The Vive discussion Thread
- Thread starter vanfanel
- Start date
that's correct and the image was created with one camera, at one viewpoint, then split and offset (that's the hardware bit I was talking about) and presented to each eye to create a "3D" image, exactly like I explained.
It is possible, with existing hardware, to take a single image, just like the 150 year old example I provided, send it to a single display (like the OR) and each eye will see a different "viewpoint" creating a "3D" image for the viewer. This can be done, with existing hardware, without relying on the GPU. Aspherical lenses, with 4:3 aspect ratio, for example , can also make the need for "warping" the image in a post process procedure unnecessary and greatly reduce the dependency on the GPU even further. I'm very tired of this already. Please start your own thread and you can argue it to your hearts content.
The top one has proper parallax, and would result in a 3D image if you extrated both frames and displayed them side by side in the rift, or on a 3D display. You would do well to notice the shift in perspective from one frame to the next, which shows more or less of the objects in question.
This bottom one was made using your "totally legit method that works". I took a single image from a single viewpoint, then shifted it. I exaggerated the offest to clearly show that there is NO shift in perspective from one frame to the next. There is no new information available between frames.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
You are rightish that 3D has been done for 150 years. You are wrong about it being done with only one viewpoint. It has always been done by taking two separate pictures.
You can keep telling me I know nothing about the subject however, when I am creating stereoscopic images from scratch in a few minutes time.
Here is a still example:
Again you would note the different information being displayed from left vs right sides
This information is not present with a single viewpoint.
This bottom one was made using your "totally legit method that works". I took a single image from a single viewpoint, then shifted it. I exaggerated the offest to clearly show that there is NO shift in perspective from one frame to the next. There is no new information available between frames.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Right, you can't prove yourself right so we should just delete the whole thing and hide the evidence.
You are rightish that 3D has been done for 150 years. You are wrong about it being done with only one viewpoint. It has always been done by taking two separate pictures.
You can keep telling me I know nothing about the subject however, when I am creating stereoscopic images from scratch in a few minutes time.
Here is a still example:
Again you would note the different information being displayed from left vs right sides
This information is not present with a single viewpoint.
Last edited:
So in conclusion, a stereoscopic display requires two distinct viewpoints in order to provide each eye with it's own information. This information, by definition, must be different from one to the other.
This requires two viewpoints, which requires two entirely different images or two lenses to provide proper separation.
It is not possible to generate a 3D image from a single source - although that is not ENTIRELY true. You can apply processing to generate artificial 3D. TVs do this, but it's inaccurate and not convincing in most cases.
It is however sub-optimal and when attempting to use this for a VR headset the results are extremely poor.
As such, you need either pre-generated content for the device (VR movies do this), or a significant amount of graphical horsepower to render distinct viewpoints for gaming at such a high resolution.
This requires two viewpoints, which requires two entirely different images or two lenses to provide proper separation.
It is not possible to generate a 3D image from a single source - although that is not ENTIRELY true. You can apply processing to generate artificial 3D. TVs do this, but it's inaccurate and not convincing in most cases.
It is however sub-optimal and when attempting to use this for a VR headset the results are extremely poor.
As such, you need either pre-generated content for the device (VR movies do this), or a significant amount of graphical horsepower to render distinct viewpoints for gaming at such a high resolution.
Well, it was bound to happen. OR and Valve worked together with their tech, but then OR poached Valve main VR guy and things went sour pretty fast. I guess this is revenge, Gabe style. Of course, consumers benefit from this.
Promises of delivery this year are pretty balsy, but this is HTC we are talking about - they have money and they have means. Price tag will be important too, and also how Valve will be able to offer to integrate it.
Another reason for ED to pop up at SteamOS.
Promises of delivery this year are pretty balsy, but this is HTC we are talking about - they have money and they have means. Price tag will be important too, and also how Valve will be able to offer to integrate it.
Another reason for ED to pop up at SteamOS.
Valve have always been master trolls
Overall this is just another hint for FD to take SteamOS seriously. Come on, David, you wanted unified Linux platform to run ED on, this is it!
