3D Gaming*

[upnorthsox]

I converted a WipEout HD 3D screenshot into anaglyph. Obviously there's zero colour reproduction but the 3D effect is pretty close to the real thing!

http://is.gd/e2AE3

Is the perspective shift something in all anaglyph 3D photos or is it special to this capture? Got any more?

 

[patsu]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Resistance-Forms-Against-nytimes-2426303374.html?x=0&.v=1

It’s hard to measure the audience resistance — online complaints don’t mean much when crowds are paying the premium 3-D prices. But filmmakers are another matter, and their attitudes may tell whether Hollywood’s 3-D leap is about to hit a wall.

Several influential directors took surprisingly public potshots at the 3-D boom during the recent Comic-Con International pop culture convention in San Diego.

“When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim,” said J. J. Abrams, whose two-dimensional “Star Trek” earned $385 million at the worldwide box office for Paramount Pictures last year.

Joss Whedon, who was onstage with Mr. Abrams, said that as a viewer, “I’m totally into it. I love it.” But Mr. Whedon then said he flatly opposed a plan by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer to convert “The Cabin in the Woods,” a horror film he produced but that has not yet been released, into 3-D. “What we’re hoping to do,” Mr. Whedon said, “is to be the only horror movie coming out that is not in 3-D.”

Behind the scenes, however, filmmakers have begun to resist production executives eager for 3-D sales. For reasons both aesthetic and practical, some directors often do not want to convert a film to 3-D or go to the trouble and expense of shooting with 3-D cameras, which are still relatively untested on big movies with complex stunts and locations.

Filmmakers like Mr. Whedon and Mr. Abrams argue that 3-D technology does little to enhance a cinematic story, while adding a lot of bother. “It hasn’t changed anything, except it’s going to make it harder to shoot,” Mr. Whedon said at Comic-Con.

In much the same spirit, Christopher Nolan recently warded off suggestions that his film “Inception,” from Warner — still No. 1 at the box office — might be converted to 3-D.

On the other hand, Michael Bay, who is shooting “Transformers 3,” appears to have agreed that his film will be at least partly in 3-D after insisting for months that the technology was not quite ready for his brand of action.

“We’ve always said it’s all about balance,” said Greg Foster, the president and chairman of Imax Filmed Entertainment, which has long counseled that some films are better in 2-D, even on giant Imax screens. “The world is catching up to that approach.”

A willingness to shoot in 3-D could persuade studio committees to approve an expensive film. But the disdain of some filmmakers for 3-D — at least in connection with their current projects — was on full display in San Diego.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Filmmakers like Mr. Whedon and Mr. Abrams argue that 3-D technology does little to enhance a cinematic story, while adding a lot of bother. “It hasn’t changed anything, except it’s going to make it harder to shoot,” Mr. Whedon said at Comic-Con.

So very true. Plus the issue of actually filming, as we've mentioned before. You can't use perspective tricks for example, while hidden ramps and such become harder to hide. 3D seems much better suited to gaming to me.

 

[Arwin]

So very true. Plus the issue of actually filming, as we've mentioned before. You can't use perspective tricks for example, while hidden ramps and such become harder to hide. 3D seems much better suited to gaming to me.

Well, I think that's completely false to be honest (I mean that 3D adds little, not the part about it being more work). What I however do believe is that it may take a while before filming real life/sets rather than relying in CGI will catch up. Having seen Shrek 3D however, it's clear that 3D adds a lot of filmic effects that are actually meaningful. Both emotional closeness and distance work very well in 3D for instance, this added to the obvious stuff like vertigo working much better in a 3D movie than a 2D movie, or the sense of peering into someone's personal space when you're looking from the outside into Shrek's house, a carriage, etc. Shrek is almost a test-case movie that experiments with all sorts of new ways to use 3D to enhance a scene, and imho it's basically a must see for that reason alone. I think it was in Avatar already, but Shrek also makes great use of looking into reflections and mirrors.

I think the point these film-makers are making is that the cost isn't always worth the benefit, where studios are currently thinking that they have to make or convert anything coming out now into 3D or people just won't go see it. So there's a big conflict of interest. I fully agree that a film-maker does not need to make a 3D movie just for the sake of it. But I'm also fairly convinced that it will become the norm rather than the exception in the future - it just needs to reach the point where the additional effort to do so is minimal.

And of course there will also be a fair number of film-makers who are not ready to make that transition and probably won't ever be. They learnt their trade in 2D, saw everything that ever mattered to them in 2D, and 3D just isn't interesting to them, just like my father wouldn't get a surround system at home, whereas for me stereo is to surround as mono is to stereo for him. I'd rather have a surround system at half the quality of his stereo system, as that still sound way better to me. That's not to say I don't hear how great his speakers are for stereo, but I'm really sensitive to the spatial aspect of sound and the simulation of various acoustic environments adds so much for me.

