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

[patsu]

Yap !

 

[London Geezer]

I can too but only when not looking at the TV

 

[patsu]

I can notice the intensity of the screen kinda pulsate (quickly).

 

[3dcgi]

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.

Do you mean for active you need to render at 120 fps or refresh the screen at 120 Hz? The later I agree with but the former I disagree with. I've been playing 3D games with a 120 Hz refresh (60 Hz for each eye) and a fps between 30 and 60 and it looks awesome.

When I started shopping around I expected to get a passive display, but the ones I saw looked awful. I couldn't get past the crappy half resolution. Just posting my opinion so prospective buyers know to try each for themself.

 

[patsu]

Passive 3D is slightly easier on the eyes for me. The resolution difference is somewhat noticeable.

 

[pjbliverpool]

You can notice flicker at 60hz ?

The flicker when not looking at the screen is highly noticeable to me (assuming there is another light source in the room to highlight it) however its gone completely when looking at the screen. That's on either TV at 48(?)hz or PC at 120hz.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Do you mean for active you need to render at 120 fps or refresh the screen at 120 Hz? The later I agree with but the former I disagree with. I've been playing 3D games with a 120 Hz refresh (60 Hz for each eye) and a fps between 30 and 60 and it looks awesome.

For 60 fps in each eye though surely the GPU has to render 120 separate frames per second as the frames going to each eye are different? fps still gets reported at 60fps. But in reality 120 distinct frames have been rendered. You can prove this by switching 3D off and watching frame rates double. That's using 3D vision though. Other methods like those used by Crysis (reprojection?) certainly don't render every frame twice, but also look less convincing.

 

[Sigfried1977]

The flicker when not looking at the screen is highly noticeable to me (assuming there is another light source in the room to highlight it) however its gone completely when looking at the screen. That's on either TV at 48(?)hz or PC at 120hz.

In that case you don't really see the flicker though. The electric current powering the light bulb just happens do be out of synch with the frequency at which your panel flashes. It's essentially screen tearing, but with light bulbs.

Nvidias 3d vision solves this by allowing you to adjust the image frequency according to your surroundings. If I set my display to 100Hz (50 hz per eye), the flickering of the light bulbs disappears despite the lower refresh rate, because that's also the frequency at which the electric current switches.

 

[Arwin]

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.

This is true to some extent. If the 3D worked perfectly, the only extra information would be the depth, and that wouldn't necessarily make it sharper. But there is a little bit of inaccuracy that can give the impression, and of course for your eyes having the 3D information is still extra information.

One other downside of active, and reason why active is considered to be less bright/less good looking in terms of colors, is that the LCD pixels cannot go from full black to full white fast enough at 120hz, if I remember correctly. And there's the rechargeable glasses of course that are also more expensive. But then for passive, you're more sensitive to the viewing angle - as little as more than 15 degrees off can mess things up.

But definitely you do notice the resolution difference between Active and Passive 3D. Perhaps I should try one of the latest active 3D sets again to see how much things have improved now.

 

[pjbliverpool]

In that case you don't really see the flicker though. The electric current powering the light bulb just happens do be out of synch with the frequency at which your panel flashes. It's essentially screen tearing, but with light bulbs.

Nvidias 3d vision solves this by allowing you to adjust the image frequency according to your surroundings. If I set my display to 100Hz (50 hz per eye), the flickering of the light bulbs disappears despite the lower refresh rate, because that's also the frequency at which the electric current switches.

Yeah, that never seems to work for me you, guess I just have weird frequency lights!

 

[pjbliverpool]

One other downside of active, and reason why active is considered to be less bright/less good looking in terms of colors, is that the LCD pixels cannot go from full black to full white fast enough at 120hz, if I remember correctly. And there's the rechargeable glasses of course that are also more expensive. But then for passive, you're more sensitive to the viewing angle - as little as more than 15 degrees off can mess things up.

I've never noticed any issue with colours on the TV although brightness is certainly a problem there, generally watching 3D movies in the daylight is out. Colours though, in face every aspect of image quality is spectacular - much better than regular 1080p on the same TV.

The monitor strangely is the opposite, brightness is no issue there thanks to lightboost but the colours do get noticeably changed. It's more just different than worse though although you could argue it's further from the artists original intention and thus worse.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Yeah, that never seems to work for me you, guess I just have weird frequency lights!

It does work for me, but the 50 Hz refresh rate tends to give me a splitting headache after awhile, so it's not of much use for me either.

 

[Sigfried1977]

One other downside of active, and reason why active is considered to be less bright/less good looking in terms of colors, is that the LCD pixels cannot go from full black to full white fast enough at 120hz, if I remember correctly.

True, and that's why I'd advice anyone looking for a big and also affordable 3d tv to look into Plasma panels. The sub pixels on Plasma panels respond insanely fast. Like tens of thousands of times faster than LCDs. 3d on Plasma panels looks fantastic.

 

[pjbliverpool]

True, and that's why I'd advice anyone looking for a big and also affordable 3d tv to look into Plasma panels. The sub pixels on Plasma panels respond insanely fast. Like tens of thousands of times faster than LCDs. 3d on Plasma panels looks fantastic.

