3D Gaming*

[ERP]

Mass Effect 2 is a game that needs some TLC from the developer. We are working with them to see what we can do in a patch.

The problem is that after release it's too late, I'm sure they'll end up with an adequate experience, but if they want 3D to be pervasive they need to be working wit Devs earlier.

Before 3DVision shipped, a previous team I was on met with NVidia prior to shipping a product, we did make some easy changes to accomodate 3D stereo, but there were things we couldn't change. Some of our rendering was composited in screen space, it was way to lae to change that, so some scene elements have no depth in Stereo.

I'm not sure given the size of the 3D Stereo anticipated market we'd have done anything differently if we'd known earlier, but a lot of tech decisions are pick A or B where there isn't an obvious best choice, and a little bit of weight one way rather than the other might have had an impact.

They also need to get displays and glasses on programmers desks, and have 3D work in a window.

 

[patsu]

I doubt any third party want to jump in right now given their experiences with HD gaming. I am surprised Bioware bothered with nVidia 3D Vision.

I guess it may be a good way to keep in touch with technologies. I expect Sony to make the move first and wait for market to catch up (like nVidia). Others will at least observe the 3D cable/TV/movie momentum.

Like me, arriving next week! A wait for an affordable 3D TV would be year at least probably, but I want to watch my BRDs in comfort now.

The TV manufacturers claimed that 3DTV won't add much cost on top of HDTV. The glasses may give people second thoughts. That and their existing TVs.

 

[patsu]

In the movie industry, 3D production is also being refined (but at least they know consumers are willing to pay extra to watch 3D movies):
http://www.slate.com/id/2243118/?from=rss

How Do You Convert a Flat Movie Into 3-D?

Following the success of the 3-D release of James Cameron's Avatar, which recently surpassed Cameron's Titanic to become the highest-grossing movie of all time (not correcting for inflation), many producers are converting previously filmed features to 3-D prior to release. The next two Harry Potter movies will be in 3-D, and the opening of a Clash of the Titans remake has been delayed to allow for the conversion. How do you convert a movie to 3-D after it has already been shot?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The TV manufacturers claimed that 3DTV won't add much cost on top of HDTV. The glasses may give people second thoughts. That and their existing TVs.

In theory. However, you need at least 120Hz which I think only appears at about the £500 mark in the UK (cheapest 100Hz TV from the cheapest store I've found is £460, list price £700), whereas I've just order a 32" 2009 model Sammy for a little more than £300 (same store). It'll be another year before the lines are refreshed and 3D introduced, and will that be on the bottom end?

 

[specwarGP2]

The TV manufacturers claimed that 3DTV won't add much cost on top of HDTV. The glasses may give people second thoughts. That and their existing TVs.

3D will start off as a high end feature and trickle down like just like how 1080p and 120hz. People won't buy a 3D tV when its thousands of dollars but a few years later when a 40" sells for ~$700 - $800 I'm sure that you'll see lots of upgraders.

I doubt having a TV already will be much of deterrent for most guys to upgrade their TV, they just need a good reason to justify it to themselves (or their significant other)

 

[manux]

I was very positively surprised about the pricing of sony 3d televisions. The flagship 60" model will be around 3600e in europe. It actually is priced to be somewhat affordable especially if one thinks how the pricing on those highend models goes(i.e. prices crash once the next model is announced).

 

[patsu]

Yes, I heard the TV manufacturers' mantra is mid-end and above will go 3D.

In theory. However, you need at least 120Hz which I think only appears at about the £500 mark in the UK (cheapest 100Hz TV from the cheapest store I've found is £460, list price £700), whereas I've just order a 32" 2009 model Sammy for a little more than £300 (same store). It'll be another year before the lines are refreshed and 3D introduced, and will that be on the bottom end?

That's pre-3D era though. If they are keen to push 3D, there will be a purpose to push 120Hz to as many models as possible. They can earn from so many other avenue once consumers get used to 3D (camera, video camera, Blu-ray players, glasses, more 3D surround sound, etc.).

Incidentally, I was talking to someone on the BDA tech committee. He mentioned in passing that 3D BR player will have an upgrade in performance (like Java performance), not just 3D capability. He called it "Profile 5". I have not verified this info with another source. So take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

In the movie industry, 3D production is also being refined (but at least they know consumers are willing to pay extra to watch 3D movies):
http://www.slate.com/id/2243118/?from=rss

Even the article mentions how fake this approach is, nothing comparable to Avatar...

Seems like the only good 3D live action movie this year is going to be - ironically - Tron Legacy.

 

[patsu]

Even the article mentions how fake this approach is, nothing comparable to Avatar...

Seems like the only good 3D live action movie this year is going to be - ironically - Tron Legacy.

They also say most people may not see the difference (There is no side-by-side comparison afterall). I heard the Samsung 2D to 3D conversion performs very well. Once the real money goes it, we should be able to see what 3D tech is all about.

 

[Blazkowicz]

The TV manufacturers claimed that 3DTV won't add much cost on top of HDTV. The glasses may give people second thoughts. That and their existing TVs.

glasses are not that expensive.

look here, $70 for wired shutter-glasses, $100 for wireless (the price differential looks quite artificial).
That includes the emitter box which syncs with the VGA signal. 3DTV will include the equivalent. Spare wireless pair is $50.
http://www.edimensional.com/index.php?cPath=21

if that looks old, it's because they've been selling the very same shutter glasses that were included with some Voodoo2 and TNT back then

Glasses should cost about the same as two BRD movies, a Wii controller or a HD console game.
Or they might come down in price. They sell at $50 already, but could be more mass-produced.

