The future of stereoscopic gaming

[Shifty Geezer]

This has come up a couple of times in other threads, notably future tech discussion, but it's clearly a contemporary topic that warrants its own thread. So I create this thread on the release of the first current-gen 3D console game, Invincible Tiger: The Legend Of Han Tao.

Reportedly released on PSN and XBLive!, this is a game out now that gamers can buy and view in 3D. So the big question here - has anyone got gear capable of doing this?! What are the output formats used? Is this the future, or will the costs be prohibitive for the next decade?

 

[DieH@rd]

Its a bummer that it requires 3D Ready TVs.

Is it really that hard to make PS3 eye camera track someone's head, and to output " fake 3d" image??? We all saw that Wii headtracking demo. Natal has more cameras, so it can easier detect "depth" of the objects in front of it.

 

[tcrews]

I've got a supported TV but no glasses for it.

Samsung HL67A750 DLP.

 

[Scott_Arm]

There's a pretty short list of capable displays right now. For a tv to be 3D Ready, it must have a refresh of at least 120Hz(LCD). Is there anything else?

 

[MfA]

Is it really that hard to make PS3 eye camera track someone's head, and to output " fake 3d" image???

No parallax is a rather weak depth cue which requires large head movements.

 

[patsu]

I think we will see more of these "simulated effects" in 2010 when the new controllers are released; mostly due to head tracking stuff.

EDIT: Heck, we may see them first in TGS announcements this year by MS and Sony.

 

[DieH@rd]

No parallax is a rather weak depth cue which requires large head movements.

We can always strap on that Wand on our heads

 

[holsty101]

GI.biz interviews from last month with Blitz CTO about Invincible Tiger & stereoscopic 3d in general, not sure if they've been posted before but I thought they're worth including in this thread.

Part one

Part two

 

[3dilettante]

I'm not up on the 3d gaming scene, but how much does anyone's head move while gaming?
I'd say for the most part, my head doesn't move that much because the TV I'm looking at isn't moving.

If head tracking were put in, would I have to move my head to look around while I have to purposefully stare to the side keep my eyes in line with the TV?

And I have to wear special glasses, which will face where my head but not my eyes are?

Maybe I'll get used to the idea, someday, and not feel that we as a society have not gotten past the implicit dorkiness of fiddling with a toy controller, which is a step above the inherently undignified flapping around of motion control, both which lack the need for specialty headgear.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I've just had a look at the official game site for Invincible Tiger, and it suuports anaglyphic rendering - red+blue glasses. They're giving free glasses away on a first-come-first-served basis. To US customers. So, erm, I won't be buying this game for it's 3D effect then.

I did experience consle 3D on the Sega Master System (so there goes their claim of the first ever true 3D experience) and the depth was surprisingly good, but it was a flickerfest back then.

I found this list for anyone looking to buy a new set...
http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html

My primary concern is the need for specs. How do these sets appear to people without the glasses? And are the glasses comfortable for everyone? Some people have complained about eye-strain. I've never experienced the polarised view tech.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I think the polarized method is quite a bit easier on the eyes as it doesn't cause the image to flicker like with the shutter technology. The image loses some of it's vibrancy though (at least it does in theaters).
The row interleaved method of the Hyundai displays (they used these for the Avatar game at Gamescom) also effectively cuts the resolution in half as each eye only sees every second horizontal line of pixels. (and the 46 inch model sets you back €6000)

 

[silhouette]

NVidia had a nice booth at Quakecon demostrating the 3d glass tech with Batman:AA and Burnout two weeks ago (both on 19-20" LCD monitors and on 46+" HDTV). Honestly, you feel some depth with Batman, but I cannot say it is vastly different. But on Burnout, you feel more depth. Especially, the objects in distance (such as billboards) actually feels like it is far away. I could not notice any particular difference between PCs and LCDs either.

