gdalgorithms-list

RE: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?

[Pallister, K. <kim...@in...>]

Well, performance limitations get overcome, but there are some 'hard limits'
of the display technology (and input devices, etc, for that matter).

You can gamma-correct and add lens flares to your hearts content, but you
are not going to get the user to squint and sheild his eyes with his hands,
not on a CRT anyway. I think that's what they meant.

That being said, I think the
gamma-correct-overexpose-when-emerging-to-daylight type tricks are cool. As
with flight sims fading to black when you pull too many G's, it gets the
point across.

Kim Pallister

We will find a way or we will make one.
                     - Hannibal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael S. Harrison [mailto:mic...@ud...]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 12:06 PM
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?
> 
> 
> 
> "...it may be hopeless to simulate them realistically on a 
> computer screen"
> 
> b**lsh*t
> 
> :-)
> 
> And there will never be more than five computers in the 
> entire world.  (check your computer history if you don't 
> recognize that statement).
> 
> I completely agree with you that the effects you mention are 
> important to realistic simulation of our world, and they will 
> be possible someday.  With the way that technology is 
> progressing, that day may not be more than a few years (decade?) away.
> 
> It's possible to do those effects now, as long as you don't 
> want interactive frame rates.  The frame rates will continue 
> to go up though, and with them, the effects to bring the 
> rates right back down. :-)
> 
> At 10:22 AM 8/25/00, you wrote:
> 
> >The more I look at real outdoor environments (eg. life) the
> >more I feel that it may be hopeless to simulate them realistically
> >on a computer screen.  The problem is the sun.  The sun is so
> >bright, and so strongly affects our experience outdoors, that you
> >can't make a realistic outdoor enviroment without a blindingly
> >bright sun, sharp specular reflections on water and cars, etc.
> >These are very bright, very high frequency effects that are very
> >very hard to model.  Also, back-lighting by the sun, such as the
> >halo around an opaque object, or the glow of the sun through a
> >tree's leaves (take a look at that, it's amazing, and happens
> >quite often).  
> >
> >IMHO this is orders of magnitude more important to visual realism
> >than radiosity on landscapes.  Diffuse lighting looks reasonable
> >with just the parrallel light from the sun (properly shadowed,
> >of course, perhaps with a slower-than-Lambertian angle dependence)
> >and ambient.
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Charles Bloom    cb...@cb...    http://www.cbloom.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> >GDA...@li...
> >http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 

RE: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

If you do oversaturate well, you can actually get the user to squint, blink
and look away, especially if they are concentrating on the game (nice big
CRT, fairly dark room, etc - exactly the situation that a real gamer likes).
The point being that the retina oversaturates as well, and the brain is
well-trained to very quickly make the connection "I see
oversaturation"->"squint before your eyes sizzle".

The fact that everything has turned into white because the app/CRT is doing
it doesn't change the fact that the brain is seeing oversaturation, and the
only place it normally sees it is in bright daylight - we're not really
evolved to look at limited-gamut objects, so any oversaturation is assumed
to be in the retina.

I have certainly experienced this in flight sims that saturate to white +
big white lens-flare. But then maybe I just don't get out enough :-)

Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pallister, Kim [mailto:kim...@in...]
> Sent: 30 August 2000 15:32
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?
> 
> 
> Well, performance limitations get overcome, but there are 
> some 'hard limits'
> of the display technology (and input devices, etc, for that matter).
> 
> You can gamma-correct and add lens flares to your hearts 
> content, but you
> are not going to get the user to squint and sheild his eyes 
> with his hands,
> not on a CRT anyway. I think that's what they meant.
> 
> That being said, I think the
> gamma-correct-overexpose-when-emerging-to-daylight type 
> tricks are cool. As
> with flight sims fading to black when you pull too many G's, 
> it gets the
> point across.
> 
> Kim Pallister
> 
> We will find a way or we will make one.
>                      - Hannibal
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael S. Harrison [mailto:mic...@ud...]
> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 12:06 PM
> > To: gda...@li...
> > Subject: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "...it may be hopeless to simulate them realistically on a 
> > computer screen"
> > 
> > b**lsh*t
> > 
> > :-)
> > 
> > And there will never be more than five computers in the 
> > entire world.  (check your computer history if you don't 
> > recognize that statement).
> > 
> > I completely agree with you that the effects you mention are 
> > important to realistic simulation of our world, and they will 
> > be possible someday.  With the way that technology is 
> > progressing, that day may not be more than a few years 
> (decade?) away.
> > 
> > It's possible to do those effects now, as long as you don't 
> > want interactive frame rates.  The frame rates will continue 
> > to go up though, and with them, the effects to bring the 
> > rates right back down. :-)
> > 
> > At 10:22 AM 8/25/00, you wrote:
> > 
> > >The more I look at real outdoor environments (eg. life) the
> > >more I feel that it may be hopeless to simulate them realistically
> > >on a computer screen.  The problem is the sun.  The sun is so
> > >bright, and so strongly affects our experience outdoors, that you
> > >can't make a realistic outdoor enviroment without a blindingly
> > >bright sun, sharp specular reflections on water and cars, etc.
> > >These are very bright, very high frequency effects that are very
> > >very hard to model.  Also, back-lighting by the sun, such as the
> > >halo around an opaque object, or the glow of the sun through a
> > >tree's leaves (take a look at that, it's amazing, and happens
> > >quite often).  
> > >
> > >IMHO this is orders of magnitude more important to visual realism
> > >than radiosity on landscapes.  Diffuse lighting looks reasonable
> > >with just the parrallel light from the sun (properly shadowed,
> > >of course, perhaps with a slower-than-Lambertian angle dependence)
> > >and ambient.
> > >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------
> > >Charles Bloom    cb...@cb...    http://www.cbloom.com
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > >GDA...@li...
> > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 

RE: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?

