π The Evil Ideas thread
-
Introduce a bull to a bulldog.
-
@izzion said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@anonymous234
I'm pretty sure I've seen that as a feature from Sony somewhere...Not Samsung?
-
-
-
@Rhywden To satisfy the curious
-
-
-
-
@mott555 If I wore contact lenses, looking at that image would make me think someone already did this.
-
@Zecc Obviously, it's a Swampy-style screen reshoot of a slowed-down VHS tape of an image that's been run through a JPEG encoder a few too many times...
-
-
Someone should make up a series of fake videogame consoles to precede the NES/Atari 2600 generations (going back to the early 1900s) and then try to trick younger people into thinking they were real.
E.g. "The Atari 15 was introduced in 1931 as a successor to the hugely popular Atari 14. It had 16 bits of memory, the same number as its predecessor, but they were made with hand carved eucalyptus wood instead of the cheaper, machine cut pine wood, giving it much better stability. The processor circuits had to be carefully hand-woven using tin wire, as copper was still deemed too unstable for everyday use. Popular games included Count the dots and Line simulator 45"
-
@Tsaukpaetra This is a bad idea for two reasons:
a) Scaring the kid, of course (d'oh!)
b) potentially damaging its eyesight. Children under 12 have no business whatsoever using VR goggles.
-
@Rhywden said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
potentially damaging its eyesight. Children under 12 have no business whatsoever using VR goggles.
Penny for your thoughts on why this is in a new thread?
-
@anonymous234 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
The processor circuits had to be carefully hand-woven using tin wire, as copper was still deemed too unstable for everyday use.
That's almost correct enough to work!
-
@Rhywden said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
b) potentially damaging its eyesight. Children under 12 have no business whatsoever using VR goggles.
Please cite studies which found evidence supporting this claim, or stop spreading paranoia.
The fear about VR goggles appears to be a combination of two things:
- "Screens!" Yes, they're bombarding us with photons. Go outside sometime. There are lots of them.
- "It's too close to their eyes!" No, because focal distance is what matters. It's called optics.
As far as I am aware, studies have shown that there is no significant risk, not that there is. The big companies warning not to let kids use VR goggles is more likely just an overabundance of caution (and the fact that the goggles probably wouldn't fit them very well, and making them in kids' sizes probably would be bad PR).
-
@brie said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
the goggles probably wouldn't fit them very well
Yes, that was the primary problem when I demoed it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@brie said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
the goggles probably wouldn't fit them very well
Yes, that was the primary problem when I demoed it.
I hear they do nothing, anyway.
-
@brie Actually, there have been not a lot of studies for or against, at least with specifically VR googles.
But there have been a number of studies regarding eyesight in general and the combination of "kids aren't able to recognize eye strain properly", "not fully developed eye muscles / structures" and "focal plane very near to the eyes" should make you very cautious.
There's already a general increase in myopia. No need to add on top of that.
-
@Rhywden Although "kids aren't able to recognize eye strain properly" might well be true, VR goggles are no more a concern than basically anything else. And as I said in my previous post, the focal plane is not very near to the eyes.
"Kids' screen time needs to be limited" is an idea that I could lend some support toward, for reasonable interpretations of "limited". But "omg their eyes" is not.
-
This post is all of rectal origin, but I suspect the problem is training kids' brains to deal with a visual environment that only has one focal plane, making it harder for them to adjust to different focal depths in the real world. I have a ton of trouble with VR because my eyes try to refocus for a virtual object's distance, but it's all at the same focal depth, and then my eyes and brain start hurting. I have the same problem with 3D movies, only worse, because there's so much out-of-focus background detail that's literally impossible to bring into focus.
-
@mott555 It'd be interesting to see more research on that.
-
@brie said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@mott555 It'd be interesting to see more research on that.
Indeed. And before that research happens I'm very firmly veering towards "err on the side of caution".
Considering that research has also shown a neutral result when using VR as a teaching tool, I don't see the need.
-
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
because my eyes try to refocus for a virtual object's distance, but it's all at the same focal depth, and then my eyes and brain start hurting.
Do your eyes start hurting while watching a movie on a screen at a reasonable distance? It's the same thing except the image isn't being reprocessed to simulate depth (or whatever).
-
@Tsaukpaetra It's not the same thing.
