Stereoscopic Revolution

[winstonsmith1978]

The whole rumor about Nintendo attempting stereoscopic 3D with the Revolution got me thinking. How would Nintendo attempt this? An OLED/LCD visor could work next generation, but way to expensive for this gen.

Then someone brought this to my attention.

http://www.nuvision3d.com/the60gx.html

So if the revolution output 60 - 120 fps, you would have 30 - 60 fps per eye. The glasses would allow you to use the TV you already own. Sync the glasses up with the Rev so that the left eye only sees the images from the virtual left camera and the right eye only sees the images from the virtual right camera.

You have a cheap version of a 3D display. This would also explain why Nintendo is against HD because they are more worried about pushing fps.

I think this is the same tech that George Lucas wants to use for 3D movies and I remember reading these glasses would cost about $20. I'll try and find the article.

Im just thinking out loud about what Nintendo's final secret could be. So what do you think?

 

[_xxx_]

Err, stereoscopic glasses have been around for like 10 years. I still own ELSA glasses I bought in 1999 and use them for some games (though not so much nowadays since nVidia is quite slow with the driver updates, the last version supporting 3D stereo was 78.01).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I had those for the Sega Master System in the mid-80s. Depth was good, but it did flickera good deal that took a while to get used to, and looked bad for anyone not wearing the specs! At 120 Hz it'd be smooth, except you'd need TVs that output 120 Hz...

 

[nintenho]

Why would you want this in a game though?

 

[bitwise xor]

I could imagine stereoscopic + headtracking + wand/controller being quite an awesome combination. But quite dangerous too I think . Maybe if they had transparent glasses where you saw mostly the real world and they rendered a minimal set of things on top of that. Do those exist?

 

[Megadrive1988]

Nintendo isn't going to even possibly delve into a high-quality stereoscopic 3D or VR system
(or some other radical immersion device) until Revolution's successor.
It's going to take time to perfect these technologies.

 

[Jabjabs]

Maybe if they had transparent glasses where you saw mostly the real world and they rendered a minimal set of things on top of that. Do those exist?

A canadian group are currently working on a technology like that, unfortunatly the current units are so big you have to ware them as back packs plus the system requires a set of diffrent cameras and a HUGe amount of processing power to work, in other words it ain't going to happen.

 

[StefanS]

Nintendo isn't going to even possibly delve into a high-quality stereoscopic 3D or VR system
(or some other radical immersion device) until Revolution's successor.
It's going to take time to perfect these technologies.

Nintendo isn't even going to touch VR with a stick, after the success they enjoyed with their VirtualBoy.

 

[_xxx_]

Why would you want this in a game though?

Because you really see everything in 3D. You can set it up so that the picture "floats" in the air between you and the monitor/TV, it gives you the illusion of being in there. Nothing better than that, if it was properly supported (regular driver updates) and if all games were full 3D (you'd wonder how much 2D stuff there is in even the most modern games, you only get to see that with 3D glasses - MaxPayne2 is a good example, half the stuff on the screen is just pseudo-3D) I'd never game without it.

DX, Q3, D3- and UE-based games are a totally different level of immersion with these. You have to try it yourself in order to get what I'm talking about.

 

[_xxx_]

Nintendo isn't going to even possibly delve into a high-quality stereoscopic 3D or VR system
(or some other radical immersion device) until Revolution's successor.
It's going to take time to perfect these technologies.

Stereo 3D has been here for ages, you can buy it today. If the game is properly programmed and your monitor delivers refresh rates >120 @given res = goodness.

 

[Danalys]

i don't really want the future of 3d to involve glasses that display the picture really. focusing up close aint good for your eyes. so prolonged use isn't a good idea. and if the system works well your going to want prolonged use. and the resolutions always going to be bad. so other options are the TVs that send the picture out at two different angles. you get reduced resolution with them. i just thought of a system where the display (normal tv or monitor) shows the images for each eye intermitently. then all that would be needed would be shutters in glasses when one is shut the other is open. they'd need to be in sync with the media; perhaps wifi comunication could be used for that. the shuttter would be best off being a transparent lcd turning black with charge (does that exist or am i just imagining it.)

 

[_xxx_]

i don't really want the future of 3d to involve glasses that display the picture really. focusing up close aint good for your eyes.

You wouldn't focus close to your eyes, because the picture should simulate the "real-world" distance. So you'd focus just like usual.

 

[_xxx_]

For those interested:

http://www.edimensional.com/index.php?cPath=21&ref=73
http://www.guru3d.com/stereo/general/

 

[Shifty Geezer]

i just thought of a system where the display (normal tv or monitor) shows the images for each eye intermitently. then all that would be needed would be shutters in glasses when one is shut the other is open. they'd need to be in sync with the media; perhaps wifi comunication could be used for that. the shuttter would be best off being a transparent lcd turning black with charge (does that exist or am i just imagining it.)

That's the product linked to at the beginning of the article, and what I used on Sega Master System. You're only 20 years late

As I said, the flicker is annoying so you'd need 120 Hz TVs, which don't exist and won't exist for decades as everything's stuck on 60 Hz and we won't have the BW to enable higher frequency content that warrants higher frequency displays.

 

[pc999]

I think that the main problem is price so it would be impossible to puta good onein a cheap console.

The I think this is the same tech that George Lucas wants to use for 3D movies and I remember reading these glasses would cost about $20. I'll try and find the article.

Howerver if this is true, then... (ie there is a change in a near future (-10 years))
BTW what kind of tech will they use for that.

 

[_xxx_]

everything's stuck on 60 Hz and we won't have the BW to enable higher frequency content that warrants higher frequency displays.

Don't confuse fps with refresh rate, though. You can have 5 fps but still 120 Hz rr.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you're switching between left and right images, you need to alternate the display. Thus you need a 120 Hz TV with 120 images per second to attain 60 Hz on each eye. A 120 Hz TV showing 60 FPS is going to have the same flicker as 60 Hz on the specs, as the left and right eyes on switch for each image change regardless of monitor refresh. An alternating left/right viewport is always going to run at half the output FPS.

If that makes sense.

 

[winstonsmith1978]

I just realized that refresh rate is more important being that this is what causes eye strain so i take take back my origional post. LCD shutter glasses won't work because most TV's are not up to the task.

So is an OLED visor the answer for the future? I'm not sure what the refresh rates are for an OLED visor like eMagins, does any one know? Like Megadrive1988 already said, This probably won't happen until next gen.

 

[OtakingGX]

I just realized that refresh rate is more important being that this is what causes eye strain so i take take back my origional post. LCD shutter glasses won't work because most TV's are not up to the task.

So is an OLED visor the answer for the future? I'm not sure what the refresh rates are for an OLED visor like eMagins, does any one know? Like Megadrive1988 already said, This probably won't happen until next gen.

OLEDs don't have the slow response time of LCDs. According to Pioneer you can have refresh rates up to 1000 times faster than an LCD. eMagin's displays, though, share a 60 Hz signal, so each little screen is refreshed at 30 Hz.

I'd say that shuttered/polarized glasses for 3D would be considered too gimmicky. A 3D HMD or glasses free 3D display would gain much more mainstream acceptance.

 

[3dcgi]

I think this is the same tech that George Lucas wants to use for 3D movies and I remember reading these glasses would cost about $20. I'll try and find the article.

I believe Lucas would use passive polarized glasses like they use at theme parks. It's much easier on the eyes than LCD shutter glasses and they're cheap to make. I think polarization has a better future than LCD shutter glasses if someone can ever manufacture polarized displays cheaply.