Platform Smartphone versus VR glasses #viewing #vrheadset #android


Jeroen de Wijs
 

I have not red all messages regarding viewing digital content on smartphones or VR glasses. Anyway...
About 3 months ago I made a customized viewer based on the Oculus Go. I completely took all hardware out of its enclosure and designed a new enclosure to be used for exhibit purposes. The viewer was ment to be mounted on a revolving post. It holds my regular achromatic lenses, like Matej used in his 3D printed viewer. I also applied it in my 4K exhibit viewer of 2 years ago with the Z5 LCD inside.
But the reason of this post is not to talk about what already exists with all the limits but what we actually want. Building a great digital viewer from scratch is insane, most needed technology already exisist but it is not programmed or physically designed right for our purpose; viewing still images or video content. 
Both smartphones and a number of VR stand alone glasses are running on Android OS. Building apps for Android is not rare and a lot companiers and even private programmers are able to do that. 
So my question is, if there should be a choice for a good digital 3D viewer, what would be the base platform; an Android running smartphone or an Android running VR stand alone viewer (with other optics). 
My own feeling is that a customized VR stand alone set would be most wanted. What are the opinions over here?
thanks for your thoughts.

Jeroen.


Bill G
 

Hi Jeroen, nice post... I will put my two cents in...
First, I think today, viewers need to be divided into two caregories, Fine Art Viewers (Like Matejs viewer, MF viewer, etc) and VR viewer.  The difference is, perceived resolution, or PPD, Pixels per Deg of viewing.  Your 90 deg lenses with the Sony phone at 4MP per eye, is about the most FOV we can get from 4MP eye, as mentioned in previous posts, about 60 PPD or 1 arc minute. 
VR is more about creating a massive FOV (which I love and crave), but at the expense of a horrible PPD for fine art viewing, the view is too pixelated.
So based on my great experience with the Matej viewer, sony phone and your optics, I would suggest this is the optimum platform for resolution, portability, and relatively low cost all things considered.
Of course, this is Android based, and only Sony seems to offer these super high rez screens, so its not just android, its Sony.
What can be done to increase the viewing experience of the Matej viewer?  Electronics.  
First, an easy way via a remote control to flip through images and folders without removing the phone.  
Second, the big jump.... enable the phone pan, like VR does, so we can shoot wider images, such as 3:1 ratio (or wider), while still displaying the square in the viewer, turn your head left and right to see further left and right.  Since Android phones already do this via hand held, (and extremely well) maybe it can be simply adapted to offer the same inside the viewer.  So prob. not a major feature upgrade to an existing app.
Then, the ability to view 3d videos.

As discussed in private email chain of Matej customers, many crave the ability to replace the phone with snap-on super bright LED light panel for MF viewing.  This would be quite the versatile viewer at a very affordable price point for the hobbiest.  It all seems feasible.

Considering the way VR is heading towards gamers, wide FOV with minimal resolution, I dont think our Fine ARt viewer will come from that market.  All what I mentioned here would provide for a very very powerful 3d experience, both for just end users, and those who capture 3d as well...
Bill


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:13 PM Jeroen de Wijs <jeroendewijs@...> wrote:
I have not red all messages regarding viewing digital content on smartphones or VR glasses. Anyway...
About 3 months ago I made a customized viewer based on the Oculus Go. I completely took all hardware out of its enclosure and designed a new enclosure to be used for exhibit purposes. The viewer was ment to be mounted on a revolving post. It holds my regular achromatic lenses, like Matej used in his 3D printed viewer. I also applied it in my 4K exhibit viewer of 2 years ago with the Z5 LCD inside.
But the reason of this post is not to talk about what already exists with all the limits but what we actually want. Building a great digital viewer from scratch is insane, most needed technology already exisist but it is not programmed or physically designed right for our purpose; viewing still images or video content. 
Both smartphones and a number of VR stand alone glasses are running on Android OS. Building apps for Android is not rare and a lot companiers and even private programmers are able to do that. 
So my question is, if there should be a choice for a good digital 3D viewer, what would be the base platform; an Android running smartphone or an Android running VR stand alone viewer (with other optics). 
My own feeling is that a customized VR stand alone set would be most wanted. What are the opinions over here?
thanks for your thoughts.

Jeroen.


Bill G
 

forgot to add...as for viewer improvements...
the obvious
slight IPD adjust to keep pupil concentric with lens centers.
add diopter adjust on one eye like binocs, simple twist of lens, preferably with diopter marking to easy re set.  Focus markings too, for easy re set when sharing viewer.
viewing hood, similar to old Holmes viewer, but higher tech rubber to avoid stray light.  Could be 3d printed as well...


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:37 PM bglick97 via groups.io <bglick97=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Jeroen, nice post... I will put my two cents in...
First, I think today, viewers need to be divided into two caregories, Fine Art Viewers (Like Matejs viewer, MF viewer, etc) and VR viewer.  The difference is, perceived resolution, or PPD, Pixels per Deg of viewing.  Your 90 deg lenses with the Sony phone at 4MP per eye, is about the most FOV we can get from 4MP eye, as mentioned in previous posts, about 60 PPD or 1 arc minute. 
VR is more about creating a massive FOV (which I love and crave), but at the expense of a horrible PPD for fine art viewing, the view is too pixelated.
So based on my great experience with the Matej viewer, sony phone and your optics, I would suggest this is the optimum platform for resolution, portability, and relatively low cost all things considered.
Of course, this is Android based, and only Sony seems to offer these super high rez screens, so its not just android, its Sony.
What can be done to increase the viewing experience of the Matej viewer?  Electronics.  
First, an easy way via a remote control to flip through images and folders without removing the phone.  
Second, the big jump.... enable the phone pan, like VR does, so we can shoot wider images, such as 3:1 ratio (or wider), while still displaying the square in the viewer, turn your head left and right to see further left and right.  Since Android phones already do this via hand held, (and extremely well) maybe it can be simply adapted to offer the same inside the viewer.  So prob. not a major feature upgrade to an existing app.
Then, the ability to view 3d videos.

As discussed in private email chain of Matej customers, many crave the ability to replace the phone with snap-on super bright LED light panel for MF viewing.  This would be quite the versatile viewer at a very affordable price point for the hobbiest.  It all seems feasible.

Considering the way VR is heading towards gamers, wide FOV with minimal resolution, I dont think our Fine ARt viewer will come from that market.  All what I mentioned here would provide for a very very powerful 3d experience, both for just end users, and those who capture 3d as well...
Bill


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:13 PM Jeroen de Wijs <jeroendewijs@...> wrote:
I have not red all messages regarding viewing digital content on smartphones or VR glasses. Anyway...
About 3 months ago I made a customized viewer based on the Oculus Go. I completely took all hardware out of its enclosure and designed a new enclosure to be used for exhibit purposes. The viewer was ment to be mounted on a revolving post. It holds my regular achromatic lenses, like Matej used in his 3D printed viewer. I also applied it in my 4K exhibit viewer of 2 years ago with the Z5 LCD inside.
But the reason of this post is not to talk about what already exists with all the limits but what we actually want. Building a great digital viewer from scratch is insane, most needed technology already exisist but it is not programmed or physically designed right for our purpose; viewing still images or video content. 
Both smartphones and a number of VR stand alone glasses are running on Android OS. Building apps for Android is not rare and a lot companiers and even private programmers are able to do that. 
So my question is, if there should be a choice for a good digital 3D viewer, what would be the base platform; an Android running smartphone or an Android running VR stand alone viewer (with other optics). 
My own feeling is that a customized VR stand alone set would be most wanted. What are the opinions over here?
thanks for your thoughts.

