Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gary Lightfoot
OK. That makes sense, but I have to say that from my experience, my screen seems closer with the lights on than it does when they are off and a movie is playing. That doesn't seem to concur with the above so do you have any thoughts on why that may be?
I think the brain instantaneously creates perception from combining visual cues. What cues are available and their relative strengths would change when you turn off the lights, reducing or removing the cues from the rest of the room and increasing your attention to and probably the contrast of the screen image.
Have you ever tired using the same set up but with the screen having a forward rake the top tilted towards the viewer, or a curved screen or curved screen with a forward rake? As that should create some inconsistency in eye focus distance. Creating a cue that what you are looking at is three dimensional. While the focus distance is also inconsistent with other cues as to relative distance of one object in the image in comparison to other objects in the image. When I tried it, it increased three dimensionality of the image and perception of image depth.
I maybe misremembering but I think I read that Cinerama screens were curved and had a forward rake, so not only were they larger occupying more of the viewers field of view they also had inconsistent eye focus distance across the screen.
Also while removing the room may enhance the image I do not think that is always the case. In some cases maybe the room could enhance the image. Bias lighting or a shadow box effect might increase the perception of depth and three dimensionality of the image.
There was a phase I think in the 1950s to 1960s where some cinema screens were designed to have a shadow box to in theory enhance the illusion of depth and three dimensionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gary Lightfoot
Do you mean the cues which may show a mountain range or the inside of a room? I would have thought that your eyes would be focused on the screen plane so the movie cues wouldn't make much difference, or is it just a perception thing where the brain believes what it is seeing?
Yes its just a perception thing the brain I think gets a lot of different cues and creates perception from them. While some cues are stronger than others, and the strength of cues can depend on things like viewer distance, there is not one cue that dictates perception, they all compete and complement each other.
For example a simple line perspective drawing of a three dimensional chair and table you do not perceive as just geometric shapes but as the three dimensional objects depicted. But you know that its a image not a true real three dimensional object. Increase the number of cues of depth and three dimensionality and the image appears more and more real. The more real it appears the easier immersion becomes the acceptance of it as reality.
A good projector set up I find can appear very three dimensional with both image depth and things coming out of the screen without using 3D binocular disparity. And can appear very real have for lack of a better way of putting it image solidity the objects looking like real solid objects not a picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gary Lightfoot
That's what I thought - the closer you are and the bigger the image on the retina, which concurs with Fox, Dolby etc etc.
I think that is because central vision is detail and color sensitive. Hunter gatherer is the food ripe. As you move away from central vision it is more motion detection is a predator stalking you, running at you. The illusion that things are real moving objects is greatly enhanced by the image filing more of the viewers field of view. So it aids in the illusion the objects are real and also the illusion that you are really moving, really there.
I also find non visual things enhance immersion as well. I like surround sound and have a active sub woofer for low frequencies and a tactile inducer bass shaker.