Re: 3d HMDs+VRML

Tony Godshall ([email protected])
Mon, 29 May 1995 15:09:24 +0000


> Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 13:00:57 -0700
> To: Rycharde Hawkes <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> From: [email protected] (D. Owen Rowley)
> Subject: Re: 3d HMDs+VRML

> At 09:29 AM 5/29/95 BST, Rycharde Hawkes wrote:
> >patrick.curry wrote:
> >> And if there is, or if there is not... I believe that the defined camera
> >> focal length could be used as a REAL focal length for the viewer. For
> >> example, the object that is the approximate defined distance away from the
> >> viewer/camera's position is clear, while closer and farther objects are
> >> blurry respectively.
>
> >Trying to fix the distance at which your eyes will converge and accomodate
> >is unlikely to work. What distance would you fix it at? 60cm? 6metres?
> >Chances are you'd try and "focus" on different distances depending on
> >the task you are trying to perform.
>
> not to mention that the various HMD's have very different ways of approaching
> the issue, which *could* be just a driver level problem.
> Of course thats trivial in light of the issues regarding pathological efects
> of HMD's to begin with. Fixed depth problems are quite well known and
> documented,
> and decidedly NOT the answer you want for a content design issue.

It would be nice to have atmospheric effects, though, such as the
wave-blurring of a hot day or the blurring and grey semi-opacity of a
misty day.