3D Gaming*

[MfA]

There's some consumer prices here. Probably 100+% markup from factory prices, but it should give you some idea.

 

[Nesh]

Just out of curiosity do we have news on how much the 3D BRAVIAS are going to cost? Like a 42" 3D BRAVIA?

 

[patsu]

Rumor has it that Sony will unveil them in mid-May @ Google IO.
Take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[patsu]

Can you trust the vendors to set a comprehensive 3D standard ?
http://hcc.techradar.com/blogs/team...problem-solved-theres-just-one-catch-30-04-10

The incompatibility of 3D glasses between TV brands is seen as a significant stumbling block in the take-up of domestic 3D. Not being able to take your own 3D spex around to watch sports or a movie with a friend who has a different brand of 3DTV makes little sense to anyone.

HCC has discovered a workaround. While Samsung and Panasonic glasses are officially incompatible with each other, we’ve discovered that if you wear one pair upside down they will work with the rival brand’s set.

Samsung R&D chief Simon Lee confirmed the bizarre fact, explaining that the implementation of polarising lenses in the eyewear has been reversed by the two brands. There may be a more sensible solution pending, though. ‘I think that it’s likely that the different manufacturers will come together, possibly as early as next year, to agree a common standard for Active Shutter glasses,’ he said.

 

[SG79]

Just out of curiosity do we have news on how much the 3D BRAVIAS are going to cost? Like a 42" 3D BRAVIA?

Sony only has 40" models actually, and that size will be 3D ready only so you'll have to shell out extra for the glasses. They're launching in June and already available for pre-order in Canada at least (not sure why not the US site though) at $2600:

http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/se...1&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&categoryId=100750

Same price I paid for a similar sized XBR4 in mid 2007, but not sure what the glasses will run for.

 

[patsu]

The larger 3DTVs are coming:
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/05/06/3d-tv-demonstration-at-sony-netherlands-hq/

We were seated in front of a 3D TV (the KDL-46HX800) and received the 3D glasses which were much lighter and more comfortable than I expected them to be. A 3D movie of an aquarium was shown to us and I was really amazed by the sharpness of the 3D images and the 3D depth. After that we saw impressive game movies of 3D versions of LittleBigPlanet, WipeOut HD, MotorStorm and Super Stardust HD. To show that the TV can also upscale 2D to 3D images, some upscaled 2D soccer footage was demonstrated which showed quite some depth in it.

After that we watched another 200 Hz 3D TV, received the price list for 7 3D TV models and that concluded the demonstration.

They'll be using a 6-degree tilt design according to this PR article:
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/04/21/the-essence-of-monolithic-design/



However, there is also an Android TV project:
http://good3dtv.com/3d-tv/forget-3d-television-google-sony-intel-hd-tv-coming-soon/

Rumored to be called “Dragonpoint”, the Android TV will obviously pack all of Google’s goodies such as Google search, direct YouTube, access to Android Market’s 50,000 apps and much more. From Sony’s end we can see HDTV technology coupled with Blu-ray support. All this is expected to run on Intel Atom processors with a Logitech QWERTY remote control to let you do just about anything with it e.g. HD games, make phone calls, surf the web and of course who can forget basic TV functions.

I sure hope for Sony's sake that the 2 projects are one and the same, but they are likely to be different.

 

[patsu]

Also found an article about Samsung's 3DTV warnings:
http://good3dtv.com/3d-tv/samsung-explains-reasons-behind-3dtv-warnings/

“We started looking at 3D in 1999 at our advanced technology centre. Since then we have tried out the 3DTVs on a number of people, looked at lots of diagnostics and what we have found is that each person’s ability to recognise the 3D effect is slightly different.”

...

It seems that most of us, 98 per cent, can see 3D fine but there is a two per cent out there who doesn’t see 3D properly. The reason? Well, it’s all to do with the eyes.

“It depends on the distance of your two eyes. Most people have a 2.5-inch distance and they won’t have a problem but small children who have a smaller distance may not see the 3D image properly.”
So that’s the reason for the warning against very small children viewing 3D for long periods but what about those who are pregnant? Well, it seems that reasoning is not so clear cut – it’s more about emotions that anything physical.

“Watching a 3D movie is a lot more realistic that watching something in 2D, so people who have medical conditions or are pregnant may find the images slightly disorientating.”

 

[patsu]

Bwahaha.... stereoscopic 3D move from MS:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ur_On_Gamings_Key_Role_In_Popularizing_3D.php

At GDC Canada this week, Microsoft's Habib Zargarpour suggested that the success of stereoscopic 3D in the home is "up to the game content... much more so than film and broadcast."

The creative director is a two time Oscar nominee and veteran of ILM and 3D effects for over fifteen years, working on visual effects for Star Trek and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. He went on to work at Electronic Arts, and recently joined Microsoft Game Studios to help their 3D gaming initiative.

