3D Gaming*

[manux]

Surely if the 3D spec is essentially 2x current Blu-ray in terms of bandwidth/throughput, then as BD maxes out at 1080 lines at 30 frames per second, 1080p60 will be more than enough? That's even supported by HDMI 1.2... Is 120Hz actually required for anything other than ultra-high-end gaming?

If display alternates between images the refresh rate used in display needs to be fairly high to avoid flickering/eye strain. The player doesn't need more than 1080p60 but the display on the other hand... I would expect 120Hz displays to still be relatively sucky for 3d.

 

[Crossbar]

Does 50% overhead mean that the equivalent 3D scene requires 1.5x the bandwidth compared to the 2D one?

Yeah that should be required bandwidth when reading from the BD as I understand it.

@manux. 240 Hz should be the preferable refresh rate for 3D screens. I think sony Sony released their first 240 Hz disply about one year ago and nobody really understood why they did. Maybe it was a test of the technology.

 

[patsu]

Wall Street Journal on Sony 3D:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574602152550024752.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Under the terms of the agreement, Sony will license some of RealD's technology and equipment, such as 3-D eyewear, which can be used with Sony TV screens and other equipment intended to create a three-dimensional viewing experience similar to what is now offered in movie theaters. The equipment is expected to hit stores in 2010.

Sony's LCD panel technology "will work in sync with new 3D eyewear based on RealD's technology," Hiroshi Yoshioka, the Sony executive in charge of Consumer Products and Devices Group, said in a statement.

EDIT: Namco Bandai also licensed RealD
http://pc.ign.com/articles/105/1053053p1.html

Features of the RealD Stereoscopic Gaming API include:

RealD stereoscopic output format - visually lossless universal 3D format for multiplexing a left/right stereoscopic image stream into a single image channel.

Auto-camera - auto adjustment technology for viewing angles in changing scenes to assure comfortable viewing of crisp, clear 3D effects.

Depth budget allocation - automated continuous 3D effects compatible with real-time rendering to create natural looking depth from the foreground to the farthest horizon.

Negative disparity control - eliminates edge-intercepting objects from breaking frame and creating broken 3D effects.

Head tracking - player head movements are tracked by a peripheral web-camera with 3D environments that rotate naturally about the screen plane to ensure image separation is always parallel to a player's eyes for more realistic effects.

The last bullet point reminds me of GT5 3D demo.

 

[MfA]

@manux. 240 Hz should be the preferable refresh rate for 3D screens.

Meh, anything over 140 (or 144 if you want multiples of 24) should be fine as long as the gray-gray response time is fast enough. At least for people with budget eyes like me who didn't notice flicker over 70 Hz on a CRT.

 

[manux]

Meh, anything over 140 (or 144 if you want multiples of 24) should be fine as long as the gray-gray response time is fast enough. At least for people with budget eyes like me who didn't notice flicker over 70 Hz on a CRT.

3D Movies most likely are filmed in 24fps so you would want to have refresh rate that is multiple of 24. The tv's usually are either 120 or 240Hz(or 60Hz for cheaper stuff). Ofcourse there is nothing that prevents 144Hz tv's but afaik. they don't exist(at least they are very very rare)

 

[Arwin]

This is not necessarily true I think - aren't more and more 3D movies are 60fps per camera? Certainly at the very least Up is 60fps.

EDIT: How about this for instance: http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/S...ns-3D-Video-Recording-Technology-5454-01.html

However, I think 120Hz is going to be enough in most cases for 3D capable LCD TVs

3D Movies most likely are filmed in 24fps so you would want to have refresh rate that is multiple of 24. The tv's usually are either 120 or 240Hz(or 60Hz for cheaper stuff). Ofcourse there is nothing that prevents 144Hz tv's but afaik. they don't exist(at least they are very very rare)

 

[manux]

This is not necessarily true I think - aren't more and more 3D movies are 60fps per camera? Certainly at the very least Up is 60fps.

EDIT: How about this for instance: http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/S...ns-3D-Video-Recording-Technology-5454-01.html

However, I think 120Hz is going to be enough in most cases for 3D capable LCD TVs

I'm under impression that 24p is often used due to the processing chain involved in the editing of the movies. But I could be wrong

edit. Wasn't wrong, found this one http://www.rollingstone.com/news/st..._and_peter_jackson_explore_the_future_of_film

Cameron's hoping for film to become more realistic, he said; he'd like 3D movies' standard frame rate to move from 24 to 48 frames per second, "and then you're looking at something that's indistinguishable from reality. Even 2D films would look more sharp."

 

[Arwin]

Yes, but I think that will die out eventually, similar to BluRays encoded in MPEG2 ... But we'll see of course - it's very early days still! But I think the cinemas will have more and more 3D movies at 60fps and eventually the home will probably get the same.

 

[manux]

Yes, but I think that will die out eventually, similar to BluRays encoded in MPEG2 ... But we'll see of course.

Up to 30fps perhaps on current blu-ray discs but anything above that would need 100GB discs which are not feasible right now. Also we would need new players due to the additional computing power needed to do the decoding. And also we would increase the computing power needed to do all the editing, cgi, storage and so on. What I hear is that movie editing process is very much tied to 24p and cannot really be changed easily.

