[video=youtube;1TX81cRqfUU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TX81cRqfUU[/video]
Pretty cool. Specially good for people who [I]need help with a few models
[/I][B]Steam Link: [url]http://store.steampowered.com/app/533970/Blocks_by_Google/[/url][/B]
While I totally get what the dude means, and I do think that this app looks really cool, I'm gonna nitpick about something:
[I]"Today, 3D modeling is done on 2 dimensional screens - but our world is not 2 dimensional, and designing for it shouldn't be either. That's why we built blocks!"[/I]
... What are you even saying here, VR screens are still 2D screens :v:
Having a 2D screen for each eye doesn't make it any less 2D.
In fact, our eyes have (curved) 2D sensors, and as such we're only capable of 2D vision. (albeit in stereo, which makes limited depth perception possible through parallax)
Stereo vision =/= 3D vision - 3D vision would imply the ability to see an entire 3D volume at once, sort of like an MRI scanner.
So it's Paint3D but with VR support
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52442801]While I totally get what the dude means, and I do think that this app looks really cool, I'm gonna nitpick about something:
[I]"Today, 3D modeling is done on 2 dimensional screens - but our world is not 2 dimensional, and designing for it shouldn't be either. That's why we built blocks!"[/I]
... What are you even saying here, VR screens are still 2D screens :v:
Having a 2D screen for each eye doesn't make it any less 2D.
In fact, our eyes have (curved) 2D sensors, and as such we're only capable of 2D vision. (albeit in stereo, which makes limited depth perception possible through parallax)
Stereo vision =/= 3D vision - 3D vision would imply the ability to see an entire 3D volume at once, sort of like an MRI scanner.[/QUOTE]
Stereo vision has been called 3D for decades
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52442801]While I totally get what the dude means, and I do think that this app looks really cool, I'm gonna nitpick about something:
[I]"Today, 3D modeling is done on 2 dimensional screens - but our world is not 2 dimensional, and designing for it shouldn't be either. That's why we built blocks!"[/I]
... What are you even saying here, VR screens are still 2D screens :v:
Having a 2D screen for each eye doesn't make it any less 2D.
In fact, our eyes have (curved) 2D sensors, and as such we're only capable of 2D vision. (albeit in stereo, which makes limited depth perception possible through parallax)
Stereo vision =/= 3D vision - 3D vision would imply the ability to see an entire 3D volume at once, sort of like an MRI scanner.[/QUOTE]
Stereoscopic vision gives the impression of depth.
Its literally how we fleshy meat sacks perceive... depth.
Is it [I]true 3d[/I]? No, but it gives enough of the illusion of 3d that our minds process it successfully as such.
Therefore its 3d so [I]shut ur faic[/I]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52442978]Stereo vision has been called 3D for decades[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;52443083]Stereoscopic vision gives the impression of depth.
Its literally how we fleshy meat sacks perceive... depth.
Is it [I]true 3d[/I]? No, but it gives enough of the illusion of 3d that our minds process it successfully as such.
Therefore its 3d so [I]shut ur faic[/I][/QUOTE]
Yeah it's just a dumb nitpick, sorry.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;52443083]Stereoscopic vision gives the impression of depth.
Its literally how we fleshy meat sacks perceive... depth.
Is it [I]true 3d[/I]? No, but it gives enough of the illusion of 3d that our minds process it successfully as such.
Therefore its 3d so [I]shut ur faic[/I][/QUOTE]
So does perspective, though. One among a couple of things that our brains can interpret as depth, even on a standard display.
[QUOTE=Em See;52443160]So does perspective, though. One among a couple of things that our brains can interpret as depth, even on a standard display.[/QUOTE]
We don't really need two eyes for parallax vision either. Some animals move their head from side to side to improve the accuracy of their depth perception, and that should work just fine even with 1 eye.
Sounds more like a nice toy then actual production software.
Especially all those low poly objects they showed, you can do those faster on "2D Screens" instead of having to put on the headset and take your handcontrollers then fiddle around in the 3D space.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52442801]While I totally get what the dude means, and I do think that this app looks really cool, I'm gonna nitpick about something:
[I]"Today, 3D modeling is done on 2 dimensional screens - but our world is not 2 dimensional, and designing for it shouldn't be either. That's why we built blocks!"[/I]
... What are you even saying here, VR screens are still 2D screens :v:
Having a 2D screen for each eye doesn't make it any less 2D.
In fact, our eyes have (curved) 2D sensors, and as such we're only capable of 2D vision. (albeit in stereo, which makes limited depth perception possible through parallax)
Stereo vision =/= 3D vision - 3D vision would imply the ability to see an entire 3D volume at once, sort of like an MRI scanner.[/QUOTE]
No, it's literally 3D in an appropriate sense. Information coming to only one pointlike target (the eye) only gives you 2D information (locating object via two angles), but from two eyes at different vantage points, you can reconstruct distance information, so you have three dimensions worth of info.