That'll explain my situation then. TV= Plasma, Monitor=LCD.

 

[tabs]

I don't understand the point of this thread. Could someone explain it to me?

I was very excited to see a dedicated stereo3D thread as I've been gaming with the tech for the last 10 years (many years prior to 3D vision).

It seems though that the OP wants a list of games that were designed with 3D in mind. What quantifies that? Native support? Native support for both nVidia and AMD hardware?

In my fairly hefty experience in stereo gaming, some of the absolute best games to play in 3D just happened to work great, and weren't designed for it at all. Conversely you have games like Crysis 2 which would put people off 3D if they thought that was all it was capable of.

I don't want to make a list of "REAL" 3D games if that list is littered with stuff that isn't a good advert for the tech. I'd rather have a list of games that are amazing in 3D. Trouble with that is.. we already have quite a few of those on the internet and there's not a great deal of point in another one... is there?

edit> Doh, just noticed the discussion evolved beyond the first page (didn't see there were a pages 2 and 3 when I posted)

 

[tabs]

I'm getting a W1080ST 3D projector tomorrow, with DLP link glasses the following day. Really looking forward to seeing lifesize 3D on a 120" screen.

Very sad about the 1080p/24hz limit, but I couldn't wait any longer to get a 3D capable projector. I'll still get 720p/60hz for smoother gaming, but it's damned annoying. I know the machine is capable of it but the HDMI boffins in their infinite wisdom thought that 24 frames per second was quite enough thank you. Arseholes.

 

[tuna]

Very sad about the 1080p/24hz limit, but I couldn't wait any longer to get a 3D capable projector. I'll still get 720p/60hz for smoother gaming, but it's damned annoying. I know the machine is capable of it but the HDMI boffins in their infinite wisdom thought that 24 frames per second was quite enough thank you. Arseholes.

Bandwidth limitations. The world does not hate you.....

 

[3dcgi]

For 60 fps in each eye though surely the GPU has to render 120 separate frames per second as the frames going to each eye are different? fps still gets reported at 60fps. But in reality 120 distinct frames have been rendered. You can prove this by switching 3D off and watching frame rates double. That's using 3D vision though. Other methods like those used by Crysis (reprojection?) certainly don't render every frame twice, but also look less convincing.

That's why I was asking for clarification. I use 120 Hz refresh (60 Hz for each eye) yet my content isn't updated at that rate so every refresh isn't a different image. The refresh is what needs to be high not the fps. Though what fps provides acceptable smoothness obviously depends on the game.

 

[London Geezer]

True, and that's why I'd advice anyone looking for a big and also affordable 3d tv to look into Plasma panels. The sub pixels on Plasma panels respond insanely fast. Like tens of thousands of times faster than LCDs. 3d on Plasma panels looks fantastic.

You'd think so, but from personal experience, while 3D Bluray movies (from my PS3) looks absolutely amazing - in my eyes better than most cinemas I go to - 3D gaming (also from my PS3) is pretty much unusable because of the crosstalk effect. Very strange that this would happen only while gaming and not during movies. So to me, crosstalk + inherent lower IQ of 3D games means I much rather play games like Uncharted 3 or even Zen Pinball in 2D.

 

[tabs]

Well, gaming and movie watching in 3D on a 120" screen with zero ghosting is quite the experience.

Up til now I've been using 3DVision since it came out, and nvidia 3D drivers with eDimensional goggles before then. Since my new projector (and all HDMI 1.4 displays) will only support 3DTV Play and not 3DVision, I was interested to find the optimum mode for gaming, so I tried these:

• 3DTV Play - 720p 60hz frame packed
• 3DTV Play - 1080p 24hz frame packed
• Tridef Side by Side - 1080p 60hz
• Tridef Top and Bottom - 1080p 60hz

The worst was easily 1080p24. It's just not responsive enough for any kind of gaming. Even moving the cursor on the desktop is a painful experience. Fine for watching movies but that's it.

720p60 3DTV Play was pretty much what you'd expect it to be if you've used a 3D vision system in the past at the 720p resolution, besides of course the obvious benefits of a giant screen and no ghosting.

Tridef side by side is next up, but I'm still not sure if it's really better than 720p. It has slightly more resolution coming in at 50% of the full 1080p, rather than the 46% of 720p, but the pixels are no longer square. I'll need to test further but I can't do that for a little while now.

For some reason the top/bottom mode looked a hell of a lot nicer to my eyes than side by side. I tried several genres of games, including Painkiller, Grid 2 and Starcraft 2, and they all looked much cleaner and less blocky.

This surprised me a bit, as I'd assumed that the effect of having two views being merged by the brain would provide something like 1x2 supersampling antialiasing, horizontally, therefore losing the horizontal resolution would be more preferable than losing vertical. Perhaps my understanding is off.

I'm stuck with no 3D for a bit now, the glasses I had failed after a day of use and they're already on their way back to the manufacturer. I did get to watch 'The Croods' in 3D before they died and it was pretty great, occasionally jaw dropping. Way better than the cinema.