3D PS2?

[SgtMAD]

found this on the twitter machine


http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-no-glasses-d-technology-showcase-ces.html

so they say they can convert any video signal into 3D instantly,the article even says PC games.

3D shooters have to be the future anyway,then it will be total VR LOL

[Vash02]

I could get PS1 on 3D with the NVIDIA glasses. Was good but hard on the eyes.

[Traak]

I don't know why they don't have high (as in, 1920 X 1080) definition glasses so you see nothing, I mean, NOTHING but the world you are in. I mean the glasses that ARE the video source, not the shutter glasses that turn your enabled screen into a 3D window, as it were.

I would give up a lot of resolution to be able to wear glasses that made my entire FOV the world I was in, and zero percent black frame.

[Ailos]

I don't know why they don't have high (as in, 1920 X 1080) definition glasses so you see nothing, I mean, NOTHING but the world you are in. I mean the glasses that ARE the video source, not the shutter glasses that turn your enabled screen into a 3D window, as it were.

I would give up a lot of resolution to be able to wear glasses that made my entire FOV the world I was in, and zero percent black frame.
+1

[Erendil]

I could get PS1 on 3D with the NVIDIA glasses. Was good but hard on the eyes.

I used a pair of Eye3d shutter glasses on and off in the early days of PS1 when I still had my 22" CRT. Weaving through the trees in a Mossie on Cyssor in 3D was an amazing experience and one that I'll never forget.

I hope they give UI elements in PS2 a proper z value/exception so they're drawn correctly while using 3D. The double-crosshair effect from 3D in PS1 was annoying and is the only reason I didn't regularly play it in 3D.

I don't know why they don't have high (as in, 1920 X 1080) definition glasses so you see nothing, I mean, NOTHING but the world you are in. I mean the glasses that ARE the video source, not the shutter glasses that turn your enabled screen into a 3D window, as it were.

I would give up a lot of resolution to be able to wear glasses that made my entire FOV the world I was in, and zero percent black frame.

Give the recent advances in smart phone LCD screens I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes out with something like that in the next few years. We already have 720p phones w/ ~4.5" screens. All they'd have to do is bump it up to 1080p and shrink it to 1/2 - 1/3 the size. I'm sure it'll happen once 3D TV's go mainstream.

[Zulthus]

I'm sure it'll happen once 3D TV's go mainstream.

Let's just hope that never happens. 3D is hard on the eyes.

[Sirisian]

Let's just hope that never happens. 3D is hard on the eyes.
Tell me about it. I looked away from the screen today and got motion sick. Had to take a break from the real world and go back to Skyrim. :lol:

[BorisBlade]

Let's just hope that never happens. 3D is hard on the eyes.

lulz, no its not if its done properly and you dont have any problems with your eyes or other issues.

I have a prog that will convert most any game into 3D and run on my tv without any special glasses other than the cheap ones you get from a theater (most theaters will let you keep those things, they cost almost nothing to make). And yeah ps1 looked odd because of the crosshair and ui issue as well as a few things here and there that didnt play nice with 3d. But if its done right, like most modern games, then it should be fine.

[Traak]

Let's just hope that never happens. 3D is hard on the eyes.

Did you have a 60Hz screen, yielding alternating 30 frames, 30 completely dark screens per second, per eye, or do you have the new, hip, cool, 120Hz screen that gives you 60 frames alternating with 60 completely dark screens, per second, per eye.

[Erendil]

Let's just hope that never happens. 3D is hard on the eyes.

The type of 3D Traak is talking about is a small, separate backlit LCD screen for each eye. There wouldn't be any sleight-of-hand trickery like using polarized lenses like the theaters or alternately blacking out one eye back and forth 120x per second, so I'm pretty sure there'd be no more eyestrain than looking at a standard LCD monitor (which in essence you would be doing, just a different monitor for each eye).

Besides I presume using 3D would always just be an option you could use, not a requirement. "If you don't like it, don't use it." :cool:

Did you have a 60Hz screen, yielding alternating 30 frames, 30 completely dark screens per second, per eye, or do you have the new, hip, cool, 120Hz screen that gives you 60 frames alternating with 60 completely dark screens, per second, per eye.