In a shock horror joint venture news report valve steam NVidia to do the right eye support whilst Amd Samsung Rift does the left eye.
No it doesn't. There's many examples, like the ones you listed, that don't require the techniques you've outright condemned as non-existent. "Real" 3D or "Fake" 3D doesn't matter to me personally, as long as it seems "true 3D" to me. I've used this for years to create 3D in computer games, starting with LED shutter glasses over 20 years ago that worked very well for me despite being "fake 3D". YMMV but, claiming it's impossible or hasn't been done is incorrect.
However, as I stated, and on the topic I started in the first place and I'm quoting myself here: "Maybe, big maybe, they use different hardware inside that doesn't need crazy expensive hardware to run? Just a guess but, I bet Valve and HTC have thought about that."
So, maybe, big maybe, HTC/Valve are using hardware neither one of us are aware of or existing "fake" 3D technology as opposed to the GPU heavy OR way of doing it. This statement doesn't not (I would think) mean, "You (I) must not know how GPUs work." is true or a fair, non insulting thing to post. Not being-entirely true- equates to "entirely incorrect" in my book and since you yourself admit to not being "entirely true" , that means you are wrong and indeed, Valve, may, maybe, being using a hardware solution to overcome the GPU overhead.
Buddy, it doesn't "seem true 3D."
That's why it isn't used, even when performance is a major factor. I am telling you that hardware isn't possible. The game must be rendered with two distinct viewpoints to provide proper stereoscopic output. Your opinion that it doesn't matter will not be shared by the type of enthusiasts who can afford this hardware.
That's why it isn't used, even when performance is a major factor. I am telling you that hardware isn't possible. The game must be rendered with two distinct viewpoints to provide proper stereoscopic output. Your opinion that it doesn't matter will not be shared by the type of enthusiasts who can afford this hardware.
Buddy,
It's used in 3D TV's, HMD's and other existing electronics, you yourself have listed, so it must be possible. Probably very improbable that HTC/Valve have some new tech or a change/improvement to existing technology but, claiming it doesn't exist or that it not possible is just incorrect.
The fake 3d of offsetting the image doesn't produce anywhere near as good a result as proper 3d with separately rendered view points. It's completely pointless argument because there's no way in hell anyone making a 3D vr headset, or game for one, would do that.
Not sure why this is a debate now anyway. The DK2 works exactly the same way and with around the same overall resolution so the performance for the HTC HMD shouldn't be much different in that regard. 2400x1080 pixels overall Vive compared to 1920x1080 or 960x1080 per eye for the DK2. Achieving 90 fps is the killer performance leap, but CV1 is also likely to be 90Hz.
http://i.imgur.com/KvJ0MFR.jpg
Not sure why this is a debate now anyway. The DK2 works exactly the same way and with around the same overall resolution so the performance for the HTC HMD shouldn't be much different in that regard. 2400x1080 pixels overall Vive compared to 1920x1080 or 960x1080 per eye for the DK2. Achieving 90 fps is the killer performance leap, but CV1 is also likely to be 90Hz.
http://i.imgur.com/KvJ0MFR.jpg
Last edited:
A 40yr guy from work who i showed the oculus is VERY excited for all of this to be comming out, he said VR is finally possible, he remembers all the fails of the 80s and 90s attempts but he literally was in tears from awe and excitement when i let him fly my ship around in ED with the DK2. and how with more competition emerging that has good money we will probably see a good size market for VR in the next few years
I'm 44 and felt much the same way.
Going back to the dx12 thing, from what I read it's not only a method for using more than one gpu more efficiently. A low level rewrite of the API to make the pipe more efficient. If you check out some of the mantle benchmarks that are kicking around there are some impressive looking jumps in performance 50% upwards in certain cases.
A similar thing will eventually happen for multicore cpu processing. The boffs are always finding better ways to use current hardware tech.
One thing im sure is that if someone releases a kick ass hmd with specs as mentioned above then manufacturers will find a way to power them and I will be at the front of what will probably be a very long queue ready to hand over my money.