[Akbar A. <sye...@ea...>]

>A direct laser-on-retina display is perfectly capable of
>making you squint
i don't want to sound foolish but i barely trust my self into looking into
the sun (sometimes i just do it to "see" ;)
but, trusting a programmer to control let alone software :|

is it just me or is this tech very dangerous?



peace.
akbar A.


isn't it ironic, in the paper "A Characterization of Ten Hidden-Surface
Algorithms", by sutherland, sproull and schumacker that we use the eleventh
algorithm ;)
makes you really think


-----Original Message-----
From: gda...@li...
[mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of
Stephen J Baker
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 10:10 AM
To: gda...@li...
Subject: RE: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?


On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Pallister, Kim wrote:

> Well, performance limitations get overcome, but there are some 'hard
limits'
> of the display technology (and input devices, etc, for that matter).

The limits of the display technology are not being reached in consumer
devices.  A direct laser-on-retina display is perfectly capable of
making you squint...but we just aren't getting those in consumer devices.

> That being said, I think the
> gamma-correct-overexpose-when-emerging-to-daylight type tricks are cool.
As
> with flight sims fading to black when you pull too many G's, it gets the
> point across.

Although our flight sims have 'G-LOC' (g-induced Loss Of Consciousness)
simulation (because the military buyers insist on it). We are told that
pilots almost always turn it off when training because it's NOT realistic.
Not that it's not realistic graphically - it is.  The problem is that
in the real world there are things you can do to reduce that effect
(various physical exercises that push blood back into your brain) that
don't work in the simulator because we can't easily detect how well
the pilot is doing them.

The point is that you shouldn't impose an effect (like glare) that
you could react to in the real world (by for example by shielding
your eyes with your hand) - unless your possible reaction to it is
also simulated (eg with a head tracker and a 'digi-glove').

Steve Baker                      (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: sj...@li...           http://www.link.com
Home: sjb...@ai...       http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1

_______________________________________________
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
GDA...@li...
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

RE: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?

[Stephen J B. <sj...@li...>]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Akbar A. wrote:

> >A direct laser-on-retina display is perfectly capable of
> >making you squint

> i don't want to sound foolish but i barely trust my self into looking into
> the sun (sometimes i just do it to "see" ;)
> but, trusting a programmer to control let alone software :|
> is it just me or is this tech very dangerous?
 
Yep - it's pretty dangerous.
 
They generally have fast passive shutters that cut in if
the laser gets out of reasonable limits...I'm not really
familiar with the details though.

They are not widely used (AFAIK) right now - something of
a lab-experiment/rarity.

Steve Baker                      (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: sj...@li...           http://www.link.com
Home: sjb...@ai...       http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1

Re: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?

[Mark W. <mwa...@to...>]

Too many scientists going blind I expect ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist :)

Mark

> They generally have fast passive shutters that cut in if
> the laser gets out of reasonable limits...I'm not really
> familiar with the details though.
> 
> They are not widely used (AFAIK) right now - something of
> a lab-experiment/rarity.

RE: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?

[Pallister, K. <kim...@in...>]

> The limits of the display technology are not being reached in consumer
> devices.  A direct laser-on-retina display is perfectly capable of
> making you squint...but we just aren't getting those in 
> consumer devices.

I'm sure there'd be some sort of restriction placed on such a device, no?

> NOT realistic.
> Not that it's not realistic graphically - it is.  The problem is that
> in the real world there are things you can do to reduce that effect
> (various physical exercises that push blood back into your brain) that
> don't work in the simulator because we can't easily detect how well
> the pilot is doing them.

Perhaps some sort of 'probe' peripheral device is called for? :-)

Sorry couldn't resist. I'll be quiet now.

RE: [Algorithms] Unattainable effects?

[Stephen J B. <sj...@li...>]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Pallister, Kim wrote:

> Well, performance limitations get overcome, but there are some 'hard limits'
> of the display technology (and input devices, etc, for that matter).
 
The limits of the display technology are not being reached in consumer
devices.  A direct laser-on-retina display is perfectly capable of
making you squint...but we just aren't getting those in consumer devices.

> That being said, I think the
> gamma-correct-overexpose-when-emerging-to-daylight type tricks are cool. As
> with flight sims fading to black when you pull too many G's, it gets the
> point across.
 
Although our flight sims have 'G-LOC' (g-induced Loss Of Consciousness)
simulation (because the military buyers insist on it). We are told that
pilots almost always turn it off when training because it's NOT realistic.
Not that it's not realistic graphically - it is.  The problem is that
in the real world there are things you can do to reduce that effect
(various physical exercises that push blood back into your brain) that
don't work in the simulator because we can't easily detect how well
the pilot is doing them.

The point is that you shouldn't impose an effect (like glare) that
you could react to in the real world (by for example by shielding
your eyes with your hand) - unless your possible reaction to it is
also simulated (eg with a head tracker and a 'digi-glove').

Steve Baker                      (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: sj...@li...           http://www.link.com
Home: sjb...@ai...       http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1