Eye Distance Falloff

Forums: Eye Distance Falloff
A public forum for discussing and asking questions about OctaneVR.

Eye Distance Falloff

Postby momade » Mon May 18, 2015 8:43 am

momade Mon May 18, 2015 8:43 am
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
User avatar
momade
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:52 pm
Location: Cologne - Germany

Re: Eye Distance Falloff

Postby abstrax » Mon May 18, 2015 9:46 pm

abstrax Mon May 18, 2015 9:46 pm
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
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
User avatar
abstrax
OctaneRender Team
OctaneRender Team
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Eye Distance Falloff

Postby momade » Tue May 19, 2015 1:48 am

momade Tue May 19, 2015 1:48 am
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
User avatar
momade
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:52 pm
Location: Cologne - Germany

Re: Eye Distance Falloff

Postby abstrax » Tue May 19, 2015 9:43 pm

abstrax Tue May 19, 2015 9:43 pm
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.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
User avatar
abstrax
OctaneRender Team
OctaneRender Team
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Return to OctaneVR Questions & Discussion


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:54 am [ UTC ]