3D Gaming*

[grandmaster]

I don't get this, Why don't they just go interlace ?.

Interaced must a perfect solution to tack on 3d on current gen.

If you look at Avatar, you will see that this is one of several solutions employed, but the bottom line is that if the new HDMI protocols support full 720p resolution for each eye, that is an infinitely preferable solution than using interlace.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Other than rendering 2 720p images per frame!

 

[manux]

Looks like hdmi1.4 provides plenty of possibilities for outputting 3d. Unfortunately the full specification is not available for download for everybody and we have to go by the press material.

Defines common 3D formats and resolutions. 3D support for up to 1080p resolution
Supports many 3D techniques:
* Full side-by-side
* Half side-by-side
* Frame alternative
* Field alternative
* Line alternative
* Left + DepthLeft + Depth + Gfx + Gfx Depth

 

[grandmaster]

Other than rendering 2 720p images per frame!

Yes, that is what I meant, in effect

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Looks like hdmi1.4 provides plenty of possibilities for outputting 3d. Unfortunately the full specification is not available for download for everybody and we have to go by the press material.

What's the difference between line-alternative and field-alternative?

 

[manux]

What's the difference between line-alternative and field-alternative?

I don't know for sure. My guess is that field-alternative has something to do with interlacing and line alternative would have 3d image encoded in progressive frame.

 

[habbe]

So for you guys who has seen the new 3d movies how good is the picture quality, can you see the details clear or is it getting fuzzier than normal 2d ?.

With my earlier experience with 3d i found it hard to believe that i would see the difference between progressive or interlaced, but i haven't seen the "new" movies in 3d.

 

[MfA]

"Left + DepthLeft + Depth + Gfx + Gfx Depth"

This is probably WOWvx Declipse from Philips (or at least something extremely similar). It's an interesting format which allows many different views to be computed without running into occlusion artifacts as long as the scene is simple enough. This can be used for true 3D displays as opposed to just stereoscopic.

 

[manux]

So for you guys who has seen the new 3d movies how good is the picture quality, can you see the details clear or is it getting fuzzier than normal 2d ?.

With my earlier experience with 3d i found it hard to believe that i would see the difference between progressive or interlaced, but i haven't seen the "new" movies in 3d.

The new movies have full 1080p frame for both eyes. Avatar3d was at least very crisp most of the time. There are odd artifacts every now and then though. Like flickering, jerky pannings, focusing problems with eyes, loss of colours/brightness, etc(depends a lot on the display technology used, source material is good enough).

At least I became believer after seeing avatar3d. Before that I was of the opinion that 3d movies are just a gimmick giving me a headache and strained eyes. Had only seen some older 3d stuff on imax(some shark movie in barcelona) and amusment parks. Stuff like the muppets 3d in disney hollywood studios just plain sucks compared to avatar3d in proper movie theater.

 

[habbe]

Ok. Need to see that Avatar movie while it's still in theaters.

Anyway is there any smart solution to render progressive frames in games for 3d. I guess it wont be necessary to render a new frame from scratch. Maybe it's possible to reuse most of the left frame and just put another pass at it.

They should really include head movement when they are deploying this, so you can look around corners in 3d

 

[manux]

Ok. Need to see that Avatar movie while it's still in theaters.

Anyway is there any smart solution to render progressive frames in games for 3d. I guess it wont be necessary to render a new frame from scratch. Maybe it's possible to reuse most of the left frame and just put another pass at it.

They should really include head movement when they are deploying this, so you can look around corners in 3d

There are at least three popular 3d technologies used in movie theaters. There are differences between those technologies and the experience user gets. See avatar in IMAX 3d if possible, it should give the best experience. The other popular choices are RealD and XPand.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

There's Dolby 3D as well, it's using a method different from the rest; those rely on polarization, Dolby uses advanced color filters.

 

[patsu]

I watched Avatar yesterday with the Dolby 3D tech (in a cinema). For me, the most noticeable 3D effect is the HUDs in the control room. After a while, I forgot the movie was in 3D. The usual movie elements (story, character, effects, ...) were the main attraction. 3D didn't impress me as much, but it proved that the tech can be applied with zero fatigue.

The greatest annoyance is the weight of the glasses. It's uncomfortable at the beginning. I intend to watch the IMAX version when I am back in US. I was expecting a first-person, 90 degree dive down a cliff with full 3D effect, but it didn't come through strong enough (May be it's vomit inducing ).

May not be the right thread, but can anyone recommend a 3D compatible monitor ? What should I look out for besides HDCP and HDMI 1.3 (or above) ? DVI won't work right ?

This GAF thread has some info. Basically, look out for Acer, Samsung, Viewsonic and LG monitors (True 120Hz, HDMI 1.3 and above).

 

[patsu]

Pictures of Sony’s Active Shutter 3D Glasses:
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/01/...l-version-of-sonys-active-shutter-3d-glasses/

I hope they add an extra something (a reflective pattern ?) to optimize for accurate and efficient head tracking.

 

[MfA]

I wonder why that guy said it would cost $200-$400 ... is he just trying to stir up shit or is Sony going to fleece us? (There is nothing special about the tech in these glasses except that the shutters are some of the largest ones yet ... but LCDs in shutter glasses are extremely simple to produce, being slightly larger is not going to raise the cost of producing shutter glasses by an order of magnitude.)

 

[patsu]

Nah... other than the pictures, I won't take his words for it. I don't think he has access to any official or accurate pricing info.

 

[manux]

I watched Avatar yesterday with the Dolby 3D tech (in a cinema). For me, the most noticeable 3D effect is the HUDs in the control room. After a while, I forgot the movie was in 3D. The usual movie elements (story, character, effects, ...) were the main attraction. 3D didn't impress me as much, but it proved that the tech can be applied with zero fatigue.

The greatest annoyance is the weight of the glasses. It's uncomfortable at the beginning. I intend to watch the IMAX version when I am back in US. I was expecting a first-person, 90 degree dive down a cliff with full 3D effect, but it didn't come through strong enough (May be it's vomit inducing ).




This GAF thread has some info. Basically, look out for Acer, Samsung, Viewsonic and LG monitors (True 120Hz, HDMI 1.3 and above).

I believe that user would become rather frustrated with headache, strained eyes etc. if the whole movie was made with really in your face effects. I really liked the avatar3d where 3d was used to give real depth to the image and wasn't full of cheap tricks that get really old fast.

I have to say one also needs to be rather close the screen to have a proper 3d experience(which is not so good for home viewing if one is on limited budget/wife argument about decoration in living room)

 

[MfA]

Yah, 3D actually makes sitting front row a good thing (if your back and neck can handle the slouching). As I said before people with normal displays won't get too much out of 3D, only the computer gamers sitting relatively close to their monitors and the people with home cinema setups.

 

[manux]

Yah, 3D actually makes sitting front row a good thing (if your back and neck can handle the slouching). As I said before people with normal displays won't get too much out of 3D, only the computer gamers sitting relatively close to their monitors and the people with home cinema setups.

Well, there was announcement of that 72" vizio 3d television in CES. With only 4500$ price tag. That should make 3d usable for 2-3m viewing distance. But a lot of people just cannot afford it or place gigantic screen on living room due to decoration concerns.

 

[riverhong2010]

Well, a quick glance over the CES 2010 news seems to be that every TV manufacturer is using 60Hz shutter glasses for their 3D solutions. A decade-old technology that's almost guaranteed to cause headaches. Great... I guess 2010 isn't really going to be the year of 3D at home after all.

ol, true! just like everything else thrown around here. i just stay out of it, not worth caring about!