He concluded by referencing hardware such as Natal and PlayStation Move, suggesting: "With upcoming natural user interface hardware... think about how 3D can enhance that. You're using your body to interact with the game - but what if you can now see depth and that's part of the experience?"

Zargapour noted that this interaction "is a huge opportunity" to make a whole new experience for players, and these new interfaces combined with 3D may truly become the next level for video game interactivity.

 

[MfA]

Or in other words ... VR ... all that's old is new again.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It just occured to me, watching a film, that there's considerable issue with creating 3D films. Plenty of optical effects are exploited which will be plain broken when we can see depth. The LOTR would be laughable when we see Frodo isn't small next to Gandlaf, just far away! Could this add cost to films and delay 3D development, or are film companies willing to invest the extra cost in digital effects?

 

[TheWretched]

It just occured to me, watching a film, that there's considerable issue with creating 3D films. Plenty of optical effects are exploited which will be plain broken when we can see depth. The LOTR would be laughable when we see Frodo isn't small next to Gandlaf, just far away! Could this add cost to films and delay 3D development, or are film companies willing to invest the extra cost in digital effects?

They used several techniques in LotR do achieve the "small people" effect. From forced perspectiv (as you mentioned), to little people, bluescreen and others like 2 sets (one huge and one small) for Bagend Gandalf scenes, composited together.

But this is not an every day problem film faces. There's more than enough movies, that have no benefit whatsoever in HD (say comedies or romances), and 3D will be even less beneficial for movies down the line. Action, cg and fantasy movies are probably the movies that'll ever be produced in 3D anyway.

 

[_phil_]

Interaxial spacement is by itself an interesting tool to scale the world.Compositing shots with different interaxial would be usefull too (and that's allready used alot).

 

[patsu]

This link is informative: http://3dcinecast.blogspot.com/2010/04/live-stereo-3-d-acquisition.html

Can't find a video showing intraxial spacing.

 

[assurdum]

Some movie people are apprehensive about 3-D:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-3ddirector-20100425,0,3797738.story

They have good reason to fear what the hacks will do but as far as smaller type movies I think the key will be the camera moving thru the scene just as we move thru real life.

Btw, this was an interesting tidbit:



Shadow of the Colossus, the movie?

Jeez ... I only imaginated what a terrible crap should be a movie based on a vg especially a poetry like SoTC no please don't touch Ueda game ...

 

[Danalys]

It just occured to me, watching a film, that there's considerable issue with creating 3D films. Plenty of optical effects are exploited which will be plain broken when we can see depth. The LOTR would be laughable when we see Frodo isn't small next to Gandlaf, just far away! Could this add cost to films and delay 3D development, or are film companies willing to invest the extra cost in digital effects?

For those force perspective shots they could have just used compositing instead, but forced perspective was a little cheaper so they used that. There's also fight scenes where as it is the stunt work can look fake, with added 3D sense this can be even more difficult, but you can still cheat people's temporal perception where they see a fist and a face as accompany roughly the same space at roughly the same time.

The major problem tho is that it's more difficult to do handheld shots. Bigger cameras and having to follow rules of good non headache inducing 3D adds extra complication.

I personally think any film with anything that's visually interesting can look better in 3D be it a comedy or romance drama. Just seeing a good looking actress in 3D would be a plus to me.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Of my experiences with 3D in cinema, the characters actually don't register. The impact of 3D comes with the depth of the environments, or the 3D-in-2D-in-3D of Avatar's screens. The actors being in 3D made no impact.

 

[MfA]

The depth difference was generally not large enough, but the occasional Navi tail sweep registered.

 

[Arwin]

Of my experiences with 3D in cinema, the characters actually don't register. The impact of 3D comes with the depth of the environments, or the 3D-in-2D-in-3D of Avatar's screens. The actors being in 3D made no impact.

I remember when I first got my lenses, my left eye improved its vision from something like 69% the first day I wore the lenses, to 90% half a year later. When we got our HD tv, we quickly got better at seeing detail as well. I think the first time we'll see a proper hi-def 3D tear well up, it may well make an impact. But as it stands, the 3D filmic dictionary is still largely empty, especially when it comes to more subtle effects.

 

[patsu]

These RealD glasses look good (probably expensive ):
http://gizmodo.com/5534927/who-would-wear-these-designer-3d-glasses

Look3D Eyewear has glasses suitable for every niche corner of the market. Oakley-style for ski resort cinemas? Check. Leopard-print dazzlers for cougars? Check. Pink cat-eyes for Legally Blonde 3D hopefuls? Oh yes. But would you wear them?

EDIT: Ugh... for cinema use !

 

[scently]

LG and Microsoft enter into 3D agreement for xbox360 games and LG's 3DTV.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/11/xbox-360-3d-gaming-a-reality-with-lg-partnership/