I'm pretty sure the answer is 5, as if you fold up the net, the face 5 is opposite the red one, but the orange face must be adjacent to it

@Americo42

6 жыл бұрын

the easiest solution

@bricck

6 жыл бұрын

Good job

@spamboli

6 жыл бұрын

true, but that's no fun

@thekevlar127

6 жыл бұрын

Not even true, the question is which of the OTHER faces can't be orange.

@vakusdrake3224

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah 5 can't be any of the colors that we know touch red

My company is developing a technique to present movies in 3d without the need for special glasses, projection equipment or even cameras. It's a bit complicated, but in a nutshell, we place live actors and props on a sort of staging area at the front or center of the theater. The audience can then experience movies in 3d while avoiding vergence accommodation conflict altogether, since they are seeing actual 3d objects at their correct focal depth. We are still working out some kinks in the technology (tight close-ups are a logistical nightmare), but we have obtained a patent and hope to start beta testing in ancient Greece.

@qdog7912

5 жыл бұрын

please send your contact info i want to sell tomatoes at that venue

@trod146

5 жыл бұрын

Sounds kind of boring though

@andrerenault

5 жыл бұрын

I can't wait to see all of the stunts performed by the live actors on the props

@ChaosBW

5 жыл бұрын

That's not a movie that's a play.

@dannymccune1888

5 жыл бұрын

If I had a time machine I don't think I'd be too worried about making 3D movies. (Going to *ancient* Greece.)

“Four would be too many, two wouldn’t be enough.” And FIVE is RIGHT OUT!!!

@christianglass1802

2 жыл бұрын

Three is the number of dimensions, and the number of dimensions shall be three…

@XenophonSoulis

Жыл бұрын

Jokes aside, 5 would be the perfect number of dimensions. Or, as Arthur would put it, One, Two, Five.

@KingOath

Жыл бұрын

And who are you who is so wise in the ways of science

@cdgressly

Жыл бұрын

Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

If your friends are taking you to an especially bad movie, just put on both of the glasses.

@sage5296

6 жыл бұрын

Urinstein lol good idea

@OllAxe

5 жыл бұрын

This comment is perfect

@Paul-sj5db

4 жыл бұрын

And stick your fingers in your ears too.

@80s_Gamr

4 жыл бұрын

Each pair reduces the brightness of the film... two pairs would be too dark.

@Nlenik

4 жыл бұрын

@@80s_Gamr There are 2 films - one for the left and one for the right - on the screen. Each lens actually filters out the film that is supposed to be seen by the other eye. So you see the "left film" on your left eye and so on. So if you put both lenses on you see just nothing. *flies away

It's been 2 years Steve! Time for that video on the light field display :D

@thegettokidZz

3 жыл бұрын

watching scientific videos like these retrospectively is fun!

@Vijwal

3 жыл бұрын

3, 3 years now Ps: only reason I don't like is 69 likes.

@BealRutcher

3 жыл бұрын

4 allready

@DirtyPoul

3 жыл бұрын

@@Vijwal You may now like it :D

@orvinal2883

3 жыл бұрын

its at seventy, really dirty paul? but yeah it doesnt look like that vid is comin :( its 2021

all VR headsets should be made to have googly eyes by law

@DoctorX17

4 жыл бұрын

All technology should have googly eyes on it

@SamsonOng

4 жыл бұрын

All things should have googly eyes on it

@mind.journey

4 жыл бұрын

@@SamsonOng what about googly eyes?

@antsolja

4 жыл бұрын

this

@santiagosenoran1217

4 жыл бұрын

@@SamsonOng we should transcend into googly eyes

There was one scene in Avatar where vergence accommodation conflict worked well: the scene where ash was falling. I really felt like I was in the midst of falling ash and even tried to wipe it away. The ash was appropriately blurry, as we weren't supposed to focus on the specific bits, just like real life. Amazing use case.

Who knew I had a trigonometry calculator in my head. Could have been real useful.

@miranda.cooper

3 жыл бұрын

If only it knew numbers lol

@joshyoung1440

2 жыл бұрын

wait what? lol

You can in fact train your eyes to focus independently of the convergence. It's a learnable skill, and it's part of what makes Magic Eye work.

@calinguga

3 жыл бұрын

also how stereoscopy works

@hatfieldrick

3 жыл бұрын

I was going to say that! I've been messing around with 3d stuff since I was a kid, and consequently 3d movies work very well for me without any big eyestrain. I can bring any 2 images together into focus, no problemo.

@tensefx4655

2 жыл бұрын

I wasn’t aware that people weren’t able to easily focus on close up things in VR until I watched this video. All those Magic Eye pics in my youth gave me VR superpowers!

@slimsqde7397

Жыл бұрын

@sourand jaded im so glad someone else can do this, Ive been doing this stuff my whole life to and people think I'm crazy, especially with those magic eye things

@emilolsson3286

Жыл бұрын

Wow! I have always thougt that I was the only one who did that :D I also put together everything like fences etc. And I am extremely fast at "spot the difference" :D

I had always assumed that the reason you can't look at something up close in VR had to do with the screen resolution, but this makes much more sense. Cool video!

Another problem I have with 3D is that the director dictates the focal length. During an extreme closeup, everything in the background is blurred. This isn't such an issue for 2D, but if you're trying to create a convincing 3D world, I want to be able to focus on the background if I want to.

