Stereoscopic Revolution

[winstonsmith1978]

The whole rumor about Nintendo attempting stereoscopic 3D with the Revolution got me thinking. How would Nintendo attempt this? An OLED/LCD visor could work next generation, but way to expensive for this gen.

Then someone brought this to my attention.

http://www.nuvision3d.com/the60gx.html

So if the revolution output 60 - 120 fps, you would have 30 - 60 fps per eye. The glasses would allow you to use the TV you already own. Sync the glasses up with the Rev so that the left eye only sees the images from the virtual left camera and the right eye only sees the images from the virtual right camera.

You have a cheap version of a 3D display. This would also explain why Nintendo is against HD because they are more worried about pushing fps.

I think this is the same tech that George Lucas wants to use for 3D movies and I remember reading these glasses would cost about $20. I'll try and find the article.

Im just thinking out loud about what Nintendo's final secret could be. So what do you think?

[_xxx_]

Err, stereoscopic glasses have been around for like 10 years. I still own ELSA glasses I bought in 1999 and use them for some games (though not so much nowadays since nVidia is quite slow with the driver updates, the last version supporting 3D stereo was 78.01).

[Shifty Geezer]

I had those for the Sega Master System in the mid-80s. Depth was good, but it did flickera good deal that took a while to get used to, and looked bad for anyone not wearing the specs! At 120 Hz it'd be smooth, except you'd need TVs that output 120 Hz...

[nintenho]

Why would you want this in a game though?

[bitwise xor]

I could imagine stereoscopic + headtracking + wand/controller being quite an awesome combination. But quite dangerous too I think :). Maybe if they had transparent glasses where you saw mostly the real world and they rendered a minimal set of things on top of that. Do those exist?

[Megadrive1988]

Nintendo isn't going to even possibly delve into a high-quality stereoscopic 3D or VR system
(or some other radical immersion device) until Revolution's successor.
It's going to take time to perfect these technologies.

[Jabjabs]

Maybe if they had transparent glasses where you saw mostly the real world and they rendered a minimal set of things on top of that. Do those exist?

A canadian group are currently working on a technology like that, unfortunatly the current units are so big you have to ware them as back packs plus the system requires a set of diffrent cameras and a HUGe amount of processing power to work, in other words it ain't going to happen.

[StefanS]

Nintendo isn't going to even possibly delve into a high-quality stereoscopic 3D or VR system
(or some other radical immersion device) until Revolution's successor.
It's going to take time to perfect these technologies.

Nintendo isn't even going to touch VR with a stick, after the success they enjoyed with their VirtualBoy.

[_xxx_]

Why would you want this in a game though?

Because you really see everything in 3D. You can set it up so that the picture "floats" in the air between you and the monitor/TV, it gives you the illusion of being in there. Nothing better than that, if it was properly supported (regular driver updates) and if all games were full 3D (you'd wonder how much 2D stuff there is in even the most modern games, you only get to see that with 3D glasses - MaxPayne2 is a good example, half the stuff on the screen is just pseudo-3D) I'd never game without it.

DX, Q3, D3- and UE-based games are a totally different level of immersion with these. You have to try it yourself in order to get what I'm talking about.

[_xxx_]

Nintendo isn't going to even possibly delve into a high-quality stereoscopic 3D or VR system
(or some other radical immersion device) until Revolution's successor.
It's going to take time to perfect these technologies.

Stereo 3D has been here for ages, you can buy it today. If the game is properly programmed and your monitor delivers refresh rates >120 @given res = goodness.

[Danalys]

i don't really want the future of 3d to involve glasses that display the picture really. focusing up close aint good for your eyes. so prolonged use isn't a good idea. and if the system works well your going to want prolonged use. and the resolutions always going to be bad. so other options are the TVs that send the picture out at two different angles. you get reduced resolution with them. i just thought of a system where the display (normal tv or monitor) shows the images for each eye intermitently. then all that would be needed would be shutters in glasses when one is shut the other is open. they'd need to be in sync with the media; perhaps wifi comunication could be used for that. the shuttter would be best off being a transparent lcd turning black with charge (does that exist or am i just imagining it.)

[_xxx_]

i don't really want the future of 3d to involve glasses that display the picture really. focusing up close aint good for your eyes.

You wouldn't focus close to your eyes, because the picture should simulate the "real-world" distance. So you'd focus just like usual.

