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.
180 equirectangular greenscreen videos?
metichemsi try reading this thread again, you went from "Canon Utility equirect is how you do it, your fisheye is shit" all the way to "somehow use raw fisheye footage directly because its aspect ratio fault".
Sandi_SLR you on some good shit, I never said your fisheye is shit. Your attitude is shit, all I have been saying from the start is that there is a quick and dirty way to get proper scaling. You are too damn stubborn to even look at anything that is not exactly "by the books" If you werent so damn far up your own you know what, you would simply say, something along the lines of "ok, sure, this is a non-standard way of addressing the scaling issue, but not something viable for professional productions because it does not address some of the standardized projection methods" But no, you keep running your mouth to your paying customers, suddenly i am no longer in a rush to renew my subscription anymore
metichemsi Hey, I went and prepared an info graphic on scale as promised in the thread, feel free to check it: https://forum.sexlikereal.com/d/3960-vr180-stereo-video-and-perceived-scale
If you think I have bad attitude for pointing out that the way you approach the issue lacks some understanding is kind a stretch.
Sandi_SLR After this response, considering the tone of the post you were replying to, you may from now on call yourself Ghandi_SLR
SchnuppiLilac Heh, I think this should be the tone of conversation on forums at all times. There is 0 benefit in escalating things.
Aerowen @rerun119
I actually attempted a very crude test where I drew a straight line horizontally, to represent 180 degree FOV and then drew lines past that line to represent the 190 FOV line of sight and aligned the camera so that both edges matched as closely as possible to the 190 degree lines on the fisheye viewfinder, since canon claims this is actually a 190 lens. I balanced the camera manually with bubble levels on both axis to ensure as much accuracy as possible. I even left a tiny amount of margin on the far right and left of the fisheye view, just to simply be able to actually see both the 190 and 180 lines, thinking that even if I'm actually 191 by doing so, then the equirectangular conversion would also slightly show the 180 line. As you can see on the second screenshot, the equirectangular conversion does not even show any of the 180 line. It's actually cropped in slightly past it. Keep in mind that the raw fisheye screenshot has the left and right eyes flipped straight out of the camera. I still dont personally believe that this lens is actually a full 190 degrees, I think the canon marketing team is rounding up. Even if this lens was exactly 190 degrees, then its still cropping in past the 180 degree point, which would account for some of that slightly larger scaling issue and why simply zooming out slightly also seems to fix the scaling. I know it's a very crude test but the general idea shows me that the equirectangular conversion from the canon software does crop in slightly more than it should. Even though it's technically not a correct way to view the footage, watching straight out of the camera in its native resolution and aspect ratio with a 190 profile on DeoVR produces a more accurate scaled image because it leaves all those extra pixels around the fisheye lenses, artificially creating a slightly "zoomed" out view vs. when you use the canon software or convert it back down to fisheye at a 2:1 aspect ratio.
Either way, the fact that viewing the canon footage in an incorrect format seems to produce more accurate scaling than the traditional "methods" of processing this footage tells me that there are ways to manually edit this footage to get better scaling out of it, even when converting to a 2:1 aspect ratio. My guess would be to simply scale down the fisheye footage 3-5% in the 2:1 aspect ratio timeline, essentially shrinking the footage slightly would yield similar results.
Anyways, thought it was interesting to attempt and measure the FOV change between fisheye and equirectangular conversions, assuming this is a true 190 lens. I'm sure someone has a better way to measure the exact FOV of these lenses because I am still convinced this is either not a full 190 lens and or the canon utility is cropping in more than it should when attempting to make a 180 FOV
Fisheye screenshot
Equirectangular view
metichemsi why wouldnt it be a 190 degree lens? you can clearly see the 190 degree lines in the fisheye shot
- Edited
metichemsi it is certainly 190°, with fisheye, we are projecting on 190 degrees dome, you do get a slight blue ring around due the lens optics, so you could say it has 189° of usable pixels if you want to be picky.
When you say that you can zoom in the fisheye to shrink the image/fov, that is simply not possible in VR180, you get bent walls if you do that.
The video will look correct only if you position the projection camera at exact same position as was the camera when it was shot.
Given that you applied lens profile to make the footage equidistant fisheye.
spacepirate I manually placed the camera to align with the 190 line, you can do that with any camera, again I made this test with the assumption that it is a 190 lens by the placement and manual alignment of the lines. If you take a 180 lens setup you can simply scoot it back enough to also line it up with the 190 lines but it does not mean it is a 190. I need to build a different setup with at true zero mark to actually measure FOV down to the degree, I do plan on doing that in the future, just havent come of with the best way of doing so quite yet.
Sandi_SLR interesting, glad to hear you guys tested on a dome, I was really hoping not to have to even attempt to build one of my own to try and test that. Did you by any chance test the FOV change after the canon software converted to 180? From my crude test it does seem to go slightly past 180, maybe 178 or 179 and that is accounting that in my test i probably started at 191 mark just to be able to make out the 190 line on the edges. I would be curious to see what FOV measurement the canon equirectangular conversation yielded you. Given that you already found that there is probably 189 of usable pixes and if the conversion process of the canon utility seems to be taking a little more than 10 degrees to convert, we may be seeing as little as 177-178 at the end?
metichemsi Equi is exactly 180°. You can see the difference of how much lens do you see from opposing eye.
Also you cannot compare it like this, since canon utility does a lens correction step to get to equidistant fisheye, its not much, but you could "measure" it as 1 degree difference.
Also, again, there is no zooming, if the walls are straight in fisheye190 and straight in equi180 it means you are removing extra image.
- Edited
Sandi_SLR all valid points, and yes, I hadn't even accounted for the lens correction also taking up another degree or two. I guess i am confident in saying that the difference in FOV due to the usable pixels of the lens and the lens correction could probably end up with a 178 instead of 180, at worst, using the canon utility. This is still probably contributing a lot less towards the larger scaling in comparison to how much more the IPD is contributing to the scaling issue in the grand scheme of things. I will still keep some of my old footage rendered on its native resolution and scaling even though its not technically a correct projections science, the scaling looks just about spot on to me. But I have since moved on to only using the canon VR utility and can live with the slightly larger scaling on closeup subjects, my pimax headset has plenty of FOV anyways, and the scaling of further subjects actually looks better on the canon system than my old K2 pro footage. Further subjects on the k2 pro start to quickly look smaller in my opinion. Canon clearly did not build this lens for the porn industry haha Anyways, best of luck to your team finding your next camera system, im sure it will be great once you lock something in.
metichemsi Maybe everybody eyes are different so we see stuff differently. But you keep saying
metichemsi slightly larger scaling on closeup subjects
This is not true to my eyes. EVERYTHING looks bigger. It always feels like I'm standing way up in the air. The girl is gaint, I'm gaint, everything is gaint. Not just closeup subjects.
I hate this camera with a passion. IMO it has ruined so many good studios. If I see that it is 8K then I don't even try to watch the scene anymore.
I also have a Pimax 8kx so that is not the issue with the videos looking big for quest2 people. I know we are all different and see it diffenent but I could care less about a good looking sweet spot if it looks like a gaint is sucking my dick.
rerun119 This is an interesting topic btw, we had a discussion in our offices, that VR introduced something no one actually knew before. It is that peoples eyes IPD actually makes them perceive the world differently and that is exactly what you are noticing. It is the difference YOUR brain sees compared between real world and VR world.
Quite an exciting info I would say.
- Edited
Sandi_SLR I have IPD of 60 and majority of scenes shot with Canon have good scale, one exception is FuckPassVR, funny thing is i don't have that problem withVRHush, their other studio.
For scenes shot with K2Pro and other cameras (POVR, WankzVR, CzechVR), scale is always little to big, but i easily fix it with HereSphere, there is a setting called "Camera Stereo Alignment Right" default is 6.5, i almost always have to decrease it to around 5.7.
I have one question there is setting called "Horizontal Offset" in DeoVR, is it the same thing as "Camera Stereo Alignment Right" on HereSphere, because i have tried it and no matter what i do it doesn't fix the scale for me, it only makes me cross eyed, while the HereSphere's "Camera Stereo Alignment Right" works great?
Sandi_SLR I agree we are all different. You see a lot of people say that the 8K camera makes things too big but you don't see many people saying the other cameras make things too small. So even if we are all different it still seems like the other cameras are better for the majority of people.
- Edited
rerun119 Yea its because the average IPD of humans is 64mm, thats what most cameras have, like k2pro, but canon is on the lower side at 60mm.
I am still amazed thinking that what canon lens showed us, in regards to scale, is how people with smaller IPD actually perceive the real world.