During CES, Oculus revealed a new prototype -Crystal Cove- with camera/LED based 3d positional tracking, which is more similar to PS4 HMD than Rift.
Sony rumoured to be developing VR headset for PS4 *spawn
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
- Status
During CES, Oculus revealed a new prototype -Crystal Cove- with camera/LED based 3d positional tracking, which is more similar to PS4 HMD than Rift.
is there some computing algorithm used to show the 2 pictures at about the same resolution as the original image? Or will there have to be 2 image viewpoints calculated at half the resolution?
I remember I think the crysis guys saying a while back that there engine does 3d for free or close to it.
I remember I think the crysis guys saying a while back that there engine does 3d for free or close to it.
If you have access to z-buffer you can do fake 3d fairly cheaply but apparently it's not good enough for most devs.
They are definitely using gyroscopes, probably along with accelerometers and compass (magnetometer).
I wonder if it really works? I've seen PS3 3D on both a passive TV and active 3D (current model Sony Bravia*). Uncharted 3 on the active 3D TV has good depth but was pretty jarring with 'artefacts' and I had trouble relaxing into a comfortable 3D perception on. The same textures/surface renders modified across two perspectives sounds to me like it wouldn't be comfortable. Or at least it'd look like 2D cutouts and not a fully 3D space.
With experience of both 3Ds now, I think headsets are really necessary, both to give a decent effect that isn't jarring and to give it worth. 3D in current games is just kinda gimmicky, whereas in a headset with motion tracking it'll add complete immersion.
* Actually, I owned the active stereoscopic goggles on Sega Master System. It was very flickery! But worked well, although that was a static screen of a maze with a fixed camera which is a pretty ideal setup.
3D can be perfect with glasses, it just depends on the game. Games that work perfectly like Skyrim, BF3, Just Cause 2, Tombraider, Trine 2 etc.. won't have any artifacts at all and simply present you with the exact same scene you see in 2D expect in full 3D - and it can look absolutely spectacular. This is using "true" stereoscopic 3D though, i.e. rendering the entire scene twice from a different perspective for each eye. The Crysis 2/3 depth buffer approach which I presume most console games go with for performance reasons is no-where near as good and does indeed just add a little depth to the scene while giving objects at different depths a cardboard cut out like look.
PS4 at least sounds like it gets "true" 3D in Trine 2.
My "I wonder if it really works" statement was talking specifically about faked 3D as opposed to dual perspectives. True dual perspective rendering already has some issues making it unpleasant for plenty of people.
The issue is when you shift the viewpoint for the eyes, you simple don't have some of the pixels to render, so you have to fill the holes with something, it can look passable, but to me at least the artifacts are very visible.
The only right way to do it is render twice, and have no shaders that either don't write constant Z or assume they are in screen space.
There are almost no PC games that are artifact free with 3DVision, it renders the frame twice, but the patches don't usually resolve the shader issues.
Having said that with patches games like Skyrim look spectacular in 3D, with only a couple of remaining issues.
Uncharted 3 on PS3 was about the best example of how good it can look, since the dev actually spent time on the 3D version, rather than trying to retrofit it in the driver.
hesido
Regular
Sebbi was talking about error-metric driven re-projection, made possible (or easier?!) by next gen hardware... Also, you may not need to render all things things twice even if you didn't have a fancy re-projection tech, e.g. things that are further away than 6-8 meters, because that's about the limit of depth perception by having two "cameras" (eyes.) Anything further than that relies not on stereoscopic vision but by a few other criteria, because the parallax caused by having your eyes a few cm away from eachother is too low to provide any meaningful data at those distances (however, for cases when simulating convergence of the eyes, if that's at all a desirable thing, the distant view might be needed to be rendered larger and displaced for each eye, but you could even get away by blurring the edges probably, as you are meant to be focusing on a close object.)
In what sense? I can understand that games which have a significant (or even a little) amount of ghosting would bother some people to the extent where the problems outweighed the benefits but there are plenty of games out there where ghosting is virtually (or actually) non existent.
Trine 2 is a perfect example. The 3D in that game is utterly spectacular. I can't believe anyone would genuinely choose the 2D version of that game over the 3D version given a straight choice. Obviously there's the fact you have to wear glasses to experience the 3D but once you've seen that version of the game I'm sure you'd agreed that there's simply no question over whether it's worth it or not.
Of course the're the games which don't work with 3D like Assassins Creed 4 (a literal tragedy given the potential) but they wouldn't work any better with a headset because the issues are shader based like ERP alluded too.
The level of support in top tier games recently has been disappointing for sure.
Still, of all the recent games I've played I'd say a good percentage of them have had ALMOST flawless 3D. This is my current "games" menu in windows with the 3d support appended:
Assassins Creed 4 - NO
Batman Arkham City - YES
Battlefield 3 - YES
Crysis 2 (depth buffer based) - YES
Crysis 3 (depth buffer based) - YES
Command & Conquer 4 - NO
CM Dirt - YES
Farcry 2 - YES
GTA4 - KIND OF (with shadows off)
Just Cause 2 - YES
Star Trek Legacy - KIND OF (has issues, but holy shit if you're a Star Trek fan!)