I'm not expecting 24p to die any time soon in consumer space. There probably will be some showcases similar what imax is today but the mainstream will stay in 24p for long time(at least on 2d movies).

I think movie industry woud shoot itself in the leg if there is need to upgrade player every other year. I would expect the current blu-ray 3d spec to last quite some time in consumer space as good enough solution even if some highend theaters would have for example 48p material(downscaled to 24p in blu-ray releases)

 

[MfA]

In the end hardware and programmers are cheap compared to the costs of making a movie. There is a huge amount of inertia, but the capital costs of going to 48 Hz on the production side are easily surmounted. Trying to ignore the pained shrieks of all the production personnel being driven out of their comfort zone would be a lot harder.

As for Blue-Ray 3D ... it was the perfect opportunity for 48 Hz support, if it's about compute power (which it isn't, hardware decoders are tiny cheap pieces of hardware) you could support it only at 720P. Probably a missed opportunity (although I'd loved to be proven wrong on that account).

Still stuck with interlacing on the TV and 24 Hz in the cinema, both without good technical reasons ... fuck that shit.

 

[manux]

In the end hardware and programmers are cheap compared to the costs of making a movie. There is a huge amount of inertia, but the capital costs of going to 48 Hz on the production side are easily surmounted. Trying to ignore the pained shrieks of all the production personnel being driven out of their comfort zone would be a lot harder.

48Hz is definately much more likely to happen than 60Hz or 120Hz. But I wouldn't still hold my breath.

 

[grandmaster]

RealD is interesting. It is also supported in the Avatar video game. I am beginning to think that actual 120Hz 3D is going to remain the preserve of PC gaming for this gen at least, with split-screen/interlace 3D iterations being used for PS3.

RealD also means that the glasses won't be tethered to the display, which I would think would be hugely significant for gaming.

 

[Crossbar]

RealD is interesting. It is also supported in the Avatar video game. I am beginning to think that actual 120Hz 3D is going to remain the preserve of PC gaming for this gen at least, with split-screen/interlace 3D iterations being used for PS3.

Why do you think that?

 

[grandmaster]

Because it is directly and explicitly stated in the HDMI 1.4 spec, and is being used by games now running on console. Console still runs at 60Hz, but (up to) 120 frames can be interpolated from the output. We have to look at Occam's Razor really - do you genuinely believe that GT5 could be run at 1080p/120fps on a vanilla PS3? A system of still outputting at 60Hz, but containing enough info to be interpolated to a *perceptual* 120fps is a much more achievable objective.

 

[Crossbar]

Because it is directly and explicitly stated in the HDMI 1.4 spec, and is being used by games now running on console. Console still runs at 60Hz, but (up to) 120 frames can be interpolated from the output. We have to look at Occam's Razor really - do you genuinely believe that GT5 could be run at 1080p/120fps on a vanilla PS3? A system of still outputting at 60Hz, but containing enough info to be interpolated to a *perceptual* 120fps is a much more achievable objective.

I was just curious. Cutting the vertical resolution in half seems a bit harsh to me. I hope they don´t have to that.

With regard to GT5 there are several ways to skin a cat, they don´t need to opt for 1080p and they they can cut down on the AA as well. There are likely smart ways to render the second frame that reuse calculations from the first frame as well.

 

[grandmaster]

Oh, I'm sure that the way in which calculations are re-used is going to be key, but there has to be a performance limitation somewhere - whether it is in temporal or video resolution, and I'd rather it be video to be honest. It is interesting to note that in Avatar there are maybe four different types of 3D supported - perhaps the officially sanctioned Sony technique (RealD?) will make that just one.

It is interesting to note in this interview that Blitz Games reckon that circular polarisation is going to be the technique that gets adopted. This is the same technique used by RealD.

 

[MfA]

It all depends on licensing costs ... I doubt the RealD's Z-screen is expensive to manufacture, but as long as the patent runs they probably want to keep the circularly polarized version expensive as hell (and the linear polarized version is just plain inferior to shutter glasses ... degrading contrast with the smallest tilt of my head? No thanks.). I doubt Sony got a flat royalty license ...

Shutter glasses have the advantage of being ancient ... at a guess I'd say just about any manufacturer who can build a LCD screen with overdrive (to get gray-gray to less than 3 msec) and modulated backlights (to hide the transition) can do 3D with shutter glasses without spending a dime on licenses.

 

[grandmaster]

Is there a linear polarised version of RealD? Surely RealD don't own patents on that, in which case, why license it?

 

[MfA]

You're right, is unlikely to be patented since IZ3D for instance had a display using it for years ... that said, yes they do have a linear polarized version (RealD-LP). Which is why I think they want to keep the circular version a little more upscale/expensive.

I'm wondering just how light they can make shutter glasses if they really try ... NVIDIA's glasses at 50 grams are in the right direction but still too heavy, does NVIDIA already use plastic LCDs? (Glass LCDs have to be relatively heavy for the necessary structural integrity.) I wouldn't be surprised if they can get them to 10 grams, and at that point who cares?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I want anything but shutter glasses... 60Hz just isn't enough. Polarize that TV screen and give me passive glasses, I'd be okay even with linear polarization.