image data.

Supporting theories:

A: Your eyes naturally function outside of pure left/right parallax (this is the whole point of bringing eyeball roll into the conversation, it's not a red hearing, but the first step in proving you normally deal with vertical parallax)

B: Essentially your brain is not a computer chip that can only do one thing and in only one way when it comes to depth perception

C: Once we accept that pure left right parallax is not absolutely necessary to get depth information from stereo pair images we can explore whether it's really possible or not on purely vertical parallax.

Again this is all really silly as I pointed out earlier, a test pattern can pretty quickly reveal whether or not you can determine depth from vertical parallax in a horizontal offset or not .

Until then I am many others can attest to the (claimed) perception of depth while watching entire movies lying down (without notable eye strain I may add) and you and many others may continue to tell us how that is not possible.

Thank you for at least being open enough to research the idea I put forth (eyeball roll) instead of just figuring out how to explain to me it's wrong before even understanding the idea yourself. If others were so inclined this might not have stretched into quite the long explanation of such a simple point as it has... most of page three is trying to convince tgm that your eyes roll in their sockets while he tries to convince me about something else entirely.

I am totally open to the possibility that all the depth I perceive while lying down watching 3D is purely occlusion, contrast, brightness etc based and not stereo based, I just would like to test it in a way that is not subjective nor based on expectations of how other things we do relate or support this function.,

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 102 Old 10-09-2013, 10:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
motorman45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vermont
Posts: 565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Likewise I apologize that my previous response was a bit snippy, but in the context of the current discussion it seemed like you were claiming the impossible, that the Omega 3D system resolved the head tilt/vertical parallax problem that is inherent to 3D displays.

I also take 3D photographs, and one of my biggest challenges is getting the camera perfectly level when I take a picture. A lot of my photos are nonetheless slightly misaligned. I find my eyes can deal with a little vertical disparity, but certainly not a lot. Even a little seems to increase discomfort.

its all good. i might have better addressed where the thread was at. as far as head tilt issue the omega filters do function while laying sidways as thye are not polarizing like passive glasses used for tv's. it of course cannot change the image paralax or perception with head roll and eye roll while trying to see stereo sideways. i agree ones eye can deal with a little missalignment but not a lot .
i find that a single camera on a precision slide gets better image alignment than two cameras due to slight alignment differences in cameras when using two.

motorman45 is offline  
post #93 of 102 Old 10-09-2013, 04:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Hold an object with writing on it in front of you. Tilt your head 90 degrees left. It's become difficult to read.

Tilt the object the same direction as your head, and notice if it becomes easier to read. If it does, your eyeballs probably do not roll around in your skull.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #94 of 102 Old 10-09-2013, 06:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I tested again looking at my eyes in a mirror as I tilt my head 90 degrees. What I observed was consistent with the information I dug up yesterday. My eyes do indeed roll, but only a small amount. When my head is at 90 degrees, my eyes are perhaps 80.

I think this confirms that if you view a 3D TV with your head tilted, your eyes would have to converge vertically (actually, diverge) to construct a stereoscopic image. But again, according to the information I found yesterday, we can only fuse a very small amount of vertical disparity. Perhaps it's possible that our eyes would operate differently when given nothing but vertical disparity, but I haven't found information to suggest that.

My guess is you're getting a sort of pseudo-3D effect in this situation. You still have two different images, so it might feel stereoscopic-ish even if our eyes and brain can't fuse them into an actual stereoscopic image. Also, simply not being 2D will help the monocular 3D cues come to the front, similar to if you crossed your eyes or closed one eye while watching a 2D image. The problem with 2D is it has plenty of 3D properties, but our stereoscopic vision steps on them, telling our brain that it is in fact flat.
Airion is offline  
post #95 of 102 Old 10-09-2013, 07:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Hold an object with writing on it in front of you. Tilt your head 90 degrees left. It's become difficult to read.

Tilt the object the same direction as your head, and notice if it becomes easier to read. If it does, your eyeballs probably do not roll around in your skull.

