visual_displays - 3D User Interface Hardware 3D Lecture #4:...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 3D User Interface Hardware 3D Lecture #4: Visual Displays Spring 2008 Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Interaction Workflow Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 1 Introduction To Displays Display: device which presents Display perceptual information Often ‘display’ used to mean ‘visual Often display’ Goal: display devices which accurately Goal: represent perceptions in simulated world Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Lecture Outline Visual System Visual Depth Cues Depth Visual Display Characteristics Visual Visual Display Examples Visual monitors monitors surround screen displays surround workbenches workbenches head mounted displays head arm-mounted displays armvirtual retinal displays virtual autostereoscopic displays autostereoscopic Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 2 Vision Stimulus: light of wavelengths ~350-750 nm Stimulus: Gamma X UV Violet Blue 400 Infra Radar Green 500 Yellow 600 FM TV AM AC Red 700 Wavelength (nm) Visual dominance: 50% of brain involved in Visual processing! Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Eye Physiology Camera metaphor: Camera lens (can change) lens film (retina) film amount of exposure amount (pupil) Retina Lens Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 3 Retina Photoreceptors: rods & cones Photoreceptors: Distinction of function Distinction rods: periphery, motion, B&W, sensitivity rods: cones: fovea, static, color, acuity cones: Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Rod/cone Distribution cones rods # rods/cones position on retina “blind spot” Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 4 Depth Cues – How Do We See 3D? Monocular/static cues Monocular/static Occulomotor cues Occulomotor Motion Parallax Motion Binocular Disparity and Stereopsis Binocular Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Monocular/Static Cues Relative Size Relative Height relative to horizon Height Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 5 Monocular/Static Cues Occlusion and Linear Perspective Occlusion Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Monocular/Static Cues Shading, Lighting, and Texture Shading, Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 6 Oculomotor Cues Accommodation – physical stretching and relaxing Accommodation of eye lens Convergence – rotation of viewer’s eyes so images Convergence can be fused together at varying distances Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Motion Parallax Stationary viewer vs. moving viewer Stationary Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality CAP6938 ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 7 Binocular Disparity and Stereopsis Each eye gets a slightly Each different image Only effective within a few Only feet of viewer Many implementation Many schemes Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Accommodation-Convergence Mismatch Standard stereo displays confuse the brain Standard based on oculomotor cues right-eye image left-eye image Only “true 3D” displays can provide these Only correctly Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 8 Visual Display Characteristics Field of View (FOV) and Field of Regard (FOR) Field FOR – amount of physical space surrounding viewer in which visual FOR images appear FOV – maximum visual angle seen instantaneously FOV Spatial Resolution Spatial number of pixels and screen size number Screen Geometry Screen rectangular, hemispherical, etc… rectangular, etc… Light Transfer Mechanism Light front projection, rear projection, laser light, etc… front etc… Refresh Rate Refresh not the same as frame rate not Ergonomics Ergonomics Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Stereo Monitor Ordinary workstation Ordinary equipped with emitter and shutter glasses Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 9 Stereo Monitor – Advantages Least expensive in terms of additional Least hardware over other output devices Allows usage of virtually any input device Allows Good resolution Good User can take advantage of keyboard and User mouse Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Stereo Monitor – Disadvantages Not very immersive Not User really cannot move around User Does not take advantage of peripheral Does vision Stereo can be problematic Stereo Occlusion from physical objects can be Occlusion problematic Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 10 Surround Screen VE (1) Has 3 to 6 large Has screens Puts user in a room Puts for visual immersion Usually driven by a Usually single or group of powerful graphics engines Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Surround Screen VE (2) Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 11 Surround Screen VE (3) Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. SSVE – Advantages Provides high resolution and large FOV Provides User only needs a pair of light weight shutter User glasses for stereo viewing User has freedom to move about the device User Environment is not evasive Environment Real and virtual objects can be mixed in the Real environment A group of people can inhabit the space group simultaneously Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 12 SSVE – Disadvantages Very expensive (6-7 figures) Very Requires a large amount of physical space Requires Projector calibration must be maintained Projector No more that two users can be head No tracked Stereo