[_xxx_]

For those interested:

http://www.edimensional.com/index.php?cPath=21&ref=73
http://www.guru3d.com/stereo/general/

[Shifty Geezer]

i just thought of a system where the display (normal tv or monitor) shows the images for each eye intermitently. then all that would be needed would be shutters in glasses when one is shut the other is open. they'd need to be in sync with the media; perhaps wifi comunication could be used for that. the shuttter would be best off being a transparent lcd turning black with charge (does that exist or am i just imagining it.)That's the product linked to at the beginning of the article, and what I used on Sega Master System. You're only 20 years late :p

As I said, the flicker is annoying so you'd need 120 Hz TVs, which don't exist and won't exist for decades as everything's stuck on 60 Hz and we won't have the BW to enable higher frequency content that warrants higher frequency displays.

[pc999]

I think that the main problem is price so it would be impossible to puta good onein a cheap console.

The I think this is the same tech that George Lucas wants to use for 3D movies and I remember reading these glasses would cost about $20. I'll try and find the article.


Howerver if this is true, then...:grin: (ie there is a change in a near future (-10 years))
BTW what kind of tech will they use for that.

[_xxx_]

everything's stuck on 60 Hz and we won't have the BW to enable higher frequency content that warrants higher frequency displays.

Don't confuse fps with refresh rate, though. You can have 5 fps but still 120 Hz rr.

[Shifty Geezer]

If you're switching between left and right images, you need to alternate the display. Thus you need a 120 Hz TV with 120 images per second to attain 60 Hz on each eye. A 120 Hz TV showing 60 FPS is going to have the same flicker as 60 Hz on the specs, as the left and right eyes on switch for each image change regardless of monitor refresh. An alternating left/right viewport is always going to run at half the output FPS.

If that makes sense.

[winstonsmith1978]

I just realized that refresh rate is more important being that this is what causes eye strain so i take take back my origional post. LCD shutter glasses won't work because most TV's are not up to the task.

So is an OLED visor the answer for the future? I'm not sure what the refresh rates are for an OLED visor like eMagins, does any one know? Like Megadrive1988 already said, This probably won't happen until next gen.

[OtakingGX]

I just realized that refresh rate is more important being that this is what causes eye strain so i take take back my origional post. LCD shutter glasses won't work because most TV's are not up to the task.

So is an OLED visor the answer for the future? I'm not sure what the refresh rates are for an OLED visor like eMagins, does any one know? Like Megadrive1988 already said, This probably won't happen until next gen.OLEDs don't have the slow response time of LCDs. According to Pioneer you can have refresh rates up to 1000 times faster than an LCD. eMagin's displays, though, share a 60 Hz signal, so each little screen is refreshed at 30 Hz.

I'd say that shuttered/polarized glasses for 3D would be considered too gimmicky. A 3D HMD or glasses free 3D display would gain much more mainstream acceptance.

[3dcgi]

I think this is the same tech that George Lucas wants to use for 3D movies and I remember reading these glasses would cost about $20. I'll try and find the article.

I believe Lucas would use passive polarized glasses like they use at theme parks. It's much easier on the eyes than LCD shutter glasses and they're cheap to make. I think polarization has a better future than LCD shutter glasses if someone can ever manufacture polarized displays cheaply.

[_xxx_]

If you're switching between left and right images, you need to alternate the display. Thus you need a 120 Hz TV with 120 images per second to attain 60 Hz on each eye. A 120 Hz TV showing 60 FPS is going to have the same flicker as 60 Hz on the specs, as the left and right eyes on switch for each image change regardless of monitor refresh. An alternating left/right viewport is always going to run at half the output FPS.

If that makes sense.

Well, it desn't really make sense. You can as well watch a still image in stereo as long as the refresh rate is sufficiant. RAMDAC does that regardless of fps.

[Shifty Geezer]

But the flickering is caused by the refresh of the two LCD glasses. Each refresh of the TV shows left and right views of the image alternately, right? Left, right, left, right, left, right views swapping each refresh. The LCD in the glasses blacks out right, left, right, left, right, left respectively in sync, right? If the monitor is refreshing at 60 Hz, the left eyepiece is switching black and clear at 60 Hz to show half the frame rate to the left eye, so the left eye actually sees 30 Hz, and the right eye sees the other 30 Hz. Unlike normal TV each eye has a period of black between frames that interrupts the persistence of vision too, which exacerbates the flicker. You're not seeing a continuous 30 Hz display but a flickery 30 Hz display. If you want 60 Hz refresh in each eye, the TV is going to have to show 60 fps for the left eye and 60 fps for the right eye all in one second, so needs to be 120 Hz.