@ge2719

6 жыл бұрын

you dont want to watch what the director wants you to watch? then don't watch the movie.

@SonOfFurzehatt

6 жыл бұрын

Graeme Evans I'm not being deliberately difficult, it's human nature for your eyes to look around the room all the time.

@hehehepssst

6 жыл бұрын

Same for me, I always get distracted by something that 'i am not supposed to look at' and when I can't focus on it, it spoils the illusion for me.

@ge2719

6 жыл бұрын

Oh well i guess neither of you can watch non 3d movies either. because you cant focus on anything thats out of focus in those.

@picapica201

6 жыл бұрын

ah, "deliberately difficult", so that's the name for those.. now I have the translation from the semantics, thank you.

It's weird... growing up I *_loved_* those _'grab your nose'_ shots in 3D films and only as a late teenager realized other people experienced them completely differently. I have an alternating exotropic strabismus (what used to be called a lazy eye) which means depending on which eye I'm using as my dominant eye, t'other eye will look away from center. This gave me several 'tricks of sight', like being able to rapidly switch the eye I'm sighting through (which eye is dominant) and even sight through both eyes such that without a dominant eye (or they're both dominant), I get, simultaneously, two different perspectives that don't quite meet up properly in the middle (and the perspective lines are all wrong which is *_really_* weird while moving). The upside of all this is my eyes don't focus in quite the same way, so for me the _'grab your nose'_ shot always looks sharply in focus and creepy cool :)

@BrightBlueJim

4 жыл бұрын

I've never seen "t'other" spelled out. Thank you.

The answer is 3, because it is definitely red

@Skelpolu

6 жыл бұрын

nope. He says that 3 is red, and then "which of the OTHER faces can't be orange?" So this wouldn't work, since 3 is already excluded.

@CathodeRayKobold

5 жыл бұрын

Everyone here is Sherlock Holmes, figuring out the code based on which buttons are worn out. And here we have Watson, trying the (totally unlocked) door handle.

@tissuepaper9962

5 жыл бұрын

It's actually 5, because orange has to share a border with red, and 5 is the only face which doesn't.

@elton8135

4 жыл бұрын

@@Skelpolu however at 8:30 the text asks differently

@bloodypommelstudios7144

4 жыл бұрын

3 Could be an orange square viewed under a red light or through a red filter.

5

@samtibbitts

6 жыл бұрын

I agree. The first view shows that red & orange are adjacent. 1, 2, 4, and 6 are adjacent to 3 therefore the only one that cannot be orange (is not adjacent to red/3) is 5.

@conkong4790

6 жыл бұрын

Obviously, it's 3! I bet you guys feel silly

@KenCubed

6 жыл бұрын

@Ryan Wilson If the purpose of the extra information is just to distract you and it is entirely blatant then I disagree, because at that point it becomes more of a task of mental book keeping than an exercise in logic. Just like how a proof that sloppily uses too many assumptions is a bad proof. However, it can be the case that extra assumptions simplifies a problem (unlike in this case), in which case it would be acceptable.

@Holobrine

6 жыл бұрын

You can further conclude that face 5 must be purple, because it is adjacent to two of the colors that red is adjacent to.

@TheRedbeardpirate

6 жыл бұрын

the other two views are red herrings

I’ve never had this issue in VR, but this does explain why this happens at older 3D movies and that is super interesting, thanks for the vid

Excited for the next video. Keep it up! Ur videos are awesome

"You wouldn't want to be in VR for more than 10 minutes" I've had sessions of VR chat last hours, and that's not even a real game. I once spent an entire day in fallout 4 vr

@paultreneary

3 жыл бұрын

But look at your eyes! :D But seriously I agree as VR headsets shouldn't really have been discussed in the above (especially alongside pseudo 3D movies) due to the way they work and the way we perceive depth in a proper 3D headset. A dya though, wow! I still need to chew on a bit of ginger when in Dirt Rally etc. to keep me from hurling.

@Giantcrabz

3 жыл бұрын

Cool story

@nigeladams8321

3 жыл бұрын

@@paultreneary I recently installed a pair of my old glasses in to my headset so now the 3D is a bit more pronounced. I have to get used to all over again but I'm sure it won't take long

@TheFloodFourm

3 жыл бұрын

@@nigeladams8321 nice

@ET_AYY_LMAO

3 жыл бұрын

I spend 6 hours playing VTOLVR without any problems or discomfort (Well accept from not being able to find my coffee mug)

3 is Red - Red meets Orange - 5 does not meet 3 Therefore, 5 can not be Orange.

@vertexrikers

6 жыл бұрын

3 can't be orange either =D

@HunterDigi

6 жыл бұрын

@vertex rikers Nice try but he specifically says "you're told that one of those faces is red ... which of the OTHER faces can't be orange..." :P

@vertexrikers

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, he spills wrong information there. Look at the original task that he linked in the video description. The original presentation of the problem already contains multiple errors - asking for a singular face is just one of them. In addition the description contains indefinite articles for "a cube" - so the object description might not even refer to the same object. If you would take the written instructions just as strict as you suggested for the spoken instructions, the only correct answer for the former would be 3 and the only correct answer for the latter would be 5. To compensate for the messy setup, I'd still propose to use "3 and 5" as the best solution =P

@cliprimate_EXtinted

3 ай бұрын

Shouldnt it be 1,3, and 5

Nice explanation. Same problem occurs with those Magic Eye images (only it's even worse, because they usually require you to diverge your eyes to get the images to align).

4:27 "You can converge on an object [in a virtual 3D space that is separate from the screen], but you can't focus on it". That statement isn't entirely true, as a 3D hobbyist of many many years I've managed to train myself to separate convergence and focal point. You can indeed focus on virtual 3D objects but I can't argue that it's undeniably a significant problem for a mass audience

@enilenis

6 жыл бұрын

I've been into stereoscopic 3D since 1989 and it took me many many years to train eyes to focus independent of convergence. It's almost like the magic eye books with patterns, only harder because the conditions are everchanging with a moving image. Now the brain almost gets a kick out of 3D, because it gets to do something different. It's like an eye muscle exercise. I do, however, get very strong motion sickness, specifically because my brain has no trouble perceiving fake stereoscopic 3D as the true form. That's the paradox. The better the picture, the more the body notices the lack of proper acceleration when the image dictates movement. I hear people train against VR motion sickness, but in my case it works in reverse. The less eye strain I experience, the more nauseating it gets.

@MotoCat91

5 жыл бұрын

Totally agree, just watched another another of his videos about eyes saying things like you can't move your eyes smoothly side to side without tracking an object but then I did it immediately...

@random832

2 жыл бұрын

well, another problem is that if an object is out of focus in the filmed image, it's impossible to focus on it because the screen image is *actually* blurry. Which is true for 2D movies as well, but 3D makes it more likely for you to try.

@maticz3923

2 жыл бұрын

Same for me

Have you tried actual VR? Like not phone wannabe VR.

@thatnongayfurry5063

3 жыл бұрын

He is too poor

It's 5. It's the only one that won't be adjacent to the red face, since its connection to face 4 is the edge opposite to face 4's connection to the red face.

@scotthappy6885

5 жыл бұрын

its 3. 3 is red not orange

@zoulock

4 жыл бұрын

@@scotthappy6885 no

@mikailvandartel

4 жыл бұрын

zoulock yes

@truetaylor8648

3 жыл бұрын

@@scotthappy6885 which of the OTHER faces can't be orange. Specifically, not the red one.

Awesome video! I can't wait for the follow-up! The answer is 5. Orange shares 1 side with red however 3 and 5 are opposite each other and don't share any edges.

This is very accurate. In addition, this accomodation-convergence coupling goes both ways. Because our eyes are now told to focus/accomodate to something closer than the actual screen, in order for the 3D image to become clear again, we actually have "decouple" the system ie. forcefully relax the accomodation, then forcefully use additional convergence to counteract the extra DIVERGENCE that is caused by forcefully relaxing the accomodation will provide. Confusing.

You can train your brain to overcome the focus issue though. As a fan of 3D technology I've been confronting myself with super primitive ways of stereoscopic images/movies at a very young age already. Namely the cross-eyed technique to watch stereoscopic images and videos and while at first everything was really blurry and out of focus it only took me a couple of days to get used to it and focus on objects that appear close even if they're far away in reality and vice versa. I can watch and look at every possible type of 3D technology wether it's a VRHeadset or old-school Red/Cyan glasses at any distance and have never encountered problems with out of focus objects ever again, nor did I ever get any form of headache or other psychological problems other people complain about. I don't know wether it's because I started at a young age or if it's the frequent exposure to stereoscopic technology that made me learn it that easily but I'm confident everyone who's more than just casually interested in a 3D experience and experiences it more frequently that just once every couple of years can get rid of that problem quickly and it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

@BrightBlueJim

4 жыл бұрын

That brain training is what causes the headaches. And THEN, if you watch too much artificial 3D, you get headaches when you look at the real world again.

I always like wearing my 3D glasses upside down because it inverts the depth perception. It's very disorienting but I think it's fun!

@sage5296

6 жыл бұрын

Holobrine wait seriously? I’m gonna try that next time lol.

@viddork

5 жыл бұрын

Try this on the 3D conversion of The Wizard of Oz! (1939) They seem to have solved the problem of how to fill in the missing background info for the second eye by simply leaving a ''halo" around any object moved forward that moves the background with it. (Sorry that that explanation isn't very clear.) It's surprisingly unnoticeable when viewed normally, but very weird with the fields reversed.

I have noticed that I can manually focus my eyes without converging/diverging them. Nice to hear an explanation of exactly how those two processes interact.

another issue with projected 3D is some projectors interlace the left and right view if something is moving your left eye sees it in one place, then the right eye sees it in another place, the left further still, the right further still and the image tears apart as 2 D slices to each eye for some sequences if you hold your eye still and look at a non moving object, the moving objects (like falling snow for example) might render correctly but if you track the moving objects with your eyes, the images tear L and R apart the problem with "looking where the producer wants you to look" to get the proper 3D effect is we dont view things that way - our eyes dart about on a scene, like they do when we are driving a car you dont just stare at the center of attention when you are watching a movie there have been many movies that people went to see multiple times, the 3rd or 4th time they might focus their attention on the back ground characters because there is so much going on, or looking for easter eggs - 3D does not lend itself to that

I have an Oculus Quest, and the 3D effect looks really good. If I close one eye I lose all of my depth perception, which means that I had depth perception to begin with. I can also easily tell the scale of objects, which is really hard to do without depth perception. Just my thoughts tho. :D

@paultreneary

3 жыл бұрын

I've got a Rift and I'd agree - anything that can give you vertigo is playing with your depth perception.

