What is your concept of "Real 3D"? Holography? Really, I don't know. To my knowledge stereoscopy+motion tracking is as 3D as anything can get.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Oculus Rift Virtual Reality Headset Coming to iOS Devices [Update: No]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
VentureBeat misquoted Iribe, Oculus VR has clarified that the Oculus Rift is being designed to work with Android phones and NOT iOS devices.
Typical fanboy: "Yeah, take that fandroids, your ripoff spyware OS can't handle the awesomeness of VR. Also something-something fragmentation!"
Same fanboy: "Pfft, nobody cares about VR anyway."
I've said this before, but this place is becoming more like Ain't it cool news everyday. From the sloppy headline, to the article that was completely bogus and then the stealth edit off the front page. Dire, dire stuff. It's no longer Arn, there's a staff now so why is this site still so amateur and sloppy. How bout some basic fact checking!
Well, if you actually read through the thread, there was a couple posts where the poster was super excited about having it on iOS. If anything, there have been more posts saying how fanboys have been 'burned' or having sour grapes since it is now reported to be Android only.
Must be hard being a rebel when there is nothing to rebel against...
Where did this fantasy happen? There seem to be more 'it sucks anyway' posts before the correction than after.
My experience of stereoscopic 3D, with or without motion tracking, is that it is fundamentally flawed. When we look at something, our vision focuses there. Other things are out of focus.
Developing a stereoscopic image, you've got two options. First, you have what is supposed to be the focus of the image in focus while everything else is out of focus (this is what classic stereoscopic cameras did/do). Second, you can have everything in focus, so the viewer can choose to look at whatever they want (this is easily possible with 3D rendered scenes, a little harder, though not impossible, with photos).
Both of these options are flawed. In the first, you can only really look at the thing that is the focus of the image. In the second, the image ends up taking on more of a flat look because everything is too close to being in focus.
An improvement would be to introduce eye tracking, whic could allow the system to bring whatever your eye is pointed at into focus. While this would be a big step forward, this would still be flawed, though.
Stereoscopic imaging creates the illusion of depth through the triangulation effect that comes from the fact that we have binocular vision. What it still fails to do is adjust focal distances, as the screen is always a set distance in front of you eyes. Short of holography, as you mentioned, there is really only one way to clear this final hurdle. A lensing screen that would actually change the effective focal distance for different parts of the image. With that, eye tracking wouldn't even be needed any more, and all that we would need is good motion tracking (which Occulus seems to have) and we'd be a lot closer to "real" 3D than anything I've seen.
(Please note, I'm not saying that what Occulus has done isn't really cool, or that I would like to play with one if these things for a while. I'm just speaking to the limitations of 3D imagery and VR, at least as far as I understand it, at the present state of technology.)
Fall behind in what? The Head-mounted display rat-race? Kind of like how they fell behind in Tablets when Microsoft released all those Tablet PC's in the early 2000's.
I actually think OculusRift is a cool piece of kit, but I'm a fairly hardcore gamer, who is interested to see how this thing ups the immersion in games. Also: will it allow me to play games laying down? That's the real win. Laziness 2.0, here we come!
I mean, who cares about "couch mode". That's totally skating to where the puck is. If you wanted to skate to where it's going, you'd be looking at the supine.
Actually, I don't know. It's certainly a limit in the photographic sense, but when I close one eye (make it a fair comparison with a single-lens camera), hold my hand up near my eyes and focus out the window, my hand doesn't get that blurry. If I focus on my hand, the buildings do get pretty blurry, but only if my hand is within inches of my face. If I hold it an arm's length away, nothing is blurry.
My guess is we have fairly wide angle vision with a large focal range, so we aren't going to get much blurriness, except at extremes. We are not telephoto/macro lenses with a small f-stop. Thus, not having depth-of-field is not necessarily unrealistic for most practical situations.
I don't think missing out on depth-of-field simulation is a thing. If you want to have a 007 Goldeneye menu screen where a first-person wristwatch appears on the screen, then by all means, depth-of-field the background into blurry oblivion, but I'd assume most action is taking place more than 15 inches from the POV's face, so if you want to be realistic, you shouldn't be using depth-of-field.
sure you arent referring to Zuckerburg talking about being unable to put Facebook Home on iOS?
Tried Oculus Rift a little while back and I thought it was pretty fantastic. The finished product will be even better and I honestly can't wait to try it again.
Too bad iOS is being left out of the game. One of the disadvantages of a closed system I guess.
Too bad iOS is being left out of the game. One of the disadvantages of a closed system I guess.
Now, don't get me wrong. In the instance of most FPS type games, I'll agree with you that it isn't that big a deal. Nor will I disagree that the Oculus Rift isn't pretty cool, and likely to offer a better immersive VR experience than anything that's come before.
But we were talking about the difference between stereoscopic 3D and "real" 3D. And in that context, it does matter. You can tell the difference. And the more detailed the environment, or the lower the light setting, the more important it would be. It's important in lower light settings because our eyes, in fact, do function very much like camera lenses. In bright light, our pupils contract, giving us a small aperture opening, and a much greater depth of field. In low light settings, by contrast, our pupils open up and our depth of field shrinks dramatically.
As an interesting point, most FPS I've seen use fairly dark settings, making this more of an issue. Also, as games get more and more advanced, especially story based POV games, level of detail, and things like a wristwatch or a book on the table in front of you, matter more and more.
All of this adds up to there being a substantive difference between stereoscopic 3D, at least in its current form, and "real" 3D (which stereoscopic 3D could evolve into, but isn't there yet).
Once again, I'm not saying that where things are at isn't cool and effective for a lot of things, just that there is still a difference.