Jeroen.


timo@guildwood.net
 

The Sony 4k phone screens are available separately as are Raspberry Pi driver boards.  Perhaps somebody with the right skills could program a pair of these screens to show left and right images, as mirror images. These would then be mounted in a Wheatstone arrangement viewer.

That's my two cents.
Timo

Sent from BlueMail

On Aug 5, 2020, at 4:13 PM, Jeroen de Wijs <jeroendewijs@...> wrote:
I have not red all messages regarding viewing digital content on smartphones or VR glasses. Anyway...
About 3 months ago I made a customized viewer based on the Oculus Go. I completely took all hardware out of its enclosure and designed a new enclosure to be used for exhibit purposes. The viewer was ment to be mounted on a revolving post. It holds my regular achromatic lenses, like Matej used in his 3D printed viewer. I also applied it in my 4K exhibit viewer of 2 years ago with the Z5 LCD inside.
But the reason of this post is not to talk about what already exists with all the limits but what we actually want. Building a great digital viewer from scratch is insane, most needed technology already exisist but it is not programmed or physically designed right for our purpose; viewing still images or video content. 
Both smartphones and a number of VR stand alone glasses are running on Android OS. Building apps for Android is not rare and a lot companiers and even private programmers are able to do that. 
So my question is, if there should be a choice for a good digital 3D viewer, what would be the base platform; an Android running smartphone or an Android running VR stand alone viewer (with other optics). 
My own feeling is that a customized VR stand alone set would be most wanted. What are the opinions over here?
thanks for your thoughts.

Jeroen.


 

Perhaps somebody with the right skills could program a pair of [hi rez]
screens to show left and right images, as mirror images. These would
then be mounted in a Wheatstone arrangement viewer.
Somebody already has. Except for the specific of the Sony displays,
the original Cinera display was exactly what you describe. Excellent
image quality, 2560x1440 per eye -- absolutely no screen door effect.
(Nor the herringbone-effect like the Sony.)

But this viewer is rather large and bulky. It also suffers from
having a bunch of buttons for doing smart phone like navigation. It
is very easy to press the wrong button and send the viewer off into
some undesired mode. The problem is that it is using a generic
Android operating system, designed for use with TVs and a handheld
remote control. As such the viewer can be used for a variety of apps,
not just image viewing. Unfortunately it has a small battery so for
practical use it needs to be tethered to a power cord. Also I not a
fan of the fix-focus optics and really wide angle lenses, trying to be
as immersive as possible, making it hard to use for people with glasses
and a bit difficult to see edge-to-edge for full width images.

Bottom line, it is not a viewer I can just hand to a novice user like
a Red Button or a View Master.

So yes -- adjustable high quality optics -- please. But also simple
controls dedicated to sequential image viewing, or start/stop video.
Forward and back should be easy and intuitive. Any other buttons that
are required for doing things like selecting folders and such must be
hard to press by accident.

BTW -- the first Cyclopital3D digital viewer was also a Wheatstone.
It too had the same problem of a multitude of
easy-to-press-by-accident buttons that could send the viewer off into
la-la land.

...BC


Bill G
 

the benefit of a digital wheatstone viewer is signficant...

1)  2x the pixels to each eye
2)  more pleasing horizontal aspect ratio format.

I am not against it one bit...however, it does introduce possible alignment issues.  The screens need to have significant adjustments to prevent rivalry from the two phones being mis aligned.  Its possible, if the viewer is robust enough, it could be a set once, and forget, which would be nice.  This would require some experimenting.  It would require quite a sophisticated optic if you want to view the entire screen, multi element in a barrel for sure.  60mm fl  would be ideal.  I am sure there is nothing off the shelf that would meet this requirement...but I  love the concept.  But once u get into custom designed / built optics, costs and lens weight escalate quickly.  Maybe Jeroen can comment on this...


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:04 PM timo@... <timo@...> wrote:
The Sony 4k phone screens are available separately as are Raspberry Pi driver boards.  Perhaps somebody with the right skills could program a pair of these screens to show left and right images, as mirror images. These would then be mounted in a Wheatstone arrangement viewer.

That's my two cents.
Timo

Sent from BlueMail
On Aug 5, 2020, at 4:13 PM, Jeroen de Wijs <jeroendewijs@...> wrote:
I have not red all messages regarding viewing digital content on smartphones or VR glasses. Anyway...
About 3 months ago I made a customized viewer based on the Oculus Go. I completely took all hardware out of its enclosure and designed a new enclosure to be used for exhibit purposes. The viewer was ment to be mounted on a revolving post. It holds my regular achromatic lenses, like Matej used in his 3D printed viewer. I also applied it in my 4K exhibit viewer of 2 years ago with the Z5 LCD inside.
But the reason of this post is not to talk about what already exists with all the limits but what we actually want. Building a great digital viewer from scratch is insane, most needed technology already exisist but it is not programmed or physically designed right for our purpose; viewing still images or video content. 
Both smartphones and a number of VR stand alone glasses are running on Android OS. Building apps for Android is not rare and a lot companiers and even private programmers are able to do that. 
So my question is, if there should be a choice for a good digital 3D viewer, what would be the base platform; an Android running smartphone or an Android running VR stand alone viewer (with other optics). 
My own feeling is that a customized VR stand alone set would be most wanted. What are the opinions over here?
thanks for your thoughts.

Jeroen.


Depthcam
 

I'll put it another way:  There are two types of viewers:  3D viewers for viewing 3D movies and 3D stills... and VR viewers for viewing 180 and 360 content.  Those are two distinct platforms and that has been so for some years now.  For example, headsets such as the Royole Moon, Goovis Cinego, Zeiss Cinemizer or Cinera are all viewers designed for 3D movie viewing (and can be used for 3D stills) while the Oculus and other VR headsets are used to view and experience environments.

The point BC is making is that the Cinera V1 viewer addresses the very problem of trying to use two phones in a single unit (Wheatstone configuration).  There are two large horizontal displays facing each other so that 16:9 format images fill most of the displays.  And those two displays are synced to a single controller and Android OS.  The problem with this viewer is as BC describes:  The user interface is rather hard to navigate and the optics are rather plain.  But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

Cinera just launched a new viewer called the "Edge" and this one is a much more compact unit.  It is designed primarily for movie fans as it has built-in headphones.  It uses much smaller displays that are placed in front of the eyes but have the same resolution as the V1.  It was recently announced that all the stretch goals were reached so the specs are even higher than originally planned:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cinera/cinera-edge-a-5k-oled-hmd-with-dolby-digital-51-headphone

But there is no info in regards viewing stills with this viewer.

I am aware that at least one of our members has ordered one.

Francois


Bill G
 

> But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

when I look at the specs on the Cinera, I cant find the viewing FOV?  Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about.... The Matej viewer has 4MP per eye at about 28 deg FOV... or from memory about 67 PPD.   My guess is, that Cinera is much less, prob. 30 PPD, so the resolution effect likely would be very poor vs. the Matej viewer, despite it being much better than most VR viewers such as the Rift, which IMO is just horrible.    I never seen a Cinera viewer, but PPD is the resolution comparative factor for all formats, film, (convert lp/mm to pixels), screens, print, etc. 
Also, when you widen the FOV, the optics need to become complex to maintain MTF.  These viewers are NOT putting high end optics, as the optics would be too large, heavy and costly.  So reduced MTF.  The ONLY way to avoid that scenario, is to use a very limited FOV optic, such as Jeroens lens used in the Matej viewer.  As I mentioned, I have designed and built many larger FOV optics that are SHARP... 5 elements min. ,huge diam barrels, very heavy, some 1-2 lbs each.  Unless there is some type of major breakthrough in the physics of optics, I dont see this changing anytime soon.  Nothing has changed in the last 100 years.  Optics are highly complex as you increase the design requirements... like comparing a Toyota and a Formula ONE race car, its amazing what you have to add to get over that finish line a few seconds faster!

