How Good is the 3D?

[coolio86]

Will the phone be able to produce depth 3D as well as popping out of the screen 3D?
I really want it to be capable of out of the screen 3D, that is what would make the 3D games fun!

 

[sergi0wned]

Will the phone be able to produce depth 3D as well as popping out of the screen 3D?
I really want it to be capable of out of the screen 3D, that is what would make the 3D games fun!

From what I've heard it's like the Nintendo 3DS' screen.

I played around with my friend's 3DS and the screen did have a pronounced 3D effect, but it was more of a "diorama" effect that produced depth between the foreground and background than a "popping" effect that made it jump off the screen.

It was still a pretty cool and pronounced effect though, and according to the oft-mentioned mini-review on Android Central forums, the games should be really fun!

 

[novox77]

I just found this insanely long thread (the link is to page 4, thanks to Google) which has several people in heated discussion about whether pop-out 3D is possible in the Nintendo 3DS.

I think I've just found the best example of pop-out 3D. - 3DS Message Board for 3DS - GameFAQs

When I checked out the 3DS, the program on-screen did not pop-out. But that doesn't really prove that the 3DS is incapable of popping things out. I'm still researching... and holding out hope that the Evo can produce pop-out (negative parallax) 3D imagery.

 

[novox77]

I have the answer.

If you play a 3D video on the Evo 3D, scenes that popped out in the theater will pop out for you on the phone. Things behind the screen will stay behind the screen. That should be great news. I'm not 100% certain, because I'm learning how this stuff works as I go along, but based on what I've just read, I'm convinced that this should be the case.

As for the images produced by the stereo cameras... this is harder to evaluate. It depends on where "zero parallax" is defined by the lenses, and this is determined by the viewing angle of each lens and where the views intersect. I would think this would be on the order of single-digits in inches... This info was corrected in my post here. Let's say 5 inches. That means only stuff closer than 5 inches to the phone will appear to pop out (negative parallax). Everything beyond zero parallax will appear behind the screen.

The 5 inches can be lengthened significantly of the viewing angles of each camera are turned away from each other. That means that although the cameras appear to face forward, they may be slightly turned outward, which puts zero parallax further from the phone... let's say, 12 inches. This allows the photographer more room to get objects to pop out. But even 12 inches is not a lot of room. So I think imagery captured by the cameras will be mostly "diorama-like" (behind the screen, positive parallax). But movies should pop because the film makers already set what should pop and what should stay behind when they filmed...

I'd like to see what Bob Maxey has to say about this, since, being a 3D enthusiast, he surely understands what it takes to maximize the zone of negative parallax in a dual-camera rig...

And here are good little pics showing the difference between positive, zero, and negative parallax:

 

[yourfriendmat]

I just found this insanely long thread (the link is to page 4, thanks to Google) which has several people in heated discussion about whether pop-out 3D is possible in the Nintendo 3DS.

I think I've just found the best example of pop-out 3D. - 3DS Message Board for 3DS - GameFAQs

When I checked out the 3DS, the program on-screen did not pop-out. But that doesn't really prove that the 3DS is incapable of popping things out. I'm still researching... and holding out hope that the Evo can produce pop-out (negative parallax) 3D imagery.

I'm agreeing with the majority of people in that discussion. Popping out should be possible because the stereo image should just have to switch sides in order to force our eyes into the illusion of focusing on a nearer object. Also agree that the camera can't take pop out pics or vids since the object would have to be on the user side of the camera to pop out (impossible). That being said, all the stuff I've seen with the 3DS is like looking into a box, so either they don't take advantage of popping out, or it really isn't possible.

EDIT: Yeah I was thinking the same thing about shifting the zero point, but I didn't really know how to say it Maybe someone will make an app that will just shift the overlap in images so that you can make things pop out more. I think this may look awkward, though, since it would be an artificial shift of the zero point as opposed to what the cameras are actually recording. The "diorama" 3D seems more natural to me anyway, but I suppose that's a personal preference.

EDIT2: So now that I'm reading more, I definitely agree with everything novox is saying. Things like the Evo 3D or 3DS likely have a zero parallax plane that is just too close to the camera for many things to pop out (especially since it probably won't even be able to focus that close; I know my Evo can't). While the cameras used for 3D movies could just have a zero point really far from the lenses, I don't think it can account for the entire popping out effect. I think some sort of digital shifting of the zero point is what makes swords poke you in the face.