Lastly, I'm happy that HTC are building a hmd. I like this company, they make cool stuff that is well built and they are Taiwanese. Taiwan is an awesome country with a huge population of gamers and the food there is delicious (with the exception of stinky tofu).
A similar thing will eventually happen for multicore cpu processing. The boffs are always finding better ways to use current hardware tech.
One thing im sure is that if someone releases a kick ass hmd with specs as mentioned above then manufacturers will find a way to power them and I will be at the front of what will probably be a very long queue ready to hand over my money.
Lastly, I'm happy that HTC are building a hmd. I like this company, they make cool stuff that is well built and they are Taiwanese. Taiwan is an awesome country with a huge population of gamers and the food there is delicious (with the exception of stinky tofu).
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Whilst I welcome more players in the VR field, my only concern is that the software support is not cross compatible.
imo it is very important that software VR support is just that, VR support for all devices.
1 thing which could kill VR is some sort of Betamax / VHS or Blue Ray/HDDVD format "war" where game X is "oculus VR ready" and game Y is "Valve VR ready".
If it is a lot of work to support more than 1 device this would be a disaster so personally I hope all the major players communicate at least to some degree for the base specs of how these devices will work and then its just a matter of the hardware guys choosing what screen to use, with what refresh and resolution.
initially VR is probably going to be niche, so splitting the userbase even more with incompatible hardware will possibly mean that there will be even less reason for software guys to get on board.
IF this was to happen however, then I guess that would be advantage Valve from the get go.
Hardware specs I do not think is a problem. What is ultra high end enthusiast level now is mid range gaming PC level in 2 years time and mobile phone spec in 5 years time.
once the rift launches, sure, maybe if we want to play games on full bubble at (hoped for) 1440P 90hz we will need a crazy high end rig at 1st, but imo it is highly likely there will be other options as well, just like there are now for DK2...... I would bet a reasonable amount of cash that 1080P 75hz will be an officially supported standard even for CV1 and we will still benefit from the superior screen quality, better lenses and what ever other improvements CV1 brings over DK2. .
imo it is very important that software VR support is just that, VR support for all devices.
1 thing which could kill VR is some sort of Betamax / VHS or Blue Ray/HDDVD format "war" where game X is "oculus VR ready" and game Y is "Valve VR ready".
If it is a lot of work to support more than 1 device this would be a disaster so personally I hope all the major players communicate at least to some degree for the base specs of how these devices will work and then its just a matter of the hardware guys choosing what screen to use, with what refresh and resolution.
initially VR is probably going to be niche, so splitting the userbase even more with incompatible hardware will possibly mean that there will be even less reason for software guys to get on board.
IF this was to happen however, then I guess that would be advantage Valve from the get go.
Hardware specs I do not think is a problem. What is ultra high end enthusiast level now is mid range gaming PC level in 2 years time and mobile phone spec in 5 years time.
once the rift launches, sure, maybe if we want to play games on full bubble at (hoped for) 1440P 90hz we will need a crazy high end rig at 1st, but imo it is highly likely there will be other options as well, just like there are now for DK2...... I would bet a reasonable amount of cash that 1080P 75hz will be an officially supported standard even for CV1 and we will still benefit from the superior screen quality, better lenses and what ever other improvements CV1 brings over DK2. .
Last edited:
So that's about 30% higher resolution than the Oculus?
think thats a talk about engine physics though
Video looks amazing. I can only imagine what beast hardware we'll need to run this new VR devices. Will look forward (for my bank account )
)
Video looks amazing. I can only imagine what beast hardware we'll need to run this new VR devices. Will look forward (for my bank account
The video looks OK.. sounds awful though, the low frequencies are clipping/distorting like a boss. Surprisingly shoddy.
Also, wondering if this, which is barely above the spec of the DK2, will be worth it, assuming it gets to market, and the consumer Rift gets to market- the current Rift prototype is allegedly much nicer than the DK2, even though they're keeping the numbers very close to their chests..