AMD polls gamers on stereoscopic 3D gaming

[Crossbar]

3D gaming has been mentioned in the "predict next generation consoles" thread and there seems to be serious attempts by TV manufacturers and Hollywood movie studios to introduce a 3D experience using new technology.

Intel has also shown interest in the technology and here goes AMD.

AMD, Blitz Games and Meant to be Seen are polling gamers on their perception of stereoscopic 3D technology and its use in videogames.

Users are invited to take part in an online survey with 60 prizes on offer for those taking part, donated by sponsors which also include The Game Creators, Guild Software and iZ3D.

"While we are already very excited about stereoscopic 3D gaming, we want to know what gamers think", offered John Swinimer of AMD.

Preliminary results will be shared at the 3D Entertainment Summit on December 1, with the poll closing January 1, 2009.

The poll can be found here and you can become a member to take part in the poll here.

 

[Gubbi]

The big (and unsolved) problem with stereoscopic rendering is that the images are projected on a screen at a fixed distance (from your face to the TV/monitor). This means that the plane of focus is at a fixed, short distance.

Looking, at things that either pop out in front of the screen, or sink into the screen automatically causes your eyes to refocus at the perceived distance, and the image becomes blurred and the illusion ceases.

I had the Asus 3D LCD gogles when the GeForce launched. It was fun playing QuakeWorld in proper 3D for 20-30 minutes at a time, more than that and I would get a splitting headache from the eye strain.

Cheers

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Yeah, the problem with 3D glasses turns out that part of the mechanism that your brain uses to build up a 3D model of the world around it includes where your eyes are focussed. Because your eyes are always focussed on the glasses right in front of your eyes, your brain never gets the correct visual information from where your eyes are focussed, and 3D immersion is impossible.

That headache is just as much caused by the perceived incorrect visual feed as the physical close focus eyestrain.

 

[Crossbar]

The big (and unsolved) problem with stereoscopic rendering is that the images are projected on a screen at a fixed distance (from your face to the TV/monitor). This means that the plane of focus is at a fixed, short distance.

Looking, at things that either pop out in front of the screen, or sink into the screen automatically causes your eyes to refocus at the perceived distance, and the image becomes blurred and the illusion ceases.

I had the Asus 3D LCD gogles when the GeForce launched. It was fun playing QuakeWorld in proper 3D for 20-30 minutes at a time, more than that and I would get a splitting headache from the eye strain.

Cheers

Interesting, but I guess the problem you describe would become less of an issue the further away from the eyes that the screen is located, I mean my eyes don´t try to refocus when a camera is panning from close to far away objects while I´m watching a movie.

 

[AzBat]

That Wii 3D head tracking/desktop VR display project posted awhile back seems like a more plausible direction.

Tommy McClain

 

[Gubbi]

Interesting, but I guess the problem you describe would become less of an issue the further away from the eyes that the screen is located, I mean my eyes don´t try to refocus when a camera is panning from close to far away objects while I´m watching a movie.

You don't try to refocus because it wouldn't do any good. The blurred details are blurred because they are outside the camera's focus plane. Your eyes just perceive the blurred background as something inherently without detail.

You ideally want the projection screen to be the same distance away as the peceived distance. This is hard in movies, because you have great vistas and you have closeups, often within the same shot.

Increased light levels help because the eye functions as a camera, with increased light levels you have a narrower aperture (your pupils contract) and you perceive detail further away from the focus plane.

I went to the T2 3D thing at Universal studios in Hollywood back in '99. The sequence was very dark and gritty with terminators roaming the future battlefield, - at one point a gargantuan gun appears in front of your face. I had a real hard time getting that to look right, simply because the gun popped so much out in front of the screen. I had the opposite experience last summer when I went and saw an IMAX safari movie, part of it in 3D. Everything popped without strain, simply because the scenes were shot under midday African sun.

Cheers

 

[Simon F]

This has been previously discussed

One of the limitations was that the brain automatically links focal depth to the convergence of the eyes and these are not correct with those old devices and so the stereo effect is not exactly convincing.

Kurt Akeley gave a talk at Graphics Hardware 2003 called "The Forgotten Cue" which described some experiments with a display that is less of a "head mounted display" and more of a "display mounted head". The image presented to each eye was constructed from 3 different sources at increasing distances that were summed (IIRC) using half-silvered mirrors.

I had a quick search but can't find any online notes but it may be in his 2004 thesis.

I've just tracked down a paper on this if anyone is interested.

 

[Gubbi]

I've just tracked down a paper on this if anyone is interested.

Good stuff. I bet Nvidia and AMD would love to sell hardware to people who needs two 6400 x 6400 pixel channels each with 3 viewports

Cheers

 

[Crossbar]

I went to the T2 3D thing at Universal studios in Hollywood back in '99. The sequence was very dark and gritty with terminators roaming the future battlefield, - at one point a gargantuan gun appears in front of your face. I had a real hard time getting that to look right, simply because the gun popped so much out in front of the screen. I had the opposite experience last summer when I went and saw an IMAX safari movie, part of it in 3D. Everything popped without strain, simply because the scenes were shot under midday African sun.

