3D PS2?

SgtMAD · 2011-12-26, 09:17 PM

found this on the twitter machine

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-...wcase-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 · 2011-12-26, 09:21 PM

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

Traak · 2011-12-26, 10:05 PM

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 · 2011-12-26, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

+1

Erendil · 2011-12-26, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2011-12-26, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Erendil

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 · 2011-12-26, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

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.

BorisBlade · 2011-12-27, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

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 · 2011-12-27, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

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.

bjorntju1 · 2011-12-27, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

Something like this?:
It is however not 1080p, only 720p.

Infektion · 2011-12-27, 08:19 AM

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

bjorntju1 · 2011-12-27, 08:43 AM

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.

Bittermen · 2012-01-05, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

CrystalViolet · 2011-12-27, 06:24 AM

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.

Erendil · 2011-12-27, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by CViolet

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.

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.

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.