3D will introduce a similar generational border that some will cross and others won't.

Incidentally, both me and my wife, when we walked out of the cinema and into the beautiful city of Utrecht this weekend, suddenly saw the 3D-ness of the world much, much more strongly and sharply than ever before. It was quite amazing, and no adjustment needed at all. The guys who made Shrek must have done something really, really well in that movie.

 

[Billy Idol]

Well, I think that's completely false to be honest (I mean that 3D adds little, not the part about it being more work). What I however do believe is that it may take a while before filming real life/sets rather than relying in CGI will catch up. Having seen Shrek 3D however, it's clear that 3D adds a lot of filmic effects that are actually meaningful. Both emotional closeness and distance work very well in 3D for instance, this added to the obvious stuff like vertigo working much better in a 3D movie than a 2D movie, or the sense of peering into someone's personal space when you're looking from the outside into Shrek's house, a carriage, etc. Shrek is almost a test-case movie that experiments with all sorts of new ways to use 3D to enhance a scene, and imho it's basically a must see for that reason alone. I think it was in Avatar already, but Shrek also makes great use of looking into reflections and mirrors.

I think the point these film-makers are making is that the cost isn't always worth the benefit, where studios are currently thinking that they have to make or convert anything coming out now into 3D or people just won't go see it. So there's a big conflict of interest. I fully agree that a film-maker does not need to make a 3D movie just for the sake of it. But I'm also fairly convinced that it will become the norm rather than the exception in the future - it just needs to reach the point where the additional effort to do so is minimal.

And of course there will also be a fair number of film-makers who are not ready to make that transition and probably won't ever be. They learnt their trade in 2D, saw everything that ever mattered to them in 2D, and 3D just isn't interesting to them, just like my father wouldn't get a surround system at home, whereas for me stereo is to surround as mono is to stereo for him. I'd rather have a surround system at half the quality of his stereo system, as that still sound way better to me. That's not to say I don't hear how great his speakers are for stereo, but I'm really sensitive to the spatial aspect of sound and the simulation of various acoustic environments adds so much for me.

3D will introduce a similar generational border that some will cross and others won't.

Incidentally, both me and my wife, when we walked out of the cinema and into the beautiful city of Utrecht this weekend, suddenly saw the 3D-ness of the world much, much more strongly and sharply than ever before. It was quite amazing, and no adjustment needed at all. The guys who made Shrek must have done something really, really well in that movie.

Yeah, Shrek 3D was the first great 3D experience I had as well!

But, I guess animation movies are easier to extend to 3D than 'standard' movies...that is probably the reason why those movies in 3D are so bad...

 

[grandmaster]

Is the perspective shift something in all anaglyph 3D photos or is it special to this capture? Got any more?

It's using established anaglyph conversion techniques so won't be special. I could do as many as you like - just need to play the games, extract the images and convert to anaglyph. A bit of a ball-ache to be honest.

I'm still trying to think of a way to present 3D content in a webpage. The left-right eye wobble technique doesn't work very well (at all!) on game video.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Random-dot stereogram!

Edit: What's the issue with wobble and game content?

 

[MfA]

So very true. Plus the issue of actually filming, as we've mentioned before. You can't use perspective tricks for example, while hidden ramps and such become harder to hide. 3D seems much better suited to gaming to me.

3D Scene extraction to fix that kind of stuff later is also much easier the more viewpoints you have.

Although I think 2 is a bit anaemic. As I've said before, I think 3D cameras should really have 5 lenses. Perhaps with 3 of lower resolution to keep cost/size down. The whole pipeline needs to improve.

 

[grandmaster]

Random-dot stereogram!

Edit: What's the issue with wobble and game content?

It basically relies on a static-ish background - and you don't get that on WipEout! I'd imagine for something like Killzone 3 or the baseball game it could work.

 

[Crossbar]

Yet another 3DTV forecast.

With product offerings from all leading TV vendors now available, shipments of 3-D TVs are expected to reach 3.4 million in 2010 and grow to 42.9 million in 2014, according to market research firm DisplaySearch.

Based on this forecast, 3-D TV market penetration is expected to grow from a 5 percent share of total flat panel TVs in 2010 to 37 percent in 2014, according to the firm's latest report.

And yes, the PS3 is once more working as a trojan horse.

Despite the forecasted growth for 3-D TV, content remains limited to a small number of movies and a few sports events on pay TV, DisplaySearch said. Hit movies that were offered in theaters in 3-D, such as Avatar, will not be available for 3-D TV this year, DisplaySearch (Santa Clara, Calif.) said.

The low market penetration of Blu-ray players, and especially HD broadcasts, outside of North America and Japan also affects content availability, DisplaySearch said.

