3D Gaming*

[Entropy]

A personal take:

As far as cinema is concerned, the aim there is to provide a window for a passive viewer into another reality. Just as silent -> sound and b&w -> colour, 2D -> 3D reinforces the sense of actual presence (if not used in a gimmicky way).
It has the sense of natural progression as far as cinema goes.

For games, the issue is murkier, since they are interactive. For the subset of games that tries to immerse the gamer in an alternate reality, 3D makes sense, but still has problems in terms of control that do not apply to cinematic 3D.
For other games 3D provides no benefit whatsoever in and of itself. Of course it may also be that stereoscopic 3D will allow new game mechanics allowing new classes of games, and I'm just too lacking in imagination to envision them. The Nintendo 3DS implies that this is the case.

 

[patsu]

For other games 3D provides no benefit whatsoever in and of itself. Of course it may also be that stereoscopic 3D will allow new game mechanics allowing new classes of games, and I'm just too lacking in imagination to envision them. The Nintendo 3DS implies that this is the case.

I think Nintendo sidesteps the issue you raised by introducing 3D control scheme. Once the new control scheme is in play, stereoscopic 3D may become a natural/automatic progression.

It's a lot harder to tell what Sony wants to focus on, but they also have a new 3D control scheme with Move.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I wouldn't want to see the work of a great cinematographer forced into 3D. There are too many visual problems that need to be solved. Haven't been able to try any 3D games to see what I think of it.

 

[patsu]

They need more practices. It's not only a tech issue. There are valuable knowledges to be gained (e.g., optimizing 3D production, exploiting 3D story telling and camera techniques, etc.).

The industry will adjust based on market feedback anyway. It looks like Sports, anime/cartoons, and heavy special effect movies will lead the charge. I am most keen on wildlife documentaries (and 3D gaming).

Converting catalog titles into 3D is a business problem (I believe they are not selling well, so studios want to see if 3D can rejuvenate them). If the market reject the first few, it will die a natural death without affecting the stereoscopic 3D beachhead.

 

[Scott_Arm]

To be honest, I don't know if there is a solution for some of Ebert's complaints in his #3. Separating visual planes that are still 2D does not look good at all. I noticed this many times in Avatar in scenes filmed with live actors rather than cg. The cg sections looked considerably better. I'm not sure if that problem has been solved yet. I've heard that 3D sports suffer from this.

 

[patsu]

We don't have to solve everything to make an entertaining movie or game. As you mentioned, Avatar would be a good example. Existing crop of HD games have their own problems too, but we enjoyed them anyhow.

 

[Scott_Arm]

We don't have to solve everything to make an entertaining movie or game. As you mentioned, Avatar would be a good example. Existing crop of HD games have their own problems too, but we enjoyed them anyhow.

Until those problems are solved, I wouldn't want to see the work of great cinematographers ruined by poor 3D tech. I'll stick with 2D where appropriate. I have no problem with 3D really. I just hope it isn't forced onto all of the creative filmmakers out there that don't want it. For games, I imagine 3D can be very appropriate for many titles.

 

[patsu]

It's the other way round. Great cinematographers are respected because they can work wonders despite the tech limitations. New techniques can be invented. The 2D tech has evolved from humble beginning also.

 

[TheWretched]

As long as it kills shaky cam I'll take any side effects in stride ... so precious to hear mention of Michael Bay when people talk about not making good use of the medium ... the guy wastes millions on CGI and then shakes and blurs it into garbage (Transformers).

I soooo agree. Shaky cam should be a punishable offense in movie making (as we as games, for that matter). I want to SEE what is happening! Or else, I'd read a book or hear the story on CD.

And, that Ebert doesn't like it... as some others already said, he also says games cannot be art. He is very narrow minded, when it comes to gaming, really. Most games are, in fact movies, with parts in them where you play bits... say Metal Gear for example. Why can't that be art, but a movie, or theater can be? Does the interactivity make it invalid?

Anyways... 3D movies and games... there's MUCH to learn, especially for the movie makers. There's been a decade of knowledge in movie making that needs to be rethought. In games, it is a bit easier, since there aren't as many clear cut guidelines as there are in movies. Games can actually be the forerunner in design and invention here. Both media start from a clean slate. But trying out this stuff in games is as simple as setting a driver flag (at least with an Nvidia card). You don't need to keep it in mind from preproduction onward (well, depending on the issues 3D Vision has with some engines), you can easily enable it late in the game. With movies, this doesn't work really.

 

[patsu]

Heh, here's more shaky cam in 3D for ye.
http://gizmodo.com/5527969/next-mars-rover-to-include-3d-camera-thanks-to-james-cameron

[James Cameron] convinced NASA Administrator Charles Bolden to put back the 3D camera in Curiosity, the next Mars rover.

The new camera will sit on top of Curiosity's mast filming at ten frames per second in high definition 3D video. It will share space with the Mastcam 100, a fixed 100-millimeter camera (above) and the Mastcam 34, which offers a wider angle at a fixed 34-millimeter (below). The 3D eyes were originally scrapped from the project because of budget cuts. Cameron talked with Bolden and made the perfect case: It will make the public connect better with the mission.

