3 ms·
>But the input to the visual system is still an image on your retina, which obeys the same laws as camera optics. The thing that makes the difference is that t
by Gauge_Irrahphe 6y ago
>But the input to the visual system is still an image on your retina, which obeys the same laws as camera optics.
The thing that makes the difference is that the resolution of the retina drops as you move off the center. Which I suppose is what is being simulated here. Or at least it could be efficiently simulated that way - like foveated rendering, only the fovea is kept at the center and the rest of the image is kept with the pixels smashed closer together instead of interpolated.
- teraflop 6y agoIf that were the only difference, then FOVO would be equivalent to a 2D image warp. But the authors claim they're doing something different, and their examples demonstrate that they're actually moving objects relative to each other in 3D space. Despite the name, the system seems to have nothing to do with foveated rendering.
- FriendlyNormie 6y agoHahahaha, you really made an account just to post this stupid shit. You clearly never even clicked the link, you saw “FOVO” and assumed you could deduce everything based on that alone. Kill yourself you retarded gorilla nigger monkey.