3D Gaming*
- Thread starter Arwin
- Start date
grandmaster
Veteran
Housemarque confirms full 720p stereo 3D rendering for Super Stardust 3D: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/super-stardust-3d-720p120-confirmed-article
If I understand the HDMI spec correctly, it's basically outputting 1280x1440@60Hz, with the framebuffer cut in half and beamed to each eye.
If I understand the HDMI spec correctly, it's basically outputting 1280x1440@60Hz, with the framebuffer cut in half and beamed to each eye.
So 120Hz update on the TV, 60 Hz each eye. That's impressive! Flicker will be no worse than the old CRTs, and without strobing, shouldn't be a problem for most people I'd have though.
Now that almost justifies getting a 3D tv.....
Seriously, a 60Hz CRT was bad for everyone's eyes, which is why the suggested standard was 75Hz but the more the better. With shutter glasses it's even worse IMHO because all your vision for the given eye is blacked out, not just the screen... It is like a strobe. It might even cause a headache on top of eye strain even with a movie, not to mention 3-4 hours of gaming...
Did the original superstardust have full 1080p60Hz or did it use some lower resolution framebuffer? If it did have 1080p60 framebuffer lowering the resolution should have given them good start to making 3d rendering work.
Even if the game outputs 2*720p@60Hz the tv can show the content in 240Hz(120frames per second for both eyes). And there was already info on this thread that 240Hz eyeware is reality rather than fiction. I think it is just a matter of buying the Right tv which might not be cheap in the beginning. But then, what early adopter stuff is cheap?
if they can do 2x1280x720 then they can also do a true Full HD version now
all this work is for a Stardust HD 2 or for a patch?
Yeah, that's right, but I wonder how many people will be smart enough to check this detail. If it really starts to give them headaches and sore eyes, then it won't be such a good start for 3D.
And about early adopting, once again it's tech that's a decade old (at least with regards to CRTs), it's not like the manufacturers needed some huge R&D investment to get it to work... that'll only be the next step. It's like they're trying to sell at least two waves of 3D enabled TVs, or make room for premium models - as it's been with 720p and 1080p sets.
Arstechnica guys are not too impressed from 3d after going to ces.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/01/3d-tv-is-coming-ready-or-not.ars/1
some selected quotes
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/01/3d-tv-is-coming-ready-or-not.ars/1
some selected quotes
It took quite a bit of R&D to get LCDs to 240 Hz for Sony and Samsung (the others aren't really 240 Hz AFAIK). Panasonic wants to do 3D with plasma next year, without halving the resolution, which will mean quite an upgrade to the technology ... they will need to increase the speeds to at least 1152 subfields/s for 72 Hz per eye, almost double the present rate.
There are enough new pieces that I would call it early adopter stuff. 1080p, blu-ray and 240Hz technology combined with an high price tag. I think it's convinient to include 3d to tv's at this point of time as the display technology seems to be good enough. I doubt many crt's could ever have done 1080p@240Hz.
I guess at least sony 3d tv's will be in the higher end of the scale putting a pretty high price tag. Anyone buying a 2.5ke+ tv without studying it is insane and almost deserves to get robbed out of his money. I know this happened to one friend of mine buying 3ke pioneer for blu-ray without realising it didn't support 24p input. He was then asking me what is wrong on his ps3 as the movies have jerky pannings
he wasn't too happy after I explained 24p.I would put a rule of thumb here which I expect to be pretty universally known, cheap stuff is cheap for reason and never buy 1st gen stuff if you want it to work(be it cars, tv's or whatever)
grandmaster
Veteran
That's a good point. As I understand it, the engine for their new zombie game was ported into the Stardust code to allow for the double-framebuffer. I'm guessing "patch" for now.
grandmaster
Veteran
It was 1280x1080.
Dear random tech head...
One thing I'm still confused about and maybe you, with a better understanding of this technology can help me a little.
Why is it that you can go to a theater and wear a flimsy pair of polarized glasses (not blue & red, just dark and slightly darker) to get the 3d experience but TV's require shutter glasses operating at a certain frequency?
I remember hearing something about movie theaters using 2 projectors that are offset to get the result but its still just an image on the screen correct? Theaters are basically using 2 separate feeds, so why cant that be mimicked?
Sincerely,
Still confused about 3d tech...
One thing I'm still confused about and maybe you, with a better understanding of this technology can help me a little.
Why is it that you can go to a theater and wear a flimsy pair of polarized glasses (not blue & red, just dark and slightly darker) to get the 3d experience but TV's require shutter glasses operating at a certain frequency?
I remember hearing something about movie theaters using 2 projectors that are offset to get the result but its still just an image on the screen correct? Theaters are basically using 2 separate feeds, so why cant that be mimicked?
Sincerely,
Still confused about 3d tech...
Sigfried1977
Legend
I think the theaters that use the method with circular polarized glasses also have a special silver coated screen for it to work, and these things are mad expensive. Hyundai did show off screens that work with glasses like that on last years Cebit. They were basically regular FullHD LCD tvs, but the glass over the panel was polarized for every second row of pixels. Effectively this method cuts the resolution in half and the smaller one was still €6500.
You know about polarised light, right? I'll assume so although just ask if not. In the cinema, they can project two images of different polarities. The glasses filter out the images, so each eye only sees one image. For polarised light to work ina TV, you need a polarising display, which adds costs. I've read (not extensively!) different things about how much this can cost. One solution worked with just a film behind the LCD I think, but results were said to be poor.
In contrast, shutter tech can work with any display. You just want a faster refresh to elliminate flicker, but I used 25fps shutter glasses (50fps total) on a SEGA Master System and though flickery, it worked well and I became acclimatised.
In contrast, shutter tech can work with any display. You just want a faster refresh to elliminate flicker, but I used 25fps shutter glasses (50fps total) on a SEGA Master System and though flickery, it worked well and I became acclimatised.
I guess shutter tech is the best compromise with home TVs since they will have to display both 2D and 3D, and it keeps costs under control. I've never used them, so I'm really not sure how I feel about them. I've read a lot of underwhelming feedback about the 3D displays at the show. After seeing Avatar, I actually got kind of excited about 3D, but I don't want to be an early adopter with 3D that maybe isn't that great.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Nvidia's Shutter glasses work great. It only gets a little problematic when games are overly bright (Mirror's Edge is a prime example) as the the shutters don't block the light 100% and you get a bit of a ghost image affecting the wrong eye.
You can build this in your home right now ... all you need is two projectors, a "silver" screen and some circular polarizing films. Circular polarization is just not a technique which can be easily achieved on a flat display (unless you interleave, which causes pixel gaps and halves the resolution).
Linear polarization can be done with LCD displays, but if you tilt your head you get crosstalk.