This looks inefficient as fuck.
I can confirm that this is, in fact, inefficient as fuck.
At the same time, it's a neat little creative toy, and an excuse to put on the Rift, so I'm not complaining.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52443260]No, it's literally 3D in an appropriate sense. Information coming to only one pointlike target (the eye) only gives you 2D information (locating object via two angles), but from two eyes at different vantage points, you can reconstruct distance information, so you have three dimensions worth of info.[/QUOTE]
You're right in what you say, but I don't really think you're disagreeing with me either. Maybe you misunderstood me a bit or maybe you don't like the way I presented it.
We have 2D vision, but we derive 3D data from it through many methods of interpretation (stereo, parallax, perspective, DoF, knowing how big things are supposed to be through experience, etc)
Having a 2D screen for each eye means we'll have an easier time seeing depth and understanding the 3D contents of the image, but they're still 2D screens - the magic lies in our cool brains interpreting what we see and understanding the 3D contents of it.
So basically, we see 2D but we "see" 3D.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52443260]No, it's literally 3D in an appropriate sense. Information coming to only one pointlike target (the eye) only gives you 2D information (locating object via two angles), but from two eyes at different vantage points, you can reconstruct distance information, so you have three dimensions worth of info.[/QUOTE]
You have distance information, sure, but it's still 2D. The depth info (and every other piece of info like color and brightness) are still confined to a 2D array.
Although, even though it's not [i]technically[/i] correct to call it 3D vision, I get why people call it that.
[quote]"Today, 3D modeling is done on 2 dimensional screens - but our world is not 2 dimensional, and designing for it shouldn't be either. That's why we built blocks!"[/quote]
It's just a little weird to equate modelling on 2D screens to living in a 2D world.
In a 2D world, you could only work on 1D monitors. Have fun modelling 3D like that.
[QUOTE=Bernie Buddy;52445123]You have distance information, sure, but it's still 2D. The depth info (and every other piece of info like color and brightness) are still confined to a 2D array.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. You're not getting "a 2D array's worth of information" you're getting an entire 3D scene's worth of information, because knowing direction to an object from two distinct points in 3D space is enough information to completely construct the 3D coordinates of the object.
It's meaningless to try to classify dimension of something by how it's represented, as a 2D array for instance. An array is a bookkeeping tool. I can represent a fundamentally 3D geometrical object as a 2D array with the right choice of convention of where to write the elements in the array.
3D design is the one big thing I'd like to see VR get used for besides gaming, this might be simplistic but it's definitely going to improve and be used more, especially in sculpting.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52444190]You're right in what you say, but I don't really think you're disagreeing with me either. Maybe you misunderstood me a bit or maybe you don't like the way I presented it.
We have 2D vision, but we derive 3D data from it through many methods of interpretation (stereo, parallax, perspective, DoF, knowing how big things are supposed to be through experience, etc)
Having a 2D screen for each eye means we'll have an easier time seeing depth and understanding the 3D contents of the image, but they're still 2D screens - the magic lies in our cool brains interpreting what we see and understanding the 3D contents of it.
So basically, we see 2D but we "see" 3D.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand. We've successfully emulated another input into the brain for vision and now we're only one input away (focal) from emulating all of them.
So what's your point? Your argument makes no sense. You're saying that adding another emulated input has no value, so effectively you're also saying that removing an emulated input has no detriment. So how about we remove the 3D projection and rasterization that allows us to emulate parallax and perspective and just use 2D viewports to create 3D models? That shit was useless according to you.
You can import models into tiltbrush which is pretty cool:
[Media]https://youtu.be/4X3Kv26k470[/media]
A non-VR version would have been neat, but I guess you could just use Blender or something? I like the look of these models though.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/PVhgbQB.jpg[/t]
The future is here.
[QUOTE=kariko;52445742]A non-VR version would have been neat, but I guess you could just use Blender or something? I like the look of these models though.[/QUOTE]
yeah but wouldn't that just be a normal modeler tho
[QUOTE=kariko;52445742]A non-VR version would have been neat, but I guess you could just use Blender or something? I like the look of these models though.[/QUOTE]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Blender_logo_no_text.svg/734px-Blender_logo_no_text.svg.png[/t]
Honestly this is a neat toy and all but I couldn't see anyone ever doing real work on it.
[QUOTE=Downsider;52445543]I don't understand. We've successfully emulated another input into the brain for vision and now we're only one input away (focal) from emulating all of them.