Anyway, nobody craves wide FOV more than me...  but for me, NOT at the expense at reduced resolution... this is why I re categorized my viewers as Fine Art and VR.  Although Francois did a good job further clarifying, movie viewing, spherical, etc. 

For those of us who started with MF 3d, that is the resolution standard we are shooting for.  The Matej viewer is close.  As I mentioned in my post, if it added some of the features many I suggested, it would prob. be the highest resolution viewer for stills and maybe some head turning VR, similar to VR headsets, but not 360 or full spherical, as my guess is, that would be a bit of a stretch, but I am not well versed in the programming aspect.

Just moving from one phone, to two phones in wheatstone configuration makes a huge jump in optical complexity to benefit from that wider FOV the more pixels on the horizontal would allow.   Wish I was still in the field of designing and building optics, but its just too costly of an endeavor.  You need super high volume production like camera lenses, or binocs, to make complex optics at prosumer pricing.  Maybe someone has some connections at Asian optics design / build firm, and can now design and build at much more competitive pricing for low volume builds.   I never found such, not to mention, the size and weight of the wider FOV optics with good MTF, ruins the hand holding premise of the viewer.   There is 3 primary factors of the viewing scenario that drives up the complexity of the optical design.... 1) the angle of view from the back of the optic, to the medium being viewed (this angle factors in fl and image circle), 2) The FOV on the viewing side of the optic (this the FOV that is projected on your retina, wow factor, also refered to AFOV), this is what drives the Diameter of the optic closest to your eye, and 3) the ER, Eye Releif.  The greater the ER, the wider the front optics... its simple right angle geometry, nothing tricky about the simple geometry.  Sometimes u have to compromise on ER, to reduce the size of the optic, so eye glass wearers must take their correction off when using the viewer, or the image medium will be clipped.   Of course, MTF and distortion correction matters as well, but we will assume just enough MTF and distortion to cover the image format.  Each requirement adds more elements, as that is how optics makes corrections, each spherical element provides a specific correction.   There has been some advances in non spherical (aspherical) design in the past 5-10 years and plastics...the benefit of aspherical is you can make more than one correction with a single element.  When a plastic can be used, they can be made in molds relatively cheap.  If you look at higher end binocs that have good optics, I have yet to see plastic elements, i don't think the image quality is there yet...but for low end optics, they is often a single plastic element mixed in with glass elements.  This has offered some huge cost break throughs for all optics, such as lower end camera lenses.

Hence why I wonder if the Matej viewer in its current format, might be the best mix of resolution, FOV without getting into serious optical design to bring the viewer to the next level, i.e two phones in wheatstone configuration.  And this assumes all the electronics and software can be easily hammered out.  

BUT, I would love a wheatstone dual Sony viewer, it would be the BEST handheld viewer we could ever ask for!  So by no means do I want to discourage anyone from getting to the next level!  But at the same time, I want to present realistic obstacles.  Remember, these small projects are low volume.  A single new 3-5 element optic for design and prototype can easily cost 20-50K on the low end, and 100K-200K for USA firms.  Nothing is guaranteed, it can take several tries to get the optic right.  I had lots of failures, it's not a perfect science, design vs. real world build does not always pan out, as you must factor in the human eye, which is not easy for software.    I was once quoted $250K from a CA optics design firm to design / prototype a single 6+ element design with some very aggressive requirements.  And for that price, u get NO guarantees, it's called, BEST EFFORT....it's a roll of the dice....that is the wacky world of optical design / build!  Hence why I used USA design and Asian builds.
I only write this to try to explain how hard and costly it is make custom optics.  And each design build used to take me 6-9 months each... very slow process....
Bill



On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:13 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:

I'll put it another way:  There are two types of viewers:  3D viewers for viewing 3D movies and 3D stills... and VR viewers for viewing 180 and 360 content.  Those are two distinct platforms and that has been so for some years now.  For example, headsets such as the Royole Moon, Goovis Cinego, Zeiss Cinemizer or Cinera are all viewers designed for 3D movie viewing (and can be used for 3D stills) while the Oculus and other VR headsets are used to view and experience environments.

The point BC is making is that the Cinera V1 viewer addresses the very problem of trying to use two phones in a single unit (Wheatstone configuration).  There are two large horizontal displays facing each other so that 16:9 format images fill most of the displays.  And those two displays are synced to a single controller and Android OS.  The problem with this viewer is as BC describes:  The user interface is rather hard to navigate and the optics are rather plain.  But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

Cinera just launched a new viewer called the "Edge" and this one is a much more compact unit.  It is designed primarily for movie fans as it has built-in headphones.  It uses much smaller displays that are placed in front of the eyes but have the same resolution as the V1.  It was recently announced that all the stretch goals were reached so the specs are even higher than originally planned:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cinera/cinera-edge-a-5k-oled-hmd-with-dolby-digital-51-headphone

But there is no info in regards viewing stills with this viewer.

I am aware that at least one of our members has ordered one.

Francois


ron labbe
 

BC writes (about Cinera) >> I not a fan of the fix-focus optics...Bottom line, it is not a viewer I can just hand to a novice user like a Red Button or a View Master.<<

But View-Master is fixed focus (almost 100%). I think not having a focus knob is better for passing to novice: focus to infinity and if glasses are needed so be it. DeWijs Museum viewers are fixed focus.


 

But View-Master is fixed focus (almost 100%). I think not having a
focus knob is better for passing to novice: focus to infinity and if
glasses are needed so be it.
I don't recall anybody I've ever handed a Red Button viewer to having
problems with focusing it. Monkey see monkey do, I first look through
the viewer and focus it for my eyes (I don't need glasses). I hand
the viewer over to the novice, who has never seen this device before,
but just saw it being used. They just instinctively reach for the
focus knob and adjust it for themselves. The knob is easy to find
without removing your eyes from the viewer. The Red Button viewer is
really a wonderful example of careful and thoughtful human factors
engineering.

DeWijs Museum viewers are fixed focus.
Well that's a horse of a different color. DeWijs lenses are
exceptional in design and execution.

...BC


Bill G
 

> when I look at the specs on the Cinera, I cant find the viewing FOV?  Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about....

Above, I was trying to determine the perceived resolution.  Cinera must have been viewing this list, as they are the only maker I have seen that quotes perceived resolution as PPD, which I introduced and have been endorsing for years on these lists, to normalize the term between all viewers.
I did find it, and as expected, it was low, 38 PPD.  (surely an improvement over previous VR viewers which is their market, movie viewing, etc)   The Matej viewer is around 67 PPD from memory.  I would suggest an ideal target for a Fine Art viewer should be around 75 -95 PPD, based on the quality of the display and pixel layout.  This could easily be achieved with two Sony phones in Wheatstone configuration.  This would only increase the lens fl to maybe 120 - 150mm fl.  If sources the lenses can be done off-the-shelf,  then all the pieces exists for the ultimate hand held FA (Fine Art) viewer ;) 
this would only push the AFOV the person experiences to about 35 - 40 deg, which might be doable with a large well designed doublet.  Some distortion will be at the corners with only a doublet, but that most people would be OK with that.
To put this in perspective, using two 8K tvs in a Wheatstone configuration, would only double this resolution, which would be the NEXT holy grail.  But this would most certainly be a stationary viewer, not portable.   Ideally, to take advantage of the added pixels of the 8K viewer, you would need to double the viewing FOV, which would be quite impressive at 70-90 deg...
98% of the population would be blown away by the dual 4K wheatstone viewer.