Please do a light field video.

Great video man, this actually made me understand how 3D images and tv's, all that stuff, works! Awesome!

Very clear and interesting video about VAC! This issue is the exact one we are tackling at CREAL, and this is why we are working hard on developing the light-field display for AR and VR. We would be very enthusiastic to help you create your next video about light-field technology - please do not hesitate to get in touch!

Hmmm.. Got an oculus rift, and I can play the thing for hours, and look ahead/read text just fine. Sure it is not the same as real world, and light field displays would be awesome, but the brain is amazing like that, and, at least in my experience, adapts really quickly. I actually tried focussing close and then far away, and I felt I got the same sort of "bokeh"-shift effect from it, albeit less strong.. probably the vergence part ? I still don't like 3D movies though, as camera focus is also a factor there: Points where the camera isn't focussing will NEVER be sharp, unless a lightfield camera is used. a 3D GAME however, can be sharp/"in focus across" the entire screen, which makes a big difference: There at least IS a point where the image looks sharp, so you can accomodate towards that and see sharp, regardless of where you look on the screen. You'll quickly pick up on that, and everything is fine. It's only a small offset.

@sleepless9003

Жыл бұрын

hes using a phone vr headset thats not real vr like the oculus rift

ummm.... I have a htc vive and you can look at things closeup. Its pretty awesome there is no weird effect as you described. Maybe because its so different from a 3D movie... idk.

Fist thing I did with the puzzle: before I got the question I found the green face- it’s opposite from the yellow one. The answer to the question: face 5- it can’t be wrapped around to be next to the red.

Great vid Steve, just to let you know that the book links in your description direct to another of your books, not The Element in the Room (at least it did for me!)

interestingly enough I can control focus and crossing of my eyes completely independently

@CathodeRayKobold

5 жыл бұрын

So can I, but it still gives me a headache after a while. I still can't get used to my new glasses because it's changed my focal distance.

@B3Band

3 жыл бұрын

Interestingly, so can everyone else. I guess it's not so interesting after all.

@tezla6332

3 жыл бұрын

@@B3Band I can't, so... no

I've actually played VR before, and it's amazing. I don't recommend playing something like a rollercoaster ride simulator in VR, since it makes most people want to vomit. This is due to the vestibular system in our ears. If you actually use something like the Oculus Rift or the HTC Vive, it is much better. If you get VR sickness while playing, then stop and get a glass of ginger ale (it actually helps with it). Major ways of combating VR sickness is different locomotion, like making you swing your arms to move, or teleportation. I, personally, don't get VR sickness, but since you made this video on how 3D things (e.g. VR) suck, then I suspect that you get VR sickness. There are many people who've experienced VR sickness, but once they use VR for long enough, it goes away. I just think that you've had a bad experience with it, and that you just need to try something that doesn't give you sickness.

@PanDiaxik

2 жыл бұрын

I also don't get VR sickness, at least in these cheap goggles, where you put a phone in them. I think my brain treats sight as the most important sense. I can even feel that I'm moving w while watching 2D video in a screen big enough to fill most of my field of view.

@jmvr

2 жыл бұрын

@@PanDiaxik A majority of people (I believe around 6 out of 10 people) don't have VR sickness, or barely have any. That remaining 4 out of 10, however, can't play many VR games without almost puking.

Please make a video about the light field display! I'm looking forward to the application in VR

I've recently had the lenses in my eyes replaced. Now, one eye can focus on long distance and one short distance. It's surprising how much your brain separately merges information from each eye. Sometimes I can see clearly with info from one eye, but blurry with the other eye if the 'good eye' is blocked, but it's still a seamless image. The brain does all sorts of processing without you realising.

@powdereyes2210

11 ай бұрын

Do you read better using both eyes or do you close one eye to use the short distance eye

@chrisVNZ

11 ай бұрын

@@powdereyes2210 honestly, If I need to see properly, I close one eye or the other. Although I do have reading glasses if I can remember where I put them.

@chrisVNZ

11 ай бұрын

@@powdereyes2210 I mean.... Now I sound like I'm 90... But I'm really not 🤣

5 can't be orange, because orange is next to red in the 1st view, 5 is opposite red in the plan... PS i hate 3d films, i find them very uncomfortable x

@Coen80

6 жыл бұрын

yeah it took me 1sec to figure that one out

@satibel

6 жыл бұрын

by the way, it is violet.

@Coen80

6 жыл бұрын

manaquri sure, the answer should be a number, but your answer, (meant to be pedantic as well) is a colour... Bravo, you must be the brightest star in the universe..

You can also buy 2D glasses from DFTBA.

@hehehepssst

6 жыл бұрын

+

@itisdevonly

6 жыл бұрын

+

@applesaregoodeatings

6 жыл бұрын

+

@the1exnay

6 жыл бұрын

+

My main problem with 3D movies is actually just that the 3D glasses they use are polarized so they reduce the intensity of light coming from the screen, but the screen is not made any brighter to compensate. No one would go to a 2D movie and watch the entire thing with sunglasses on, so why are we forced to do it for 3D?

@kilrahvp

4 жыл бұрын

That, plus they mess the colors up so I also avoid 3D movies in convenitional theaters. But the IMAX Laser (and possibly other laser projection systems) solves both of these plus the crosstalk issue, and on there 3D movies are a pleasure to watch.

One of the few youtubers who can put out a 10 minute video on the dot and not make me suspicious.

I've worked on a number of 3D feature films. Good movies, such as Avatar are thought out ahead of time. Converging lines, composition and light direct your attentions to the point where director wants you to look, and that is set as the faux focal plane. The attention point is also designed to slowly drift from cut to cut and not teleport around, all resulting in a more pleasant visual experience. Not perfect, but close enough with the tools given. Bad movies, or 2D to 3D conversions aren't structured that way, and when the movie gets directed using the same rules as conventional flat production, then the probability of the viewer looking where they aren't supposed to focus increases, resulting in bigger headaches and nausea. Creating 3D that works well is a fine art and the perfect tech, like you said, doesn't exist yet. Lytro has recently demonstrated a decent light field camera, whose main problems right now are size, computational power and data bandwidth. As those things get cheaper, faster and smaller, they will at some point go mainstream. Light field displays are much harder to produce. Most prototypes have to sacrifice some visual aspect, be that color, luminance, refresh rate, number of simultaneous observers etc, but progress is being made. The death of last gen 3DTV's put a damper of funding, but the research goes on regardless, because of medical, military and scientific applications. Entertainment value isn't all there is, but it's perceived as an easy way to recoup the costs. On a less related topic of VR, I remember putting on VFX1 Headgear (by Forte Technologies) back in 1996 - the caveman version of modern Oculus. Resolution was horrendous, input lag very noticeable and magnetometer kept drifting because of interference. That VR wasn't enjoyable, but taking the helmet off after about 20 minutes - that was amazing. Because despite discomfort, the brain would learn to compensate for the lag. With the helmet taken off, it would send incorrect commands to my eyes causing them to dart around. Head movement would result in picture seemingly moving in contradiction to head rotation. So, real world, for about a minute, would turn into a crazy VR-like thing. Nowdays you put on VR, take it off and feel back home immediately. Takes the brain very little time to adjust to fake depth and back. I think VR holds the key to cost-effective light-field type projection. DLP-like matrices can be used to rapidly adjust light rays, but it requires lag-free eye-tracking and 3D rendering. We're not quite there yet. Maybe in the next 5-10 years.

@fonesrphunny7242

Жыл бұрын

I skipped through Avatar 3D at a friend's place, just to see what it's like. Haven't used 3D glasses since the Elsa Revelator. There was one indoor scene with a bright light in the background and it looked awful. Like they added a bloom effect, but different for each eye. I guess I just wasn't supposed to look at it, but it just looked so wrong I couldn't ignore it.

8:25 - "When I first saw it I was thinking _ahh_ it's one those ones" ... *that can't be solved by about 10% of men because they have a color vision deficiency*

@dollyjena7380

3 жыл бұрын

Damn majority.

@HikariMagic20

2 жыл бұрын

It is even worse because the brightness of the colors are not different enough either. I personally can make out at least 4 distinct brightness levels, not very color blind friendly unfortunately. (I'm not colorblind, I used a program to convert the image to greyscale.)

I actually love to watch 3D movies, my trick for the objects that come out of the screen and close to my face is to not look directly at them. I look at something nearby but in the background, this allows my eyes to remain focused on the screen and the "nearby" object stays in focus. It isn't perfect but it allows me to enjoy the 3D illusion without the disorienting, dizzying vergence accommodation conflict.

Idk if this was an actual problem for VR 4 years ago, but I don’t think it was. You can examine an object close to your face in VR. I’d need to do some experimenting on my own headset, but I think the issue is either solved by the shape of the lenses (or the distance from your face) allowing your eyes to converge without unfocusing, or your eyes don’t try to converge due to the fact that things don’t go out of focus since they are right in front of you. Maybe this is just because my mind has adapted to VR and learned when and when not to focus. Also, now I’m wondering if your mind knowing when to focus is something that affects motion sickness in VR? Maybe that’s why putting an object in your view-like a nose- helps with motion sickness?

"I'm proud of the book. It's so shiny." 😂😂😂

04:28 "You can converge on a object right here, but you can't fokus on it!" Welcome to the "old people blindness"... Beyond the age of 50 this your normal vision... 😂

Thank you sooooo much Steve Mould ! You have no idea how happy it makes me to see my googly eyes in your video ! :'D

Loved the video Steve :) as per usual I learnt something very interesting. Ummm, I stared at the puzzle for way too long and manipulated the cube in my mind like you said i didnt have to lol then the shortcut became very obvious.. still I think the mental exercise was good for me haha I believe square 5 cannot be orange.

SPOILER ALERT! Cube puzzle solution below. There are two solutions: Square 3 in the flat display can not be orange, because it is already red. Square 5 in the flat display also can't be orange, and you actually know this by only seeing the first (far left) cube shown. It shows that the orange face is adjacent to the red face, and it's impossible to fold the flat display into a cube so that square 5 is adjacent to square 3 (which is red). Furthermore, it's possible to determine from the other two cubes that square 5 must be purple, further proving that it can not be orange. Any of the other 4 faces could be orange, but it's impossible to determine which without more information.

