3D Gaming

[andrewman~SPARTA~]

I took a look at 3D TV the other day, it helped while away the time that my wife was shopping. I was impressed with the active shutter system on a 40" Sony, I actually didn't expect it to be so good. The football scenes made the depth of perspective extremely real - granted I was but 5' from the screen.

 

Got me thinking about the future of gaming, will it dive head-long into 3D - I noticed that OCUK have some 3D systems at around £2.5K. Not certain what made the system 3D - the monitor had a 120mhz refresh - which would translate to 60mhz for each eye - which seems poor by todays standards.

 

It will be driven by content? Any thoughts?

Edited August 26, 2010 by andrewman~SPARTA~

[MH6~SPARTA~]

I've always wanted to try out Nvidia's 3D Vision system. No luck so far though. Supposedly it supports a decent number of games (see here)

 

But yes, like game consoles, it will be driven by content. The coolest toy in the world is worthless if you can't use it.

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

3D is the new fad of the future, much like flat-screen tvs were 3-4yrs ago. Once prices go down a few notches, you will start to see it explode in every media content. They've already started making 3d cameras for photography, and people are wondering about my industry and how it will change in the next few years.

 

 

As for gaming, I remember "The Glove" that Nintendo came out with a long time ago. It was neat, expensive, but only a few games could play with it. Most anything will be content driven. That being said, it's much easier to do with 3d nowadays than a few years ago.

[Batwing~SPARTA~]

It is a growing technology.

 

I think it will have some solid evolution, but is young at the moment and very expensive like any other fresh technology.

 

As DVDs when they came out, were expensive and took a while to have them on the mainstream distribution, eventually will get there.

 

About the 120 Hz, I do believe that is the requirement for 3D. The fact there are TVs with higher refresh it doesn t really helps.

 

Don't forget an important concept, your limit is the human eye perception.

 

First of all, remember that all of the shows you watch either on TV or cinema are shot at 29,5 or 30 FPS. They look great, don t they?

Human eye cannot see further 30 FPS, which also open a great debate about why we are constantly looking for high FPS on our games. Concept of "fluidity" becomes totally a persoonal pont of view, because your eye cannot see a difference between 30 FPS and 60 and/or 80 or above.

What the human eye catch immediately is the lowest FPS (when performance falls below 30) and translate it in a stuttering feeling, not omogeneous fluid experience.

 

So, to quickly recap:

 

1 - 120 Hz is the requirement to split the picture in 2 layers and be sure they are fast enough to be seen by human eye, however, faster thhan that, doesn t help

 

2 - Human eye ready a constant flow of 30 FPS but is very sensitive whhen it comes to slow frames (below 30), which should translate our search for high performances NOT into the highest FPS possible, but into the Highest LOW FPS possible, to ensure that also under max stress the performance does not drop below 30 FPS

 

3 - A monitor or TV refresh rate is a technical limit to how many FPS you can show on it without picture degradation. Older devices were capped at 60 Hz (60 FPS) refresh rate. This is good for standard (not 3D) content. Broodasted content is not broadcasted at any faster speed than that (but 3D), so any 60 HZ is still good to watch any kind of show. The foolish marketing information that 120 Hz show better "faster" and "alive" interaction like Sports and Action movies, is misleading. Is a mix of other performances on a video device that may ensure highe video quality and sharp image, not the HZ performance per se.

 

4 - When you apply too many FPS to a device capped with a limit, you get a worst picture, not better. Giving 90 FPS to a monitor unable to process more than 60 (60Hz), your picture quality degrades, showing tearing, which is a horizontal line in the middle of the screen, when you pan Left/Right. This is due to the fact the monitor/TV cannot refresh correctly that amount of info (too many FPS going over the capped limit).

[EMT~SPARTA~]

I personally think 3d should stay in the movies. With 3D you have to pay more for a video card that is basically putting out 2 screens. And I bet ya 3d games will cost way more. I say no to 3d.

[MH6~SPARTA~]

I personally think 3d should stay in the movies. With 3D you have to pay more for a video card that is basically putting out 2 screens. And I bet ya 3d games will cost way more. I say no to 3d.

 

3D games? They'll cost the same they cost now. It won't require a new media format, like Blu-Ray or anything.

 

Also, the video card is not the issue; hell I bet half the people in Sparta already have a card that can output the required 3D frames needed by Nvidia's system (anything later than GeForce 8 I believe). I know I do. After all, the card isn't rendering two screens simultaneously, it's rendering them in sequence. So, the "left" portion of the scene (what you'd see with your left eye) renders, and is only visible to your left eye because the right shutter on the glasses closes. Then the shutter opens, the left one closes, and the "right" portion of the scene is rendered. So it's rendering the scene twice, sequentially, resulting in 60Hz for each eye (which is more than enough).

 

The real issue is that you have to buy a 120Hz LCD screen, which most people don't have. Still, I found an Acer 3D Vision ready monitor, with 120Hz, 23.6" display and 2ms response time for like $350.

 

Now I just need to decide whether I want Nvidia 3D vision or ATI triple-monitor Eyefinity...

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

I'll buy a 3d monitor when they figure out how to do it without having goofy glasses on

 

Right now my drinking habit is a good substitute.

[custard~SPARTA~]

It's the glasses thing that bugs me about 3D, sure for film and games it's maybe viable as long as content is good and the initial high prices drop but for mainstream TV no way.

[MedicSN6]

Can't we be content with TrackIR?

[SkeleTele~SPARTA~]

I like durkas idea

[andrewman~SPARTA~]

I think it will add to FPS, the depth of the perspective will bring the streets and fields to life. Sorta agree about goofy glasses, but we all use head-sets, so maybe we could mod the glasses. I can only see it adding to trackIR.

 

I can't find any info on the Nvidia 3D system, what it entails in terms of equipment etc. any links.

[Lightspeed~SPARTA~]

3d glasses were tested about 5 years ago on Ghost Recon and apparently the result was brilliant to the point that you felt like you physically had to duck under trees bcoz you thought you might hit the branches.

 

http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/3D-ati-review.htm

[Hajimoto]

It is a growing technology.

 

 

 

Excellent post Batwing. I know a considerable amount on this topic and it was truly refreshing to read a complete

post that describes the technology rather than some of the rush to publish half-ass information because the

poster is a lazy author.

 

Kudos

[Batwing~SPARTA~]

Thanks Haji

[Athlon64~SPARTA~]

I put up a post on this about a month ago, check it out. Its suppost to real good! Its all in the fourms, look and you will see.

http://www.legionofspartans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6628

Edited August 27, 2010 by Athlon64~SPARTA~

[andrewman~SPARTA~]

Sorry I missed that post Athlon, very informative. I have viewed the 3D TV personally and was impressed.

[CoBoL~SPARTA~]

Give me a shout when holographic games come about, I may be interested.