Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


cowsarenotevil

Member Since 08 Nov 2002
Offline Last Active Private
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Oculus Rift and Super Resolution

17 July 2014 - 10:38 AM

 

I'm actually very surprised that, to my knowledge, no one has used this principle for up-scaling video resolution

It's used in a lot of video-games. Every frame you shift the screen projection by a fraction of a pixel, which results in edges maybe shifting by a pixel, or not. When combined with MSAA and temporal reprojection, nVidia uses the TXAA buzzword to refer to it wink.png
 
It's also an old-school way that people used to use to render out "magazine quality" screenshots from game engines. You'd take thousands of sub-pixel shifted screenshots and then average them, which gives you a screenshot that you can say is "in engine", but looks pre-rendered laugh.png

 

 

Yeah, that's pretty close to what I'm referring to, but I was imagining using that principle to actually increase the number of pixels (versus just increasing the number of "samples" averaged to form each pixel) by reconstructing the amount of shift after the fact based on only the video data.


In Topic: Oculus Rift and Super Resolution

16 July 2014 - 11:57 PM

 

It seems that you like the screen door effect. ;) The thing it reminds me of is when you walk past a fence. On average you can see only 20% through many fences (e.g. the gaps), but as long as you keep moving your brain stitches those glimpses together and you feel like you can see through the fence.

It's simple motion blur and depth of filed blur what you are describing with that fence thing.

 

 

No it isn't; you're actually getting more information about what's behind the fence if the background is moving relative to the fence. Each pixel in the Oculus (or any screen) is only a single data point, but naturally, if you sample the same pixels repeatedly over time, the pixels from one frame could give you data that falls "between" pixels in another frame. It does seem that the brain is remarkably good at figuring out where in space those pixels belong as well.

 

I'm actually very surprised that, to my knowledge, no one has used this principle for up-scaling video resolution. Obviously it'd only work in situations where automatic motion tracking be performed, but motion tracking works well enough that it can be used for 3D reconstruction, camera tracking, and stabilization, so my intuition says that it would work for this as well.

I've used the original Oculus development kit, and I've noticed the same thing, but I think with improved latency and frame rates the effect would be much stronger.


In Topic: Multiverse theory

14 July 2014 - 03:59 PM

This was bad even by trolling standards and you should feel bad.


In Topic: Multiverse theory

14 July 2014 - 03:00 PM

 

 

Did some explorer fess up and enter those darn blackholes and take photos of those so-called other universes thereby proving there might be some truth in the big bang or the multiverse theory?

 
Not sure why going into a black hole would yield any evidence of the big bang (OK, well, in fact it wouldn't yield any evidence of anything at all; that's sort of the idea of a black hole), but I'm also not really sure why you'd want more evidence that the big bang is true.
You assume that it's true.

Light travels at a constant maximum speed, so the farther away you look into the universe, the older the light. If you want to see stuff from a thousand years ago, you just look at stuff roughly a thousand light years away. Similarly, if you want to see the big bang, pretty much all you have to do is look at it. It's (I think) about 40 billion light years away (rather than 14, due to the expansion of the universe over time), and it's like, totally right there. The cosmic microwave background was predicted and discovered independently, so it's really pretty compelling evidence.

I know the "light years stuff". It's not proof of the big bang.

 

 

Right, and if I say, 'there's a guy behind you with a knife" and you look behind yourself and light indistinguishable from the light that would be reflected off of a guy with a knife enters your eyes, you have no obligation to assume that there's actually a guy behind you with a knife, but I wouldn't encourage it. That's why science doesn't try to tell you what is, it just tries to create a model of what can actually be observed and then makes observations to see if they fit that model.

 

Everything you experience with your senses could be a trick. Everything you derive with deductive logic could be a trick too; no formal logic system can prove its own consistency (or, alternatively, an inconsistent system can also prove its own consistency, and proving the consistency of one logic system from within another doesn't help either, for obvious reasons). This "problem" is so deep that you genuinely can't prove anything, except that you can't even prove that you can't prove anything, so maybe you can prove stuff.

 

Insofar as scientific evidence is a thing that works at all, though, the big bang is pretty uncontroversial, and if the evidence doesn't seem sufficient to you in any practical sense, you should probably also be questioning lots of other things, like, for instance, "is the center of the earth actually made of kittens?"


In Topic: Multiverse theory

14 July 2014 - 02:35 PM

Did some explorer fess up and enter those darn blackholes and take photos of those so-called other universes thereby proving there might be some truth in the big bang or the multiverse theory?

 

Not sure why going into a black hole would yield any evidence of the big bang (OK, well, in fact it wouldn't yield any evidence of anything at all; that's sort of the idea of a black hole), but I'm also not really sure why you'd want more evidence that the big bang is true.

 

Light travels at a constant maximum speed, so the farther away you look into the universe, the older the light. If you want to see stuff from a thousand years ago, you just look at stuff roughly a thousand light years away. Similarly, if you want to see the big bang, pretty much all you have to do is look at it. It's (I think) about 40 billion light years away (rather than 14, due to the expansion of the universe over time), and it's like, totally right there. The cosmic microwave background was predicted and discovered independently, so it's really pretty compelling evidence.


PARTNERS