On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:32 PM bglick97 via groups.io <bglick97=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
> But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

when I look at the specs on the Cinera, I cant find the viewing FOV?  Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about.... The Matej viewer has 4MP per eye at about 28 deg FOV... or from memory about 67 PPD.   My guess is, that Cinera is much less, prob. 30 PPD, so the resolution effect likely would be very poor vs. the Matej viewer, despite it being much better than most VR viewers such as the Rift, which IMO is just horrible.    I never seen a Cinera viewer, but PPD is the resolution comparative factor for all formats, film, (convert lp/mm to pixels), screens, print, etc. 
Also, when you widen the FOV, the optics need to become complex to maintain MTF.  These viewers are NOT putting high end optics, as the optics would be too large, heavy and costly.  So reduced MTF.  The ONLY way to avoid that scenario, is to use a very limited FOV optic, such as Jeroens lens used in the Matej viewer.  As I mentioned, I have designed and built many larger FOV optics that are SHARP... 5 elements min. ,huge diam barrels, very heavy, some 1-2 lbs each.  Unless there is some type of major breakthrough in the physics of optics, I dont see this changing anytime soon.  Nothing has changed in the last 100 years.  Optics are highly complex as you increase the design requirements... like comparing a Toyota and a Formula ONE race car, its amazing what you have to add to get over that finish line a few seconds faster!

Anyway, nobody craves wide FOV more than me...  but for me, NOT at the expense at reduced resolution... this is why I re categorized my viewers as Fine Art and VR.  Although Francois did a good job further clarifying, movie viewing, spherical, etc. 

For those of us who started with MF 3d, that is the resolution standard we are shooting for.  The Matej viewer is close.  As I mentioned in my post, if it added some of the features many I suggested, it would prob. be the highest resolution viewer for stills and maybe some head turning VR, similar to VR headsets, but not 360 or full spherical, as my guess is, that would be a bit of a stretch, but I am not well versed in the programming aspect.

Just moving from one phone, to two phones in wheatstone configuration makes a huge jump in optical complexity to benefit from that wider FOV the more pixels on the horizontal would allow.   Wish I was still in the field of designing and building optics, but its just too costly of an endeavor.  You need super high volume production like camera lenses, or binocs, to make complex optics at prosumer pricing.  Maybe someone has some connections at Asian optics design / build firm, and can now design and build at much more competitive pricing for low volume builds.   I never found such, not to mention, the size and weight of the wider FOV optics with good MTF, ruins the hand holding premise of the viewer.   There is 3 primary factors of the viewing scenario that drives up the complexity of the optical design.... 1) the angle of view from the back of the optic, to the medium being viewed (this angle factors in fl and image circle), 2) The FOV on the viewing side of the optic (this the FOV that is projected on your retina, wow factor, also refered to AFOV), this is what drives the Diameter of the optic closest to your eye, and 3) the ER, Eye Releif.  The greater the ER, the wider the front optics... its simple right angle geometry, nothing tricky about the simple geometry.  Sometimes u have to compromise on ER, to reduce the size of the optic, so eye glass wearers must take their correction off when using the viewer, or the image medium will be clipped.   Of course, MTF and distortion correction matters as well, but we will assume just enough MTF and distortion to cover the image format.  Each requirement adds more elements, as that is how optics makes corrections, each spherical element provides a specific correction.   There has been some advances in non spherical (aspherical) design in the past 5-10 years and plastics...the benefit of aspherical is you can make more than one correction with a single element.  When a plastic can be used, they can be made in molds relatively cheap.  If you look at higher end binocs that have good optics, I have yet to see plastic elements, i don't think the image quality is there yet...but for low end optics, they is often a single plastic element mixed in with glass elements.  This has offered some huge cost break throughs for all optics, such as lower end camera lenses.

Hence why I wonder if the Matej viewer in its current format, might be the best mix of resolution, FOV without getting into serious optical design to bring the viewer to the next level, i.e two phones in wheatstone configuration.  And this assumes all the electronics and software can be easily hammered out.  

BUT, I would love a wheatstone dual Sony viewer, it would be the BEST handheld viewer we could ever ask for!  So by no means do I want to discourage anyone from getting to the next level!  But at the same time, I want to present realistic obstacles.  Remember, these small projects are low volume.  A single new 3-5 element optic for design and prototype can easily cost 20-50K on the low end, and 100K-200K for USA firms.  Nothing is guaranteed, it can take several tries to get the optic right.  I had lots of failures, it's not a perfect science, design vs. real world build does not always pan out, as you must factor in the human eye, which is not easy for software.    I was once quoted $250K from a CA optics design firm to design / prototype a single 6+ element design with some very aggressive requirements.  And for that price, u get NO guarantees, it's called, BEST EFFORT....it's a roll of the dice....that is the wacky world of optical design / build!  Hence why I used USA design and Asian builds.
I only write this to try to explain how hard and costly it is make custom optics.  And each design build used to take me 6-9 months each... very slow process....
Bill



On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:13 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:

I'll put it another way:  There are two types of viewers:  3D viewers for viewing 3D movies and 3D stills... and VR viewers for viewing 180 and 360 content.  Those are two distinct platforms and that has been so for some years now.  For example, headsets such as the Royole Moon, Goovis Cinego, Zeiss Cinemizer or Cinera are all viewers designed for 3D movie viewing (and can be used for 3D stills) while the Oculus and other VR headsets are used to view and experience environments.

The point BC is making is that the Cinera V1 viewer addresses the very problem of trying to use two phones in a single unit (Wheatstone configuration).  There are two large horizontal displays facing each other so that 16:9 format images fill most of the displays.  And those two displays are synced to a single controller and Android OS.  The problem with this viewer is as BC describes:  The user interface is rather hard to navigate and the optics are rather plain.  But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

Cinera just launched a new viewer called the "Edge" and this one is a much more compact unit.  It is designed primarily for movie fans as it has built-in headphones.  It uses much smaller displays that are placed in front of the eyes but have the same resolution as the V1.  It was recently announced that all the stretch goals were reached so the specs are even higher than originally planned:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cinera/cinera-edge-a-5k-oled-hmd-with-dolby-digital-51-headphone

But there is no info in regards viewing stills with this viewer.

I am aware that at least one of our members has ordered one.

Francois


timo@guildwood.net
 

Agree with this, only it does not need to be two phones. the screens are available here
with lower prices in quantity.
Instead of making Android software, that tries to control and synchronize two separate phones, and all the cell phone baggage, a skilled person could custom program a Raspberry Pi system to only show stills and videos. This way, very simple dedicated controls, for example, could be implemented.

Timo

On Aug 6, 2020, at 12:31 PM, bglick97@... wrote:

> when I look at the specs on the Cinera, I cant find the viewing FOV?  Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about....

Above, I was trying to determine the perceived resolution.  Cinera must have been viewing this list, as they are the only maker I have seen that quotes perceived resolution as PPD, which I introduced and have been endorsing for years on these lists, to normalize the term between all viewers.
I did find it, and as expected, it was low, 38 PPD.  (surely an improvement over previous VR viewers which is their market, movie viewing, etc)   The Matej viewer is around 67 PPD from memory.  I would suggest an ideal target for a Fine Art viewer should be around 75 -95 PPD, based on the quality of the display and pixel layout.  This could easily be achieved with two Sony phones in Wheatstone configuration.  This would only increase the lens fl to maybe 120 - 150mm fl.  If sources the lenses can be done off-the-shelf,  then all the pieces exists for the ultimate hand held FA (Fine Art) viewer ;) 
this would only push the AFOV the person experiences to about 35 - 40 deg, which might be doable with a large well designed doublet.  Some distortion will be at the corners with only a doublet, but that most people would be OK with that.
To put this in perspective, using two 8K tvs in a Wheatstone configuration, would only double this resolution, which would be the NEXT holy grail.  But this would most certainly be a stationary viewer, not portable.   Ideally, to take advantage of the added pixels of the 8K viewer, you would need to double the viewing FOV, which would be quite impressive at 70-90 deg...
98% of the population would be blown away by the dual 4K wheatstone viewer.



