> This demonstrates that the FOVO process is not simply ‘warping’ a 2D render in screen space but is applying nonlinear transformations to the entire 3D geometry.
This seems to conflate an implementation detail with what what is actually happening here.
It doesn't matter if what you do is a some non-linear 2D projection applied to 3D vertices or 2D pixels (or 2D projected vertices). The 'light rays' we concern ourselves with don't bend around. I.e. this is just another non-linear projection.
All this sounds to me like fluff to bolster a business/patent application for what is essentially a fancy fisheye transform.
I think the point is not to talk about how it's implemented, but to point out that it's a more complex change, one that cannot be achieved by first performing a traditional render and then transforming the resulting 2d image. You actually need to project differently.
And how should that be more natural, as they claim?
A human eye is just a lens. With very well studied geometry.
The brain can do amazing feats, e.g. make bend/warped parts of images it sees straight again. A friend of mine who's 20 year old LASIK is coming apart, unfortunately, experienced it first hand recently.
But it can't see behind objects.
So if the occlusion changes as, they claim, there are two possibilities:
1. The camera was moved.
2. The scene geometry was distorted. That is possible in a computer but not in reality.
I.e. the result can never be more natural than what you can already model with a 2D fisheye projection based on human eye geometry.
> This demonstrates that the FOVO process is not simply ‘warping’ a 2D render in screen space but is applying nonlinear transformations to the entire 3D geometry.
This seems to conflate an implementation detail with what what is actually happening here.
It doesn't matter if what you do is a some non-linear 2D projection applied to 3D vertices or 2D pixels (or 2D projected vertices). The 'light rays' we concern ourselves with don't bend around. I.e. this is just another non-linear projection.
All this sounds to me like fluff to bolster a business/patent application for what is essentially a fancy fisheye transform.