Lego (all versions) - KIND OF
Max Payne 3 - YES
NFS: Hot Pursuit - NO
Skyrim - YES
Star Wars - Force Unleashed 1/2 - NO
Street Fighter 4 - YES
Tombraider (all versions) - YES
EDIT:a few more to add from my Steam Library and games shelf:
Worms Reloaded - NO
Lost Planet - KIND OF
Lost Planet 2 - YES (but such a shit game it doesn't count)
All console emulators - NO
Alan Wake - YES (despite officially being a no)
Pinball Arcade - YES
Trials Evolution - NO
Rage - NO
I presume you're referencing 3D at super high res with gobs of AA. The games I've seen on PS3 are low res. They have shimmering and edges that don't match, making it awkward to resolve objects sometimes. And that's just me. Friends complain of strained eyes and headaches with all forms of 3D including cinema 3D.
2.5D is certainly a less stressful experience on the eyes than full open 3D. I played Swords and Soldiers in 3D and the 3D was very good and stable, but it didn't actually add anything to the game. Similarly Assassin's Creed looked good in 3D, but it didn't change the experience. The requirement of wearing the glasses and the lower quality rendering is too much a cost for the gain for a lot of folk. My friends' 3D glasses sit in a drawer and aren't used.
If that's the case why do they need a camera too?
hesido
Regular
Probably the same reason why you need a camera for the move's, you can't pinpoint your 3d location using just accelerometers and gyroscopes.
I'be little interest in head mounted display done in the same way as occulus rift does it.
IMO it is too bulky, invasive, etc. I would bet the addressable market is on the verge of being too tiny to deserve to be named a niche.
Now gaming is one of the few fields where 3d makes a lot of sense, it did not take up for now (ps360 were not powerful enought, I would think the park of 3d enabled tv is still tiny, etc.) Though it might still be worth it to push the option.
In that context I would think that enhanced 3d glasses could prove a more bankable bet than virtual reality type of solution.
Blending Google glass and 3d glasses could prove interesting.
The glasses could display the hi ingames, track eyes movements, qugmented reality (or game, simulated worlds) etc. Time will tell but my bet is that VR solutions are still a geek pipe dream even if technology allows to make it sort of right, might find a place for some prfessiknal applications thought
IMO it is too bulky, invasive, etc. I would bet the addressable market is on the verge of being too tiny to deserve to be named a niche.
Now gaming is one of the few fields where 3d makes a lot of sense, it did not take up for now (ps360 were not powerful enought, I would think the park of 3d enabled tv is still tiny, etc.) Though it might still be worth it to push the option.
In that context I would think that enhanced 3d glasses could prove a more bankable bet than virtual reality type of solution.
Blending Google glass and 3d glasses could prove interesting.
The glasses could display the hi ingames, track eyes movements, qugmented reality (or game, simulated worlds) etc. Time will tell but my bet is that VR solutions are still a geek pipe dream even if technology allows to make it sort of right, might find a place for some prfessiknal applications thought
I'm usually playing at 1080p with whatever AA the game offers in it's menus - but not always the highest available as 3D alone is a performance killer. Plus for some reason you get a kind of supersampling effect with active 3D at least which makes the image look sharper that straight up 1080p. It's more noticable on 3D blu-rays than games though to be honest. Blu-Rays look insane in 3D - 4K quality more or less.
I can understand not wanting to further lower resolution on an already low res game for the sake of 3D though. Personally I'll sacrifice a lot for 3D but playing a game at 480p might be a step to far! Especially when playing on a 27" monitor from 2 feet away.
Generally it's just a visual addition however I'd argue that there are some circumstances where 3D genuinely can change the gameplay - specifically it can help in platformers in judging distance. In Tombraider for example I found quite a few situations where the game was easier because I was better able to judge a jump. Another example would be Skyrim which at night can be quite dark and grey which makes finding your way through dense woods or mountains a bit tricky. In 3D the it's easier to understand the landscape in poor light (or good light for that matter) making it easier to see that side path that could have been easily missed otherwise.
Still these are exceptions rather than the rule, generally it's just a visual addition albeit a huge one IMO - certainly bigger than the current generation graphics jump to my eyes.
It's interesting you mention Assassins Creed actually. I didn't have 3d for the first 4 (1 through Revelations) and then 3D Vision support was actually broken in 3 so I never got to experience it there either. 3DTV play worked fine but whatever form of 3D it's using is pretty crap compared with 3D Vision and the compromise of having to play on the smaller (in field of vision terms) TV without light boost (and thus darker graphics) made it not worth it.
AC4 though is really interesting. 3D Vision support is broke there too in that the shadows are completely borked and there's no option to turn them off in the game. However you can still get a feel for what the 3D would be like if you can look past the shadows for a few minutes. I tried it just last week and it really is amazing how much 3D can add to the visual experience. Some of the things it added were quite unexpected. For example the sheer size of the flag at the top of your ship. Sounds like a weird thing to notice but it's a good example of how you notice cool things in 3D that in 2D would have gone more or less ignored because of the sense of scale it provides. The same goes for the ship itself, you only really appreciate the true size of it in 3D. Or another example would be the swell of the sea, I never really appreciated how immense that could get until I could see the sea scape stretched out for Kilometers in front of me (from the top of the mast). The depth of the water is another good one, when standing on one of those little islands you can see the sea bed slope away into the depths when you stand on the shore looking out to sea. In 2D it's not something I paid much notice of but in 3D you really get a strong sense of hos steeply the land drops away and how deep the water gets, it was actually quite foreboding!
There a only so much that can be done, for a wide FOV with conventional optics you have to have a large screen, and space for the optics.
The camera gives them an absolute reference for position tracking, without it it's very hard to eliminate yaw creep.
- Status
Similar threads