On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:32 PM bglick97 via groups.io <bglick97=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
> But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

when I look at the specs on the Cinera, I cant find the viewing FOV?  Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about.... The Matej viewer has 4MP per eye at about 28 deg FOV... or from memory about 67 PPD.   My guess is, that Cinera is much less, prob. 30 PPD, so the resolution effect likely would be very poor vs. the Matej viewer, despite it being much better than most VR viewers such as the Rift, which IMO is just horrible.    I never seen a Cinera viewer, but PPD is the resolution comparative factor for all formats, film, (convert lp/mm to pixels), screens, print, etc. 
Also, when you widen the FOV, the optics need to become complex to maintain MTF.  These viewers are NOT putting high end optics, as the optics would be too large, heavy and costly.  So reduced MTF.  The ONLY way to avoid that scenario, is to use a very limited FOV optic, such as Jeroens lens used in the Matej viewer.  As I mentioned, I have designed and built many larger FOV optics that are SHARP... 5 elements min. ,huge diam barrels, very heavy, some 1-2 lbs each.  Unless there is some type of major breakthrough in the physics of optics, I dont see this changing anytime soon.  Nothing has changed in the last 100 years.  Optics are highly complex as you increase the design requirements... like comparing a Toyota and a Formula ONE race car, its amazing what you have to add to get over that finish line a few seconds faster!

Anyway, nobody craves wide FOV more than me...  but for me, NOT at the expense at reduced resolution... this is why I re categorized my viewers as Fine Art and VR.  Although Francois did a good job further clarifying, movie viewing, spherical, etc. 

For those of us who started with MF 3d, that is the resolution standard we are shooting for.  The Matej viewer is close.  As I mentioned in my post, if it added some of the features many I suggested, it would prob. be the highest resolution viewer for stills and maybe some head turning VR, similar to VR headsets, but not 360 or full spherical, as my guess is, that would be a bit of a stretch, but I am not well versed in the programming aspect.

Just moving from one phone, to two phones in wheatstone configuration makes a huge jump in optical complexity to benefit from that wider FOV the more pixels on the horizontal would allow.   Wish I was still in the field of designing and building optics, but its just too costly of an endeavor.  You need super high volume production like camera lenses, or binocs, to make complex optics at prosumer pricing.  Maybe someone has some connections at Asian optics design / build firm, and can now design and build at much more competitive pricing for low volume builds.   I never found such, not to mention, the size and weight of the wider FOV optics with good MTF, ruins the hand holding premise of the viewer.   There is 3 primary factors of the viewing scenario that drives up the complexity of the optical design.... 1) the angle of view from the back of the optic, to the medium being viewed (this angle factors in fl and image circle), 2) The FOV on the viewing side of the optic (this the FOV that is projected on your retina, wow factor, also refered to AFOV), this is what drives the Diameter of the optic closest to your eye, and 3) the ER, Eye Releif.  The greater the ER, the wider the front optics... its simple right angle geometry, nothing tricky about the simple geometry.  Sometimes u have to compromise on ER, to reduce the size of the optic, so eye glass wearers must take their correction off when using the viewer, or the image medium will be clipped.   Of course, MTF and distortion correction matters as well, but we will assume just enough MTF and distortion to cover the image format.  Each requirement adds more elements, as that is how optics makes corrections, each spherical element provides a specific correction.   There has been some advances in non spherical (aspherical) design in the past 5-10 years and plastics...the benefit of aspherical is you can make more than one correction with a single element.  When a plastic can be used, they can be made in molds relatively cheap.  If you look at higher end binocs that have good optics, I have yet to see plastic elements, i don't think the image quality is there yet...but for low end optics, they is often a single plastic element mixed in with glass elements.  This has offered some huge cost break throughs for all optics, such as lower end camera lenses.

Hence why I wonder if the Matej viewer in its current format, might be the best mix of resolution, FOV without getting into serious optical design to bring the viewer to the next level, i.e two phones in wheatstone configuration.  And this assumes all the electronics and software can be easily hammered out.  

BUT, I would love a wheatstone dual Sony viewer, it would be the BEST handheld viewer we could ever ask for!  So by no means do I want to discourage anyone from getting to the next level!  But at the same time, I want to present realistic obstacles.  Remember, these small projects are low volume.  A single new 3-5 element optic for design and prototype can easily cost 20-50K on the low end, and 100K-200K for USA firms.  Nothing is guaranteed, it can take several tries to get the optic right.  I had lots of failures, it's not a perfect science, design vs. real world build does not always pan out, as you must factor in the human eye, which is not easy for software.    I was once quoted $250K from a CA optics design firm to design / prototype a single 6+ element design with some very aggressive requirements.  And for that price, u get NO guarantees, it's called, BEST EFFORT....it's a roll of the dice....that is the wacky world of optical design / build!  Hence why I used USA design and Asian builds.
I only write this to try to explain how hard and costly it is make custom optics.  And each design build used to take me 6-9 months each... very slow process....
Bill



On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:13 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:

I'll put it another way:  There are two types of viewers:  3D viewers for viewing 3D movies and 3D stills... and VR viewers for viewing 180 and 360 content.  Those are two distinct platforms and that has been so for some years now.  For example, headsets such as the Royole Moon, Goovis Cinego, Zeiss Cinemizer or Cinera are all viewers designed for 3D movie viewing (and can be used for 3D stills) while the Oculus and other VR headsets are used to view and experience environments.

The point BC is making is that the Cinera V1 viewer addresses the very problem of trying to use two phones in a single unit (Wheatstone configuration).  There are two large horizontal displays facing each other so that 16:9 format images fill most of the displays.  And those two displays are synced to a single controller and Android OS.  The problem with this viewer is as BC describes:  The user interface is rather hard to navigate and the optics are rather plain.  But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

Cinera just launched a new viewer called the "Edge" and this one is a much more compact unit.  It is designed primarily for movie fans as it has built-in headphones.  It uses much smaller displays that are placed in front of the eyes but have the same resolution as the V1.  It was recently announced that all the stretch goals were reached so the specs are even higher than originally planned:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cinera/cinera-edge-a-5k-oled-hmd-with-dolby-digital-51-headphone

But there is no info in regards viewing stills with this viewer.

I am aware that at least one of our members has ordered one.

Francois







Bill G
 

thx for this link Timo... when I was saying phones / Sony, I should have said, screens ;)
Fully agreed, why take on all the baggage of the phone firmware which is useless for a dedicated viewer.
for only $200 per screen with electronics, this makes the wheatstone premise even more cost effective than I originally thought!!  
As mentioned, the programming is a solvable problem for sure.  Matej has demonstrated how well a 3d body can be printed.  The wild card is the optics for a low volume run.  Low volume in optics is under 100 pairs of lenses.


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:42 AM timo@... <timo@...> wrote:
Agree with this, only it does not need to be two phones. the screens are available here
with lower prices in quantity.
Instead of making Android software, that tries to control and synchronize two separate phones, and all the cell phone baggage, a skilled person could custom program a Raspberry Pi system to only show stills and videos. This way, very simple dedicated controls, for example, could be implemented.

Timo

On Aug 6, 2020, at 12:31 PM, bglick97@... wrote:

> when I look at the specs on the Cinera, I cant find the viewing FOV?  Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about....