 

[cobalt]

Also agree that the camera can't take pop out pics or vids since the object would have to be on the user side of the camera to pop out (impossible). That being said, all the stuff I've seen with the 3DS is like looking into a box, so either they don't take advantage of popping out, or it really isn't possible.

Actually, with the 3DS, you can do both, even with captured photos. Obviously, as you say, you can't take a picture of something that's behind the lens. But: the 3DS photo viewer has a slider that lets you shift the convergence point anywhere from the back of the scene to the front of the scene. When you put it to the back of the scene, it looks like it's popping out. When you put it to the front of the scene, it looks like you're looking through a window.

(Basically, they blur enough of the edges of the captured photos that it gives you enough free pixels to slide the images horizontally relative to their original capture. And the scale is a little off, too. But you can do it!)

Also, I've spoken with some game developers about the use of 3D, and the short answer is that it almost always works better to make the visuals appear to be behind the screen. I think it's a little easier to trick your eyes into thinking the optical depth is farther than it really is, rather than closer. (I personally have a harder time with things popping towards me as well, for what that little anecdote is worth....)

EDIT: yourfriendmat: saw your edits -- I think everything you've said agrees with my take as well.

 

[yourfriendmat]

Actually, with the 3DS, you can do both, even with captured photos. Obviously, as you say, you can't take a picture of something that's behind the lens. But: the 3DS photo viewer has a slider that lets you shift the convergence point anywhere from the back of the scene to the front of the scene. When you put it to the back of the scene, it looks like it's popping out. When you put it to the front of the scene, it looks like you're looking through a window.

(Basically, they blur enough of the edges of the captured photos that it gives you enough free pixels to slide the images horizontally relative to their original capture. And the scale is a little off, too. But you can do it!)

Also, I've spoken with some game developers about the use of 3D, and the short answer is that it almost always works better to make the visuals appear to be behind the screen. I think it's a little easier to trick your eyes into thinking the optical depth is farther than it really is, rather than closer. (I personally have a harder time with things popping towards me as well, for what that little anecdote is worth....)

EDIT: yourfriendmat: saw your edits -- I think everything you've said agrees with my take as well.

After thinking about it, the popping out issue is probably due to psychological issues and physical limitations of the equipment. First, no matter what they do, I still know the screen is there. Things coming off the screen are very unbelievable unless they are done perfectly. Second, our eyes don't see parallax as only left/right. We have up/down capabilities as well. Once something gets that close to your face (e.g. sword popping out in Pirates of the Caribbean), the lack of any up/down parallax really shows itself.

Also, for some reason in the theater, the polarized glasses don't seem to block light as well from the things popping out. I pretty much always see ghosting (either that or my eyes aren't focusing correctly).

As far as Evo's 3D effects, I wonder what sort of limitations the parallax barrier has. The lines forming the barrier must be spaced differently as they reach the edges or something. Otherwise, it seems like you would be looking at the wrong pixels. Does that make sense? Either way, I've never noticed any issues with that when playing with the 3DS, so I suppose it doesn't really matter.

 

[EarlyMon]

I'll simply repeat from our last discussion -

Yeap - I'm still questioning the whole adjustable 3D on the 3DS.

No way that feature can exist without sacrifice.

I prefer to wait and see.

It's a matter of scaling (apparent angles and binocular focusing).

If a movie has content designed to come out of the TV, it ought play properly on this phone without any ghosting - or it's a design fail. I can't believe that they'd have any viable image processing to re-project to the only screen surface and on inwards.

Occam's Razor.

I'm not betting on a design fail here. HTC has been working this for some time, as has Sharp.

I'm going to second the Occam's razor argument. And might as well throw in a wider sweet spot as well.

I like the graph, but I think it's much as you said here novox77 -

http://androidforums.com/htc-evo-3d...ogression-display-technology.html#post2593899

Proof will come in the viewing for me.

 

[coolio86]

Well since the screen should be able to play the pop out 3D parts of the movie, then it can handle pop out 3D. I expect that some devs will make games that take full advantage of the pop out effect. And maybe if the camera's natural zero paralax is too close for some people, it can be moved farther back or if you prefer, even closer.