Pretty much this. I'm pretty sensitive to eyestrain issues when looking at monitors; For example I can't play a gunner for a BFR for more than a few minutes w/o getting a migraine due to the camera shake. But I had no issues playing MOHAA on my 22" CRT for hours on end with my 3d shutter glasses because my CRT ran @140Hz at the resolution I was playing. Anything below 100Hz started getting uncomfortable, though.

[CrystalViolet]

Any product that claims to convert a single video signal into 3D is just a gimmick. True stereoscopic 3D requires 2 evenly spaced camera angles to give the illusion of real depth. It's the reason why 90% of the movies coming out in 3D these days look like shit.

[bjorntju1]

I don't know why they don't have high (as in, 1920 X 1080) definition glasses so you see nothing, I mean, NOTHING but the world you are in. I mean the glasses that ARE the video source, not the shutter glasses that turn your enabled screen into a 3D window, as it were.

I would give up a lot of resolution to be able to wear glasses that made my entire FOV the world I was in, and zero percent black frame.

Something like this?: IFA 2011: Sony HMZ-T1 Personal 3D Viewer (raw video) - YouTube

It is however not 1080p, only 720p.

[Infektion]

Damn... Those things look like a good 500$

[bjorntju1]

Its $799 :P I really would like one, really looks awesome. But i don't think i would use it that much, considering what i am paying for it.

[Tikuto]

omg imagine 3D cloaker. O_


planetside porn.

[Erendil]

Any product that claims to convert a single video signal into 3D is just a gimmick. True stereoscopic 3D requires 2 evenly spaced camera angles to give the illusion of real depth. It's the reason why 90% of the movies coming out in 3D these days look like shit.

Spoken like someone who (I'm guessing) hasn't actually used a properly configured 3D setup before. And no, going to an iMAX theater doesn't count. :rolleyes:

You don't need a stereoscopic camera to get a stereo picture. This is the Digital Age. Ever seen an autostereogram produced by Magic Eye? Those are computer generated images. No camera required. They even have animated 3D gifs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stereogram_Tut_Animated_Shark.gif)

As for games in particular.... if written correctly, every single pixel drawn in a direct3D environment has its x y and z coordinates stored in memory, so it's a fairly simple thing to calculate 2 different viewing angles of the same scene such that it mimics a stereoscopic camera, and it can give you a pretty convincing sense of depth when viewed with LCD shutter glasses.

In addition, the stereo drivers I've used in the past have had several different aspects that you could tweak to tailor it to your sense of depth and to the app you were using (stereo width, z value depth, depth of convergence, z cutoff distance both near and far, etc). It wasn't perfect in every game of course (many games don't calculate z values for UI/HUD elements or just set z=0 so they're on top of everything else, for example, so they don't get drawn correctly), but the 3D effect that it produced was quite natural and convincing.

TBH were it not for the fact that my monitor only does 60Hz I probably wouldn't play any Direct3D games in 2D.

[Mastachief]

3D...... its a gimmick i see no reason to waste good money on it

Besides personally i cannot see it.

[CrystalViolet]

Spoken like someone who (I'm guessing) hasn't actually used a properly configured 3D setup before. And no, going to an iMAX theater doesn't count. :rolleyes:

You don't need a stereoscopic camera to get a stereo picture. This is the Digital Age. Ever seen an autostereogram produced by Magic Eye? Those are computer generated images. No camera required. They even have animated 3D gifs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stereogram_Tut_Animated_Shark.gif)

I never claimed that you couldn't create a stereo image via image manipulation. My point was that it is a faux 3D that doesn't look nearly as good as media that is natively produced in stereo. Digital technology is great, but it can't post process in information that isn't there.

As for games in particular.... if written correctly, every single pixel drawn in a direct3D environment has its x y and z coordinates stored in memory, so it's a fairly simple thing to calculate 2 different viewing angles of the same scene such that it mimics a stereoscopic camera, and it can give you a pretty convincing sense of depth when viewed with LCD shutter glasses.