@MrAwawe

5 жыл бұрын

It said "which of the other faces cannot be orange" the use of the word other disqualifies 3

@j121212100

4 жыл бұрын

it's obvious. Simple puzzle to get the clicks

@Lambda_Ovine

4 жыл бұрын

It's not impossible to determine the colors of all the quadrants. It's just a pain in the ass. My explanation is kind of wordy, but bare with me: We have image _a_, _b_ and _c_. On image _a_ we see that yellow and red (3) are adjacent to orange, and on image _b_ we see that cyan is adjacent to yellow and red (3), and the only way for that to be possible is if cyan and orange are opposite to each other. On image _b_ we see that yellow and red (3) are adjacent to cyan, and on image _c_ we see that yellow and purple are adjacent to cyan, and the only way for that to be possible is if red and purple are opposite to each other. By discard, all we have discovered leave us with the rest of the colors (yellow and green) being opposite to each other. So far we know: red (3) --> purple orange --> cyan yellow --> green Now we can start figuring things out: Knowing that red is square 3, we fold the net leaving 5 as the opposite to 3, so 5 is purple. Now, let's focus on images _b_ and _c_, that shows yellow at the top and green (being it's opposite) at the bottom. If we fold the net again we see that square 6 is the top and 2 is the bottom, so square 6 is yellow and square 2 green. Almost there, now we know that: 1 = cyan or orange 2 = green 3 = red 4 = orange or cyan 5 = purple 6 = yellow Paying attention to image _b_, we see that cyan is adjacent to red (3) and yellow (6). We fold the net again and we see that square 4 is adjacent to red (3) and yellow (6), so square 4 must be cyan, leaving square 1 as orange as it's opposite. Hurray! 1 = orange 2 = green 3 = red 4 = cyan 5 = purple 6 = yellow

@jamieg2427

4 жыл бұрын

@@Lambda_Ovine Your analysis of the cube's sides is very nice, however my impression is that there's a flaw: Rotation. Imagine the red face (3) is facing us and violet (5) is facing away. Your analysis had yellow(6) on top. But imagine instead that before we had unfolded the cube into the net, we did a rotation so that red was still facing us. Now orange, green, or blue would be on top, so when we unfold into the net, side six could be any one of those colors. To determine the numbers of the rest of the sides, I believe we need at least three faces. We know red and violet from the puzzle, and we would need one more. Also, forgive my pedantry, but you seem like the rigorous type and would like to know: cyan is a very different color from the blue on this cube; I googled it to check.

@mariah3703

4 жыл бұрын

Orange and blue is 1 and 4.

Sounds like Steve needs to try HTC Vive. Proper VR is already amazing, none of this crap mobile VR.

@UnhingedBear

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. The work that went into making that system is wonderful. I remember being astonished when, after an hour of trying to figure out why the image was blurry the whole time I was wearing the thing was because I needed my glasses on. For reference here, I am extremely nearsighted so when I put the headset on I figured "Thing is only 5 centimeters from my face, won't need these" but the tech is sophisticated enough that my eyes still received the information as if the objects in virtual space where meters away.

@OMGclueless

4 жыл бұрын

@@UnhingedBear It doesn't have anything to do with the tech, AFAIK. I experience the same phenomenon with both my HTC Vive and with my Google Daydream headset. I believe what's going on is that nearsighted eyes are just inherently incapable of focusing on distant objects. When you look at an object that is seemingly 12 feet away your eyes will be out of focus whether the object is a real object reflecting light or a screen that is actually 3 inches from your eyes. Which is why you need glasses even though the light source is right in front of you and if you could focus on it you'd see it fine. The real magic to me is how anyone can see any "distant" objects at all in VR without it being blurry. It suggests that even if your eyes set a focal length that is deep beyond the screen, your visual cortex just doesn't care.

@UnhingedBear

4 жыл бұрын

@@OMGclueless The reason I gush about the tech, in this case the quality of the lenses, is because I do not get that result with all headsets. During a con quite a few years ago I got to try a prototype Oculus Rift that I didn't wear my glasses with, and every iteration of the cell phone vr setups, similar to the one he uses in the video, likewise do not require my glasses to be on.

Great explanation. I loved the shot at 2:47. Reminded me a bit of Ze Frank for some reason.

My first try at 3D was with those LCD shutter glasses. They came with an Elsa Erazor III video card from back when we had AGP. I don't miss AGP at all, it was odd and was a graphics only slot.

Videos like this make a disservice to VR, because most people still think that VR and 3D movies are pretty much the same thing. But they are VERY different for one crucial aspect: perception of scale. It's *impossible* to perceive correct scales in a 3D movie (and pretty difficult in a 3D game in a flat screen) because the recording would have to be fixed for one specific position and distance of the eyes. 3D movies makes you feel things pop in and out of the screen. VR on the other side can trick your brain in believing you're actually *there* and things are physically real. Mobile VR sucks because you can't move (that breaks immersion) and you can't see your hands or controller where they are (that breaks immersion too).

love 3d ...never get sick of it ....vr is amazing ....and full 6dof desktop vr system already feels like a different reality ....and light field displays will get rid of the vergence accommodation conflict

That cutaway at 2:46... is EXTREMELY HORRIFYING. I felt highly disturbed by that aside. That said, 5 is the one that can't be orange, because according to the net, it's on the opposite side of 3 (the red face) because each one of those lines represents a 90 degree angle on the cube. It can't be the orange one because the first point-on image shows that the red and orange sides are touching.

That cube puzzle was incredibly satisfying to solve. I might be more likely to sign up for Brilliant if they're all that good!