Above, I was trying to determine the perceived resolution.  Cinera must have been viewing this list, as they are the only maker I have seen that quotes perceived resolution as PPD, which I introduced and have been endorsing for years on these lists, to normalize the term between all viewers.
I did find it, and as expected, it was low, 38 PPD.  (surely an improvement over previous VR viewers which is their market, movie viewing, etc)   The Matej viewer is around 67 PPD from memory.  I would suggest an ideal target for a Fine Art viewer should be around 75 -95 PPD, based on the quality of the display and pixel layout.  This could easily be achieved with two Sony phones in Wheatstone configuration.  This would only increase the lens fl to maybe 120 - 150mm fl.  If sources the lenses can be done off-the-shelf,  then all the pieces exists for the ultimate hand held FA (Fine Art) viewer ;) 
this would only push the AFOV the person experiences to about 35 - 40 deg, which might be doable with a large well designed doublet.  Some distortion will be at the corners with only a doublet, but that most people would be OK with that.
To put this in perspective, using two 8K tvs in a Wheatstone configuration, would only double this resolution, which would be the NEXT holy grail.  But this would most certainly be a stationary viewer, not portable.   Ideally, to take advantage of the added pixels of the 8K viewer, you would need to double the viewing FOV, which would be quite impressive at 70-90 deg...
98% of the population would be blown away by the dual 4K wheatstone viewer.



On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:32 PM bglick97 via groups.io <bglick97=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
> But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

when I look at the specs on the Cinera, I cant find the viewing FOV?  Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about.... The Matej viewer has 4MP per eye at about 28 deg FOV... or from memory about 67 PPD.   My guess is, that Cinera is much less, prob. 30 PPD, so the resolution effect likely would be very poor vs. the Matej viewer, despite it being much better than most VR viewers such as the Rift, which IMO is just horrible.    I never seen a Cinera viewer, but PPD is the resolution comparative factor for all formats, film, (convert lp/mm to pixels), screens, print, etc. 
Also, when you widen the FOV, the optics need to become complex to maintain MTF.  These viewers are NOT putting high end optics, as the optics would be too large, heavy and costly.  So reduced MTF.  The ONLY way to avoid that scenario, is to use a very limited FOV optic, such as Jeroens lens used in the Matej viewer.  As I mentioned, I have designed and built many larger FOV optics that are SHARP... 5 elements min. ,huge diam barrels, very heavy, some 1-2 lbs each.  Unless there is some type of major breakthrough in the physics of optics, I dont see this changing anytime soon.  Nothing has changed in the last 100 years.  Optics are highly complex as you increase the design requirements... like comparing a Toyota and a Formula ONE race car, its amazing what you have to add to get over that finish line a few seconds faster!

Anyway, nobody craves wide FOV more than me...  but for me, NOT at the expense at reduced resolution... this is why I re categorized my viewers as Fine Art and VR.  Although Francois did a good job further clarifying, movie viewing, spherical, etc. 

For those of us who started with MF 3d, that is the resolution standard we are shooting for.  The Matej viewer is close.  As I mentioned in my post, if it added some of the features many I suggested, it would prob. be the highest resolution viewer for stills and maybe some head turning VR, similar to VR headsets, but not 360 or full spherical, as my guess is, that would be a bit of a stretch, but I am not well versed in the programming aspect.

Just moving from one phone, to two phones in wheatstone configuration makes a huge jump in optical complexity to benefit from that wider FOV the more pixels on the horizontal would allow.   Wish I was still in the field of designing and building optics, but its just too costly of an endeavor.  You need super high volume production like camera lenses, or binocs, to make complex optics at prosumer pricing.  Maybe someone has some connections at Asian optics design / build firm, and can now design and build at much more competitive pricing for low volume builds.   I never found such, not to mention, the size and weight of the wider FOV optics with good MTF, ruins the hand holding premise of the viewer.   There is 3 primary factors of the viewing scenario that drives up the complexity of the optical design.... 1) the angle of view from the back of the optic, to the medium being viewed (this angle factors in fl and image circle), 2) The FOV on the viewing side of the optic (this the FOV that is projected on your retina, wow factor, also refered to AFOV), this is what drives the Diameter of the optic closest to your eye, and 3) the ER, Eye Releif.  The greater the ER, the wider the front optics... its simple right angle geometry, nothing tricky about the simple geometry.  Sometimes u have to compromise on ER, to reduce the size of the optic, so eye glass wearers must take their correction off when using the viewer, or the image medium will be clipped.   Of course, MTF and distortion correction matters as well, but we will assume just enough MTF and distortion to cover the image format.  Each requirement adds more elements, as that is how optics makes corrections, each spherical element provides a specific correction.   There has been some advances in non spherical (aspherical) design in the past 5-10 years and plastics...the benefit of aspherical is you can make more than one correction with a single element.  When a plastic can be used, they can be made in molds relatively cheap.  If you look at higher end binocs that have good optics, I have yet to see plastic elements, i don't think the image quality is there yet...but for low end optics, they is often a single plastic element mixed in with glass elements.  This has offered some huge cost break throughs for all optics, such as lower end camera lenses.

Hence why I wonder if the Matej viewer in its current format, might be the best mix of resolution, FOV without getting into serious optical design to bring the viewer to the next level, i.e two phones in wheatstone configuration.  And this assumes all the electronics and software can be easily hammered out.  

BUT, I would love a wheatstone dual Sony viewer, it would be the BEST handheld viewer we could ever ask for!  So by no means do I want to discourage anyone from getting to the next level!  But at the same time, I want to present realistic obstacles.  Remember, these small projects are low volume.  A single new 3-5 element optic for design and prototype can easily cost 20-50K on the low end, and 100K-200K for USA firms.  Nothing is guaranteed, it can take several tries to get the optic right.  I had lots of failures, it's not a perfect science, design vs. real world build does not always pan out, as you must factor in the human eye, which is not easy for software.    I was once quoted $250K from a CA optics design firm to design / prototype a single 6+ element design with some very aggressive requirements.  And for that price, u get NO guarantees, it's called, BEST EFFORT....it's a roll of the dice....that is the wacky world of optical design / build!  Hence why I used USA design and Asian builds.
I only write this to try to explain how hard and costly it is make custom optics.  And each design build used to take me 6-9 months each... very slow process....
Bill



On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:13 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:

I'll put it another way:  There are two types of viewers:  3D viewers for viewing 3D movies and 3D stills... and VR viewers for viewing 180 and 360 content.  Those are two distinct platforms and that has been so for some years now.  For example, headsets such as the Royole Moon, Goovis Cinego, Zeiss Cinemizer or Cinera are all viewers designed for 3D movie viewing (and can be used for 3D stills) while the Oculus and other VR headsets are used to view and experience environments.

The point BC is making is that the Cinera V1 viewer addresses the very problem of trying to use two phones in a single unit (Wheatstone configuration).  There are two large horizontal displays facing each other so that 16:9 format images fill most of the displays.  And those two displays are synced to a single controller and Android OS.  The problem with this viewer is as BC describes:  The user interface is rather hard to navigate and the optics are rather plain.  But in spite of the shortcomings, the IQ of images viewed in this viewer is like nothing else I have ever seen, and other Cinera V1 owners can confirm this.

Cinera just launched a new viewer called the "Edge" and this one is a much more compact unit.  It is designed primarily for movie fans as it has built-in headphones.  It uses much smaller displays that are placed in front of the eyes but have the same resolution as the V1.  It was recently announced that all the stretch goals were reached so the specs are even higher than originally planned:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cinera/cinera-edge-a-5k-oled-hmd-with-dolby-digital-51-headphone

But there is no info in regards viewing stills with this viewer.

I am aware that at least one of our members has ordered one.