This is actually a pretty bad test for a few reasons. I can actually read sideways quite easily. Also upside down quite easily. Its certainly a little difficult for a few minutes until I adjust to the task but once I do I am nearly as fast an accurate as normally. If anything this proves my point the brain can adjust to functioning outside the norm if just given a little time to do so.

As for eyes rolling around in your skull, please read back a few posts... it's a fact they do to some extent and are not locked in line with the rest of your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I tested again looking at my eyes in a mirror as I tilt my head 90 degrees. What I observed was consistent with the information I dug up yesterday. My eyes do indeed roll, but only a small amount. When my head is at 90 degrees, my eyes are perhaps 80.

I think this confirms that if you view a 3D TV with your head tilted, your eyes would have to converge vertically (actually, diverge) to construct a stereoscopic image. But again, according to the information I found yesterday, we can only fuse a very small amount of vertical disparity. Perhaps it's possible that our eyes would operate differently when given nothing but vertical disparity, but I haven't found information to suggest that.

My guess is you're getting a sort of pseudo-3D effect in this situation. You still have two different images, so it might feel stereoscopic-ish even if our eyes and brain can't fuse them into an actual stereoscopic image. Also, simply not being 2D will help the monocular 3D cues come to the front, similar to if you crossed your eyes or closed one eye while watching a 2D image. The problem with 2D is it has plenty of 3D properties, but our stereoscopic vision steps on them, telling our brain that it is in fact flat.

This is very much what I have been saying... and why i suggested creating the test patterns with generic shapes that have no 3D queues other than their convergence. This would let us test truly whether you can detect depth from viewing horizontal parallax in a vertical offset without things like occlusion and size recognition playing a roll.

That idea was dismissed as overly complicating the subject but I think it's really the only way to know for sure.

That said this brings the question even if you can't get true depth information from vertical parallax.does that mean you don't really get a 3D effect? Kind of like the question of whether higher resolution matters if it just looks good at lower resolution anyway.

Whilst we wait for me to get around to the finicky task of making test slides, could I just ask that you all try watching a movie laying down? I don't just mean tilt your head and go "nope" but watch for a good portion? Maybe 30 minutes?

I ask because as I noted to cakefoo above, it becomes much easier for me to read sideways after a few minutes of doing so.

Tests have shown that if you are given lenses that invert what you see, after a day or two, your brain corrects and you see right side up again and normally.

I wonder if perhaps after a short while your brain is able to sort out the fact you are laying on your side, and effectively rotate the image back into the correct plane to recognize right left parallax even if it's presented as up down.

I know several people have mentioned that vertical offset in stereo photography causes eye strain quickly however I have not found any notable eye strain from watching movies laying down and neither have the 2 or 3 other people I know who have done it. Perhaps there is a difference...

Also perhaps it helps I am watching a 55 inch set from a good 10 feet away... if you are right up against your monitor or have a huge screen perhaps it's different...

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #96 of 102 Old 10-09-2013, 09:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

That said this brings the question even if you can't get true depth information from vertical parallax.does that mean you don't really get a 3D effect? Kind of like the question of whether higher resolution matters if it just looks good at lower resolution anyway.

You can't get a stereoscopic 3D effect, which is the point of these TVs. You can either see it or you can't, there's really no middle ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

I wonder if perhaps after a short while your brain is able to sort out the fact you are laying on your side, and effectively rotate the image back into the correct plane to recognize right left parallax even if it's presented as up down.

Our eyes would still need to move in accordance with the actual orientation of the image. Remember that our eyes are constantly moving around to look at different parts of and depths of the image. Even if we assume that our brains could process it, there's a significant physical hurdle first. Instead of converging left and right to focus on different depths, our eyes would need to diverge up and down.
Airion is offline  
post #97 of 102 Old 10-10-2013, 07:26 AM
Member
 
spectrogj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think there a few posts here that do not make any sense or are misleading.