Very true but we weren't talking about the images being rendered in 3D, we are talking about post processing done to a monoscopic signal.

[Zulthus]

Off topic, but Alydon, is DARK still active? I was thinking about resubbing again... I need my Planetside fix. I don't think I'll bother if no one plays anymore though.

[Erendil]

I never claimed that you couldn't create a stereo image via image manipulation. My point was that it is a faux 3D that doesn't look nearly as good as media that is natively produced in stereo. Digital technology is great, but it can't post process in information that isn't there.

Ahhh, but here's the thing: With Direct3D the information is there, in the Z-buffer. If we were still shooting at 2D bitmaps like we did in Doom that'd be one thing. But ever since Quake came out most FPSes have drawn their environments in a 3D world with x, y, and z axis data for every single pixel. And that z data is what determines its depth and is what allows us to extrapolate a stereo image.

So long as the Z-buffer data is accurate, you can get a very realistic stereo image from it. Believe me, when properly implemented, stereo imaging derived from D3D z-buffer data is every bit as good as the stereoscopic satellite imagery I worked with in college. It is not a gimmick. Not by a long shot.

Very true but we weren't talking about the images being rendered in 3D, we are talking about post processing done to a monoscopic signal.

Again, games that use the D3D z-buffer (like PS1 & 2) are already being rendered in 3D, and we are already being shown a processed image of the 3D game world. It's just presented to us from the perspective of a single point within the gamespace. :cool: Yet to most people this processed image creates a fairly natural and realistic perspective of the gameworld being viewed.

In the grand scheme of things, extending that view so you see the gameworld from two points in space (stereo) instead of one is not that hard since all the necessary data is already provided by the game engine.

So long as the game Devs provide accurate z-buffer data for everything on the screen and don't make shortcuts in the data to increase framerates (like using z=0 2D fog overlays instead of volumetric fog) and/or to ensure HUD/UI elements are drawn on top of everything else, creating a realistic in-game view in stereo is quite possible.


Off topic, but Alydon, is DARK still active? I was thinking about resubbing again... I need my Planetside fix. I don't think I'll bother if no one plays anymore though.

Yes we are still around, although not in quite the numbers we were a couple months ago. A handful of the regulars are splitting their game time w/ BF3 or Skyrim so it varies a bit during the week, but there's generally at least 4-5 of us on (for example there's 7 on TS right now not including me since I'm at work :p ), and we can fill a squad+ on the weekends. So c'mon join in on the carnage! :D

[ProfessorCrow]

/that feel when blind in left eye since birth and will never experience 3D

[Zulthus]

/that feel when blind in left eye since birth and will never experience 3D

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lizhozFjNY1qcin3j.png

Not really though... but worry not, at the rate technology is advancing, they will have made one eyed 3D by 2015. Hell, they'll be able to restore vision by then.

[ProfessorCrow]

Not really though... but worry not, at the rate technology is advancing, they will have made one eyed 3D by 2015. Hell, they'll be able to restore vision by then.

http://www.maniacworld.com/internet-bro-fist.jpg

Thanks bro, that's what I'm hoping for. Robot eye or one-eye 3D, I'm fine with either.

[CrystalViolet]

Ahhh, but here's the thing: With Direct3D the information is there, in the Z-buffer. If we were still shooting at 2D bitmaps like we did in Doom that'd be one thing. But ever since Quake came out most FPSes have drawn their environments in a 3D world with x, y, and z axis data for every single pixel. And that z data is what determines its depth and is what allows us to extrapolate a stereo image.

I'm not talking about a 120hz 3D signal output from the graphics card. I think the point that you're missing is that any products that claim to convert a 2D image into 3D are processing the images after they've already been rendered into a 2D bitmap and output from the rendering hardware. They sit right before the monitor in the signal chain. Basically all they do is double the frames, and use image manipulation (resizing and shifting) on half of the frames to create what is essentially a fake 3D effect with no real depth or focal point.