There are two coordinated movements to your eyesight. One is the independent lateral motion of both eyes, because of parallax, to get them to center on the same object so you don't see that object twice. Your eyes are "farther apart" when looking at distant objects, and "closer together" when looking at near objects. The other movement is the adjustment of your lens' focal depth. In the real world, these two movements are coordinated and simultaneous, and assuming you have no major neural/muscular problems with your eyes, it all becomes linked and automatic.
But in VR, the lateral motion occurs depending on the virtual object's distance, but the focal depth is constant and so your lens does not need to readjust. If your lens does adjust, the object becomes blurry. So you're taking two muscle movements your brain has learned to do together all the time, and forcing it to decouple them, and some brains don't like that. Such as mine, to the point that it can take conscious concentration for me to maintain focus because my brain is wanting to readjust my lenses and that's wrong.
A movie screen doesn't do that because it's two-dimensional. The lateral motion to correct for parallax is never required, nor is lens adjustment for focus.
-
@mott555 So what you're saying is, we need VR goggles with built in eye tracking and optics that adjust the focal distance based on the distance of what you're looking at.
-
@brie For some people, that would definitely help a lot.
-
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
some brains don't like that
Ah, that probably explains my ability to align magic-eye images in under half a second...
-
@Rhywden said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
There's already a general increase in myopia. No need to add on top of that.
I'd say something about politics, but this isn't the Garage.
Also, right about now, I'd take some myopia over presbyopia.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
some brains don't like that
Ah, that probably explains my ability to align magic-eye images in under half a second...
I can't see them.
-
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
some brains don't like that
Ah, that probably explains my ability to align magic-eye images in under half a second...
I can't see them.
Perhaps you just need practice?
Sorry, bad taste, some people literally can't naturally see them, but with the help of some tools it's almost possible to kinda get it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
some brains don't like that
Ah, that probably explains my ability to align magic-eye images in under half a second...
I can't see them.
Perhaps you just need practice?
Sorry, bad taste, some people literally can't naturally see them, but with the help of some tools it's almost possible to kinda get it.
I tried to put one of the first link into the second and got this:
-
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
some brains don't like that
Ah, that probably explains my ability to align magic-eye images in under half a second...
I can't see them.
Perhaps you just need practice?
Sorry, bad taste, some people literally can't naturally see them, but with the help of some tools it's almost possible to kinda get it.
I tried to put one of the first link into the second and got this:
Did you put the actual image or a link to the image?
It's supposed to look like this, with a slider so you adjust the cross section.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Tsaukpaetra said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
some brains don't like that
Ah, that probably explains my ability to align magic-eye images in under half a second...
I can't see them.
Perhaps you just need practice?
Sorry, bad taste, some people literally can't naturally see them, but with the help of some tools it's almost possible to kinda get it.
I tried to put one of the first link into the second and got this:
Did you put the actual image or a link to the image?
It's supposed to look like this, with a slider so you adjust the cross section.
Oh derp.
OK, I can use it.
Seeing what I am supposed to see doesn't help at all. I have no idea how that image is hidden in there.
-
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
Seeing what I am supposed to see doesn't help at all. I have no idea how that image is hidden in there.
I can never see these things at all. I tried quite a few times when an undergraduate (one of my friends wrote some software for creating these things) and all I ever got from staring at them was a headache.
-
You have to "look past" them, or widen your eyes as if looking at something on the other side. You'll go through a brief period of double vision until the image "locks" for you. If you know how to go cross-eyed, it should be really easy. You can see a depth-inverted image if you go cross-eyed, and that's actually easier for most people, but the proper technique is (for lack of a better term) reverse cross-eyed.
I used to have a few paper books of those. The easiest way I found to teach others was to stand in front of them with the book held out in front of me, and have them focus on me, not the book. Then I'd move the book up until it was between us, and tell them to not move/adjust their eyes at all. If we got all the spacing just right, then they could see them.
Also you have to have two fairly-matched eyes. If one of your eyes has considerably worse sight than the other, it probably won't work.
-
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
You have to "look past" them, or widen your eyes as if looking at something on the other side. You'll go through a brief period of double vision until the image "locks" for you. If you know how to go cross-eyed, it should be really easy. You can see a depth-inverted image if you go cross-eyed, and that's actually easier for most people, but the proper technique is (for lack of a better term) reverse cross-eyed.
I used to have a few paper books of those. The easiest way I found to teach others was to stand in front of them with the book held out in front of me, and have them focus on me, not the book. Then I'd move the book up until it was between us, and tell them to not move/adjust their eyes at all. If we got all the spacing just right, then they could see them.
