3D SsTcEoRpEiOc GAMES A comprehensive list; [PS3,PS4,XO,X360,WU,3DS]

Cyan said:
I can't wait for proper 3D support via HDMI 1.4, especially after reading this Digital Foundry article on the matter from the days of Avatar The Game -a good game if you ask me, I played it on a non 3D TV back then, sadly:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-stereo-3d-article
Click to expand...

Shame you couldn't see it in full resolution side by side stereoscopic 3D. Far Cry 2 which runs on the same engine looks SPEC-TAC-ULAR in proper 3D. It's like being right there in the jungle.
 
tuna said:
Why would a lower frame rate be ok forbade passive 3d display?
Click to expand...

On a passive 3d, half the lines are for your left eye, and half are for your right. But you always see something with both your eyes, there is no active shutter cutting out the picture for one of your eyes temporarily. So effectively, at 1920x1080@60fps, each eye is seeing 1920x540@60fps.

For active 3d, each eye gets 1920x1080@30fps, and each other frame is the eye being blocked. For this to be comfortable, most users report you need that 120fps.

Currently, software is not optimised for passive 3D, or the difference in performance requirements could be even greater, by rendering the screen for each eye at 1920x540 instead of 1920x1080p as I think it is now.

There's a clear resolution downside to the passive setup, but so far that drop in resolution is worth the benefits by a fairly long mile.
 
Arwin said:
For active 3d, each eye gets 1920x1080@30fps, and each other frame is the eye being blocked. For this to be comfortable, most users report you need that 120fps.
Click to expand...
Youve got that wrong you need 120fps for 1920x1080@60fps not 30
 
pjbliverpool said:
Shame you couldn't see it in full resolution side by side stereoscopic 3D. Far Cry 2 which runs on the same engine looks SPEC-TAC-ULAR in proper 3D. It's like being right there in the jungle.
Click to expand...
That would be really something! I wish I could play Far Cry 2 on 3D. I have the game on the Xbox 360 and I am going to check if it does feature 3D options, but it's likely it doesn't.

It would be a little diamond -if you know what I mean by using this play on words-, if the game features it, but I am not holding my breath.

I am just feeling too stuffed up, tired to further continue playing games this generation and I can't wait for next gen consoles to come out, where more proper 3D games should be a lot more common. HDMI 1.4 is going to be the standard and the technology is more mature now.
 
Arwin said:
On a passive 3d, half the lines are for your left eye, and half are for your right. But you always see something with both your eyes, there is no active shutter cutting out the picture for one of your eyes temporarily. So effectively, at 1920x1080@60fps, each eye is seeing 1920x540@60fps.

For active 3d, each eye gets 1920x1080@30fps, and each other frame is the eye being blocked. For this to be comfortable, most users report you need that 120fps.

Currently, software is not optimised for passive 3D, or the difference in performance requirements could be even greater, by rendering the screen for each eye at 1920x540 instead of 1920x1080p as I think it is now.

There's a clear resolution downside to the passive setup, but so far that drop in resolution is worth the benefits by a fairly long mile.
Click to expand...
That's what I fancy about passive 3D the most. I love the TV I have and purchased recently, I certainly love it to death, the image quality is just amazing in my eyes.

But I would have loved to purchase the Philips 32PFL5008T too, just to try passive 3D. My glasses are active, and it adds some extra hassle.

Besides that I purchased some new 3D glasses and found out that they didn't work, not to mention they use a clock battery which you have to replace every 4 hours. How bad is that? :???: :rolleyes: -they are going to give me a refund anyways-

Luckily for me the first active 3D glasses I purchased are pretty fine. They have a rechargeable battery -via USB- and they work well, have good depth and are comfortable.

I wanted to buy a new pair but I didn't choose the same model I had, and I regret having done that. I am going to purchase a more expensive -the faulty ones cost 36€, which is not a small amount of money- but more reliable pair next time around, with rechargeable batteries.
 
On PC at least, that Avatar game is still the benchmark for stereoscopy if you ask me. Looks quite a bit more convincing than FC2. I actually think it kinda needs the 3d. Looks really busy and kinda messy without it. The added depth perception separates elements that sort of blur together in 2d.

I don't think it's a good game though. Well, let's say it's better than most movie tie-ins at least.
 
First game I played in 3D was Shadow of the Colossus... I was actually kind of taken aback at how it really does feel like another dimension, not just a pop-out gimmick...

Didn't play it for very long like that (wasn't my TV), but if I could continue to try 3D I wouldn't mind it at all. That quite vivid amount of depth you get is kind of crazy... and cool.
 
Arwin said:
On a passive 3d, half the lines are for your left eye, and half are for your right. But you always see something with both your eyes, there is no active shutter cutting out the picture for one of your eyes temporarily. So effectively, at 1920x1080@60fps, each eye is seeing 1920x540@60fps.
Click to expand...

So what you want is basically interlaced 3D?
 
tuna said:
So what you want is basically interlaced 3D?
Click to expand...
Each eye sees a whole screen. You could consider it interlaced, but that's how passive works, and there's no visible striping (not on the set I saw, anyhow). The alternative is flickery active glasses.
 
It would still appear darker compared to regular 2D screen right ?

I remain a fan of dual screen setup, but yes they are more expensive; only suitable for 1 player visor-style.
 
patsu said:
It would still appear darker compared to regular 2D screen right ?

I remain a fan of dual screen setup, but yes they are more expensive; only suitable for 1 player visor-style.
Click to expand...

Yes, but these days TVs can be brighter than the sun to compensate, basically. I have to tone my cheap ass 27" LG (that supports passive 3D) down to maximum power saving to get it to the max brightness of my older 22" Samsung LCD. :LOL:
 
patsu said:
It would still appear darker compared to regular 2D screen right ?
Click to expand...

Unless you have Nvidia's Lightboost.

You also get a perceived resolution increase from active 3D - both on TV and computer graphics. Don't ask me to explain how it works but it's very real. 3D 1080p Blu-Ray on my TV looks closer to 4K than regular 1080p to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Poll
Do you see another game other than GTA VI winning 2025 GOTY at TGA?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Seanspeed
S
E
Xbox June Showcase 2024 (June 9th 10am PT / 1pm ET / 6pm BST)
10 11 12
Replies
220
Views
16K
Liandry
L
S
PS1 / PS2 resolution and framerate
Replies
10
Views
1K
davis.anthony
D
mr.necturus
Project Elanda free download
Replies
5
Views
634
mr.necturus
mr.necturus
Cyan
Official Songs of Conquest Thread (PC, consoles)
Replies
0
Views
275
Cyan
Cyan
Back
Top