I'm talking refresh rate only BTW. The animation may only be running at 5 fps, but the update to the eyes is what we're talking about, and for 60 Hz per eye needs a 120 Hz TV capable of showing 120 seperate images per second (not doubling up refresh like some TVs do), which doesn't exist and I say won't exist because there's no cause to build a TV that can display 120 different images per second when there won't be any content at 120 fps. Unless someone wanted to create a buffered display for the purpose of 3D specs, but that's not likely to become a feature of the average home TV that Nintendo or anyone else can rely on!

[_xxx_]

Okay, so we've been saying the same thing all along :)

I just thought you were saying that the game's fps must also be >120. So let's call the refresh rate rps instead of fps :wink:

[Shifty Geezer]

:D

In summary, flickering LCD glasses isn't really a good option for 3D in the home. They also don't blur the DOF based on which distance you're focussing on, so you have ghost images of nearer and deeper distances which aren't natural.

Having experienced them, I don't think the novelty adds anything much either. You're ultimately still fixed to a single viewpoint unless you have a VR headset that allows you to look around. If it's immersive, it's different. If it's a fixed display showing 3D images, it's just a variation on what we already have. It might make the graphics look more like little models instead of little pictures, but it won't get you any more into the game.

[_xxx_]

Well it does it for me. I love my good ol' 3DRevelator glasses, especially DeusEx and Q3 are just sooooo much better with them. As soon as I get them back (a friend of mine wanted to try them for a few days, which turned into weeks - speeks for itself ;)) I'll try D3, Q4 and HL2, that will surely be a blast.

And I have to go down to 800x600 for 140 Hz to be able to enjoy it flicker-free. My monitor is a bit older and does only 100 Hz in 1024 and 85 in 1280 :(

And of course, LCD users shouldn't even think about it.

EDIT:
so you have ghost images of nearer and deeper distances which aren't natural.

The biggest part of the problem is bad programming (Z-buffer handling especially).

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, it probably would be good for FPS. Not being an FPS fan, I tend to think of 3D in other genres I play more often, like RPGs and football! Probably be good for racers too to help judge distance. 2D racers suffer from grey barriers and grey roads masking corners at times in my experience. Depth perception would be a big asset.

[_xxx_]

Well, I play pretty much nothing BUT fps... :)

I could imagine racers would be fun as well, but since there's a bunch of 2D-stuff in all of them, it wouldn't work :(

[Johnny_Physics]

It's cool idea and stereoscopic games works well enough, but the biggest reason for this not happening is probably that it wouldn't be fun to watch someone play the game unless you had a pair of glasses yourself. It would probably be annoying just sitting in the same room as the flickering screen even if you just saw it in the corner of your eye, and I really don't think Nintendo wants people to flee from the livingroom every time someone decides to play Mario Revolution.

[BlueTsunami]

Not to change the platfrom we're all talking about but its been rumored that the PS3 may be able to deliver stereoscopic technology through use of the two HDMI ports. Also, Evolution Studios (on their main page) talks about the uses of Stereoscopic technology...

Is It Accessible?

Next generation games graphics capabilities mean that it is now possible to deliver very high accuracy simulation at a very reasonable cost. Using two projectors ESP can deliver superb 3D with real depth, so the driver can judge distances to obstacles and corners far better than with normal 2D displays. The benefit of this in a driving simulation goes without saying.

Source: http://www.evos.net/html/simul/esp.html

These are the same developers that are developing Motorstorm for the PS3.

[OtakingGX]

Doesn't an interlaced CRT scan the screen at 60 Hz, but skips every other line each pass? So you're effectively getting 30 Hz, which when shuttered would yield 15 Hz, well within the range of human perception.

I can't see this technology being used at all. If it were, then it wouldn't work well with normal TVs, and if you've got to buy a new TV just to play, why say disparaging things about new HDTVs?

[Bigus Dickus]

I'd prefer to think of it as 30Hz for each eye, but each eye only sees a half resolution image. I suppose you could line double each LCD if you were using that type of glasses to aleviate some of the weird interlacing look.

But yeah, since a NTSC TV is essentially 30p (for stereoscopic considerations) it would suck. 720/60p would be much, much better, but I'd still prefer either discrete dual displays or a shutter of a 120p image.

That being said, polarization filters still work surprisingly well for projection systems, but still require the same bandwith as a shutter technology (well, all stereoscopic approaches do, since they all have to deliver twice the information per frame).