 

[GaryColeman]

Will the phone be able to produce depth 3D as well as popping out of the screen 3D?
I really want it to be capable of out of the screen 3D, that is what would make the 3D games fun!

If by popping out you mean something like a blurry 2D picture then yes, I think that is a reasonable expectation.

 

[coolio86]

If by popping out you mean something like a blurry 2D picture then yes, I think that is a reasonable expectation.

No, I meant like a clear 3D object popping off of the screen to your face. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[lordofthereef]

When I tried pilotwings for about 5 seconds I felt like things were popping out. I thought it was terrible, but they were popping out nonetheless. Suppose it could have been my imagination too.

 

[yourfriendmat]

From the thread EarlyMon mentioned:

I started another thread that addresses this question but I'll answer this one here too...

If you look at your screen and stick your finger really close to your face, but you keep focused on the screen, you should see two ghost fingers. They should be pretty far apart. Now if you move your finger toward the screen, the ghost fingers get closer together.

Now, in 3D video, the same thing applies. The distance between ghosts will dictate how close that object seems to you. The Evo's screen is only so big, and assuming you're holding it at a comfortable position (not 3 inches from your face), the max distance between ghosts (and we're talking about perceived distance based on arc degrees) is very small. Therefore, nothing will ever appear to be hitting you in the face. It's a limitation of the small screen and the viewing distance.

In an IMAX, the arc degree difference between ghosts can be very large, which gives the perception that the object is very near your face.

So, the perception of near or far isn't really dependent on whether you have glasses or not. It's all about the arc degree distance between ghost images relative to your eyes. If you could hold the Evo screen close to your face, and assuming the phone is still able to separate the stereo images at that distance, then you can get stuff to seem like it will hit your face.

For example, if you held the phone at normal viewing distance, and an object appeared to float 6 inches above the screen, then if you held the phone 6 inches from your face, that object will appear to to be right in your face. But you'll also be experiencing serious eye strain. It would be like trying to focus on your finger when it's right in front of your nose.

I agree mostly with this. The only issue is that the 3D effect is proportional to distance. As you get closer to the projection surface, the effect sort of collapses, meaning that by the logic you presented in the beginning (with which I agree), nothing could really ever pop out that much. This is probably why things that do pop out on the big screen are either very small, or very pointy (e.g. stars, birds, swords).

Source: Stereoscopic filming

 

[coolio86]

So no one thinks the Evo 3D can do Pop out 3D?

 

[yourfriendmat]

So no one thinks the Evo 3D can do Pop out 3D?

I think the general agreement is that is is capable of providing the "pop out" effect. The issue is how good it will be and if it will be utilized. If the diorama sort of 3D is easier and looks better, then most games will use that. I imagine 3D movies will be unchanged. So if it pops out on the TV, then it will on the phone. I can't imagine the movie companies would take the time to make a special "diorama box" version of their movies for this device, so I assume that the display was made to work with the sort of 3D content that is already being developed.

EDIT: The other potential issue is the depth that a small device, so close to the viewer, can provide. The 3DS really looks pretty good, but if you look at the picture I posted above, you can see why a smaller (squares would have to be closer together in that pic), closer device wouldn't work as well. I'm also thinking that the diorama effect works better because it's like we are looking through a window into a box, so the picture can be cut off for one eye by the edge of the screen and it seems natural. For something coming out of the screen, it is truly limited by the edge of the screen as both eyes need to see it.

 

[FocusFreak]

So no one thinks the Evo 3D can do Pop out 3D?

Nothing will pop out of the screen like a 3D movie. it will look more like a hologram, like a "3D" baseball card. There is depth to it but it doesnt jump out.

 

[yourfriendmat]

Nothing will pop out of the screen like a 3D movie. it will look more like a hologram, like a "3D" baseball card. There is depth to it but it doesnt jump out.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Can you clarify?

Here's my attempt at illustrating why the popping out effect could be less pronounced:

So the larger screen in a theater can really make things jump out at you, but your little phone, being so close to your eyes will not allow for as exaggerated of an effect (though it will still be there). The separation between your eyes is comparable to the length of the screen and viewing distance for a phone, but is much smaller compared to the theater screen. Hope this makes sense and the pictures are somewhat helpful.