 

[patsu]

More 3D cameras (Panasonic was first to announce one):


Sony's Prototype EX3 (Bulky but HD):
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/02/sony-ex3-prototype-3d-camcorder-spotted-destined-for-retail-cha/

A trusted source just chimed in with some specs, and it's looking like Sony's basically just crammed the guts of two PMW-EX3 studio cams into a single shell for this prototype. That's not a bad thing: behind those proprietary hot-swappable lens cartridges are the same three half-inch CMOS eyeballs that stream 4:2:0 MPEG-2 video at 1080p to SxS memory cards at 35Mbps per eye, or send uncompressed 4:4:4 footage over a new pair of HD-SDI outputs.

DXG 3D (Portable and SD):
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/14/dxgs-3d-view-sacrifices-hd-but-makes-3d-video-recording-pocket/

The budget cam maker has just announced its 3D View stereoscopic shooter, which interestingly comes with a separate 7-inch LCD display (800 x 480 resolution) for playing back your recorded footage without requiring glasses -- thanks to some parallax barrier magic.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

More 3D cameras (Panasonic was first to announce one):
Sony's Prototype EX3 (Bulky but HD):

...he whispered something about an industry-first 1.5-inch interocular distance...

Why is this good? Surely for ideal 3D the distance between lenses should be equivalent to a person's?

 

[patsu]

According to http://forums.digitalcinemasociety.org/showpost.php?p=73&postcount=2, it's good for filming objects closer than 3-4 feet.

 

[_phil_]

According to http://forums.digitalcinemasociety.org/showpost.php?p=73&postcount=2, it's good for filming objects closer than 3-4 feet.

Yeah , filming a closeup head with 6.5 interaxial and projecting it on a movie theater will make it impossible to watch because monstruous divergeance .
Having wide ranges of interaxials possibilities is simply more tools to do stereoscopy.
Sometimes (often) you have to cheat on the viewer relative size to the scene (interaxial is just that,entirely connected to absolute size perception)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sometimes (often) you have to cheat on the viewer relative size to the scene (interaxial is just that,entirely connected to absolute size perception)

Okay, makes sense. In which case, a variable adjustment rig would be the logical design choice.

 

[MfA]

A camera with more lenses would be nice as well (say 3 or 5). So you get more information for simply setting it during post-processing.

 

[Gubbi]

A camera with more lenses would be nice as well (say 3 or 5). So you get more information for simply setting it during post-processing.

That's a good point.

I was really surprised how much can be done in post processing when watching this about the District 9 post processing. Multiple cameras would effectively turn the image into voxels allowing for all kinds of interesting things (repositioning, re-lighting etc).

Cheers.

 

[patsu]

Fine, how do you advertise 3D games ? ^_^
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/05/3d-advertizing.jsp

The advertisement glows in three dimensions. If the observer gets closer to it, the image appearance changes with each step and adjusts to the visual angle. The visual impression when sauntering past a 3D depiction of columns is as if you were walking past a row of them for real. The 3D displays will be produced on an industrial scale in future.

»The displays function similar to the lenticular images that we‘ve all seen on postcards,« says Dr. Dominik Giel, group manager at IPM. »Instead of the grooved sheet with the image attached, we use a lens array. It consists of 250,000 individual lenses with a diameter of two millimeters each.« Whereas the lenticular images can really only be viewed well at arm‘s length, these new kinds of displays can be seen clearly even from the other side of the street. That‘s because of the greater precision: With a lenticular image, the finished picture is glued to the grooved sheet. In the process of attaching it, the sheet cannot always be put in an exact position. »It‘s just like filling out a pre-printed form: If you use a typewriter to complete it, the print often shifts slightly downward or upward. By contrast, if you enter the information into a computer and then print out the form, the print sits exactly where you want it,« explains Giel. »The same applies to how we make these displays: We glue the lenticular sheet to the photo paper, and only apply the image in the next step.«

EDIT: For cameras, I am much more interested in consumer grade 3D cameras. These days I take most of my family photo and video using iPhone. I don't mind a dedicated 3D camera at all.

 

[MfA]

12 LPI lenticular posters will in fact not look very good at arm's length ... lenticulars with printed on back images do get much better registration though. If they can find a way to reuse the lens sheets (which are pretty expensive) it will be huge, if not ... not so much.

 

[patsu]

How much would such a thing cost ?


Also Roxio going 3D:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s..._Delivery_of_3-D_Coming_Soon_to_RoxioNow/4650

Sonic Solutions launched their new "Total 3-D" initiative today, designed to make them a leader in 3-D video.
To start with, Sonic Solutions has been working to develop new 3-D disc authoring technologies.

Sonic says that the RoxioNow service (formerly CinemaNow) is primed and ready to start delivering 3-D content. It's already powering 3-D displays in storefronts, all Sonic is waiting for now is the consumer content.

There's also Video Lab 3D, which allows users to turn their 3-D content into standard DVDs for playback on compatible devices.