 

[Arwin]

I came across the first 3D BluRay in the store today, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which I actually would like to see, but I managed to convince myself to wait until I get a 3D TV, which is likely not to be before Apr-Jun 2011 (that's when I'm planning to get one for now, anyway). By that time who knows if the discs will be cheaper or what I'll get thrown into the package. Still, the disc said to contain both the regular and the 3D version.

 

[GregLee]

The DirecTV schedule says a PGA golf championship will be shown in 3D in a few days --- Thurs. August 12, 9am my time (HST). Although I'm no great fan of golf, this will be the first time I've seen it in 3D, so I'll watch some of it. Next month, September, should be interesting for PS3 folks, since the PS3 should become 3D blu-ray capable and also get Move.

 

[Kasersky]

The DirecTV schedule says a PGA golf championship will be shown in 3D in a few days

this is anaglyph red blue 3d right? more ridiculous is why they would choose an event such as golf which poorly conveys 3d as a traveling ball on a blue sky will look like nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I converted a WipEout HD 3D screenshot into anaglyph. Obviously there's zero colour reproduction but the 3D effect is pretty close to the real thing!

http://is.gd/e2AE3

I found a pair of Sainsbury's ColorCode 3D specs from the Channle 4 3D event earlier this year. The colours are blue and brown, blue on the right eye, brown on the left. With some tweaking, I split your image into RGB channels, turned the red into yellow, shifted the blue slightly towards the red, and then found I have to invert the specs. But it did work, and the communication of depth was definitely there. The issue becomes one of supporting all the different colour glasses out there. For DF articles, maybe you could find a source of filters that you can recommend. Yes, I'm thinking sweet wrappers. You could find some commonly available wrappers from chocoloates (although have they all moved away from cellophane?) and choose the left/right colours to fit those properly and elliminate crosstalk.

 

[patsu]

Someone complained about non-standard 3D performance earlier.

It looks like THX and Blufocus will try to address the issue:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4964

One of the biggest reported concerns among consumers is experiencing fatigue from 3D video and glasses. THX and BluFocus are researching root causes of viewer fatigue to better understand the physiological effects of 3D. The goal is to work closely with content producers to implement best practices and guidelines for all 3D elements, including onscreen characters, objects, graphics and subtitles.

THX-BluFocus certification also evaluates how 2D-to-3D conversion adds depth to the picture, and whether this added depth causes any creative errors or flaws that deviate from the storyline or may cause fatigue.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yet another 3DTV forecast.

37% by 2014? I'd like to have some of whatever that person is smoking. Unless, of course, they are expecting 300-400 USD 3D displays with free glasses in that timeframe. Because you can barely afford just 2 glasses with some systems for that much right now, and that's without a TV to use them on.

HDTV's didn't really take off until they got cheap enough that people could actually afford one.

Regards,
SB

 

[patsu]

If they play their cards right, HDTV is 3DTV (and vice versa). You should get 3DTV capability in all mid to high-end 3DTVs. As time progresses, even low end ones should be 3D ready. It's the 3D glasses and the quality of 3D-ness that need to be worked on.

 

[GregLee]

this is anaglyph red blue 3d right?

No, tomorrow's PGA tournament will use shutter glasses, just like all DirecTV 3d stuff.

I wish my Samsung shutter glasses weren't tinted amber. Adjusting the TV color controls to compensate has so far not given me colors as natural as those I get in 2d.

 

[manux]

37% by 2014? I'd like to have some of whatever that person is smoking. Unless, of course, they are expecting 300-400 USD 3D displays with free glasses in that timeframe. Because you can barely afford just 2 glasses with some systems for that much right now, and that's without a TV to use them on.

HDTV's didn't really take off until they got cheap enough that people could actually afford one.

Regards,
SB

Any 120Hz tv is basicly 3d capable and will be calculated as such in those predictions. Though cheapest ones will require you to buy the glasses and box for syncing glasses separately. It isn't too far fetched prediction imo. It will just happen no matter if people want it or not as the technology is there and doesn't incur additional cost to manufacturer(as the additional cost can be packaged as addon and handled as such).

Edit. By 2014 we should also be seeing the massive xbox720/ps4 push for fancy 3d games. To Joe Regular the 2d graphics between ps3 and ps4 look similar but the 3d gaming is instant WOW, that's amazing... So quite many people will probably buy that sync box and glasses for their tv to play the next halo, killzone, whatever in 3d.

edit2. By 2014 I wouldn't be too surprised to see amazon selling better 3d glasses tailored to fit You so many of those people who feel the default glasses are uncomfortable would be served too... It shouldn't take too long to iron out the early adaptor phase and get to mainstream with proper products.

 

[V3]

Any chance for decent glasses free 3DTV by 2014 ?