3D Gaming*

I've been in high performance helicopters, through really bad turbulence on military jets and even did some tandem jump skydives without any motion sickness. For some reason, boats, Virtual theme park rides (Star Wars, but not Spiderman) and FPS games with jerky frame rates give me some pretty horrible motion sickness that can sometimes last even a couple of hours after playing.

I can't see 3D really taking off if they can't figure out how to not induce motion sickness.
 
There certainly are many ways to do 3D and some should be better then others. But it's not about the actual tech to produce the two images, but about how to work with focus, depth of field, convergence points and so on.
It will take time to figure it out, there's a reason James Cameron had spent that much time on refining his stuff. And even that did not please everyone (but it was good for a lot of people as it made almost 3 billion and it's still not over yet...)
 
I never saw Avatar in 3D.

Avatar makes a great point - in the opening few minutes it uses depth of field, which looks incredibly wrong in 3D. In the several hours that follow, Depth of Field never comes back.
 
I've been in high performance helicopters, through really bad turbulence on military jets and even did some tandem jump skydives without any motion sickness. For some reason, boats, Virtual theme park rides (Star Wars, but not Spiderman) and FPS games with jerky frame rates give me some pretty horrible motion sickness that can sometimes last even a couple of hours after playing.

I can't see 3D really taking off if they can't figure out how to not induce motion sickness.

I saw this article talking about 3D and how it affects your vision.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health/
 
I saw this article talking about 3D and how it affects your vision.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health/

Pardon my words, but that article is just ... nonsense! It doesn't even read its own links - lazy-eye is not strabismus at all. There is only a specific kind of strabismus that is not directly related to a present physical abnormality that has to be corrected or fixed either surgically or through glasses/lenses. This type of strabismus, furthermore, is treated among others with vision therapy, something for which you could probably even employ modern 3D displays. It sometimes means that one particular eye needs more training, and the other one is therefore blinded. 3D in the form of shutterglasses could even cure this problem as a side-effect, for all we know, because the eyes get the information intermittently rather than at the same time.

There is just no scientific basis behind this link, or even half-decent journalism, if I can learn/confirm all this in just 20 minutes of browsing links through a link they post themselves. Bah.
 
I can't see 3D really taking off if they can't figure out how to not induce motion sickness.
Perhaps that's not possible? You're brain takes in multiple sources of information to build a world-view of your current position, orientation, and velocity. The problem with 3D is it's creating a very convincing visual feed of motion while the rest of the body's senses are reporting nothing going on. If this is what's causing the motion sickness, there's no solution, other than full physical immersion! 2d isn't quite as immersive, although titles like FPSes that aim to place the player in a more included environment tend to confuse the brain moreso, such that some people suffer motion sickness from those POVs. No-one gets motion sickness playing platformers and beat-em-ups!
 
Will anybody reply my question? Ever? ¬_¬

Are shutter glasses supposed to offer a better experience in comparison with simple polarized glasses (not anaglyph glasses, but those like sunglasses)? Why?

If this has been previously answered or discussed, please post a link to the thread and post.

RIGHT: thank you!
 
Actually, polarized glasses are the better, at least in theory.

There's no flickering at all, whereas with shutters half the time you see darkness (1/2 with one eye, 1/2 with the other). They're passive, so they don't have to be synchronized with the TV, they don't require batteries, they're less prone to failure, they're easier, they're cheaper (one pair of active shutter glasses costs a hundred pounds for a Pana 3D plasma TV).
There's also no "crosstalk", which is when the TV isn't quick enough to completely fade one eye's view before switching to the other and thus some of the previous image bleeds into the next, creating a ghosting effect. Circularly polarized glasses are completely free of this artifact.

In practice however, there are many problems.
As your eyes need to see both images at the same time, TVs have to double their resolution to 1920*2160. It's already a problem to maintain even 1080p in motion for most LCD TVs and many mide level plasmas, so it's going to take a while in itself and the tech isn't going to be cheap.
Adding a polarizing filter to the screen is very expensive too, and there are very few - if any - TVs on the market that have such a feature.

The only affordable way right now to use polarized glasses is with a projector and a silver screen, and even that is far from a relatively cheap 3D LCD TV.

On the other hand adding shutter glass support is relatively cheap and easy, as the manufacturer only has to increase the refresh speed of the screen to 120Hz. There's a rather high initial price tag for now, and there's the added cost of requiring a very high quality panel in general to minimize the above mentioned crosstalk; but it's still just an evolutionary step from existing technology, instead of completely re-inventing half the display to support polarization.


Eventually, glass-free 3D is the desired result, but it's beyond the event horizon for now.
 
