3D Gaming*

[patsu]

More details on 3DTV from broadcast vendors:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450054-Transmitting_3D_in_a_2D_World.php

A brief overview of Futuresoure Consulting's assessment:
http://www.widescreenreview.com/news_detail.php?id=18800


Panasonic 3DTV (Circular polarized) coming on April 23:
http://www.widescreenreview.com/news_detail.php?id=18800

Sony Bravia 3DTV (Linear polarized) impression:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/02/first-impressions-sonys-3d-bravia-lcd/


All in all, a diverse range of opinions. Price of 3D glasses and tech limitations are noted in the articles.

 

[MfA]

Panasonic 3DTV (Circular polarized) coming on April 23

What gave you that idea? They simply use bog standard shutter glasses.

Sony Bravia 3DTV (Linear polarized) impression

It's true in a way, but it would be more accurate to say they use shutter glasses without a polarizer.

 

[Danalys]

I just don't get why they are all trying to push flicker based tech. They sell polarized sets to content creators. I read the instructions to one that warned of smearing on 2D content but this could be isolated to the particular polarization filter they used. Also it was only 1080p so in 3D mode you were only getting half resolution horizontally for each frame. That is the way 3D TV is going to be broadcast though. Moving to the full res that Blu-ray 3D supports (and PCs and future consoles) could require some tricky engineering to produce, since each pixel would need to be halved horizontally. Even with those possible draw backs I think it's worth it, since both frames are shown simultaneously in much the same way they are shot or would be rendered.

 

[MfA]

Then you get pixel gaps ...

The options are :
Frame parallel with pixel gaps
Frame sequential (ie. what you call flicker)
Frame parallel with two projectors and a silver screen

Pick your poison.

 

[Danalys]

I should have said shutter but it escaped my mind for a moment. My point is that the choice isn't there so much already.

Obviously the projector as an option has the same problems as regular projectors for home usage. A laser projector would seem good to me but I've only seen that used at planetariums and in a portable low res projector.

 

[MfA]

You can have flicker without shutter glasses, as I've said before ... RealD cinema is frame sequential even though it uses circularly polarized glasses.

 

[patsu]

What gave you that idea? They simply use bog standard shutter glasses.

It's true in a way, but it would be more accurate to say they use shutter glasses without a polarizer.

Oops ! You're of course correct. Both use active shutter. Was reading some comments in late night, and used them to create my post without thinking through.

Why does Panasonic claim that their solution can be viewed while lying down while Sony's can't ?

 

[MfA]

The light coming out of the plasma screen is unpolarized, so the combination of polarizer+LCD in the glasses works regardless of orientation.

The light coming out of the LCD is polarized, and the shutter glasses can only accept it correctly when the glasses are in the upright position.

That said, a 3D image with a purely horizontal stereoscopic effect views while your head is tilted seems like a recipe for a hell of a headache.

 

[Danalys]

Your mental picture of the world stays horizontal even if you tilt your head quite a bit.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Your mental picture of the world stays horizontal even if you tilt your head quite a bit.

Thats because your eyes are still recieving a valid image in real life, that wont we the case when watchin stereoscopic 3d as it works under an assumption of where your eyes are. If this assumtion is incorrect, ie the eyes are not level, the images getting sent to each eye would be incorrect for that perspective. Try looking at a cross-eye 3d image and then tilt your head, you will lose the 3d effect.

 

[patsu]

http://kotaku.com/5483425/crysis-engine-goes-3d

Crytek announced yesterday that its upcoming CryENGINE 3 engine - which will power Crysis 2, among other things - will be jumping on the bandwagon and going 3D.

...

The first demo footage of this new tech will be shown off at the Game Developers Conference later this month.

 

[ShadowRunner]

In hiphopgamer interview of Stig Asmussen he asked about the possibility of GOW going 3D. His response was that they would like to do something with the technology, in fact they are due to recieve 3 x 3D tvs in the next few weeks adding that from what he knows about the engine GOW3 in 3D is very much a possibility.

 

[scently]

In hiphopgamer interview of Stig Asmussen he asked about the possibility of GOW going 3D. His response was that they would like to do something with the technology, in fact they are due to recieve 3 x 3D tvs in the next few weeks adding that from what he knows about the engine GOW3 in 3D is very much a possibility.

GOW3 in 3D? that would be...AMAZING, especially given the scale of the game.

 

[novcze]

GOW3 in 3D? that would be...AMAZING, especially given the scale of the game.

I wouldn't be so excited. GOW3 in 3D on half of its framerate ... no, thanks.

 

[ShadowRunner]

I wouldn't be so excited. GOW3 in 3D on half of its framerate ... no, thanks.

There is nothing to suggest it would be half the framerate, in fact all the games we have seen so far suggest strongly that this wont be the case. Mite be worth reading back a few pages to see why halving framerate isnt a must.

 

[Iron Tiger]

Batman Arkham Asylum GOTY Edition will be bundled with TriOviz 3D glasses. Anybody have any details on what kind of tech these are using? It's supposed to work with existing SD and HDTVs. BTW, the GOTY Edition won't be selling in North America, and the TriOviz 3D stuff is exclusive to the GOTY Edition.

 

[novcze]

There is nothing to suggest it would be half the framerate, in fact all the games we have seen so far suggest strongly that this wont be the case. Mite be worth reading back a few pages to see why halving framerate isnt a must.

We'll see. In one way or another, there must be some impact on the performance, doesn't matter if that is framerate, resolution, used RAM, CPU/GPU time, etc.

I'm more like anti-3D guy, because this whole gimmick is here only to postpone OLED coming. Manufacturers see chance to milk us for same slightly modified technology (LCD,plasma) and they will push it as we saw at CES2010. So I'm not excited at all.

 

[Danalys]

Thats because your eyes are still recieving a valid image in real life, that wont we the case when watchin stereoscopic 3d as it works under an assumption of where your eyes are. If this assumtion is incorrect, ie the eyes are not level, the images getting sent to each eye would be incorrect for that perspective. Try looking at a cross-eye 3d image and then tilt your head, you will lose the 3d effect.

I'm experienced with parallel and cross-eyed 3D and the effect of tilting your head while viewing isn't really comparable. Keeping both of your eyes tracking on the individual images would be difficult enough to start with.

 

[patsu]

I'm more like anti-3D guy, because this whole gimmick is here only to postpone OLED coming. Manufacturers see chance to milk us for same slightly modified technology (LCD,plasma) and they will push it as we saw at CES2010.

I think 3D is more than just a pair of glasses and higher refresh rate. A lot of content development, hardware cost reduction, consumer research/studies, distribution, infrastructure and standardization work need to be done. They are not entirely related to OLED at all (e.g., 3D broadcast).

OLED will probably has its own path of commercialization.

 

[Danalys]

We'll see. In one way or another, there must be some impact on the performance, doesn't matter if that is framerate, resolution, used RAM, CPU/GPU time, etc.

I'm more like anti-3D guy, because this whole gimmick is here only to postpone OLED coming. Manufacturers see chance to milk us for same slightly modified technology (LCD,plasma) and they will push it as we saw at CES2010. So I'm not excited at all.

You can still get the same effective frame rate or resolution it's just shared between two eyes. I'm getting tired of the word gimmick quite frankly. The gimmick of older 3D content was that rather than a shot being chosen for it's artistic merit it was chosen to show off the effect. Even Avatar fell into this trap at times. For video games this wont be such a problem as the camera is mostly concerned with allowing a player to play the game. It's like complaining about colour because directors started putting shots of pretty coloured flowers into films.