[Squeak]

i don't really want the future of 3d to involve glasses that display the picture really. focusing up close aint good for your eyes. so prolonged use isn't a good idea.
You don't think VR glasses are just two screens stuck in front of each eye?:lol:
There is a lens in front of the screens of course, so your focus will be at a pleasant distance.
But it is true that focus will be a problem, as it is one of the four depth indicators (the others being, parallax shift, stereoscopic effect and perspective lines converging).
To have a really convincing VR experience, you really need a IR camera that looks back in to your eyeballs through a halfway mirror, to determine what you are looking at, and how the lens is focusing, to adjust the DOF of the rendering. Otherwise the experience will be somewhat like being inside sphere, with pictures projected on the inside.

[nintenho]

Honestly, if they include this into a game, I can't imagine it offering the player any more finesse. Yes, it may be cool to have everything in 3d around your head, but the revolution is about the gameplay advancements it can bring.

[Squeak]

There is no doubt in my mind that (movement sensitive) VR glasses would (and will) be the greatest revolution of them all. Trouble is, they're still too expensive to include with a console, that also has to pack some decent computing power.
When we reach a plateau of "good enough" technology, like it has happened before with music and TV, and the cost of the technology starts dropping too, then it will happen.

[winstonsmith1978]

But it is true that focus will be a problem, as it is one of the four depth indicators (the others being, parallax shift, stereoscopic effect and perspective lines converging).
To have a really convincing VR experience, you really need a IR camera that looks back in to your eyeballs through a halfway mirror, to determine what you are looking at, and how the lens is focusing, to adjust the DOF of the rendering. Otherwise the experience will be somewhat like being inside sphere, with pictures projected on the inside.

A cheap way of doing DOF is to use the rev remote as a pointing device that becomes the focal point and then calculates the DOF. Sort of like a game that uses a flashlight---use the rev remote to point the flashlight, to actually see what you are looking at. Only now, the virtual cursor that you control with the remote becomes your focal point.

Not perfect but it could work, you would have to get use to having your hand lead and your eyes follow.

[Shifty Geezer]

Not useful if the target of the Rev remote is something other than the object of sight. eg. Golf, where you are pointing the remote at the ball but looking down the fairway. Wouldn't work with racers either where the remote really isn't the ideal controller.

Reading focus from the eye shouldn't be too hard though. Some Canon SLR cameras have for yonks had eye tracking to control the auto focus. DOF in 3D would work on exactly the same principle.

[ROG27]

The idea of stereoscopic vision would suit the Revolution very well. Remeber a while ago when Nintendo was awarded a patent for viewing things on the screen from different angles to avoid problems typically associated with a static or dynamic camera design? Well, here is a write up about it posted at ign about a year ago.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/583/583217p1.html

I think this would work well for both sports games and multiplayer arena style games, as well as FPS and racers, where stereoscopic vision could portray a 270 degree panarama of the action. Just think, in a situation where an arena (ie an American football field a la Madden) is presented to the players from a horizontal, static, broadcast-like perpective of the entire playing field area, multiple players can play and actually physically move themselves to get a different view of the action (players on offense can "get behind" the offense and players on the defense can "get behind" the defense). Playing sports games would be like playing at a foosball table. It would definitely be some revolutionary, especially coupled with the 3d controller. It would also be a feature which could be turned off easily so that tradional gaming could resume for people not into that type of thing.

I don't see why this type of thing is so outlandish...It requires no special projection and is really more of a function of an interlacing trick, which can be done with a custom api, middleware, and slightly modified existing hardware.

This type of thing can be done right now through software. Check out this company. They even have downloadable demos you can check out if you have a pair of stereoscopic/3d glasses lying around.

http://www.3dh.net/demos.htm

[winstonsmith1978]

Not useful if the target of the Rev remote is something other than the object of sight. eg. Golf, where you are pointing the remote at the ball but looking down the fairway. Wouldn't work with racers either where the remote really isn't the ideal controller.

Very true. My idea would work best on FPS and games like RE4 but not much else.

[Shifty Geezer]

Horses for courses I guess. The console of the future will have a dozen knick-knacks and controller options for all sorts of different optimal gameplays! I look forward to my electronic bow for realistic fantasy archery, and my strokeable hairy controller for better virtual-pet games.

[_xxx_]

strokeable hairy controller

Ahh, I see... :razz: :wink:

[rabidrabbit]

What topic? Of something that's not even a rumour but just a possibility out of thousand other possibilities.

Stereoscopic glasses for Revolution, could be or could not be. We have zero evidence either way yet. Certainly Nintendo hasn't hinted there'd be those.

Would it be "cool". I don't know, but arent' they usually more of a strain these glasses.
An accessory maybe, but not something I think Nintendo would put as standard in Revolution.

I might as well continue this thread with "Will revolution have a cellphone integrated in the "remote controller" and I'd still be on topic, which is speculation.