Francois







Depthcam
 

> Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about....
> Also, when you widen the FOV, the optics need to become complex to maintain MTF


The Cinera is designed for movie-viewing primarily - thus the name "Cinera" !  It is a large view primarily due to the large displays, but only to the extent that a Wheatstone design permits.  So the optics are fairly far from the displays, thus not wide - probably no shorter than 100mm.  This is why simple optics can be used.  (I am here referring strictly to the V1.)  Unfortunately, the optics on the Cinera v1 are a bit too simple and not physically wide enough (circumference-wise) to my taste.


> The Matej viewer has 4MP per eye


Well, the Matej viewer has no resolution of its own.  We are talking about the display of the phone that is used with it.  If it is full 4K, then that means two images that are 1920 pixels wide by 2160 high.  The problem here is that most people shoot wider than high pictures and many format them to the 16:9 standard for viewing on a 3D TV, 3D phone or 3D tablet.  Therefore when viewing such content on the Sony phone, actual resolution when viewing the entire 16:9 image is 1920x1080 per eye, which is pretty good.  The Cinera however, having been designed for movie viewing from the ground up uses two large rectangular (landscape orientation ) displays that are 2560x1440.  Therefore the effective resolution when watching landscape oriented content is higher than a 4K phone.  Furthermore, there is no herringbone pattern present so the image is totally clear.


> so the resolution effect likely would be very poor vs. the Matej viewer


Not so.  You'll have to try a Cinera.  All I can say here is that Ron use to have a Sony 4K phone but very much disliked the herringbone pattern.  On the other hand, he was blown away by the Cinera's IQ.  Granted, Ron was using the View-Vaster with his 4K phone, which has wider lenses.  But I am told the herringbone pattern is still apparent when viewing with 100mm lenses.  That said, I definitely feel that Matej's viewer with achromatic 100mm lenses is an excellent compact solution.  But the Cinera lenses are no shorter.

All the above refers to the V1 model.  Cinera's new viewer - the Edge - uses much smaller displays that have the same resolution as the large ones used in the V1. The optics consequently must magnify more without distorting.  However, Ron remarked that the new display is about the size of a Realist film chip.  Therefore it should not be too difficult to find low-cost achromatic lenses in the 45mm range that would adequately magnify those displays.  However, I have no idea what they plan to use.

It's fine to fantasize about the most ideal viewer, but unless someone actually builds it, it remains a dream.  I feel that Cinera can be commended for having moved forward and actually created a product.  It may not be perfect but I'll repeat:  It is the best I have ever seen.  And now they are introducing a second-generation version.

Ken and Matej may also be commended for their own viewers designed to accommodate phone displays.  The View-Vaster with its 65mm lenses offers a wider more immersive view while Matej's viewer has longer lenses which should provide better perceived IQ.  But they are only as good as the phone displays allow.

Francois


 

 


Depthcam
 

Let's get back to addressing Jeroen's question:

> So my question is, if there should be a choice for a good digital 3D viewer, what would be the base platform; an Android running smartphone or an Android running VR stand alone viewer (with other optics). My own feeling is that a customized VR stand alone set would be most wanted. What are the opinions over here?
thanks for your thoughts.


Right now, it appears the only choice in terms of a phone is the Sony 4K phone.  But as mentioned in my previous post, when we cut a landscape display in two to accommodate the left and right images, that results in two vertical images.  And when displaying landscape formatted images in full on such displays much of those pixels are unused.

As for VR standalones, well the highest resolution I am aware of is 2160x2160 per eye and that is found on the HP Reverb G2, which is a tethered headset.  I think the widest standalone is 1440x1440 per eye and we are still ending up with two squares rather than two horizontal frames.  But all of these are expensive VR headsets.  The Go is being discontinued so the next least expensive should end up being the Quest2 unless the Chinese start to produce a new generation of low-cost standalones using higher resolution displays.  But right now, VR headsets of any kind that use high resolution displays are quite expensive.


Timo points out:

> Instead of making Android software, that tries to control and synchronize two separate phones, and all the cell phone baggage, a skilled person could custom program a Raspberry Pi system to only show stills and videos. This way, very simple dedicated controls, for example, could be implemented


Well, that's exactly what Jeroen does with his digital museum viewers.  But if a Wheatstone design, this would end up a pretty large viewer.  Anyhow, mounting two large displays in a Wheatstone configuration is pretty much what Cinera did with its first product.  Now they are moving on to tiny displays that have the same resolution, which allows a much more compact solution.

Therefore , using two tiny 2560x1440 displays such as found in the Edge and controlling them via Raspberry Pi and using good quality achromatic optics might be a solution that Jeroen could build...

Here is a comparison between the displays used in the Cinera V1 and the new one used in the Cinera Edge.  Both have the same resolution but the new one is markedly smaller:



Finding a source for these tiny high resolution displays might be the solution we are looking for and something that Jeroen might be able to integrate in a compact viewer.

Francois


Bill G
 

> So the optics are fairly far from the displays, thus not wide - probably no shorter than 100mm

In this case, the lens to screen distance is somewhat indicative of the AFOV, but this is NOT always the case...since these are simple optics, it prob. is the case. 

>  Well, the Matej viewer has no resolution of its own.  We are talking about the display of the phone that is used with it

          ahhh, how specific do I need to write here?  Who doesn't get the fact the Matej viewer uses the Sony phone????   Did this really need clarification?

         Yes, of course, the wider format is more desirable than the square format...but u always mention "dream viewers" vs. real world viewers.  The Matej viewer is REAL WORLD!  You contradict yourself.  This discussion quickly moved to Dual 4K phones in wheatstone configuration for a reason.

> Sony 4K phone but very much disliked the herringbone pattern.

          yes, but this can easily be overcome by slightly greater PPD, very simple and the Wheatstone dual screen design would overcome this.

All your discussion about resolution is just too confusing... as perceived resolution primarily comes down to PPD, as even Cinera now states.  I can stand 10" from an 8k screen and see pixels...so does that mean an 8k screen is pixelated?   As I have stated long ago, all the relevant factors of perceived resolution is reduced to PPD.  (screen size, screen density, fl, and sometimes AFOV).  The slight exception is the pixel pattern layout, which can be overcome by simply increasing the PPD, which is helpful to keep the optics simplified.

I think the new Cinera is great advance, its quite impressive but at 38 PPD, I have no interest in it, otherwise, I would order one.   It has a market, as u state, for watching movies and other non Fine Art viewing.  This is why I mention the specialized category of Fine Art 3d viewer...where IQ is the primary goal.








On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:44 AM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:

> Regardless, I am sure its WIDE, cause that is what everyone craves, and what gaming is all about....
> Also, when you widen the FOV, the optics need to become complex to maintain MTF


The Cinera is designed for movie-viewing primarily - thus the name "Cinera" !  It is a large view primarily due to the large displays, but only to the extent that a Wheatstone design permits.  So the optics are fairly far from the displays, thus not wide - probably no shorter than 100mm.  This is why simple optics can be used.  (I am here referring strictly to the V1.)  Unfortunately, the optics on the Cinera v1 are a bit too simple and not physically wide enough (circumference-wise) to my taste.


> The Matej viewer has 4MP per eye


Well, the Matej viewer has no resolution of its own.  We are talking about the display of the phone that is used with it.  If it is full 4K, then that means two images that are 1920 pixels wide by 2160 high.  The problem here is that most people shoot wider than high pictures and many format them to the 16:9 standard for viewing on a 3D TV, 3D phone or 3D tablet.  Therefore when viewing such content on the Sony phone, actual resolution when viewing the entire 16:9 image is 1920x1080 per eye, which is pretty good.  The Cinera however, having been designed for movie viewing from the ground up uses two large rectangular (landscape orientation ) displays that are 2560x1440.  Therefore the effective resolution when watching landscape oriented content is higher than a 4K phone.  Furthermore, there is no herringbone pattern present so the image is totally clear.


