yuri(RR): harald mayer, gerd trautner, alexander barth

Visual section
The synchronisation of the ccd cameras took place via removing the oszillator of one camera and feeding it with the oscillator frequency of the other camera. The two cameras run accurately synchronously.
The circuit for mixing the two camera signals made difficutlies at the beginning, since in the upper third of one field frame an error occurred, which was to due to a careless switching point between the two signals. By adding a condenser, which delays the switching impulse, this error could be removed. The visual section functions, so we produce a 3D-interlaced video signal.

Headset: Topview
Headset: Frontview

Tracker data acquisition
The analysis of the tracker data over a JAVA program and passing it to a VRML model runs, however the representation is delayed in the VRML model, due to the reduced 3D-power of my card, approx. 0,5 seconds. This problem will be solve with an openGL card.

Closing the Loop - Logs
Day 1: Setup:

Person 1 is wearing a stereoscopic camera and headmounted display (i-glasses), transmitting the video signal onto person 2 who is wearing a HMD herself.

The receiving person suffers from severe disorientation and feels insecure. The cognitive recognition of his/her sight seems to vanish. The strong impact of the transmitted signal is hard to dicipher from oneīs own vision.
Upon interaction with the transmitter: tossing a ball towards the transmitting person, both testpersons are likely to try and catvch the ball, as does the receiveing person react to any of the transmitters actions (lifting an object, climbing stairs e.a.)

The receiver tries and learns to recognise him/herself through the cameras image. His/her self--consciousness is dependant upon being inside the picture or not. The transmitter carries the resposibility to deliver the perspective at which the receiver experiences him/herself.
Riding a bicycle, stepping stairs, walking in circles or figure eights as concrete tasks for the receiver to solve.
The transmitter is trying to put him/herself into the receivers place to find an optimized frameset.
The receiverīs irritation is largely caused from the "wrong" image angles within the HMD and the necessity to focus on oneīs own position within the picture. The feeling is described as one of self-remote control not unsimiliar to an arcade game. The change over frome oneīs own sight to seeing oneīs image from the outside is not like a mirror image at all, hence is experienced as very "difficult". The implication being though, that on a longer testing time it would become familiar and one would get used to it.

Is the receiver put into a different physical space than the transmitter any kind of interaction is taken away and the experience becomes that of watching TV.
The receiver is not showing any visible signs of reaction no more. A shared space between the receiver and transmitter has therefore to be taken as an essential paradigm for the experiments.

more technical experiments (Hyperstereoskopie e.a.)
Dining under remote perception conditions along with biofeedback measurements.

Dining under remote perception conditions

The hungry receiver person had to eat spaghetti while he saw himself only in his i-glasses through the transmitterīs eyes. While solving this task, skin resistancy on the left forefinger and muscle activity at the persons neck were measured.

Meanwhile the test-person knew the effects of remote perception quite well. Nevertheless he had problems with the not-mirrored picture in the HMD so that he only could eat a small part of his portion. When the receiver saw the sending person eating (a spoon of white spaghetti with grey tomato sauce disappears at the lower picture end) he reported a strong impression like eating the spoon of spaghetti himself (parallel to the experiments in the beginning of the week).

The receiver's skin resistancy fell during the dinner continiously until he gave up eating and asked for a cigarette. Lighting the cigarette triggered a faster fall of the resistancy, for the flame was only a big white spot on the video picture. Then the resistancy curve rose up again.

The measurement of muscle activity at the receiving person's neck should have documented the person's tendency to follow camera- (head-) movements of the sender. There were no significant deflections obviously because the receiver was quite used to the situation.


Tests with different distances between the two lenses of the stereoscopic camera.
Enlarging the distance (50 cm) causes a stronger stereoscopic effect in the depth of the video picture, but recognizing objects in next to the lenses gets impossible (like the attempt to focus on your own nose).
Analogous a smaller lens distance (2 cm) lowers the stereoscopic effectin the depth of the video picture, but makes the application in makro-environments possible (e.g. small labyrinth...).
Hyperstereoscopy has hardly an impact on one's feel for dimensions. At the most it is only a support to an in case already existing impression that makes things appearing smaller/bigger.