Also you have to have two fairly-matched eyes. If one of your eyes has considerably worse sight than the other, it probably won't work.
I'm sure someone has tried all that with me. I've tried books, postcards, etc.
I think my eyes are equally bad. I also have a bit of astigmatism.
I can put my eyes cross-eyed but the opposite doesn't seem possible.
-
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
You can see a depth-inverted image if you go cross-eyed, and that's actually easier for most people, but the proper technique is (for lack of a better term) reverse cross-eyed.
"Parallel."
I find it much easier to see parallel stereograms than cross-eyed. Only recently have I managed to see a cross-eyed stereogram, and it took quite a lot of effort. It's just not natural to me.
Edit: initially it took a bit of effort before I first started seeing parallel stereograms as well, all those years ago. It finally clicked after I spent a couple of minutes focusing on my reflection on a glossy one.
-
@dkf said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
Seeing what I am supposed to see doesn't help at all. I have no idea how that image is hidden in there.
I can never see these things at all. I tried quite a few times when an undergraduate (one of my friends wrote some software for creating these things) and all I ever got from staring at them was a headache.
I came close one time. I could almost feel the image appearing, then POOF, it was just random patterns again.
Edit: Yeah, my eyes are not balanced. My left is stronger than the right. And my glasses now have a prism on the right eye.
-
@mott555 said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
You have to "look past" them, or widen your eyes as if looking at something on the other side. You'll go through a brief period of double vision until the image "locks" for you. If you know how to go cross-eyed, it should be really easy. You can see a depth-inverted image if you go cross-eyed, and that's actually easier for most people, but the proper technique is (for lack of a better term) reverse cross-eyed.
I can do cross-eyed stereograms no problem, but the other way (I've heard "wall-eyed" used for this) is harder for me unless I'm looking at a glossy surface that can reflect something past the screen for me to focus on.
-
Evil Idea: Posting around one of them stereogram images where there's nothing to see in the first place.
-
@PleegWat said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
Evil Idea: Posting around one of them stereogram images where there's nothing to see in the first place.
As a kid, I was always disappointed that our wallpaper with repeating patterns didn't have stereograms embedded in them.
-
@PleegWat said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
Evil Idea: Posting around one of them stereogram images where there's nothing to see in the first place.
I wonder what would happen if it was an actual steroegram image in the sterogram image... Would it work? How many levels could you go...
-
@PleegWat said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
Evil Idea: Posting around one of them stereogram images where there's nothing to see in the first place.
It seems most people either find it really easy or struggle endlessly, so I don't think too many people would be fooled by that.
@dcon said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
I wonder what would happen if it was an actual steroegram image in the sterogram image... Would it work?
No. Stereograms are produced from a colourless image with depth, which a stereogram doesn't have. Congrats on making two different typos though
With regards to parallel/cross-eyed: parallel was easier for me by far. I think an advantage of cross-eyed is you can get more overlap. For example, I can get my monitors to overlap when cross-eyed which there's just no chance of happening parallel.
-
@Rhywden said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
VR googles.
-
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
Seeing what I am supposed to see doesn't help at all. I have no idea how that image is hidden in there.
The idea is that you move the slider around so most of the image is black (it really just takes the image, overlays it with an inverted version at a particular x-offset), and by adjusting that offset you can slice out the 3d-effect:
It doesn't work very well on the more complicated ones (ones that have a lot of depth variance everywhere), but when it has only one or two it works alright:
-
@Karla said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
Seeing what I am supposed to see doesn't help at all. I have no idea how that image is hidden in there.
The pattern repeats. You have to diverge or converge your eyes, so that instead of looking at a single point on the image, your left and right eyes are looking at two different, adjacent, copies of the pattern. The distance between the adjacent copies of the pattern will determine how much depth you perceive there.
The distance between repetitions of the pattern isn't the same everywhere in the image; the pattern is stretched and squished horizontally. Since the distance between two adjacent copies of the pattern determines the apparent depth of the image there, the variations in the pattern's width create a depth map in the image.
This probably doesn't make it any easier to view them, but at least it's the theory that explains how the image is hidden.
-
@brie said in π The Evil Ideas thread:
The pattern repeats. You have to diverge or converge your eyes, so that instead of looking at a single point on the image, your left and right eyes are looking at two different, adjacent, copies of the pattern.
That's a good way to put it. I understand that intuitively but didn't know how to turn it into a sentence.
-
@mott555 None of these stereograms pop properly and I blame the poster.
-