[grandmaster]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

What was LBP's performance like? The water patch has added massive screen tearing, and it's a game sans AA, so they can't have much room to maneouvre without a significant change to the engine.

I have to admit that it looked OK to me... smooth performance and no tearing that I could see. However, it is worth bearing in mind that this was one of the video presentations. It wasn't playable. It may not even be a full game. Sony isn't committing to any specific titles though I think it would be crazy if Super Stardust HD at least wasn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Also how much effort is it going to be to support 3D? Because the niche is going to be so incredibly niche-y, I can't see an developer investing time and money in securing 500 sales to the 3D crowd when the rest of the market won't benefit.

It seems to be a case of the 3D team approaching specific developers, who mostly seem first party or closely related to them. I've no idea how financially it is going to work out to be honest.

[Sigfried1977]

Even if 3d games won't be a widespread occurence on the PS3, you can still use that shiny new TV for 3d Blu-Rays (and there should be plenty available sooner or later) or lots and lots of PC games. I'm totally excited for that stuff, but I'm afraid the Sony displays will set you back a fortune (they are OLEDs, right?)

[patsu]

It's probably driven by the CE manufacturers, TV and movie businesses. If they are selling 3DTV as standard equipment, and 3D content comes through cable and satellite, 3DTV will likely stay. The next natural question is when can gaming take advantage of it.

The likely progression is:
Besides 3D movies and Blu-ray, the next immediate step is 3D cable and satellite programs, then 3D gaming (since the cost of development is higher).

I don't think the Sony 3DTVs are OLED in 2010.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by patsu

The likely progression is:
Besides 3D movies and Blu-ray, the next immediate step is 3D cable and satellite programs, then 3D gaming (since the cost of development is higher).

Surely the cost of adding 3D to gaming is far less than the relative cost increase in movie and TV 3D? As I see it the barrier to entry isn't really content, which is quite easy to generate and distribute these days, but the cost of ownership. Buying a new 3D TV is going to severely dampen adoption. Like 1080p, it'll be years before the early adopters have carved a path for mainstream use. We had HDTVs (later which proved incompatible with HD games!) long before HD consoles.

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by patsu

It's probably driven by the CE manufacturers, TV and movie businesses. If they are selling 3DTV as standard equipment, and 3D content comes through cable and satellite, 3DTV will likely stay. The next natural question is when can gaming take advantage of it.

The likely progression is:
Besides 3D movies and Blu-ray, the next immediate step is 3D cable and satellite programs, then 3D gaming (since the cost of development is higher).

I don't think the Sony 3DTVs are OLED in 2010.

The biggest question is, when will DivX/Xvid support 3D? Ha ha ha

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Surely the cost of adding 3D to gaming is far less than the relative cost increase in movie and TV 3D? As I see it the barrier to entry isn't really content, which is quite easy to generate and distribute these days, but the cost of ownership. Buying a new 3D TV is going to severely dampen adoption. Like 1080p, it'll be years before the early adopters have carved a path for mainstream use. We had HDTVs (later which proved incompatible with HD games!) long before HD consoles.

If I could buy a smallish monitor that supported 3D for sub $500, then I might do it. There is zero chance of me buying a 3D tv. I think it'll stay niche until next gen. Like Patsu said, there is also HDMI switchers to think about, which are very common in home theaters. That's a lot of money to be invested just to get to 3D. It'll take a while.

[patsu]

I meant to say after they establish the 3D production workflow and 3D settop box compatibility, then the incremental cost for each 3D sports program, soap opera, etc. should be more of the same. It seems that 3D gaming requires very different approach for each title, and people are struggling with 60fps today.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say "the difficulty of development is higher" (unless they half the res ?). So I expect slower ramp up of 3D games. May be PSN/XBL games will go first.

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

The biggest question is, when will DivX/Xvid support 3D? Ha ha ha

Yeah, that would help push 3D monitor and TV too.

[Scott_Arm]

DisplayPort 1.2 supports 120Hz FullHD(1080p?) 3D signals.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/home-c...ay-HDMI-1-4/p1

Looks pretty swanky. Apple and Dell are both in the DisplayPort business. Maybe they'll start pushing 3D in the PC space. That should help with adoption.

