Page 1 of 1

Eye Distance Falloff

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 8:43 am
by momade
I faced an other technical question:
does the Eye Distance Falloff effect cube map the same way than spherical map? where would the poles be in the cube map? in spherical i understand they are at the top an at the bottom poles of the sphere. am i right?
in my scene there are also quite some over head-objects... will they seem curved instead of straight with the standard setting of 0,3?

br.
mo

Re: Eye Distance Falloff

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 9:46 pm
by abstrax
momade wrote:I faced an other technical question:
does the Eye Distance Falloff effect cube map the same way than spherical map?

Yes, it does.

where would the poles be in the cube map?

The cube map has the faces in the order +X (right), -X (left), +Y (up), -Y (down), +Z (backward), -Z (forward) - all in camera space. This assignment is pretty much arbitrary, but OculusVR Photo requires this specific mapping.
-> The poles in the cube map would be in the center of the +Y and -Y faces.

in spherical i understand they are at the top an at the bottom poles of the sphere. am i right?

Yes, that's correct.

in my scene there are also quite some over head-objects... will they seem curved instead of straight with the standard setting of 0,3?

br.
mo

The default settings has been changed to 1 in 2.23, which minimizes the eye strain looking at the poles. The disadvantage is that even plane surfaces (like a floor) are appearing a lot more curved than with an eye distance falloff of 0.3, which on the other hand causes some eye strain looking at the poles.

This would be the eye distance falloff (from lat -90 .. +90) of 1 (black), 0.5 (red), 0.1 (green), 0.01 (blue):
eyedistancefalloff.png

Re: Eye Distance Falloff

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2015 1:48 am
by momade
thanks abstrax.

great in depth answer as always!
i guess there has to be some testing done by me...

the 3d-depth remains the same right? or does spatiality also gets reduced at the poles?

br.mo

Re: Eye Distance Falloff

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2015 9:43 pm
by abstrax
momade wrote:thanks abstrax.

great in depth answer as always!
i guess there has to be some testing done by me...

the 3d-depth remains the same right? or does spatiality also gets reduced at the poles?

br.mo

The actual distance is the same of course, but the perceived is gets larger, because the distance between the eyes becomes smaller and with that the parallax effect.