180 equirectangular greenscreen videos?
Sandi_SLR Because many VR scenes are "too big" in scaling for me I figured I'd check these out, very interested to see what comes from this...
With the four files I notice little (if any) difference in scale, with overall scale too big for all clips like you said.
But from what I understand I think metichemsi specifically meant to try exporting in the native AR because 8000/4000 is 2:1 but 8192/4320 is 1.896:1 (or 256:135).
Although I think the end resolution shouldn't matter as long as the original AR is used to create the actual fisheye projection, are we sure that whatever tool you use keeps that original AR for this and doesn't change/stretch it to the 2:1 end result?
️
metichemsi please make sure to also recreate exporting the fisheye footage from mistika with the same resolution and aspect ratio as the CRM files, its not natively a 2:1 aspect ratio. I simply drop the CRM footage on premiere and export the fisheye footage in its native resolution and aspect ratio and your r5c camera profile on DeoVR shows great scaling on that footage.
metichemsi I'd be very interested to compare a clip in 256:135 and 2:1 AR as well if you have those, just to see if difference in exporting like that has a noticeable effect.
- Edited
Aerowen half of the samples are made with Canon Utility and as you noticed there is no difference in perceived scale, so why are we still talking about ratio, if you are suggesting aspect ratio matters, is the Utility working wrong too?
The fisheyes itself, on canon raw, are in 1:1 ratio, they are just saved on canvas of 8192x4320.
Sandi_SLR The fisheyes itself, on canon raw, are in 1:1 ratio, they are just saved on canvas of 8192x4320.
Ah so I assume the actual image AR does not get changed then, but it doesn't crop either? Because I would expect that to effectively zoom in somewhat...
I'm just going off what metichemsi was saying there's a difference and suspects the lens is not actually a full 190. It's possible if that's the case when converting it to 180 it zooms in more than it should. But I'll leave it to him to explain that, I have no actual experience with the cameras or the software. Just saying it sounds plausible.
Aerowen Can @metichemsi put a comparison video up here that we can look at the difference that he is talking about
- Edited
I'm looking back at the school class room scene with Blake and sky in pico 4, compared to the quest 2 in the pico 4 it looks fine, I put it in pt and it matched up pretty good with my background 
, maybe just depends what headset your using, maybe that's why @LordCrash was OK with the scale, cuz I think has bigger fov with the headset he uses...
Ima look at sum more of those "big scaled scenes"
But right of bat I didn't get that feeling like "whoa why it looks so big" using the pico4 
We will supply more sample from other videos in coming days so stay tuned, we would really like to get to bottom of this.
I will also follow up with more technical details on what is going on, to shed more light how stereo affects scale and why solving low IPD is not possible.
I'm sincerely puzzled it takes so much effort for camera makers, Mistika people and all the community and SLR team to figure out some basic geometry optics.
Sandi_SLR there is no difference because you are not taking into account the original resolution and aspect ratio. I am done trying to explain this to you, you are very stubborn. I provided you samples of raw footage that you can simply view in any of your fisheye profiles, original resolution and aspect ratio. Scaling is perfectly fine. If you are going to keep ignoring that then I am finished trying to explain this to you.
Aerowen they refuse to even acknowledge the footage in that aspect ratio, they are very stubborn, I even provided them a sample video clip comparing both versions but it sounds like they refuse to even watch them. I'm done trying to explain this to them haha
Aerowen that is exactly what I was suggesting. I have 2 clips I shared with their team. One fisheye at it's native resolution and aspect ratio, you can play it with a default fisheye profile and the scaling is correct. The second clip is the one generated by canons VR utility into equirectangular format, it's clearly zooming in past 180, which is why i am under the impression the lens is not actually a full 190 lens. Also, the VR utility software, from what I read somewhere, was not actually developed by canon, but instead a third party company. I'm actually going to make my own measuring chart this weekend, if I have time, to try and measure the actual FOV of this damn lens, even if I have to draw out the damn lines on a piece of cardboard haha I will compare the measurement of the native fisheye footage vs. what the canon utility spits out.
- Edited
rerun119 Sure, these are two of the sample clips I made for them.
The first file is what the canon VR utility spits out in equirectangular format, scaling is off.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U3nNXh90RgyBTdU40SuAMrp_t5UcP_BV/view?usp=sharing
Second file is the fisheye footage kept in its original resolution and aspect ratio, not a 2:1 aspect ratio, which they refuse to even watch. Let me know what you think, to me the difference is clear.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0Lnu4Ti8xklZZsB7AC1itX6Iae1stN3/view?usp=sharing
Ignore the lack of proper color grading, exposure, and any other flaws haha this was a quick test to simply look at scaling
metichemsi Would be cool if you gave some input on how to properly watch this?
Sandi_SLR Not sure what you mean how to play this, I simply select the file on your app and by default it goes to fisheye and plays just fine. Does your instance of the app not play this file for you? I prefer to use HS to watch, if this is easier you can also just load it there and select fisheye and change your FOV to 190.
metichemsi I for sure see the difference by just looking at the two pictures.
The 200% SLR videos stretch out the image. In the close up mish, your legs are always way way down behind you because the image is at the egde of the picture. I have a Pimax so maybe I see it more than most but it' definitely not as good as Wankzvr because of this. The Wankzvr scenes are a lot most square or correct scaling with the 180%
- Edited
metichemsi Finally had some time to watch these. I watched them in both DeoVR and HereSphere. For others trying this out: I had to rename the fisheye file to "fisheye180 3dh" or else DeoVR wouldn't play it as VR, I hate how it doesn't always show the 2 buttons to choose what VR type it should project in...
For the fisheye one I also had to 'swap eyes' (screenshot shows left eye is on the right, you can see the right-eye lens)) and change horizontal offset a lot to make it look correctly, but aside from that I do think the fisheye one is better in scale. Or at least it is noticeably smaller scale than the equirectangular file has. It's not a big change to me though and with both files the room still looks larger than it should realistically be. But YES, the scaling is slightly better.
Within HereSphere I tried changing the lens setting to 180 and 190 as well and that's a similar small difference in scale I think.
I also fiddled with the manual IPD setting in HS which surprisingly was a way bigger change for me to get things to look right if I set it to 8 or 8.5. This may be more because my IPD is about 7.4 but my old Oculus headset can't go that high with its manual IPD slider so I think using that setting in HS kinda offsets and fixes that problem. Looks like I'm going to switch over to HS permanently lol. But I think this is unrelated to the scaling in the files and even with this IPD settings change I can see the room scale is still way bigger than it should be realistically (in all the files, both SLR's and your samples).