Cheers

I recently saw two IMAX 3D movies at Kennedy Space Center and some scenes were really convincing, almost made me want to reach out and grab stuff in the space station scenes. I did not experience any strain that I can remember, the films were about 40 minutes long IIRC.

I thought some of the computer generated intro-scenes were the most OMG ones with stuff flying all around you.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Will LCD shutter glasses work with a standard LCD TV with a refresh rate of 60Hz? from what ive heard the TV must be 120Hz for some reason. If new TVs would need to be bought it would be a no-go for the next consoles for obvious reasons.

If not im guessing headsets with colour LCDs for each eye would be the other option. It would be expensive though and limit the budget for the hardware within the console itself. Are the curren LCD headsets any decent in terms of picture quality?

 

[3dcgi]

I went to the T2 3D thing at Universal studios in Hollywood back in '99. The sequence was very dark and gritty with terminators roaming the future battlefield, - at one point a gargantuan gun appears in front of your face. I had a real hard time getting that to look right, simply because the gun popped so much out in front of the screen. I had the opposite experience last summer when I went and saw an IMAX safari movie, part of it in 3D. Everything popped without strain, simply because the scenes were shot under midday African sun.

I think the problem with theme park 3D is they pop things out of the screen too much. I have much less eye strain when objects don't come close to me.

I'm hoping better technology than LCD shutter glasses gains traction. I'd prefer polarized glasses or better yet no glasses.

 

[3dcgi]

Will LCD shutter glasses work with a standard LCD TV with a refresh rate of 60Hz? from what ive heard the TV must be 120Hz for some reason. If new TVs would need to be bought it would be a no-go for the next consoles for obvious reasons.

If not im guessing headsets with colour LCDs for each eye would be the other option. It would be expensive though and limit the budget for the hardware within the console itself. Are the curren LCD headsets any decent in terms of picture quality?

You want 120 Hz with LCD shutter glasses so you have 60 Hz for each eye. A lower refresh rate than this is more likely to lead to eye strain. You don't technically need 120 Hz though.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I used LCD shutters glasses on the Sega Master System, PAL. 25 Hz was very flickery, but when you settled down, it wasn't a problem and the depth was very good. Unfortunately it was a mess for spectators! That limits its appeal.

 

[thatdude90210]

I had the H3D glasses, and I remember using the Wicked 3d eyescream drivers. I don't remember it being all that impressive... more of a novelty that got stuffed in the closet after awhile. I'm not going for that again.

Btw, NBC will be doing some sort of 3D promotion during the Superbowl. They'll be passing out 150 million "3D glasses" (no idea what type, blue/red? polarized?). And then the following night, they'll be doing a 3D episode of "Chuck."

 

[Simon F]

Btw, NBC will be doing some sort of 3D promotion during the Superbowl. They'll be passing out 150 million "3D glasses" (no idea what type, blue/red? polarized?). And then the following night, they'll be doing a 3D episode of "Chuck."

Errr. Do you mean shutter glasses because they surely can't be polarised without everyone getting new TVs!

 

[alt_nick]

I can't see goggles ever making a comeback.

Parallax barriers and lenticular lenses seem to be getting there, though. Seeing my first 8-view lenticular lensed display a few weeks back was delectable.

I'd buy a screen with a switchable parallax barrier straight away if I could get my hands on one and if they could get 2D to display properly on a lenticular lens I'd kill for one

 

[Color me Dan]

I've noticed that most of the 3D solutions in existence today rely on the fact that you probably have two perfectly healthy eyes. I know people who only have one eye for example, I dunno how glasses wearing people are to come by but I see the people with perhaps only one good eye to be at a disadvantage. Glasses issue can be solved, but why decide on tech that excludes a (admittedly small) group of people from the joys of games and movies? Isn't their any technology that reach the same goal without leaving anyone out of the loop?

I'm not very knowledgeable on the different techniques so I don't know how much of an economic hit other more one eyed friendly solutions would be. Just a thought anyway. The reason I bring it up is because someone I know recently lost their left eye, and I kinda forgot and showed her a 3d image she couldn't see. "Just cross your eyes until both images me..." Aaaawkward

 

[Entropy]

I've noticed that most of the 3D solutions in existence today rely on the fact that you probably have two perfectly healthy eyes.

Well, stereoscopic perception does require two healthy eyes. I should know, having suffered from cataracts in both my eyes, making me progressively one-eyed on first one, and then the other eye (a couple of years after the first operation).
Most of the time I did surprisingly well, experience lets you compensate for your lack of depth perception, but you sometimes get fooled by staircases, sidewalks and such, or embarrassingly pour liquid content in front of or behind the container.

BTW, count me as a big proponent of true stereoscopic visualization. I first got in touch with it some 25 years ago on Evans&Sutherland vector terminals, and have respected its utility ever since.