@foxonboard1

2 жыл бұрын

They are

3D sucks because 4D is better. If only there is a book about things to make and do in the fourth dimension.

Isn't there two answers to that puzzle at the end, or is one of those answers too cheeky?

@hovissimo

6 жыл бұрын

I also found the cheeky answer, but considering there's a non-cheeky answer... I'd guess we're not supposed to pick the cheeky answer. You found a good word. Cheeky.

@thekevlar127

6 жыл бұрын

There is no cheeky answer, there are only poor listeners.

@lobsterthatisofrock

6 жыл бұрын

5, because we see the orange side is adjacent to the red side (5 will be opposite, therefor cant be orange)

@TheIdeanator

6 жыл бұрын

It took me a second to figure out the cheeky solution. That makes me sad :c

@unclejimmy7

6 жыл бұрын

The text in the video omits the "other." As a person with dyslexia, I tend to focus on reading rather than listening because it is more accurate for me.

I Max 3d ist the best you can do about the focus problem because the picture is so big that Objekts also appear big, so they don't need to be so close to you to give the impression of being close. I don't like normal cinema's with 3d movies for this reason, but the IMAX theaters are astonishing!

wow really good visuals well done

You didn't even mention true volumetric displays at all. Yes, practical lightfield display technology is going to reach mass market first, but the holy grail of 3D displays is true volumetric displays.

@Reddles37

6 жыл бұрын

I'm not convinced, wouldn't a volumetric display only be able to show things that fit inside the volume of the display? That seems like a huge disadvantage compared to even a basic 2d display, which can represent an essentially unlimited volume of 3d space (without depth, of course). How would you do something as simple as playing a movie on such a device?

@pauligrossinoz

6 жыл бұрын

_"Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope"_ When someone gets that working just like in the movie, then I'm sold. The current crap 3d - simulated using 2d screens - I have zero interest in.

@IceMetalPunk

6 жыл бұрын

The problem with volumetric displays is that they're... volumetric. In other words, they're big and bulky, and can't show virtualized size differentials to boot. They're great for certain things, like medical training renders, but for entertainment, I don't think they're very well-suited. *Unless* you're talking about space-unlimited "true holograms". Those are really cool, but they require a crap-ton of high-energy lasers, making them energy hogs, loud, and dangerous. But super cool :)

@lukasmiller8531

6 жыл бұрын

what's that?

@pauligrossinoz

6 жыл бұрын

Lukas Miller - he's talking about a 3D display that actually fills some 3D space that you can see in front of you. You should be able to freely walk around (outside) such a display to see it from your chosen angle. Think of the projection of the image of Princess Leia that R2D2 showed at the start of Star Wars as a tiny version of such a 3d display. Of course there is not, at the moment, any efficient way to produce such images in 3d space.

Puzzle at the end: It's impossible (because I'm colorblind)

When i was a kid i went at a 3D park like REAL 3D (with flickering 3D glasses) and the dinausor from Jurassic park REALLY got out off the screen ! It was so amazing ! For me it's the best 3D version of it, with glasses that flicker and force the 3D, it's the only believable version of 3D (and it implies a cinema screen very far away and much larger than an actual screen, when i went to this place the screen was from floor to ceiling in a round place and i felt SO REAL)

Re: the cube question: I'd paused and figured out the entire cube before I saw the question, and the question was ridiculously easy after that because I'd already put in more than the required effort up front. It also made seeing the shortcut easier, even though I couldn't actually *take* that shortcut because I'd already done it the long way around.

@najsbajsmedmajs

4 жыл бұрын

r/iamverysmart

Isn't the answer just 5? Idk, sounds a bit too easy to be true.

@Joanyan

6 жыл бұрын

That Guy Magnum! It is

@Joanyan

6 жыл бұрын

Orange is next to red and the only face not next to red is 5

The link goes to the puzzle, but not the solution.

With the cube, I first wanted to see if I could guarantee any positions other than 3=Red. And indeed, from the second and third image, it seems that Purple _must_ be on the opposite side of Red because it's just a 90° turn to the left. And 5 is opposite of 3, so 5 must be Purple and thus can't be Orange. Don't even need to fold up the net in your mind and don't need the first image, just have to count off two squares from 3 and you're done.

When making those non-3D glasses you have to not reverse the lens you move (that is the side facing your eye has to remain the side facing your eye). This means the individual lenses must have a symmetric shape or they won't fit unreversed in the other side of the frame. At least this is the case if the lenses are polarizers rotated at 45 degrees to vertical.

Half-Life is about to change everything again

5 is definitely purple.

@sage5296

6 жыл бұрын

IamCrusaderRUS and apart from 3 as red that’s all we know really

Yall have such intuitive explanations for why 5 is the answer while i just brute force drew every possible net to show that in none of them is 5 orange

The puzzle can be solved without assuming uniqueness of colors or that all colors are used. In this case to show 5 is correct we need to show there cannot be any opposing faces with red and orange on them. From the first projection, we can see two possibilities for red-orange opposing pairs: either the bottom could be orange (case 1), or the back-left could be red (case 2). In case 1, we find two ways to glue the second projection consistently onto the first: either the back-left is blue or the back-left is yellow and the back-right is blue. But we can see both of these cases are impossible since neither has a purple face next to a yellow face. In case 2, we again find two ways to glue the second projection: either the bottom is blue, or the bottom is yellow and the back is blue. Again, neither of these cases permits a purple being adjacent to a yellow, so they're both impossible.

