3 ms·
> That assumes your pixel distribution has much higher potential addressable resolution than the signal you care about. It doesn't need that at all. Light fie
by mozumder 8y ago
> That assumes your pixel distribution has much higher potential addressable resolution than the signal you care about.
It doesn't need that at all. Light fields can be interpolated like anything else, just like bayer filter for color on camera sensors or 4:2:2 color compression on the signal side. But if you're doing 3-D rendering, you can match rays exactly to your distribution on the display if the renderer knows the distribution of rays on the display.
Interpolation is always going to reduce quality, but it's better than aliasing, so there's going to be a trade-off analysis that needs to be done. I don't know what the results of that would be, so this is all theoretical.
- ryandamm 8y agoWith all due respect, interpolating light fields is far less trivial than you make it out to be. It's a 4D field, and naive interpolation leads to loss of detail, and often edge doubling (itself a form of aliasing). Furthermore, if you're interpolating rays, you're necessarily not doing what you originally proposed, which is to only light up a (random or pseudorandom or evenly distributed) subset of the pixel display elements, presumably to save on rendering cycles. Let me just say, more generally, that intuition trained on 2D doesn't apply directly to light fields.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mozumder 8y agoTru dat. Interpolation will probably be too difficult in 4-D space.