Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Fight VR Focus-Switching Headaches
An anonymous reader writes: One of the biggest problems virtual reality headsets have yet to overcome is the headaches they cause in a subset of users. For a lot of users, this is caused by needing to rapidly switch your focus between objects that are (virtually) near and far away. "Trying to focus on 'far away' objects on that stereoscopic screen means keeping a fixed focal distance but changing the 'vergence' angle of your eyes—in essence, going a little cross-eyed for a moment." Fortunately, researchers at Stanford have figured out a partial solution.
They "created a prototype headset (PDF) that includes a translucent LCD panel sitting about 1cm in front of a standard, opaque LCD. With some GPU pre-processing, this 'light field stereoscope' headset can display nearby objects on the front LCD and farther-away objects on the rear, creating what the researchers call a '4D' image that layers a basic virtual light field on top of the usual stereoscopic left/right eye 3D separation." This provides an easy, low-tech way to let the eyes focus more easily, and alleviate the strain that causes headaches.
They "created a prototype headset (PDF) that includes a translucent LCD panel sitting about 1cm in front of a standard, opaque LCD. With some GPU pre-processing, this 'light field stereoscope' headset can display nearby objects on the front LCD and farther-away objects on the rear, creating what the researchers call a '4D' image that layers a basic virtual light field on top of the usual stereoscopic left/right eye 3D separation." This provides an easy, low-tech way to let the eyes focus more easily, and alleviate the strain that causes headaches.
Yeah science, bitch!
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
It seems the long-term solution will involve eye tracking so that the device can "focus" with you. Tough problem, I imagine, to solve in such a tiny area without interfering with the experience. It would also likely need even better latency than the current setup, which is asking a lot.
That's also why I think "depth of field" blur in games is stupid: It only works if you stare rigidly at the crosshair in the center of your screen and never let your eyes wander, doing all of your "looking around" indirectly, through hand movement.
We'll never see DoF or "HDR" really work until there is standardized gaze-tracking.
Why would they say it's a 4D image? I'm going to count the dimensions they're using again. One... two.. three... Wait, are they counting time too?
Ok, they got a handle on the headaches. Now what about the horrible, horrible motion sickness?
If only a small subset of users have this problems, then it's not really a big problem for VR headsets.
Funny thing -- along about age 40 or so, that vergence-focus mismatch goes away all on its own, as your eye loses the ability to change focus. Not that there are that many advantages to aging, but this is definitely one.
going a little cross-eyed for a moment
Funny story involving close focusing and crossed eyes - So a couple years ago I watched about an hour or two worth of Family Guy from Netflix on my phone. I held the phone less than a foot away from my face while doing this, without any breaks. You know how they say don't cross your eyes for too long or they'll get stuck that way? Yeah... That actually happens. I had to walk around with one eye closed for the rest of the day (it didn't matter which one, I just couldn't do both or one would go all wonky). When I woke up the next morning I was fine again.
... and even patented it.
This provides an easy, low-tech way to let the eyes focus more easily, and alleviate the strain that causes headaches.
So it doubles the number of LCD panels, introduces one that is a different kind from the other, and changes the rendering process. How is that easy and low-tech? (Maybe the software just looks at the Z buffer to distinguish near and far?) Nice job though. This seems like a great trick and might just be the start of something even better.
Latency. VR headsets are going to cause motion sickness and headaches until their response time is as transparent to the user as the average PC game.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
It's unclear to me whether the two LCDs just give the user two individual planes to focus on, or whether through some computational wizardry two is enough to generate multiple virtual planes. If it is the latter, I am very impressed and am curious whether this technology could be applied to TVs or other devices.
if 3D vision is just seeing the surface of a 3D object... then 4D vision must then mean you can see not just the skin of people, but all the blood, bones, and guts inside.
Another problem that lasers will solve
The trick lies in the fact that the picture is a projection, not the scene. There do exist 3D displays, which are volumetric, but a lightfield display doesn't replicate the objects, only the light passing through the screen. This is just like a hologram (although digital lightfield processing is far from the fidelity of chemical holography). The more commonly advertised "3D" screens approximate the effect for two points that represent your eyes, which breaks down in several ways: The points may be misplaced, such as looking at the screen from anywhere but dead center at the right distance and with the estimated interpupilary distance (yeah, that's not happening, particularly with multiple viewers); this is common for TVs and such. For HMDs and VR, a growing issue is that the points are not points at all; your pupils have a shape, and dynamic optics used to focus (accomodate). That's what these displays are designed to address. A related issue in turn is that cinematographers are used to using blurring effects to suggest focus, which will conflict if you're not looking exactly where you were expected to.
Light field imaging really does operate in 4D; two dimensions of position and two dimensions of angle. Normal stereoscopic imagery means using two cameras, each of which takes 2D angular images (e.g. the pixels represent a direction from the camera), and having them placed separately; this gives you a single step of third dimension, which is intended to exactly match the offset between your eyes. It's only an estimation as eyes have more axis of adjustability, including vergence and accomodation, and the direction of your eyes does affect your interpupilary distance for the same reason a panoramic camera setup needs a depth offsetting gimbal; the front end optics are in front of the rotation axis. Common stereoscopic displays like TVs and cinema have this as one of the less inaccurate tradeoffs, however, as the mere fact they don't know where you are (and there are frequently multiple watchers) means they can't show your perspective (if they did, you would see a wider field if you sat closer). A lightfield camera like a Lytro uses a lens array to distinguish such places on the lens itself. From that data you could focus to render 2D images, but a true lightfield display (like this one from Standford, the microlens projection system from MIT, or the very similar HMD shown by Nvidia) leaves that task to your eye's normal accomodation. Some lightfield systems simply use multiple cameras in an array; a few are designed for 3D and thus only have a linear array. Due to the unsolved problem of video transfer of true 4D lightfields, this is the category most 3D panoramic content falls in, which restricts the user to panning only (no yaw, little tilt, no translation) to avoid serious distortion.
If you look at a stereoscopic image, and move your head a little, you see the scene shearing to make objects further away move the same direction; this effect is because the images shown to your eyes were made for a different perspective. An eye tracking stereoscopic display could avoid this (sadly, the New 3DS does not), and a true light field display would not need to; it already displays different perspectives in different directions. In principle you'd require a capture array the size of your screen, but display prototypes avoid that simply by using CG, and it's also less of a problem for VR than cinema. A common application has been lenticular 3D pictures, which frequently have 5 or more perspectives.
And on a 2D panel the eyes don't have to change focus depending on where you look on the screen so it doesn't cause eye strain.
That is incorrect. Monitors are not windows. Your eyes are always focusing light-rays emitted from the surface of the monitor, which is (roughly) all at the same distance.
DoF does not reduce eyestrain in any way, it simply allows developers a half-assed way to drop detail for better framerates. If anything, it can slightly increase eyestrain by tricking you into trying to focus on something that always stays blurry.