0:17 Aaaah ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ! Ha ha ha haaa! Oh my god this is soooo funny ! This is one of the best use of googly eyes ever ! Look at em go crazy ! I can't stop laughing XD

@WillNiels128

6 жыл бұрын

This is why I clicked on the video.

Steve it's 2am why such a late upload?

@matthewboswell2494

6 жыл бұрын

euan todd, yet we're still awake to watch it.

@Luckeux

6 жыл бұрын

Science waits for no-one.

@bbgun061

6 жыл бұрын

It's not 2am everywhere.

@SawyerRockey

6 жыл бұрын

BECAZ DE FACKIN TIME ZONES MAN

@wierdalien1

6 жыл бұрын

Benjamin Brooks and yet it was 2 am in England, Where he lives.

I’ve always thought that. Sadly I don’t upload videos to youtube, but I’m glad you do!

2:33 thats why when i would put on glasses, i would seem the "wrong" height, like the ground wasnt where i thought it should be when i was looking at it without glasses, as the -3.5 diopter lenses changed where my eyes convergence was in focus. got use to it after about 5 mins tho

I've never had a problem with this. Probably because I wear glasses so my eyes are used to the focal length not matching the convergence.

My Solution: .. . . . . . 3 can't be orange, because it's red!

@sadev101

4 жыл бұрын

1 square is red which of the others cant be orange

A very cool video. Thanks for sharing.

I've always been thinking about this. Finally someone puts a name on it.

Give me better puzzles this one took me 4 seconds

@acruzp

6 жыл бұрын

I seriously doubt that, but if true it's impressive.

@FullsteelIsh

6 жыл бұрын

It has to be five because orange is next to a face connecting to red so the only face not connecting to red is the one at the opposite side which is five. Also thank you!

@acruzp

6 жыл бұрын

I know the answer, it took me maybe 20 seconds while I mapped out the colors onto the grid. Then I started moving them around and realised this. My point is that 4 seconds sounds like an exaggeration... but now that I think about it, you probably did manage it that quickly.

@EnZoDxGaming

6 жыл бұрын

No it’s 3 and 5 because 3 is already a color by default

@lurakin88

6 жыл бұрын

The question asks which FACE not FACES can't be orange, so naming mulitple faces isn't entirely correct.

بالثواني يالحب

I enjoyed the first 6 minutes. Then came 4 minutes of commercials. Now I feel 60:40 likely to like this video and follow this channel. : ( Oh. and I had to watch a pre-roll ad before the video started - but all the channels have that so no harm no foul. Other than my first quibble, great content and I liked learning about vergence accomodation and learning that light field displays are a thing. Ty for posting! : )

It takes a bit of practice to make your brain forget to focus the eyes when you cross your eyes. When I started using VR I was overwhelmed and couldn't stay 5 minutes in it... I almost returned it but started to get used to it, until I stayed all the time with my eyes muscles relaxed.

3D sucks? My dude hasn’t used a Rift on a 1080ti (or a Vive/Pro) HTC have a new eye tracking technology too.

All we need is : (and it's not quite easy at the moment) Dual 4K Curved (both ways) Screen OLED 120Hz with no screen door effect, meaning almost no space with blank spaces ( like vive and rift, where PS VR looks sharper with far less pixels, thanks to subpixels... ) Another thing, ultra low latency between head motion detection, and image.

That has never happened to me before... I've always been able to focus on it

Dude I love your content, but this is just too much sponsoring now. The KZread ad, then a book, and a puzzle website?

when I went to 1st Guardians of the Galaxy after a longer break with 3D - it took me good 10-15 minutes to get used to the effect (it's about "loosening" your eyes - just like with watching autostereograms). when I went to see it next day - I was ok after 2-3 minutes. also: it's quite different with VR set vs. tv/theater screen.

Are you going to release the light field display explanation for the 1 year anniversary of this video?

Correct me if I'm wrong: another related problem is that in real life you decide what to focus on, whereas in 3D movies everything is in focus at once and that's not possible, our brain knows it and notifies us with nausea. Or even worse, some things will be out of focus (for instance the background) and our brain believes it can put them in focus by adjusting the focal distance but it's not possible. Not to mention the fact that the information received by your eyes contradicts the inner ear balance organ. A little like the camera stabilization experiment with the cat picture inside the box :D

Thumbs up for being an extra-good sport by making some very entertaining faces. Your videos are really good -- hope there are many more to come!

I remember driving into the city to the mall back in the 80s and this dude had a 3d set up in the hall. You stand in it and put the helmet on and held onto a plastic gun to shoot objects. There were steel bars to keep you from walking anywhere. The guy was obviously testing it out to get reactions. I think i failed and kept trying to walk and almost knocked it over. He immediately stopped me and took the gear away. I have never tried anything 3d again. Maybe things have improved 40 years later?

@powdereyes2210

11 ай бұрын

40 years… you’ve got a sharp memory I can barely remember what I did when I was 10 and that was 7 years ago

I love the 4D dodecahedron thing you got lying around at 2:07, did you get them from matt parker?

You should definitely do a vid on light field displays if you can. I remember being fascinated by that light field camera that came out a while ago but it never really gained any mainstream traction...

love your channel, thank you!