4 ms·

It sounds like they've got some trick that gives some experience of real objects - probably far from perfect (hi-latency, lo-res, etc); but that's a good thing

by hyp0 12y ago

It sounds like they've got some trick that gives some experience of real objects - probably far from perfect (hi-latency, lo-res, etc); but that's a good thing for a company. It means they have somewhere to go when competitors catch up. Maybe opaque and depth of field really fool your eyes? As a comparison, consider how surprising it is that animation works: line-drawn cartoons look like real objects, animals etc; secondly, that if you just change the images at a mere 24 fps, they come to life (the meaning of animation at the time).

cma 12y ago
One problem with low framerate in AR is things come "unglued" when you move your head. (There are some workarounds: low-persistence, asynchronous timewarp)
egypturnash 12y ago
The threshold is lower - a hell of a lot of hand-drawn animation is done 'on twos', with each frame shot twice, for an effective framerate of 12fps. 'Going on ones' is mostly reserved for motion that has to match a panning background (panning the whole screen at 12fps looks terrible, and so does someone whose feet are siding back and forth with respect to the ground), or for really fast motion. Or occasionally for really smooth, subtle motions. In my experience 10fps is when cartoon images start to break down into "a sequence of drawings" rather than "moving images". This is right on the line for me; I'm not sure how common that is for people who haven't trained their eyes to the point where they can pick up on a single frame being shot 3x instead of 2x. I mean, yeah, 24fps looks better, 30 or 60 fps is even better, and the maximum frame rate of the human eye seems to be anywhere between 255fps to 1kfps (I'm getting a lot of conflicting info from a quick google for that), but 12fps is pretty solidly acceptable for moving drawings. (I'm a former animator.)
- hyp0 12y ago
  Maybe very low-quality AR can be convincing, provided you're stationary (i.e. no panning-like effect)? Relatedly, Carmack found some serious latency problems with Oculus Rift, but only with some particular combinations of object movement and changing viewing direction. He's thinking of fast video games with lots of movement. Just having a dragon floating in front of you is quite a lot more constrained. Though I meant it as a general observation, i.e. animation is surprisingly effective, if you do it the right way; perhaps AR will be too, if it's done in (so

by hyp0 12y ago

cma 12y ago

One problem with low framerate in AR is things come "unglued" when you move your head. (There are some workarounds: low-persistence, asynchronous timewarp)

egypturnash 12y ago

The threshold is lower - a hell of a lot of hand-drawn animation is done 'on twos', with each frame shot twice, for an effective framerate of 12fps. 'Going on ones' is mostly reserved for motion that has to match a panning background (panning the whole screen at 12fps looks terrible, and so does someone whose feet are siding back and forth with respect to the ground), or for really fast motion. Or occasionally for really smooth, subtle motions. In my experience 10fps is when cartoon images start to break down into "a sequence of drawings" rather than "moving images". This is right on the line for me; I'm not sure how common that is for people who haven't trained their eyes to the point where they can pick up on a single frame being shot 3x instead of 2x. I mean, yeah, 24fps looks better, 30 or 60 fps is even better, and the maximum frame rate of the human eye seems to be anywhere between 255fps to 1kfps (I'm getting a lot of conflicting info from a quick google for that), but 12fps is pretty solidly acceptable for moving drawings. (I'm a former animator.)

hyp0 12y ago
Maybe very low-quality AR can be convincing, provided you're stationary (i.e. no panning-like effect)? Relatedly, Carmack found some serious latency problems with Oculus Rift, but only with some particular combinations of object movement and changing viewing direction. He's thinking of fast video games with lots of movement. Just having a dragon floating in front of you is quite a lot more constrained. Though I meant it as a general observation, i.e. animation is surprisingly effective, if you do it the right way; perhaps AR will be too, if it's done in (so