 

[patsu]

Hmph, I think it depends on the pervasiveness of 3D content. If people use it more often *and* the content is compelling/attractive, then they may be ok with it. At $70, it may be too expensive for most people. The early adopters may be fine with it.

I think the earlier 3D survey says consumers find the price of 3D glasses acceptable, but they expect discount if they buy more than 1 pair. The "consumers" they refer to here could be early adopters (The summary of the studies didn't give enough details).

Personally, I may pay up to $50 for a pair. If it's more than that, it better be high/premium quality.

 

[ERP]

I think the problem is while $50 is reasonable, it's per viewer, that's $200 for a familly of 4.
Longer term I'd expect TV manufacturers to go the polarized route, glasses then are cheap at the expense of increasing the cost of the display.
But it isn't going to happen until the content is there.

 

[eastmen]

Have you guys talked about performance ?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-vision-stereo,2121-6.html

Your loosing more than 50% of your performance.

So to go this route next generation a doubling of power will bring us right back to todays visuals and thats without increase the resolution.


As for sonys method i'd love to see how it performs but i'm not looking foward to the performance hits that happen esp not on some of the third party titles that are already slopy on the ps3.

 

[patsu]

I think the problem is while $50 is reasonable, it's per viewer, that's $200 for a familly of 4.
Longer term I'd expect TV manufacturers to go the polarized route, glasses then are cheap at the expense of increasing the cost of the display.
But it isn't going to happen until the content is there.

That's why the survey said the price of glasses cannot be linear. ^_^
People expect discounts for multiple pairs of glasses. I think we should wait for volume pricing.

If we were to believe the industry players, 3D content will start as early as mid-late this year.

Have you guys talked about performance ?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-vision-stereo,2121-6.html

Your loosing more than 50% of your performance.

So to go this route next generation a doubling of power will bring us right back to todays visuals and thats without increase the resolution.


As for sonys method i'd love to see how it performs but i'm not looking foward to the performance hits that happen esp not on some of the third party titles that are already slopy on the ps3.

See: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1385597&postcount=310

NVidia is doing the stereo 3d fully in their drivers. The games do not natively support stereo 3d rendering. The driver modifies the camera matrix and renders the view twice (most likely records the command buffer and executes it twice). Game developers can use more clever techniques in their games instead of generating stereo 3d with brute force. The eyes are so close to each other, that many optimizations (approximations) are possible. I have been testing a reverse reprojection based system myself, and it seems really promising.

We are at the early stage of 3D gaming. That's why Sony folks are experimenting with 3D GT5, Super Stardust, MLB The Show, LBP, and KZ2.

 

[eastmen]

Yea but developers make patches for nvidia 3d.


Eh , we will see what happens when the first games come out and what the price is for 3d. I just know i'm sitting out of it for this generation unless my gf and I get a place 2 years or so ahead of our schedual. I bought a tv 2 years ago and even though it was only $800 for a 42inch 1080p vizio (which was a great deal at the time as other 42 inches were around $1200) its not going to be replaced for a long time.

I'm more interested in eyeinfinty at this point in time and would have loved to see that supported

 

[ERP]

I have a 3 monitor setup with a TH2G and I just bought an NVidia 3D Vision setup.
I've been alternating which one I use, it's a tough call which adds more for gaming. I'll probably buy 2 more monitors for the 3D setup when NVidia gets it's act together and supports surround.

The big issue with 3D is the UI, having elements at a fixed depth over items that should be in front of them hurts the effect. It's really obvious in WOW where there is a lot of UI and you can togle it off to see the difference. Games designed for 3D can obviously resolve this, I just wonder how much adoption there will need to be before we see major changes in UI elements.

 

[patsu]

Yes, I think 3D monitor may gain popularity in comparison to 3D TV, even 3D laptops.

[size=-2]I'm looking too, but will wait for more info to see how to use it with my PS3.[/size]

Yea but developers make patches for nvidia 3d.

I believe it's to address issues with nVidia's "brute force" method, like the UI problem ERP mentioned above.

 

[specwarGP2]

which method is easier on the eyes - polarized (like realD) or LCD shutters? I just saw avatar 3D and it looked very flickery. After the movie was over my eyes were very tired.

 

[ERP]

which method is easier on the eyes - polarized (like realD) or LCD shutters? I just saw avatar 3D and it looked very flickery. After the movie was over my eyes were very tired.

I have yet to see Avatar, but I'm surprised at the description of flickery, RealD and other polarized solutions show both images simultaneously, so it should be no more flickery that a standard movie. You might have convergence issues that cause some elements to diverge, which can appear like flicker.

Short version is it depends. There are tradeoffs for both technologies. Both can give good 3D images, polarized solutions add the cost to the display, while active solutions add it in the form of the glasses.

If the frame rate is high enough and the display fast enough shutter glasses ought to be very good. The only real downside being the loss in braghtness. But the glasses are expensive and most display technologies have at least some XTalk between the images.

Polarized solutions come in 2 flavors the older Linear polarized type, and the circular type as used by Real D. The latter are superior, because you don't have to have your head aligned with the screen.

Even in the theater it's more complex than you might initially think, polarized theater systems have to use a Silver rather than White screen, because white screens unpolarize (I made that word up) the image.

And they are not the only possible systems Dolby's Theater solution uses different RGB's for both eyes and a combination of 50 filters to seperate the images.

 

[patsu]

which method is easier on the eyes - polarized (like realD) or LCD shutters? I just saw avatar 3D and it looked very flickery. After the movie was over my eyes were very tired.

Each cinema is different. I watched at a Dolby 3D site. Now that I'm back in US, I want to check out RealD and IMAX 3D.