So what's your point? Your argument makes no sense. You're saying that adding another emulated input has no value, so effectively you're also saying that removing an emulated input has no detriment. So how about we remove the 3D projection and rasterization that allows us to emulate parallax and perspective and just use 2D viewports to create 3D models? That shit was useless according to you.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what you're on about. I'm just discussing terminology.
When did I say that adding more inputs have no value? What.
[editline]8th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52445342]I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. You're not getting "a 2D array's worth of information" you're getting an entire 3D scene's worth of information, because knowing direction to an object from two distinct points in 3D space is enough information to completely construct the 3D coordinates of the object.
It's meaningless to try to classify dimension of something by how it's represented, as a 2D array for instance. An array is a bookkeeping tool. I can represent a fundamentally 3D geometrical object as a 2D array with the right choice of convention of where to write the elements in the array.[/QUOTE]
Again, the input is 2D. You only get 3D data from it once your brain processes it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52445342]I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. You're not getting "a 2D array's worth of information" you're getting an entire 3D scene's worth of information, because knowing direction to an object from two distinct points in 3D space is enough information to completely construct the 3D coordinates of the object.
It's meaningless to try to classify dimension of something by how it's represented, as a 2D array for instance. An array is a bookkeeping tool. I can represent a fundamentally 3D geometrical object as a 2D array with the right choice of convention of where to write the elements in the array.[/QUOTE]
The image of the object/environment that you construct in your head [i]is certainly[/i] 3D, but the input is not.
You can't get an entire 3D scene's worth of information just from stereo alone. You would just have the information of all the surfaces that happen to be facing you + how close they are.
You get the 3D scene from your brain's understanding of perspective and parallax.
Take audio, for example. It's a 1 dimensional input. You can use the volume to make a 2D image out of it, but it's still just a line, albeit a curved one, you haven't actually added an extra dimension of information.
[img]http://u.cubeupload.com/berniebud/1disstill1d.png[/img]
Depth alone isn't enough to construct a proper 3D image.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52446112]Again, the input is 2D. You only get 3D data from it once your brain processes it.[/QUOTE]
Why does it matter,? You're getting enough information to reconstruct locations of points in 3D space. What difference does it make if it comes in the form of two images which are 2D individually.
I can hand you a collection of points in 2-space indexed by the real numbers and that can be used to reconstruct an entire 3D world (in fact, if the world is flat, it's trivially easy). So did I only give you 2D data?
I'm as big a fan of being pointlessly pedantic as the next guy, but don't you all think this is a little bit excessive?
[QUOTE=Bernie Buddy;52446557]The image of the object/environment that you construct in your head [i]is certainly[/i] 3D, but the input is not.
You can't get an entire 3D scene's worth of information just from stereo alone. You would just have the information of all the surfaces that happen to be facing you + how close they are.
You get the 3D scene from your brain's understanding of perspective and parallax.
Take audio, for example. It's a 1 dimensional input. You can use the volume to make a 2D image out of it, but it's still just a line, albeit a curved one, you haven't actually added an extra dimension of information.
[img]http://u.cubeupload.com/berniebud/1disstill1d.png[/img]
Depth alone isn't enough to construct a proper 3D image.[/QUOTE]
This is not incorrect, but it's missing the point that moving images certainly can allow you to reconstruct the surfaces of 3D objects completely. So it's not just the surfaces that happen to be facing you at one point in time.
You're not wrong that a curved surface is still strictly 2D, but I think that's pointless and bad semantics in this case, since we necessarily have an embedding into 3D space of the objects, and we do care about the value of each coordinate specifically. So I couldn't, say, cover the surface of a figure I am interested in in a 2D coordinate system and have it specify the object completely. I still care how far it is from me, which introduces a third coordinate.
Basically I think calling stereo images (in particular, video or real time images) 2D is missing the point and basically being pedantic to the point of wrongness.
[editline]8th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=El Periodista;52446723]I'm as big a fan of being pointlessly pedantic as the next guy, but don't you all think this is a little bit excessive?[/QUOTE]
"...wrong on the Internet..." etc etc
[quote]It's missing the point that moving images certainly can allow you to reconstruct the surfaces of 3D objects completely.[/quote]
That's also true.
Most of what you said I agree with.
I'm a little lost on what the argument is here.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if stereo vision can be called 3D, why are the same renderings but on a normal monitor called "2D"?
They have perspective, and the ability to move around the object as well. They allow you to build a 3D image in your head nearly just as fast as stereo.
[QUOTE=kariko;52445742]A non-VR version would have been neat, but [B]I guess you could just use Blender or something?[/B] I like the look of these models though.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=duckmaster;52445777]
Honestly this is a neat toy and all but I couldn't see anyone ever doing real work on it.[/QUOTE]
I said Blender in the post you replied to?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