[patsu]

They will all push 3D TV and monitor in no time since the content and distribution people are moving ahead (ESPN, Disney, cable, and more). Some are saying in 2011, all mid-range and above TVs will be 3D ready -- whether you use/want it or not.

I think this may be a good twist for the small guys on PSN and XBL.

[Shifty Geezer]

On an aside, how much effort will it be to refactor old CG films to make them 3D? In an ideal implementation, Pixar should just be able to offset the rendering camera and render a left/right eye view. But they do a lot of post stuff and touch-up, so I guess it's not that easy. If Pixar could roll out its entire back-calatolgue in 3D, that'd be a big push.

[patsu]

Yeah... I can see that happeniing.

Heck, we will have real-time 2D->3D conversion on TV soon.

[Laa-Yosh]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

On an aside, how much effort will it be to refactor old CG films to make them 3D? In an ideal implementation, Pixar should just be able to offset the rendering camera and render a left/right eye view. But they do a lot of post stuff and touch-up, so I guess it's not that easy.

Actually, Pixar did not use too many post effects until their recent films. Apart from Toy Story, they should be able to easily convert A bug's life and Monsters Inc, maybe even the Incredibles and Finding Nemo.

Then if all else fails, there's whatever method Cameron and Lucas wants to use on Titanic and Star Wars...

[joker454]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

If I could buy a smallish monitor that supported 3D for sub $500, then I might do it. There is zero chance of me buying a 3D tv. I think it'll stay niche until next gen. Like Patsu said, there is also HDMI switchers to think about, which are very common in home theaters. That's a lot of money to be invested just to get to 3D. It'll take a while.

I'm kinda skeptical that 3d will ever make it big at home until there is a solution that doesn't require wearing glasses. Wearing the glasses in a theater isn't a big deal since you aren't interacting with anyone or doing anything at all, you are just sitting there watching the movie. Plus it's the theater that is making the financial investment in the glasses, so no need to worry about them becoming outdated. At home though you might be snacking on food, talking with others, reading something, etc, while watching tv, it doesn't seem like the ideal environment to be sporting large glasses just to watch 3d. It's even less feasible with Wii/Natal type games that have you bouncing around. Even though I think 3d is cool, I doubt I'll bother with 3d at home until a no glasses solution exists.

[RobertR1]

If I had a dedicated HT room, I'd certainly go 3D for that with a high end projector setup. This would be down the road once the tech has matured properly and gone through how many ever profiles that will take. For living room usage, no.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by joker454

I'm kinda skeptical that 3d will ever make it big at home until there is a solution that doesn't require wearing glasses. Wearing the glasses in a theater isn't a big deal since you aren't interacting with anyone or doing anything at all, you are just sitting there watching the movie. Plus it's the theater that is making the financial investment in the glasses, so no need to worry about them becoming outdated. At home though you might be snacking on food, talking with others, reading something, etc, while watching tv, it doesn't seem like the ideal environment to be sporting large glasses just to watch 3d. It's even less feasible with Wii/Natal type games that have you bouncing around. Even though I think 3d is cool, I doubt I'll bother with 3d at home until a no glasses solution exists.

That is where gaming comes in. Many people don't do anything while they game. It'd be hard to pull me away from 3D Demon's Souls.

I can see the combined attraction (gaming, movie, TV) especially when the content folks perfect their 3D production skills and technologies. Then the pr0n people crash into the party. ... and messy history is written.

EDIT: There's 3D webcam for video conferencing. Guess who will be there ?

I believe the camera vendors are working on 3D digital cameras too. They will all drive 3D adoption.

[Sigfried1977]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

The biggest question is, when will DivX/Xvid support 3D? Ha ha ha

It already does. You just need a player software that can handle it.
I just received a field sequencial 720p Xvid version of Coraline in the mail. (not quite Blu Ray quality, as one of the two angles is reconstructed from the anaglyphic Blu-Ray, but it looks pretty damn good regardless)

[Crossbar]

Using 3DTV mode for casual TV watching is probably far away as Joker say. I seriously doubt that the phony 2D -> 3D conversion that some TVs will offer will be a hit that make people put on those glasses.