What % of the population watches 3D or reads standing on their head or with their head tilted to 90-deg. for very long?

Your eyes do not roll like marbles in your eye sockets or you would fall down because you would not be able to focus. your eyes automatically correct like a Gyroscope

I think a main issue of watching 3D TV on your side being a problem is due to the Polarizers or Active glasses are not designed well and naturally skew the image when you turn your head even though your eyes correct. It's not your eyes but the glasses that cause eye strain etc...


Even ESPN dropped their bid for 3D sports television because nobody came.

3D Movies are meant to be watched with no eye strain and enjoyment for all.

Passive projection like the movie theater is probably the best way to go.
spectrogj is offline  
post #98 of 102 Old 10-10-2013, 10:44 AM
Member
 
spectrogj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

You can't get a stereoscopic 3D effect, which is the point of these TVs. You can either see it or you can't, there's really no middle ground.
Our eyes would still need to move in accordance with the actual orientation of the image. Remember that our eyes are constantly moving around to look at different parts of and depths of the image. Even if we assume that our brains could process it, there's a significant physical hurdle first. Instead of converging left and right to focus on different depths, our eyes would need to diverge up and down.


yes,
your eyes are constantly moving around not just your eye.
You would have to be a cameleon for your eyes to move independent and focus at different depths
If you look away to a different part of the screen to see depth of field, both of your eyes focus on it not just one.

Also,
you would be hugely unattractive with one of your eyes darting around in your head while the other is stationary.
spectrogj is offline  
post #99 of 102 Old 10-10-2013, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectrogj View Post

I think there a few posts here that do not make any sense or are misleading.

What % of the population watches 3D or reads standing on their head or with their head tilted to 90-deg. for very long?

Your eyes do not roll like marbles in your eye sockets or you would fall down because you would not be able to focus. your eyes automatically correct like a Gyroscope

I think a main issue of watching 3D TV on your side being a problem is due to the Polarizers or Active glasses are not designed well and naturally skew the image when you turn your head even though your eyes correct. It's not your eyes but the glasses that cause eye strain etc...


Even ESPN dropped their bid for 3D sports television because nobody came.

3D Movies are meant to be watched with no eye strain and enjoyment for all.

Passive projection like the movie theater is probably the best way to go.
TV's use circular polarization like Real D theaters use. I can tilt my head about 45 degrees without crosstalk, while still maintaining a good stereo effect. Past that and I get a slight strain. But people need to remember, when doing these tests, to focus on backgrounds, because there's little to no disparity on things that are the central focus of a hollywood movie (take your glasses off and the main character is almost always sharp and not doubled). The further out from the screen something pops or sinks inward, the more the horizontal disparity in normal viewing, and vertical disparity with your head tilted.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #100 of 102 Old 10-10-2013, 12:36 PM
Member
 
spectrogj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why in the world are you tilting your head from vertical?
If you are lying down your eyes should correct but not necessarily the glasses
The circular polarizer changes with rotation

3D Problems solved!!

Just kidding
spectrogj is offline  
post #101 of 102 Old 12-25-2013, 10:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I've found for 3D, the bigger the screen the better. Being able to sit far away from the screen helps with comfort also. I take the money I'd spend on a 20Ft or greater screen, 4K, larger color pallet, 120fps per eye passive 3D system (like they have at the theater) and go to the Theater because you can't buy that system for home yet. At least not without spending a fortune. Plus I make points with the wife by taking her out- priceless. If people don't support 3D at the theaters, it will go away and then what will you watch on that expensive home system?

BTW I have a passive set at home.
Bill is offline  
post #102 of 102 Old 12-26-2013, 12:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
motorman45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vermont
Posts: 565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
i agree going to see 3d in the theaters supports the home 3d thats available. but not many theaters have 4k and its not 120hz , 24hz is the standard, few movies have been made in even 48hz or 60 so far. i know james cameron wants 60 or 120hs as the standard but its not there yet.

motorman45 is offline  
Reply 3D Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off