[Erendil]

I'm not talking about a 120hz 3D signal output from the graphics card. I think the point that you're missing is that any products that claim to convert a 2D image into 3D are processing the images after they've already been rendered into a 2D bitmap and output from the rendering hardware. They sit right before the monitor in the signal chain. Basically all they do is double the frames, and use image manipulation (resizing and shifting) on half of the frames to create what is essentially a fake 3D effect with no real depth or focal point.

*sigh*

And I think the point that you're missing is the fact that there are several different approaches to stereo imaging technology, and with the type I'm talking about (LCD shutter glasses like what Nvidia sells), the stereo drivers that you have to install integrate with your video card drivers to pull z-buffer data directly from the OpenGL or Directx interface before any rendering is done.

Instead, they tell the video card to render a stereo image on the spot (more specifically, separate frames for the left and right eyes). No monoscopic image is ever rendered, and the rendered stereo signal gets sent by the video card to your monitor without getting modified at all by the VGA passthrough dongle.

The only thing that the VGA passthrough does with these glasses is sync the alternating shutter rate of the LCD glasses themselves to the refresh rate of your monitor so that each lens gets blacked in out sync with the corresponding image (left or right) that is being displayed by your monitor. That's it. All of the stereo rendering is done in software.

If you owned a pair you could prove this yourself by disconnecting the VGA passthrough while playing a game being rendered in stereo. If you did this, you would see that the signal getting sent to your monitor doesn't change at all and still contains alternating left/right frames, even though the stereo hardware is disconnected, powered off, smashed with a hammer, melted down, or whatever. :cool:

With this type of setup the stereo image displayed is IMO not at all fake, has incredible depth (which incidentally is adjustable by the user), and has a very distinct (and again, asjustable) focal point.

[EVILoHOMER]

I bought a 120hrz monitor and the Nvidia vision kit but I never use it, 3D hurts my eyes after 10 mins and I just turn it off. Even watching the Nintendo 3DS makes me feel sick looking at it, I just cannot see 3D taking off.

[Erendil]

Yeah eyestrain can be an issue for some ppl w/ shutter glasses. It never really bothered me unless I was already fighting a headache but I knew of ppl who would have to take them off for a few mins every so often.

I wish the 120Hz monitors that are out now actually did 140Hz instead. I found that to be easier on the eyes when using my glasses (i-Art Eye3D 4-in-1).

[Talek Krell]

WOW! It's just like being shot in the face in real life!

[Ailos]

My biggest issue with most current 3D setups is in fact, the blinking. If the refresh rate is below 80 Hz I can actually see the rastering lines on the screen, and if its below 60 Hz (like it is on some really old motinors in my lab) I can see the actual rastering pixel move down each line. LCD monitors do make my eyes feel more comfortable because the rest of it doesn't actually turn off during the rastering, so for the standard refresh rate of 60 Hz, although I can cath the rater on fast moving frames it doesn't strain me. The new 120 Hz monitors though, were made for me.

I actually have an Acer 1080 p 3D projector and the glasses kit for it. It does that usual 60Hz per eye trick in 3D mode, and it literally makes my eyes bleed after half an hour. In normal 2D 120 Hz mode, it takes at least four hours before my eyes begin to feel uncomfortable. More to the point, even at 60 Hz in normal 2D mode, I can handle it for a good while. Its the glasses constant blinking in front of my eyes that is most bothersome. And for that reason alone, it actually seems fair price for me to pay $800 for those stereoscopic eye screens. I mean the projector cost $1500 when I bought it, so what the hell.

Of course, them being cheaper wouldn't hurt, but the 1080 resolution would be nice, too.

[Erendil]

Damnit...! All this talk of gaming in stereo and upon seeing the new game footage tonight now I really want to game in stereo again. PS2 will look f'ing fantastic in stereo..

Looks like I'll be upgrading my monitor to a 120Hz one soon.... :cool:

[Erendil]

My biggest issue with most current 3D setups is in fact, the blinking. If the refresh rate is below 80 Hz I can actually see the rastering lines on the screen, and if its below 60 Hz (like it is on some really old motinors in my lab) I can see the actual rastering pixel move down each line. LCD monitors do make my eyes feel more comfortable because the rest of it doesn't actually turn off during the rastering, so for the standard refresh rate of 60 Hz, although I can cath the rater on fast moving frames it doesn't strain me. The new 120 Hz monitors though, were made for me.

