Optimizing 3D for TV's with passive glasses

[hesido]

Didnt know any console did active 3d, that would require 120hz

With active 3d, we mean 3d that requires shutter glasses, the input doesn't need to be 120hz, that should be handled by the TV. You could be looking at a slideshow and the TV would still operate at 120hz. I hope I understood you correctly.

 

[orangpelupa]

Not really. Most of Sonys games use frame packing, which essentially sends 2 720P framebuffers at 60Hz to the TV. Some use SBS or TB, halving the sent resolution (which is probably less, even before sending, anyhow).

they use frame packing but the resolution are not always 720p. It can be lower.
I think assassins creed 4 (or is it 3?) was using frame packing and lower than 720p resolution.

the picture quality took a nose dive when running on 3D. Jaggies everywhere. ouch.

 

[TheWretched]

Hence my commentary in paranthesis "which is probably less".

 

[Jedi2016]

they use frame packing but the resolution are not always 720p. It can be lower.
I think assassins creed 4 (or is it 3?) was using frame packing and lower than 720p resolution.

the picture quality took a nose dive when running on 3D. Jaggies everywhere. ouch.

I agree, AC3 looks like **** in 3D. Which is really a shame, because a game like that, with those environments and expansive vistas, would be absolutely incredible in proper 3D.

 

[hesido]

I agree, AC3 looks like **** in 3D. Which is really a shame, because a game like that, with those environments and expansive vistas, would be absolutely incredible in proper 3D.

I don't want to derail my own thread, just as a side note: the feeling of vastness in a vista is very easy to miss, if not done right. If they resort to artificially add distance between the virtual camera pair to create a difference between two views, they may end up making things looking like miniatures (much like unnecessary use of the DOF effect), totally destroying the size perception. This is probably because beyond 8-10 meters when looking at things far ahead with diverged eyes, the depth / size perception is normally handled by perspective and cues other than stereoscopic disparity. The difference between images on the retina for a vista is normally too little. Artificially inflating this only ruins this perception. A different approach is needed to give that sense (motion parallax, object in foreground, etc.) Just in case a game designer sees this, please take note

 

[MfA]

A dark room and a screen covering a large part of your field of view is the best way to convey vastness.

 

[Npl]

Regarding passive TV... I assume some of you are using LGs.
LG TVs seem to have seperate settings for 3D and non3D content - so say you carefully adjusted every setting to give you deep blacks, disable all latency and artefacts introducing options and set a 1:1 pixel matching while running 2D - still each time 3D mode will kick in all that will switched to a seperate bank of settings (the horrible defaults and non-gamey).

I did not know this for a long time, and the post processing made each game look slighty off now and then and nauseatingly bad the rest of the time including artefacts that did look not entirely unlike interlaced games that dropped frames. It looks alot better after fixing up the 3D settings to Game and 1:1 pixel mapping.

Apart from that, passive 3D > active all the way. The loss in resolution is nothing compared to the advantages, LCDs still have alot problems switching separate pictures 120 times a second for active 3D. Its nothing you can put easily in numbers like 1/2 the resolution but the image degradation is significant.
And I am one of those that dont like wearing 2 sets of glasses, so a passive clip is always welcome.

 

[orangpelupa]

a bit OOT, but i wonder is there a reason why 1080p passive 3d tv more expensive than 1080p active 3d tv?
for 720p, its the other way. Passive are cheaper.

i hope its not because LG in my country have weird business sense and artificially upped their 1080p passive 3d tv...
the series that sold here always different from those i found on amazon.com. The last one or two digit will be different or there will be additional alphabet prefix or suffix.

 

[tuna]

Apart from that, passive 3D > active all the way. The loss in resolution is nothing compared to the advantages, LCDs still have alot problems switching separate pictures 120 times a second for active 3D. Its nothing you can put easily in numbers like 1/2 the resolution but the image degradation is significant.

Everything I have tried have been the other way around.

 

[Arwin]

a bit OOT, but i wonder is there a reason why 1080p passive 3d tv more expensive than 1080p active 3d tv?
for 720p, its the other way. Passive are cheaper.

i hope its not because LG in my country have weird business sense and artificially upped their 1080p passive 3d tv...
the series that sold here always different from those i found on amazon.com. The last one or two digit will be different or there will be additional alphabet prefix or suffix.

The mere fact that your country still sells 720p tvs raises my suspicion you live in a non-typical country? Typically LG passive 3D tvs have been really cheap, but I haven't checked if that changed recently ...

 

[orangpelupa]

Aha! so its my country that weird. i kinda suspected that
thanks the info arwin.

@tuna
does passive 3dtv have stereo 3d option?
on my active 3d samsung tv, theres 3d option -2 to +2. It give almost no difference normally...

 

[patsu]

After I tried HMZ-T1's dual screen approach, I am not going back to passive or active 3DTV for gaming !

Once I adjust the visor correctly, it's almost like seeing with my own eyes. The key problem is comfort (Too heavy and too difficult to put it on correctly). Second is price.

EDIT: orangpelupa is from Indonesia ?

Orang pelupa = forgetful person ?

 

[orangpelupa]

those HMD compatible with 3D gaming on console? Doesn't that means.... you can't see some of the HUD?

At lease from what i understand from watching HMD videos on youtube, like Oculus Rift, the HUD on the corners wont be visible/hard to see.

about me,

Spoiler

yeah im in indonesia, and yes, that's a correct meaning

 

[patsu]

I don't remember any problem with GT5 in HMZ-T1.

I'll keep quiet now since the very shy Tritosine 5G sent yet another PM to me, but he doesn't want me to reveal his post.

 

[Lalaland]

That doesn't make any sense.

in 1080i you're only refreshing 540lines per 1/60 seconds

in 2*540p you're actually refreshing all 1080 lines every 1/60 seconds.

Getting half res doesn't translate to interlacing.


<Excellent explanation goes here>

Thus there shouldn't be a comb.

In 3D these images shouldn't be the same I acknowledge that but that isn't a reason for the combing effect either.


Note: A didn't work, I changed to using B and D instead

Thanks for explaining this to me it's clear I was completely missing the point. Does the down res to 540p hurt UI elements though?

 

[Jedi2016]

Does the down res to 540p hurt UI elements though?

Most UI elements are rendered at screen-depth, which means the left- and right-eye images match up perfectly. So the UI is effectively still being rendered 2D at 1080p. The glasses do introduce some aliasing to screen-depth layers (I honestly never quite understood why it does that, but it does), but never enough to cause a problem. I've never found myself not able to read something as a result of it, if that's what you're asking.

 

[hesido]

In light of vertical interlacing debate on Killzone, I'm bumping this thread and wanting devs to go with 540p renderings for each eye to accomodate passive 3D sets with minimal performance penalty compared to 1080p, as opposed to full 1080p renderings for each eye, as these sets won't display half of those lines anyway