viewing can be problematic Stereo Physical objects can get in the way of Physical graphical objects Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. SSVE – Interface Design Do not need to represent physical objects Do (i.e. hands) as graphical objects Can take advantage of the user’s Can peripheral vision Do not want the user to get too close to Do the screens Developer can take advantage of the Developer space for using physical props (i.e. car, motion platform) Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 13 Workbenches and Variants (1) Similar to SSVE but Similar one display (two at most) Can be a desk or a Can large single display (i.e. PowerWall) Traditionally a table Traditionally top metaphor Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Workbenches and Variants (2) Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 14 Workbenches and Variants (3) Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Workbenches – Advantages High resolution High For certain applications, makes for an For intuitive display Can be shared by several users Can Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 15 Workbenches – Disadvantages Limited movement Limited At most two users can be head tracked At No surrounding screens No Physical objects can get in the way of Physical graphical objects Stereo can be problematic Stereo Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Workbenches – Interface Design Ergonomics are important especially when Ergonomics designing interfaces for table displays User can take advantage of direct penUser based input if display surface permits No need to make graphical No representations of physical objects Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 16 Head Mounted Displays Device has either two Device CRT or LCD screens plus special optics in front of the users eyes User cannot naturally User see the real world Provides a stereoscopic Provides view that moves relative to the user Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. HMDs – Advantages Provides an immersive experience by Provides blocking out the real world Fairly easy to set up Fairly Does not restrict user from moving around Does in the real world Average quality HMD is relatively Average inexpensive Can achieve good stereo quality Can Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 17 HMDs – Disadvantages Average quality HMDs have poor Average resolution and field of view (FOV) Does not take advantage of peripheral Does vision Isolation and fear of real world events Isolation Good quality devices cost in the 100,000 Good dollar range Heavy and do not fit well Heavy Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. HMDs – Interface Design Physical objects require a graphical Physical representation Limits the types of input devices that can Limits be used Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 18 Arm Mounted Display (BOOM) Like a HMD but Like mounted on an articulated arm Mostly use CRT Mostly technology Not really used Not anymore Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. BOOM – Advantages Provides better resolution than HMDs and Provides generally a higher FOV Light weight relative to the user Light Excellent tracking with minimal lag Excellent Easy to set up and switch users Easy Good stereo quality Good Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 19 BOOM – Disadvantages Limited user movement Limited Like looking through binoculars Like Does not take advantage of peripheral Does vision Requires the user to hold onto the BOOM Requires for control Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. BOOM – Interface Design Must have at least one hand on the device Must which limits two-handed interaction Physical objects require graphical Physical representation Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 20 Virtual Retinal Displays (VRD) Scans images directly Scans onto the retina Invented at the HIT Invented Lab in 1991 Used for both virtual Used and augmented reality Commercially being Commercially developed at Microvision, Inc. Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. VRDs – Advantages Lightweight relative to the user Lightweight Ability for high resolution and FOV Ability Potential for complete visual immersion Potential Can achieve good stereo quality Can Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 21 VRDs – Disadvantages Currently has low resolution and FOV is Currently small Displays are currently monochrome Displays Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. VRDs – Interface Design Avenue of research Avenue Questions arise about eye movement Questions Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 22 AutoStereoscopic Displays Lenticular Lenticular Volumetric Volumetric Holographic Holographic Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Which Visual Display to Use? Consider lists of pros and cons Consider Consider depth cues supported Consider Consider level of visual immersion Consider But this is a very hard question to answer But empirically Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 23 Next Class Auditory and Haptic Displays Auditory Readings Readings 3DUI Book – Chapter 3, pages 29-59 3DUI 29- Spring 2008 CAP6938 – 3D User Interfaces for Games and Virtual Reality ©Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 24 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/13/2011 for the course CAP 6938 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Central Florida.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online