You don't need 5120 (for 360 degrees on X-axis) x 5120 (for 360 degrees on Y-axi... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		nomercy400 on June 20, 2018 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Behind the Tech with John Carmack: 5k Immersive Vi... You don't need 5120 (for 360 degrees on X-axis) x 5120 (for 360 degrees on Y-axis) do you? If you cover 360 degrees in the X direction, then your Y-axis only has to be 180 degrees, because you don't need 'behind you' on the Y-axis as that is already covered by the X-axis' wide 360 degrees. Or am I making an error here?

michaelt on June 20, 2018 [–]

It's stereo, so Carmack means 360°x180°x2 for two eyes.

One would assume there would be a lot in common between stereo cameras' views, so presumably there are compression efficiencies to be found.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact