Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques - SIGGRAPH '99 1999
DOI: 10.1145/311535.311569
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A real-time low-latency hardware light-field renderer

Abstract: This paper describes the design and implementation of an architecture for interactively viewing static light fields with very low latency. The system was deliberately over engineered to specifications much tighter than expected necessary to eliminate perceptible latency. This allowed us to relax the specifications to the point at which human users began to detect latency artifacts. We found empirically that when interacting with a light field, human users began to notice latency artifacts when the total system… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
25
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
4
25
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Regan et al [1999] found 70.7% latency thresholds averaging 15 ms for a specialized non-immersing CRT display. Assuming Gaussian psychometric functions and zero response bias for twointerval forced-choice judgments with balanced presentation order, the 70.7% threshold from Regan et al [1999] can be equated with a JND of 18.6 ms. Allison et al [2001] observed on the other hand that for large virtual objects occupying the full Head Mounted Display (HMD) Field-of-View (FOV), 50% thresholds for perceived image instability (oscillopsia) were found to be 180-320 ms depending on head motion velocity. This threshold indicates the latency level at which observers were equally likely as not to say the image was unstable and represents their average response bias or preference.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Regan et al [1999] found 70.7% latency thresholds averaging 15 ms for a specialized non-immersing CRT display. Assuming Gaussian psychometric functions and zero response bias for twointerval forced-choice judgments with balanced presentation order, the 70.7% threshold from Regan et al [1999] can be equated with a JND of 18.6 ms. Allison et al [2001] observed on the other hand that for large virtual objects occupying the full Head Mounted Display (HMD) Field-of-View (FOV), 50% thresholds for perceived image instability (oscillopsia) were found to be 180-320 ms depending on head motion velocity. This threshold indicates the latency level at which observers were equally likely as not to say the image was unstable and represents their average response bias or preference.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Despite the availability of several software (Garret, 2002) and hardware (Regan et al, 1999) optimization packages, it is impossible to completely cancel ETEL in a VE. The unavoidable latency may have detrimental effects both on the user's sense of immersion, as well as on her/his behavior.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regan et al constructed a very low latency 3D light field renderer [8]. The architecture of their renderer is similar to ours, and their goal was also to design a renderer for investigating latency in human computer interaction.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…FPGAs have been used for real-time rendering before, but with limited scope and tight vertical integration (e.g. [8], [9]). The dataflow computing paradigm and tools such as Maxeler's MaxCompiler are making it possible to construct image generators with entirely novel architectures, with similar complexity of programming as traditional GPUs [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%