[Lab] Depth Perception

[Tom Burns]

Hi

a bit of math.
average distance between eyes = 6cm = 0.06m (women = 5.5cm average, men =
6.5cm average)
football field distance ~= 100m. (give or take depending on which league,
etc)
cloud height = depends on a lot of factors but lets say 2000m which is what
wikipedia suggests is "mid range clouds" distance.

scale factor = 100 / 0.06 = 1666.67

so at a football field's pupillary distance a 2000m high cloud would appear
2000/1666.67 = 1.2m.

For where to cross the eyes I would guess a comfortable point would be
around 1m in front of your eyes, so around 1666 m in the sky.

Practically speaking aligning the cameras would be a nightmare.

Tom


On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:46 PM, <aaron at ottawarobotics.org> wrote:

> **
>
> My thought was that the cameras won't be able to rotate a center point like
> our head is able to. Tying the camera rotation to the head movement instead
> of eye movement (which is what the cameras will actually be able to do in
> that scenario) might feel unnatural. Of course, tracking eye movement
> instead of head movement is a much harder thing to do, particular when your
> eyes will be covered with LCDs or something along those lines.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:41:53 -0400, Darcy Whyte wrote:
>
>
> :)
> Um, if you moved your eyes (and the scene),  it would be a strange feedback
> loop since your eyes are also looking at the scene.....
> I suspect that if the rates of movement were set right it might work out
> for matching your head movement to the sensation.
> You want to save the eyeball movement for moving around the screen.
> :)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM, <aaron at ottawarobotics.org> wrote:
>
>>  I think that tying the position of the cameras to your head movement
>> would cause vertigo or something similar, due to the camera rotation not
>> matching what your head motion is doing.... what would be better is some way
>> to track your eye movement and position the cameras that way. That way the
>> camera motion would resemble what your eyes are trying to do.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:35:28 -0400, Darcy Whyte wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why not use a matrix of Web cams? By the time you figure out all the stuff
>> like how to point the cameras with servos to keep them aligned you may as
>> well have a few of them. :)
>> You could put an accelerometer on your head so you an look around.
>>  But unless the objects are vary far you'll want to work out how much to
>> tow them in (when you look far and close your eyes cross inwards when seeing
>> close).
>> That's the only thing that isn't really obvious. How to decide where the
>> two cameras cross over.
>> I guess you could move your head forward and back and the accelerometer
>> could control that?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Michael Coyle <mirk44 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  Did anyone see today's xkcd?
>>> http://xkcd.com/941/
>>> I need to try this!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lab mailing list
>>> Lab at artengine.ca
>>> http://artengine.ca/mailman/listinfo/lab
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lab mailing list
>> Lab at artengine.ca
>> http://artengine.ca/mailman/listinfo/lab
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lab mailing list
> Lab at artengine.ca
> http://artengine.ca/mailman/listinfo/lab
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://artengine.ca/pipermail/lab/attachments/20110822/a3c26873/attachment.htm>