I did read it and dismissed it as ridiculous because that's how binocular vision works. Each of your eyes see an image of the world slightly offset from the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Printable View
I did read it and dismissed it as ridiculous because that's how binocular vision works. Each of your eyes see an image of the world slightly offset from the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Yes, that's a correct statement if you're looking at the same point in space. 3D splits that into two for you.
http://www.audioholics.com/news/edit...o-your-health/
Furthermore, another glaring problem is simply how fake 3D looks; everything is in focus, there is no focal plane. There is depth being projected to you, but none into the screen.
To me it all depends on the game really but I really can't see 3D as a huge leap from general gaming. It would possibly be nice to have in games like World of Warcraft and maybe racing, but I can't see how 3D would give you any advantage in FPS games. Quite the opposite I'm sure most of the best shooters out there would never use this kind of technology.
Eye candy only goes so far into the game experience and 3D immersion is far from the most important aspect of eye candy, textures, lighting and shadows will still rule for a long time to come.
Still there is no indication that the problem is because of the separation of images. If anything I'd suggest it might be because of the lack of eye accommodation.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Basically your eye automatically refocuses on an object that you are viewing, casting everything else out of focus. In current 3d tech your eye is focusing on a plane (the screen) and everything viewed on that plane is in focus unless they specifically defocus it. Eyeball tracking and depth of field could solve these problems, but render it impossible for multiple people to view simultaneously.
The whole point is that a planar image is split into two slightly offset images that give you 3D perspective, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
So if you start watching 3D, your left and right eyes are not looking at the same object; they're looking at an object that has been split slightly left and right. It's like slightly crossing your eyes (I say this because diverging your eyes is impossible to do manually) for hours on end.
It's not the same as looking at one object, which is what some animated gifs do: rapidly blink back and forth between two perspectives of one object, but don't change the center point.
But each offset image is just capturing a closer plane from each eye's cone of vision aiming at that object. I don't buy that as a cause. I'd say if anything it's more likely eye accommodation. Basically your brain thinks it should have to refocus when looking at a nearer or farther object, but it doesn't since they are all in focus on the same plane (the screen).
Now your seeing what I was trying to get at before. Atleast if your not being sarcastic. If the gtx 580 was not released at all, pricing could be potentially worse too.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia
No, the stereoscopic illusion is that it eliminates the need for your eye to focus on the same object by presenting the offset images already. Therefore your brain doesn't think it needs to focus ... and then you develop lazy eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
That's called eye accommodation and is not because the images are offset from each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Zzz. Last few pages filled with 3D stuff :/
Anyway, to add fuel to the, uhh, nothing, a little birdie told me to expect clocks between Juniper and 900. Hmm
No, eye accommodation is just the eye focusing on different focal planes. 3D illusions are based upon taking the same image and splitting it into two. There's no angle correction as far as I can see in youtube 3D or movie 3D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Exactly, there are no focal planes in stereoscopic 3d. It's all on the same plane but the difference in angle between objects makes your brain think that they are at different focal depths. So when you look objects in a scene your brain will want to do what it normally does automatically and try to refocus on that object. But there is no refocusing to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Anyway, the mechanism isn't important. Forget I mentioned it.
Here's to good supply! Helps with cost!
I know Cypress wasn't memory bandwidth starved, but almost no improvement?
it seem 2GB of 6-7ghz have a very high cost, and that mean 2GB low frequency is more faster on cayman that 6-7ghz 1GB.
Cayman is highend with very high res and eyefinity mean 3x24" or 6x24" !!!
So cayman seem to be the true first Good eyefinity done !!!
1920 shaders is good, and the most interresting that we does'nt know before this slide the 2 poly /cycle. This is an awesome improvement !!!
i was thinking the same thing... but where is it coming from ?Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
96 TMUs :confused:
more tmu's always sounds nice :D
Finally some good slide leaks. Anyone remember this ? http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/ite...o-hd6970-specs:ROTF:
1920SPUs + VLIW4 potential beast on paper just hope ROPs doesn't bottleneck it.
Fake. 20 SIMD engines dont make 1600 streaming processors. ZzQuote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
edit: Damn, I thought they were talking about the 6850, now I see that its the 5870. Its fine then :p:
It was already mentioned before (2x times previous gen geometric processing power)Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4204/94189504.jpg
50% more SIMD engines + 2 tri/clock looks nice, but memory bandwidth + 32 ROPs seem to be too much conservative.
but they didn't said 2 poly/clock, so it was not sure that that have double poly engine, no yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by japamd
plus drastic improvement in tesselation not mentioned in this slide but which rumors claim will be 3x faster. If this is indeed a big chip then maybe the 32 ROP and 256 bit memory help keep the transistor count down. I sure Southern Islands will boost more ROPs but I think AMD is addressing Cypress' weaknesses mainly with this chip and ROP and mem bw were not really big weaknesses of cypress.Quote:
Originally Posted by japamd
from memory bandwith i guess cayman will have 5-5.2 ghz gddr5 not 6 ghz as some suggested