rerun119 He shared a file with me that he recorded, at home, with canon, I created the same sample for him as I posted up there with fisheye190, he is free to share my sample if you guys want another comparison.

    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.

            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

                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%

                    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).

                        Aerowen glad to hear you were able to try them out and fiddle with them. Regarding the scaling, the room scale on the fisheye is right on point, I imagine judging the scale of a room you have not been in person would be difficult. The K2 actually has issues scaling objects further away from the camera, and so you might be used to that given how the closeup subject scale better on the K2 pro. I have owned the K2 pro and can also attest to that from experience. I did the test shots with everyday objects and I even held the objects in front of the headset as I watched the footage to make sure, yes, its a small change but the scaling on the fisheye footage is spot on for closeup objects. The room is actually the same, I stand where I had the camera with my headset on and compare both scales by taking off and putting on the headset. I have a ton of footage I have shot in the past with the k2 pro and generally anything past 1 or 1.5 meters starts to scale on the smaller side.

                            metichemsi Yeah the objects did look correct in size on the fisheye and slightly bigger on the equirectangular one. So as far as I'm concerned it's confirmed there's a difference so I hope SLR guys testing it will see it as well.

                            Room scales are always kinda weird to me, I'm not sure why. Perhaps I'm just not used to large rooms as everything tends to be bigger in the US, even the houses. And studios like StasyQVR also seem to shoot in very large rooms or warehouses refit into studios for VR or other porn shoots.

                                Aerowen Good luck with them taking a further look, as you will notice on my previous messages, I have already provided them sample sizes and explained how the native resolution and aspect ration make a significant difference and their response was to simply "stop mentioning the resolution and aspect ratio" their "testing" did not actually test anything, all they did was offer two samples, one in fisheye and another in equirectangular, both with the same tweaked resolution and aspect ration of 2:1 and they refuse to even watch the original fisheye footage like you did. Claiming that they cant get it to playback? Really, you managed to get it playing just fine with a little tweak of the filename and further tunning on HS. If they want to play this footage on DeoVR they simply have to add the 190 or 180 tag to the end of the file name. You really think they cant figure out how to play this back haha Either way, they probably dont care to find a fix for the canon camera since they seem to already be neck deep in their 10k camera haha Either way is ok, I actually dont mind seeing what their 10k camera can do haha

                                    metichemsi I guess they are moving on but if they could actually fix all the big scenes from the 8k that would be worth the trouble. They are unwatchable in their current form

                                        Yea, sorry guys, I am not participating here anymore.
                                        There is a fundamental lack of understanding on how videos get projected on a dome.
                                        All the meshes are 2:1 ratio, so putting the raw canon on it would squash the fisheye vertically, thus distorting the result.
                                        You are free to read first part here http://paulbourke.net/stereographics/Canon_RF_dual_fisheye/
                                        Take care on how he prepares the 180 fisheye and how many times he mentions aspect ratio.

                                          rerun119 yea, they simply dont care anymore, they are so stuck on the "traditional/correct" way to project VR footage by the "books" that they simply refuse to even think outside of traditional box to see that there are ways to tweak the footage to "fix" the scaling issues. Whatever, I am done trying with that Sandi character anyways.