I actually have an Acer 1080 p 3D projector and the glasses kit for it. It does that usual 60Hz per eye trick in 3D mode, and it literally makes my eyes bleed after half an hour. In normal 2D 120 Hz mode, it takes at least four hours before my eyes begin to feel uncomfortable. More to the point, even at 60 Hz in normal 2D mode, I can handle it for a good while. Its the glasses constant blinking in front of my eyes that is most bothersome. And for that reason alone, it actually seems fair price for me to pay $800 for those stereoscopic eye screens. I mean the projector cost $1500 when I bought it, so what the hell.

Of course, them being cheaper wouldn't hurt, but the 1080 resolution would be nice, too.

All of the shutter glasses that I've seen have listed a 120Hz refresh rate as a minimum requirement so I'm not surprised that running @<120Hz would give you problems.

The alternating blinking can be picked up almost subconsciously by a lot of people and it can cause eyestrain over time. I feel it too if I use my eye3d set for more than about an hour. That's why I wish they'd up the refresh on these 3D monitors coming out to 140Hz since it's much easier on the eyes than 120Hz.


So, I have a question for Mr. Higby, if you're reading this.... Is PS2 going to be Nvidia 3D ready (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-games.html)? I plan on getting an Nvidia 3D Vision setup and I'm of course perfectly willing to put in the testing time during Beta to make sure it gets done right. :D Cuz that's just the kind of team player I am. ;)

http://www.nvidia.com/content/3d-vision/images/3d-vision-ready.png

[BorisBlade]

Any product that claims to convert a single video signal into 3D is just a gimmick. True stereoscopic 3D requires 2 evenly spaced camera angles to give the illusion of real depth. It's the reason why 90% of the movies coming out in 3D these days look like shit.

True when it comes to movies but they are referring to games which actually are easy to convert. I have a program that does it great. The only probs are the non supported games and the elements that are not drawn in 3d such as the UI and maybe a few other elements can be displayed incorrectly. Things like crosshairs are a good example that everyone notices. But thats not a problem to fix if the programmers support it and make the neccesary changes.

I was playin PS1 in 3d which wasnt even remotely supported. Most things were fine in the environment. But the ui was split and moved pretty much off the screen and crosshairs were of course unusable. 3d depth worked but sometimes it was difficult to get a good balance between the far away, medium range, and close up stuff all being in focus at the same time. Again it was completely unsupported and worked minus the obvious ui issues. Games that were supported such as L4D2 looked insanely awesome.

The program i used let me display em on my tv which uses the passive glasses, aka movie theater glasses that cost nothing. In fact you can keep the ones they give you at the theater and use em if you need more than the 4 free ones you get. Most pc 3d is done with only the expensive battery glasses and expensive and tiny manufacturer specific monitor that supports that specific type of 3d.

So even if its not officially supported, there will be options via software if you have a 3d tv. Or by buying a the nvidia glasses and nvidia monitors. Or that newer AMD setup they announced. Considering that nvidia is partnering with them in some fashion for the PhysX stuff, then there's a pretty good chance we will see support for thei 3d vision stuff.

[Vash02]

I bought a 120hrz monitor and the Nvidia vision kit but I never use it, 3D hurts my eyes after 10 mins and I just turn it off. Even watching the Nintendo 3DS makes me feel sick looking at it, I just cannot see 3D taking off.

It will when the 3D tech without the need for glasses rolls out (its coming). Though by then people will be bitching about how holographic TV's are a gimmick.

[Bittermen]

I don't know why they don't have high (as in, 1920 X 1080) definition glasses so you see nothing, I mean, NOTHING but the world you are in. I mean the glasses that ARE the video source, not the shutter glasses that turn your enabled screen into a 3D window, as it were.

I would give up a lot of resolution to be able to wear glasses that made my entire FOV the world I was in, and zero percent black frame.

I'm pretty sure they do I saw em at bestbuy