I expect initial 3D TV will be used in a similar way as most surround systems are used. They are turned on when you are dedicated to watching a movie or playing a game.

However, shutter based 3D may have a larger market than surround systems for a few reasons.

• Within a few years 240 Hz TVs will be commodity and 3D will be a standard feature on those TVs. The step to buy the glasses will be pretty small.
• A 3D TV involves less extra equipment than a separate surround system, the tiny glasses does not involve rearranging your living room or whereever you have your TV.
• I think the visual 3D experience have a larger wow factor than the surround experience.

[patsu]

Unlike surround sound, I suspect the use case will explode once they allow the average consumers to make their own 3D content (taking 3D family photos/home video, Internet pr0n, web pages with 3D images, etc.). Glasses or no glasses, I want to see my first girl friend (assuming the relationship didn't blow up), my son in 3D when he was obedient and cute.

[Crossbar]

Originally Posted by patsu

Unlike surround sound, I suspect the use case will explode once they allow the average consumers to make their own 3D content (taking 3D family photos/home video, Internet pr0n, web pages with 3D images, etc.). Glasses or no glasses, I want to see my first girl friend (assuming the relationship didn't blow up), my son in 3D when he was obedient and cute.

Good point.

Here you have something to start with:
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/3d/...epix_real3dw1/

Better get it quick if you really want to take 3D pictures while your son is obedient.

[patsu]

They say 6 years old is when kids start to "demonize". I have 1.5 more years to go.
I am hoping to get a 3D monitor first and soon !

[Crossbar]

Originally Posted by patsu

They say 6 years old is when kids start to "demonize". I have 1.5 more years to go.

Don´t count on it, just saying.

But look at this way, by the time you get a 3D camcorder you´ll be able to record some 3D horror clips that could be used in commercials for condoms and you´ll make some good money from it.

[patsu]

In my short Daddy experiences, I think one of the two scenarios (for 3D camera purchase) is likely:

(A) patsu got too busy and forgot about son's present
* Walk into BestBuy last minute (coz that's one of daddy's favorite stores, not Toys R' Us).
* Found cheap enough 3D camera
* Buy camera so that whole family, especially Daddy, can enjoy. A toy would be forgotten in a few days anyway

(B) patsu bought 3D monitor, inevitably end up checking out 3D pr0n content
* patsu caught by wife red handed (or red eyed)
* patsu buy 3D camera next day to show wife new technologies can have positive impact on family and kid

[Crossbar]

You´ve convinced me, anyway you cut it, the success of 3D is inevitable.

[patsu]

Not to convince you in 3D. You make your own decision. I'll probably give it a test run. The rest of the folks will take a few years to ponder over. But there is good potential for consumer 3D due to multiple factors/drivers.

[makattack]

Originally Posted by patsu

That is where gaming comes in. Many people don't do anything while they game. It'd be hard to pull me away from 3D Demon's Souls.

I can see the combined attraction (gaming, movie, TV) especially when the content folks perfect their 3D production skills and technologies. Then the pr0n people crash into the party. ... and messy history is written.

EDIT: There's 3D webcam for video conferencing. Guess who will be there ?

I believe the camera vendors are working on 3D digital cameras too. They will all drive 3D adoption.

I don't see that happening much in gaming either. Of course, this is just my own personal situation, but when I game solo, I wear a headset to shield my neighbors/flatmates/etc from noise. On top of the corrective lenses I already wear, it'll feel like I'm strapping on equipment to go into combat or something. This will turn any fun endeavor into tedium. Imagine when the batteries wear out? I already have a AA/AAA charger for my 360 controller & headset batteries -- so I'm going to need more batteries for 3D glasses? No thanks.

When gaming in a social environment (Rock Band, etc) I have been in situations where there are anywhere from 2-30 people looking on while people are playing. Do you really think a host will buy X number of glasses for their guests? After a few drinks, I can imagine people wearing those glasses walking about, breaking all sorts of things -- or themselves.