3 ms·
Often underappreciated detail when it comes to stereoscopic 3D is that the image produced is not actually fully 3D still. Even with just a single eye, it is po
by perching_aix 2y ago
Often underappreciated detail when it comes to stereoscopic 3D is that the image produced is not actually fully 3D still.
Even with just a single eye, it is possible to see depth: this would be via monocular depth cues, such as depth of field.
If you ever wondered why 3D visuals, no matter how technically advanced, never quite felt right, this is likely the culprit. When your eyes adapt to the stereo 3D cues, the monocular cues are lost and vice versa. There are some VR technologies that do hope to achieve both at the same time using eye (and iris?) tracking, but I haven't been following the topic for a while. It's essentially a quest for a lightfield display.
- mxfh 2y agoThe monocular depth cues are not lost; rather, the main issue with VR and stereoscopic images is the forced depth focus. This creates a mismatch between vergence and accommodation, which can interfere with natural depth perception. There is extensive research on this topic, particularly regarding the vergence-accommodation conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...
- perching_aix 2y agoYes, that's the effect I'm referring to. Maybe my wording was too sloppy.