> so the resolution effect likely would be very poor vs. the Matej viewer


Not so.  You'll have to try a Cinera.  All I can say here is that Ron use to have a Sony 4K phone but very much disliked the herringbone pattern.  On the other hand, he was blown away by the Cinera's IQ.  Granted, Ron was using the View-Vaster with his 4K phone, which has wider lenses.  But I am told the herringbone pattern is still apparent when viewing with 100mm lenses.  That said, I definitely feel that Matej's viewer with achromatic 100mm lenses is an excellent compact solution.  But the Cinera lenses are no shorter.

All the above refers to the V1 model.  Cinera's new viewer - the Edge - uses much smaller displays that have the same resolution as the large ones used in the V1. The optics consequently must magnify more without distorting.  However, Ron remarked that the new display is about the size of a Realist film chip.  Therefore it should not be too difficult to find low-cost achromatic lenses in the 45mm range that would adequately magnify those displays.  However, I have no idea what they plan to use.

It's fine to fantasize about the most ideal viewer, but unless someone actually builds it, it remains a dream.  I feel that Cinera can be commended for having moved forward and actually created a product.  It may not be perfect but I'll repeat:  It is the best I have ever seen.  And now they are introducing a second-generation version.

Ken and Matej may also be commended for their own viewers designed to accommodate phone displays.  The View-Vaster with its 65mm lenses offers a wider more immersive view while Matej's viewer has longer lenses which should provide better perceived IQ.  But they are only as good as the phone displays allow.

Francois


 

 


Bill G
 

>  Now they are moving on to tiny displays that have the same resolution, which allows a much more compact solution.

              Agreed on the compactness, but it further reduces a critical factor of perceived resolution.  As the density of the screens become greater, the pixel size becomes smaller.   A smaller pixel, will emit less light.  Further reducing the screen brightness will keep the eye pupil far from the ideal 2-3mm diam. whereas its MTF is optimized.  Its truly remarkable how much sharper the eye can perceive an image when the brightness level can drive the pupil diam down to its optimum sharpness range.  If you need a test, take a 3d World STL viewer, use it indoors with avg. light, then point it directly at the sun, the resolution appears to more than double... we know the film did not change... what changed was, our eye pupil at 5mm diam indoor, is like a cheap plastic camera lens.  At 2-3mm diam eye pupil, our eye performs like a high end Lieca lens!  Thats the uniqueness of human vision which should be considered in a viewer design.

Also, resolution is a function of contrast.  MTF is measured in contrast ratio for a reason.  By lowering brightness, you lower contrast, which lowers perceived resolution.



On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:21 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
Let's get back to addressing Jeroen's question:

> So my question is, if there should be a choice for a good digital 3D viewer, what would be the base platform; an Android running smartphone or an Android running VR stand alone viewer (with other optics). My own feeling is that a customized VR stand alone set would be most wanted. What are the opinions over here?
thanks for your thoughts.


Right now, it appears the only choice in terms of a phone is the Sony 4K phone.  But as mentioned in my previous post, when we cut a landscape display in two to accommodate the left and right images, that results in two vertical images.  And when displaying landscape formatted images in full on such displays much of those pixels are unused.

As for VR standalones, well the highest resolution I am aware of is 2160x2160 per eye and that is found on the HP Reverb G2, which is a tethered headset.  I think the widest standalone is 1440x1440 per eye and we are still ending up with two squares rather than two horizontal frames.  But all of these are expensive VR headsets.  The Go is being discontinued so the next least expensive should end up being the Quest2 unless the Chinese start to produce a new generation of low-cost standalones using higher resolution displays.  But right now, VR headsets of any kind that use high resolution displays are quite expensive.


Timo points out:

> Instead of making Android software, that tries to control and synchronize two separate phones, and all the cell phone baggage, a skilled person could custom program a Raspberry Pi system to only show stills and videos. This way, very simple dedicated controls, for example, could be implemented


Well, that's exactly what Jeroen does with his digital museum viewers.  But if a Wheatstone design, this would end up a pretty large viewer.  Anyhow, mounting two large displays in a Wheatstone configuration is pretty much what Cinera did with its first product.  Now they are moving on to tiny displays that have the same resolution, which allows a much more compact solution.

Therefore , using two tiny 2560x1440 displays such as found in the Edge and controlling them via Raspberry Pi and using good quality achromatic optics might be a solution that Jeroen could build...

Here is a comparison between the displays used in the Cinera V1 and the new one used in the Cinera Edge.  Both have the same resolution but the new one is markedly smaller:



Finding a source for these tiny high resolution displays might be the solution we are looking for and something that Jeroen might be able to integrate in a compact viewer.

Francois


Nima
 

I don't want to dive too far into this, but Cinera V2(which I've backed) and VR headsets are truly the best for REAL-TIME content.  E.g. content that is being rasterized 30 to 60 times per second.  Cinera makes a decent trade-off between FOV and PPD for clarity for video, and I think for my needs(and many other people's needs) it will do great for photos as well(even Valve Index/HTC Vive Cosmos Elite are fine for me when it comes to photos).

BUT I found something interesting when it came to looking for ePaper/eInk displays a couple of weeks ago.  Some displays are cheap, high resolution, and insanely low-power with all the stats you could possibly want...but take ~1-3 seconds to refresh an image depending on the complexity of the image.

I wonder if there is the equivalent in a full-color HDR high-resolution display?  Potentially a relatively cheap, small 8K display that's major downside is that it runs at 2fps and is unusable for videos and games, BUT would be ideal for photography viewing!


Depthcam
 

> but this is NOT always the case...since these are simple optics, it prob. is the case.


It is the case ! ;-)


>  ahhh, how specific do I need to write here?  Who doesn't get the fact the Matej viewer uses the Sony phone????   Did this really need clarification?


Yes, definitely because the Matej viewer - just like the View-Vaster - does not come with a phone.  The user chooses a phone and buys it separately.  So I think it's fair to point out that these viewers are shells that do not include displays and that displays of lower or higher resolution may be associated with them.


> Yes, of course, the wider format is more desirable than the square format...but u always mention "dream viewers" vs. real world viewers.  The Matej viewer is REAL WORLD!  You contradict yourself.


No I don't.  I was referring specifically to the suggestion of mounting two 4K displays in a Wheatstone configuration. I think I made that pretty clear when I wrote "Ken and Matej may also be commended for their own viewers designed to accommodate phone displays."

I am not saying there is anything wrong with dreaming of an ideal viewer.  What I am saying is that, at the moment, we have to make the best of what's available.  This is why I said that the Cinera is the best I have ever seen, but at the same time, it has quite a number of flaws.  But I am definitely interested in Matej's viewer with a 4K panel as a more compact solution, even though I do have some concerns about the herringbone pattern, which some object to.  I wish there were other 4K panels that do not have that flaw.


> As the density of the screens become greater, the pixel size becomes smaller.


It follows...


> A smaller pixel, will emit less light.


Assuming they do not compensate for that in the design of this new generation of displays.  I do agree with your point.  But I'd like to see if in effect the new generation of small displays can achieve what earlier ones could not.  We really should give it a chance and see what the Cinera Edge provides.  Unfortunately it will be several months before it is actually available for anyone of us to test unless Jeroen can get his hands on mini displays with that high resolution.

Francois





Depthcam
 

> I don't want to dive too far into this, but Cinera V2(which I've backed) and VR headsets are truly the best for REAL-TIME content


Glad to hear you're backing the Cinera Edge.  I'll be very curious to hear your user experience along with Ron's.  I have yet to hear of anybody else here having backed this project even though it's been immensely successful and is ideal for viewing 3D content.

Francois