However, I feel the tech has one major flaw. In both games, it is as if everything happens within a box. I mean its like there is a device than renders the scene not for a 2D screen but for a 3D box-stage contained in the monitor/TV. This effect is more pronounced in Batman, but you also feel this on Burnout. I think the main reason is the scene is not rendered by taking one's focal point on the world into account. Since, we also use 'focusing' as a cue for depth, not using it results in some loss of depth sensation, and you constantly feel something is not right.

In addition, unfortunately, after a 15 minute session, my eyes started to hurt very badly. Even with this new tech, that problem was not gone.

On the technical side; yes, you need a 120 Hz monitor and a 3d glass. Though, I am not sure if any of the consoles are supporting it currently at all. NVidia was giving the demos with PCs. Though, I guess as the device is connected through USB, there is no reason a particular game cannot support it on consoles as well.

 

[phat]

Seems like folks are confusing stereoscopic and "3D".

Stereoscopy is sending distinct images to each eye so the viewer can perceive depth. This needs special glasses and/or special screens. Heading tracking coupled with a normal TV is not going to give you any sense of depth.

But what head tracking allows is for you to see different sides of an object. Stereoscopy alone does not reveal new sides when you move your head around.

I still think stereoscopy will remain a gimmick for quite some time. I don't yet see a stereoscopic technology that removes the need for glasses and handles multiple viewers seated in arbitrary positions and that also delivers the same picture quality/content versatility as a normal TV. The most promising long term "3D" technology is optical wavefront reproduction, but that's at least a decade away. It will essentially be full-colour holography, but based on a principle other than interference gratings. It will be big, expensive, and cumbersome, but it might be a way for theatres to offer you an experience you can't get at home.

 

[Davros]

As someone who uses headtracking, its just another way of moving the camera instead of moving the mouse, hatswitch or analog stick on a gamepad

 

[MfA]

The only advantage of holograms/integrams is that you can do it without glasses ... but as someone who wears glasses I'm not convinced that's a huge issue.

I think for someone willing to fund quite a bit of R&D you could design stereoscopic goggles _with_ focus accommodation right now with relatively low production cost (focus tracking with either VRD's or adaptive lens systems and normal displays).

 

[Oninotsume]

I've just had a look at the official game site for Invincible Tiger, and it suuports anaglyphic rendering - red+blue glasses. They're giving free glasses away on a first-come-first-served basis. To US customers. So, erm, I won't be buying this game for it's 3D effect then.

Actually, I believe Invincible Tiger does support digital 3D, i.e. special 3D televisions.

The official website states "The 3D SUPPORT section has plenty of information on which TVs support digital 3D."

Unfortunately the 3D Support section of the web page is not currently accessible. Perhaps they are still compiling a list of compatible TVs.

Oninotsume

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Actually, I believe Invincible Tiger does support digital 3D, i.e. special 3D televisions.

Yes it does. I was just adding that it also supports anaglyphic, so you don't need a 3D set to try 3D with this game. Although Iwas editing and edit of an edit as I got my story straight, so I'm not surprised the meaning got muddled!

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I don't yet see a stereoscopic technology that removes the need for glasses and handles multiple viewers seated in arbitrary positions and that also delivers the same picture quality/content versatility as a normal TV.

Well, with glasses, you can be in arbitrary seating.

I'm not sure how long one can play using glasses though, but it's probably for the better if you can't have uninterrupted 6-hour long sessions

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, with glasses, you can be in arbitrary seating.

The 3D effect will get flattened to one side though, no?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

And let me add that I wasn't talking about stereoscopic gaming as something that'll necessarily catch up or become a hit. All I'm saying is that I expect a serious push for the technology compared to what we've had so far.

Tech has existed for years, yes, but now that it's the 'next big thing' in movies too, with Avatar coming out and Ice Age 3 making $800 million (!) at the box office, I expect TV manufacturers and console publishers to get behind it too.
There's hardly anything else you can add to existing HDTVs, most people won't notice contrast advancements and 1080p is more then enough for the human eye with regular sized screens, so 3D is kinda obvious. And we've already talked about how it's a far more efficient approach for devs, not having to scale up content creation and still be able to add new stuff.