As expected, 3D Blu-ray and 3DTV get merged with "mid- to high-end" player and TV sales (3D will be there whether you use it or not):
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...d_3D_Blu-ray_Player_Sales_Top_55_Million/4966

According to the NPD, who tracks this sort of thing, 3D component sales have exceeded $55 million, which is a pretty strong number to hit. According to the NPD's Ross Rubin, "3D TV and Blu-ray players are seeing steady growth even as major product line launches are slated for the coming months."

...

The number that would be a lot more telling – considering the fact that 3D televisions and Blu-ray players don't exclusively play 3D content – is how many people are actually using the 3D features.
 
Actually, polarized glasses are the better, at least in theory.

There's no flickering at all, whereas with shutters half the time you see darkness (1/2 with one eye, 1/2 with the other). They're passive, so they don't have to be synchronized with the TV, they don't require batteries, they're less prone to failure, they're easier, they're cheaper (one pair of active shutter glasses costs a hundred pounds for a Pana 3D plasma TV).
There's also no "crosstalk", which is when the TV isn't quick enough to completely fade one eye's view before switching to the other and thus some of the previous image bleeds into the next, creating a ghosting effect. Circularly polarized glasses are completely free of this artifact.

In practice however, there are many problems.
As your eyes need to see both images at the same time, TVs have to double their resolution to 1920*2160. It's already a problem to maintain even 1080p in motion for most LCD TVs and many mide level plasmas, so it's going to take a while in itself and the tech isn't going to be cheap.
Adding a polarizing filter to the screen is very expensive too, and there are very few - if any - TVs on the market that have such a feature.

The only affordable way right now to use polarized glasses is with a projector and a silver screen, and even that is far from a relatively cheap 3D LCD TV.

On the other hand adding shutter glass support is relatively cheap and easy, as the manufacturer only has to increase the refresh speed of the screen to 120Hz. There's a rather high initial price tag for now, and there's the added cost of requiring a very high quality panel in general to minimize the above mentioned crosstalk; but it's still just an evolutionary step from existing technology, instead of completely re-inventing half the display to support polarization.

Oh, I see. Thank you for your reply.

So, what seems cheaper at a first glance is actually more expensive...

Eventually, glass-free 3D is the desired result, but it's beyond the event horizon for now.
I know. Some people say that they won't purchase a 3D TV until we don't use glasses for it, but I honestly think that the wait will be way too long and people will eventually "give up" and buy a 3D TV in the meantime.
 
I know. Some people say that they won't purchase a 3D TV until we don't use glasses for it, but I honestly think that the wait will be way too long and people will eventually "give up" and buy a 3D TV in the meantime.

It depends, if they are like me and many families (single working males are a whole other world :D) I know, then they expect their TV to last at the minimum 5-10 years. Combine that with the fact that 3D TVs might be going through rapid and frequent changes over the next few years...and people like me have no problem waiting.

Heh, I'm sure you can get lots of responses from married guys on the forums about how hard it can be to convince the wifey to let them spend money to upgrade something as cheap as a video card. :D And 3D TV's are going to be a whole lot more expensive than that.

Regards,
SB
 
Actually, polarized glasses are the better, at least in theory.

There's no flickering at all
Only with interleaving (ie. with visible pixel gaps) or with two projectors ... and as I said before, most cinemas actually use a single projector at 144 Hz which does flicker (just not perceptually).
 
Only with interleaving (ie. with visible pixel gaps) or with two projectors ... and as I said before, most cinemas actually use a single projector at 144 Hz which does flicker (just not perceptually).
If you can't see something flickering, is it flickering? 144 Hz refresh is considered a non-flickering display, whether projector or CRT, for that very reason. Or putting it another way, even with interleaved pixels for the stereoscopy, the image would still be flickering at whatever rate the projector is working.
 
Yeah, projectors do flicker, but a (theoretical) plasma TV with a polarizing filter would not ;)
 
It depends, if they are like me and many families (single working males are a whole other world :D) I know, then they expect their TV to last at the minimum 5-10 years. Combine that with the fact that 3D TVs might be going through rapid and frequent changes over the next few years...and people like me have no problem waiting.

We'll see... :LOL:

Personally, I'm not the kind of person who spends a lot of money in hobbies. I wonder myself if I would buy a 3DTV even if I had the money (or, well, the habit of spending money that way).

Since I don't own an HDTV (the house where I'm right now has one, but when I move from here I will use the SDTV that I already own), it's likely that I will take the opportunity and directly upgrade to a 3DTV in the future (prices will be lower, then).

I suppose that there's more people like me, that will directly jump from SDTV to 3DTV...
 
This has been bugging me for a while now but years ago I remember reading/hearing/learning about 3D screens and how getting the frames per second up to around 300 FPS makes a moving image simulate 3D. The number 300 sticks out and I have no idea why my brain decided to remember this from probably 20 years ago.
 
Back
Top