EDIT: Point being that in a theater, things can pop out about 95% of the distance whereas on the phone, they can only pop out about 60% and have a narrower area left to right that they can move.

 

[novox77]

I'll summarize my verbose posts above:

pop-out is definitely possible. 3D movies will pop out just like they did in the theater. The pop-out is built into the stereo images.

Games will pop out if designed that way. Since the stereo images are rendered by the game engine (and not hardcoded like a movie), the programmer can decide how much to pop out.

Pop-out will be much less pronounced when creating your own stereo images with the on-board cameras. A subject really close to the cameras should appear to pop out from the screen. Most other images will appear to have depth behind the screen.

 

[novox77]

I have more good news to report regarding pop-out 3D using the built-in cameras.

Earlier, I wrote that any object behind the zero parallax line will appear to pop out in front of the screen, and that the zero parallax line was defined by the intersection of the viewing angles of both cameras.

That second part turned out to be wrong.

The zero parallax line is defined simply by where the cameras are focused.

Why is that good news? Because if you focus the camera at infinite distance (when your focus lines approach parallel), EVERYTHING in your shot will appear to pop out of the screen, and the background stuff (everything at infinite distance) will appear at the same depth as the screen.

So... zero parallax line is variable based on your focal length for your current shot. If you are taking a pic of a person, focus the camera on something behind the person. The person will then appear to pop out of the screen when viewed in 3D.

With SLR-type lenses, doing this normally results in a blurry person, which you can counter by using a tiny aperture, but because cell phones already have tiny apertures, most things stay sharp (wider depth-of-field).

Now, the remaining question is how much control we will actually have in terms of forcing the camera to focus on something behind our subject. If "touch-to-focus" is still part of the Sense camera, we are all set. Or, if the shutter button focus locks if it is held half-down, we are all set.

Yeah, things are looking up. Admittedly, you need to have some photography basics to generate good results (pop-out), but that's true with general photography as well.

 

[novox77]

Sorry for the multiple posts; finding good info and want to share. Take a look at the bottom diagram of this image:

This image shows where stereo images will appear on the screen in order to produce the three depth scenarios. Dark blue represents the subject that pops out in front of the screen. Note that the left image on the projection plane (your screen) goes to the right eye and vice versa. And note how far apart they are. It takes a lot of eye muscles to converge those images (cross-eye, which causes eye strain).

Red/magenta dot is zero parallax, or no depth. This item appears as a single image on the screen and appears right at the screen.

Lighter blue represents depth behind the screen. Distance between stereo images on the screen is much closer together, and more importantly, left image goes to left eye and vice versa. It's also important to point out that the distance between these objects can never exceed the interocular distance (distance between the eyes). If it does, we won't be able to focus on it (can't focus past infinite distance) and there will be terrible eye strain. A lot of bad 3D imagery suffers from this problem when trying to achieve a large depth behind the screen.

 

[yourfriendmat]

This is similar to what I was trying to indicate in my picture. There is a lot more space "behind" the screen to place a 3D object, and even though you make them come out about 60% of the distance, it will cause a lot of strain trying to focus 3 inches in front of your face. Really, I have a hard time with the stuff in theaters that tries to get within 20 feet of my face. I think that's why we'll see a lot of games trying to take advantage of the depth "behind" the screen. For me at least, 3D effect seems a lot more effective done this way.

 

[coolio86]

Well personally, I'm used to the green and red 3D glasses that make a movie 3D and stuff pops out. I've never had any eye strain from watching movies like that. If current glasses free 3D tech can provide the same effect I don't think it would bother my eyes that much.

 

[Evan2ac]

I was wondering how the 3D looks? I hear there is significant eye strain.

 

[novox77]

I was wondering how the 3D looks? I hear there is significant eye strain.

It's bloody brilliant.

eye strain? varies from person to person. best if you go play with it in the store and test out your own eyes.

I can say that once you get used to the screen, it's pretty comfy viewing. For me.

 

[some.devil]

Actually, there is a setting that allows you to change the distance between the 2 cameras post photo. I've cleaned up some nice 3D pictures doing this, relieving a lot of eye strain. I've not tried this on 3D videos though.