5 ms·

We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Cubic resolution? "Cubic resolution of 1080p by 32p"

by glibgil 10y ago

jsemrau 10y ago
You are right, I believe that the current process still contains a lot of 2D / 3D translation which is not really helping efficient processes. https://formlabs.com/blog/resolution-meaning-3d-printing/ https://formlabs.com/blog/resolution-meaning-3d-printing/
jeff_marshall 10y ago
volume pixel (voxel) is already a term of art. I'm not aware of jargon to decouple the sampling precision in different axis, though that probably exists too.
alanbernstein 10y ago
Hopefully the "p" suffix can die before we get to that point
vanderZwan 10y ago
I wonder if you can get away with depth interpolation - I mean CRT TV's used to do pretty OK with wide pixels, maybe the same is true for depth?
mojomark 10y ago
>We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Well then I have good news for you - we already have a metric for resolution irrespective of the depth at which an object is rendered, and we've had it for years. That metric is Pixels Per Degree (PPD). PPD complements the way the eye resolves images (visual acuity) and is independent of depth. ~62 PPD is generally the maximum resolution of the human eye - although motion/shapes/contrast/color can alter (increase or decrease) this threshold. PPD takes into account FOV, binocular overlap, and rederable pictures - all in one clean metric. The truth of the matter is that when companies use this standard unit such that all AR/VR display resolutions can be compared on an level playing field, that tends to lift the veil that is obfuscating how poor the actual imaging resolutions truly are.
- mojomark 10y ago
  In case anyone is interested - NVIDIA on PPD: http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html#find:density,pxW:1920,pxH:720,size:12.3,sizeUnit:in,axis:diag,distance:31,distUnit:in http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html#find:density,pxW:19... They claify that while acuity limits for a person with 20/20 vision is 60PPD, the average acuity is more like 20/15, equating to 80PPD. It looks like NVIDIA put the PPD benchmark for an ideal display at ~92PPD, which would push the acuity limits for just about every human user. That seems reasonable to me. As a point of reference, accounting for binocular overlap values (which I had to hunt for), I calculated PPD's for two of the highest pixel-count HMD's out there: StarVR: 18.6 PPD Sensics dSight: 20.2 PPD I don't have the details needed to calculate Avagent or Hololens PPD's, but I'd venture to say their at this point or lower. So, as you can see, we still have a long way to go. One more note - Displays don't need a constant PPD accros the entire rendered image, thanks to steep visual acuity drop-off relative to FOV angle (1). So, to the OP's credit, perhaps there is still some work that is needed on the PPD metric to account for HMD's that use foveated imaging (2), such that all displays (foveated & non-foveated) can still be compared side-by-side. 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/AcuityHumanEye.svg/500px-AcuityHumanEye.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Ac... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging

We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Cubic resolution? "Cubic resolution of 1080p by 32p"

by glibgil 10y ago

We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Cubic resolution? "Cubic resolution of 1080p by 32p"

You are right, I believe that the current process still contains a lot of 2D / 3D translation which is not really helping efficient processes. https://formlabs.com/blog/resolution-meaning-3d-printing/ https://formlabs.com/blog/resolution-meaning-3d-printing/

jeff_marshall 10y ago

volume pixel (voxel) is already a term of art. I'm not aware of jargon to decouple the sampling precision in different axis, though that probably exists too.

alanbernstein 10y ago

Hopefully the "p" suffix can die before we get to that point

vanderZwan 10y ago

I wonder if you can get away with depth interpolation - I mean CRT TV's used to do pretty OK with wide pixels, maybe the same is true for depth?

mojomark 10y ago

>We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Well then I have good news for you - we already have a metric for resolution irrespective of the depth at which an object is rendered, and we've had it for years. That metric is Pixels Per Degree (PPD). PPD complements the way the eye resolves images (visual acuity) and is independent of depth. ~62 PPD is generally the maximum resolution of the human eye - although motion/shapes/contrast/color can alter (increase or decrease) this threshold. PPD takes into account FOV, binocular overlap, and rederable pictures - all in one clean metric. The truth of the matter is that when companies use this standard unit such that all AR/VR display resolutions can be compared on an level playing field, that tends to lift the veil that is obfuscating how poor the actual imaging resolutions truly are.

mojomark 10y ago
In case anyone is interested - NVIDIA on PPD: http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html#find:density,pxW:1920,pxH:720,size:12.3,sizeUnit:in,axis:diag,distance:31,distUnit:in http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html#find:density,pxW:19... They claify that while acuity limits for a person with 20/20 vision is 60PPD, the average acuity is more like 20/15, equating to 80PPD. It looks like NVIDIA put the PPD benchmark for an ideal display at ~92PPD, which would push the acuity limits for just about every human user. That seems reasonable to me. As a point of reference, accounting for binocular overlap values (which I had to hunt for), I calculated PPD's for two of the highest pixel-count HMD's out there: StarVR: 18.6 PPD Sensics dSight: 20.2 PPD I don't have the details needed to calculate Avagent or Hololens PPD's, but I'd venture to say their at this point or lower. So, as you can see, we still have a long way to go. One more note - Displays don't need a constant PPD accros the entire rendered image, thanks to steep visual acuity drop-off relative to FOV angle (1). So, to the OP's credit, perhaps there is still some work that is needed on the PPD metric to account for HMD's that use foveated imaging (2), such that all displays (foveated & non-foveated) can still be compared side-by-side. 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/AcuityHumanEye.svg/500px-AcuityHumanEye.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Ac... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging