Will someone please explain 3D!

[Stonemonkey]

^ Thats what I can't wait to play



By the end of his year, glasses should become obsolete.

Not a chance.

 

[TokyoDrift]

pseudo=fake right? (another word from the greek language)
By "afford" i don't mean that you can't buy it. I am pretty sure all of us can spend 2000$ or even more but its gonna hurt our pockets a little and its not something you do everyday day. Anyway, i think you judge stereoscopic 3d before you play-watch it because it is "unrealistic"?

At the end of the day, any image on a man-made display of any kind is fake. I don't need to play to judge stereoscopic 3D, because it is OLD technology - nothing really new that hasn't been seen before apart from how it is being implemented. For me, the appeal of things goes in this order:

- System to allow you to look around things and experience parallax
- Pseudo-3D without glasses
- Standard HDTV
- Pseudo-3D with glasses

Enough with the money-talk already. What you, I, or anybody else can or cannot afford (however you choose to define that) is of no importance to anyone on here.

 

[Spagetti69]

If I have a tripple screen 3d set up. Would I need 3 sets of glasses, six eyes and a big wallet?

 

[cucpake2]

i think Yamauchi is kicking himself for not releasing GT5 2 years ago and release GT53D at the end of this year.

 

[eSZee]

I saw the news today of the confirmation of GT5 will be released in 3d. Great. But what exactly does this mean?

Well, you're gonna put on these funky glasses and then cows and badgers are gonna start flying at your head!

 

[Devedander]

As far as the video above is concerned, this tv is a prototype, it will propably cost a lot more than the Sony Bravia LX900, this technology would be far more demanding and will require to cut down the resolution and its far far away from us now

The funny thing is I saw a passive 3D tv in the airport in Beijing some 6-8 years ago at least... they had 42 inchers hanging behind the check in desks in international departure.

I think 3D tv will be a gimmick and fad until they can do it decently and innexpensively without glasses so everyone can enjoy it at once and it doens't involve shelling out for an accessory to use.

 

[II IVORBIGUN II]

Well I can honestly say that I won't be buying a 3DTV because I simply cannot afford it. The prices are now up on the Sony website and the two models that are available come in 40",60" costing £2000, £3500. I cannot justify a new TV when my Sony V4000 is only 18months old.

I will probably look into 3DTV in around 3/4 yrs time when the technology will be even more advanced and the prices will drop. Take for example I noticed a 40" Samsung full HD TV for £499 in Tescos the other day!!

 

[machschnel]

Does anyone actually enjoy wearing those 3D glasses? It pretty much ruined Avatar for me. I recently saw snippets of it on Blu -ray, and guess what? It looks more realistic, better quailty, better definition and all without some crap 3d gimmick

 

[cakefoo]

Current steroscopic 3D is a gimmicky effect. Head tracking (or anything allowing you to look around things) is far more reflective of how you see and perceive things in the real world, and you don't get much more 3D than that.

So in real life, we'd be better off driving with one eye closed, bobbing our heads side-to-side?

You're caught up with parallax, but you should be thinking about the other half of the 3D equation- convergence.

That headtracking stuff is only effective when you're actually moving side to side, which constantly doing for 3 hours straight isn't realistic unless you want to look like this:

 

[cakefoo]

Does anyone actually enjoy wearing those 3D glasses? It pretty much ruined Avatar for me. I recently saw snippets of it on Blu -ray, and guess what? It looks more realistic, better quailty, better definition and all without some crap 3d gimmick

Well, first of all, HDTVs are much brighter than cinema screens period. So watching a plasma screen with shutter glasses is going to be about as bright as a cinema screen without glasses.

And the crap gimmick you speak of, I don't know what you're referring to. I thoroughly enjoy using both eyes for watching things- it feels much more natural. And it has nothing to do with paddle-balls flying at my face; it's just that looking at stereoscopic images is more representative of physically being there than 2D. 2D is obviously a picture, but 3D is more like a portal.

 

[kikie]

3D stereoscopic:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=127086

Maybe you can find some answers if you read through this thread.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=126854

Or read this article on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy

There is a difference between 3D and 3D stereoscopic. 3D games is what we have had for quite some time now. 3D stereoscopic however is fairly new when it comes to games. 3D stereoscopic is a very old technique in the film/photography business.

3D graphics is simple a 3D environment on a flat screen, creating a 3 dimensional environment. 3D stereoscopic however creates a depth perception like in real live. Some of the images of the game pop up from the monitor and makes it look like they float in mid air in front of your monitor. 3D graphics of a game doesn't create a depth perception but a depth of field.

Examples of 3D graphics

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3401433&postcount=49

Example of 3D stereoscopic

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3494820&postcount=265

 

[machschnel]

Well, first of all, HDTVs are much brighter than cinema screens period. So watching a plasma screen with shutter glasses is going to be about as bright as a cinema screen without glasses.

And the crap gimmick you speak of, I don't know what you're referring to. I thoroughly enjoy using both eyes for watching things- it feels much more natural. And it has nothing to do with paddle-balls flying at my face; it's just that looking at stereoscopic images is more representative of physically being there than 2D. 2D is obviously a picture, but 3D is more like a portal.

Why must everything we do have to become more "realistic"? There is nothing wrong with watching movies in "2d" - I can still see depth, I can still tell if something is real or not etc. Where have all these realistic graphics got us with games? I'd argue games are much worse (gameplay wise) than yesteryear. Sure they look good, but there is no real substance. I fear movies will go down the same path with 3d. Was Braveheart, Citizen Kane, Ben Hur, Dark Knight, There will be Blood etc in 3d? Better question, would those movies have been even better in 3d?

If you want "real 3d images" I suggest looking out the window...........

 

[TokyoDrift]

So in real life, we'd be better off driving with one eye closed, bobbing our heads side-to-side?

You're caught up with parallax, but you should be thinking about the other half of the 3D equation- convergence.

If you want to look around the A-pillar, yes, you'll have to move your head. Speaking of which, it may surprise you to know that a large number of people actually use one eye mainly - I certainly do, so in effect, yes, I'm driving with my left eye closed (it's literally just there for peripheral vision). This is why I cannot see stereoscopic images as well as others.

Now, with that said, I don't sit here in real life bobbing my head around, and nor do I sit there looking at things floating around in front of me like you get in films. The pseudo-3D effect is a gimmick, and ultimately nothing like real life. So lets say in GT5 it makes it look like the steering wheel is foating in front of you. Fine, but when I dropped my daugter off at school this morning, my steering wheel was not just floating in front of me. It stands proud of the dashboard and if I move my head, I can look behind it. This is why I feel some kind of tracking is far more effective.

Why must everything we do have to become more "realistic"? There is nothing wrong with watching movies in "2d" - I can still see depth, I can still tell if something is real or not etc. Where have all these realistic graphics got us with games? I'd argue games are much worse (gameplay wise) than yesteryear. Sure they look good, but there is no real substance. I fear movies will go down the same path with 3d. Was Braveheart, Citizen Kane, Ben Hur, Dark Knight, There will be Blood etc in 3d? Better question, would those movies have been even better in 3d?

If you want "real 3d images" I suggest looking out the window...........

Oh I agree, and I would even go as far as saying that the pseudo-3D that they are implementing in movies and games is NOT more realistic at all. Things just pop out of the screen at you and as a result you perceive a bit of depth. In reality, you don't go through your day with things floating out in front of you - they are just "there", in 3D space, for you to move and look around.

 

[witham]

I have experiance in making tvs and the technology behind them as i use to work at a tv hardware factory (i only deleived parts) and the head designer bloke told me on several occasions about the technology behing tvs. And bellow i will explain some facts that many are unaware of.

The clour depths in normal blu ray alone are more than capable of creating a 3d effect, Stereoscopy 3d is a fad and is pointless for all images apart from close up as the human eye can only see 3 dimensions past 20ft so for everything from 3d football to most ps3 games it will be completely pointless as it is unrelistic to use 3d on images that have a depth of more than 20ft.

If you are going to buy a new tv go with LED it really sharphens up the picture and gives greater depth to colours.

As for gt5 the only use were 3d will be a use is in cockpit view as you have a close layer with a more distance layer but 3d can then creater the effect that objects may come through the cockpit window screen so it is completely useless.

A few unknow facts about tvs:
over 150hz refresh rate makes no difference to motion blur,
The majority of colours that can be displayed on a HDTV cannot be seen by the human eye, as HDTVs display 7 vivid colours even though we can only see 3 (red,green,blue)
It is well known in the tv industry that 3D is just being used to fill the gap between HDTV and HDx4 which is a new display system that will use and new more powerful hdmi cable which has 4x the bandwidth of the current HDMI cable and HDx4 has four times the pixels of current HD and the tvs required to power this will be cell tvs which will have and operating system of there own which the tv runs on and will be powerded by either IBM 30nm chips or intel 30nm chips and will be on there way in 2011

Hope this helps you understand how criminal the TV industry is and clears up how 3d will soon be old news.

 

[TokyoDrift]

Well, nice to hear from you witham - I have no reason to doubt your background, and I totally agree with one thing - how criminal the TV industry is these days. 3D is a gimmick, make no mistake. Give my more pixels and a better quality picture with no motion blur over fake, pointless 3D any day.

 

[davissi]

I disagree with you, you don't have to move your head to get 100% 3D vision. If you genuinely aren't just being negative for the sake of it and it matters that much to you then head position has also been built into 3D imaging recently.
We have everything we need for succesful 3D gaming. All we need now is to get it all closer to our eyeballs to widen the viewing angle right out to 180 degrees. The HMD's are quite expensive at the moment though.

 

[TokyoDrift]

I disagree with you, you don't have to move your head to get 100% 3D vision. If you genuinely aren't just being negative for the sake of it and it matters that much to you then head position has also been built into 3D imaging recently.
We have everything we need for succesful 3D gaming. All we need now is to get it all closer to our eyeballs to widen the viewing angle right out to 180 degrees. The HMD's are quite expensive at the moment though.

Get right up close to a screen and technically you do not need the stereoscopic 3D effect anymore because all that would matter is how things move in relation to your eyes. Yes, it is that important, not just because I want it, but because that is how it is in real life.

 

[machschnel]

I have experiance in making tvs and the technology behind them as i use to work at a tv hardware factory (i only deleived parts) and the head designer bloke told me on several occasions about the technology behing tvs. And bellow i will explain some facts that many are unaware of.

The clour depths in normal blu ray alone are more than capable of creating a 3d effect, Stereoscopy 3d is a fad and is pointless for all images apart from close up as the human eye can only see 3 dimensions past 20ft so for everything from 3d football to most ps3 games it will be completely pointless as it is unrelistic to use 3d on images that have a depth of more than 20ft.

If you are going to buy a new tv go with LED it really sharphens up the picture and gives greater depth to colours.

As for gt5 the only use were 3d will be a use is in cockpit view as you have a close layer with a more distance layer but 3d can then creater the effect that objects may come through the cockpit window screen so it is completely useless.

A few unknow facts about tvs:
over 150hz refresh rate makes no difference to motion blur,
The majority of colours that can be displayed on a HDTV cannot be seen by the human eye, as HDTVs display 7 vivid colours even though we can only see 3 (red,green,blue)
It is well known in the tv industry that 3D is just being used to fill the gap between HDTV and HDx4 which is a new display system that will use and new more powerful hdmi cable which has 4x the bandwidth of the current HDMI cable and HDx4 has four times the pixels of current HD and the tvs required to power this will be cell tvs which will have and operating system of there own which the tv runs on and will be powerded by either IBM 30nm chips or intel 30nm chips and will be on there way in 2011

Hope this helps you understand how criminal the TV industry is and clears up how 3d will soon be old news.

Thanks for this mate, I assumed as much but it is nice to hear it from someone in the industry

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

The old 3d glasses with red and green glass didn work on me, because im a bit crosseyed. Does that mean the new 3d thing wont work on me either?

 

[TokyoDrift]

The old 3d glasses with red and green glass didn work on me, because im a bit crosseyed. Does that mean the new 3d thing wont work on me either?

'fraid so... The principle of "stereoscopy" is exactly the same, just using polarizing shutter glasses instead of red and green filters to make each eye see a different image.

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

'fraid so... The principle of "stereoscopy" is exactly the same, just using polarizing shutter glasses instead of red and green filters to make each eye see a different image.

Thats what I thought What about those 3d tv's who dont need glasses?

 

[witham]

Thats what I thought What about those 3d tv's who dont need glasses?

3D TVs without glasses work using something called multi-parallax, the video bellow gives you the idea it used to need infra red like in the video but now it can be done using head tracking technology


watch for 2.45 if you just want to see the effects with out an explination

 

[Blitz187]

Thats what I thought What about those 3d tv's who dont need glasses?

3D TVs without glasses work using something called multi-parallax, the video bellow gives you the idea it used to need infra red like in the video but now it can be done using head tracking technology

*snip*

watch for 2.45 if you just want to see the effects with out an explination

I have seen the 3D TVs with no glasses in action last year when I was in Thailand. There was a shopping mall there that had them hanging all over the place. The only drawback was that if the images werent really taped in 3D you could tell.... and you had to be sitting straight in front of the unit to experience the 3D effect. If you move a bit to the side and looked at the TV from an angle you couldnt see anything... I'm not sure if this technology has been perfected now, but I wasn't very impressed by the LCD TV's with no glasses... Cool gimmick, but nothing more...

PS - they worked without head tracking and I believe they were from LG if im not mistaken...

PSS - Another note I just thought about... The images also didnt "pop" out the screen, but the TV set looked like it had a lot of depth. So the TV's would look really deep with proper 3D images...

 

[TokyoDrift]

Thats what I thought What about those 3d tv's who dont need glasses?

Yeah, as already said/implied, you'd be OK with those, and that will be they way things will go, so don't concern yourself too much over it.

Funny how Blitz187 calls it a gimmick. The same can be said of the pseudo-3DTVs needing glasses. Images don't float in front of me in real life, so how does such a thing translate to anything other than gimmicky?

 

[alucard0712]

I know one thing.The real 3D video (or game) will use 2 different images (not already encoded in 3D) but then player or TV convert it on fly to 3D with your 3D setup.(anaglyphic 3D,cross eye,shutter glasses,120hz,two pictures at once etc etc)
So you can use for example one film on Blu-ray with ANY of 3D glasses that you have.Just matter of what you select in preferences on your TV or 3D player.
Youtube 3D works same way.Source 3D format is - TWO DIFFERENT PICTURES.

 

[Mr Latte]

I have experiance in making tvs and the technology behind them as i use to work at a tv hardware factory (i only deleived parts) and the head designer bloke told me on several occasions about the technology behing tvs. And bellow i will explain some facts that many are unaware of.

The clour depths in normal blu ray alone are more than capable of creating a 3d effect, Stereoscopy 3d is a fad and is pointless for all images apart from close up as the human eye can only see 3 dimensions past 20ft so for everything from 3d football to most ps3 games it will be completely pointless as it is unrelistic to use 3d on images that have a depth of more than 20ft.

OMG thats one of the best posts in a while, really...
Lets go over some of your points....

A 3D effect from colours and 3D are different things.
If anything a false 3D effect like the 2D-3D conversion is a gimmick by all means its a FAD.
You then say stereoscopic 3D is a FAD, oh right I thought it could enhance viewing as an entertainment and draw the audience into the scene more and if desired also offer pop out effects.

So when I sit in a cinema and the audience is smirking and enjoying 3D its only a FAD.
Im curious to know when do the effects of 3D wear off that they no longer entertain people. Is it when I watch my 3rd, 4th or 5th 3D movie? I assumed every movie can implement 3D in different ways so it can be used to enchance a scene no different to multichannel can be used to do the same. Based on that did 5.1 or 7.1 wear off on people and become a FAD too or did it become an excellent addition to film making and film enjoyment as entertianment?

If you are going to buy a new tv go with LED it really sharphens up the picture and gives greater depth to colours.

Actually tests have already proven that currently the LED/LCD TVs do not handle 3D as well as Panasonics PDP do. Plasma seems to have benifits.
Both LED/LCD suffer from viewing angle issues, black level dimming within narrower viewing angle. Loss of image if the person tilts their head when wearing 3D glasses is also a factor with Samsungs and Sonys ranges. They also suffer from ghosting in 3D known as crosstalk that Panasonics model isnt suffering from.
Maybe 2nd or later generation models in LED will fix these issues but currently it is how things actually are.

As for gt5 the only use were 3d will be a use is in cockpit view as you have a close layer with a more distance layer but 3d can then creater the effect that objects may come through the cockpit window screen so it is completely useless.

Incorrect and by your comments you havnt tried it. Depth of field will still work on scenary passing by, cars approaching etc. Yes in cockpit view it will also give a sense of depth within the cockpit.
Personally I wouldnt say all that means it will be useless.

A few unknow facts about tvs:
over 150hz refresh rate makes no difference to motion blur,
The majority of colours that can be displayed on a HDTV cannot be seen by the human eye, as HDTVs display 7 vivid colours even though we can only see 3 (red,green,blue)

Thanks for the technical information.
Damn someone notify Sony Samsung LG Panasonic etc that they are wasting their money on hardware features and 150HZ is the optimium. 200 400 600HZ is all a waste.

It is well known in the tv industry that 3D is just being used to fill the gap between HDTV and HDx4 which is a new display system that will use and new more powerful hdmi cable which has 4x the bandwidth of the current HDMI cable and HDx4 has four times the pixels of current HD and the tvs required to power this will be cell tvs which will have and operating system of there own which the tv runs on and will be powerded by either IBM 30nm chips or intel 30nm chips and will be on there way in 2011

Its well known in the industry that ALL the manufacturers, studios, major networks are spending billions to ensure 3D is not just a FAD to come and go within a year or two. Its currently impossible and will be for the next several years before 1080px4 is available as a world wide mass market option. Did you actually even consider the infastructure that requires. How does it get broadcast, a new disc medium with higher capacity would be required and an online download capability with super high speeds. That is a massive change and will be a long way off.

If 3D does offer the public a new way to enjoy entertainment then why criticise it. It seems the natural progression and can be implemented now. Furthermore look around as 3D methods of control coming in the form of "Move" and "head tracking" are going to go hand in hand. Its likely 3D both in vision and in a control sense is the future of gaming.

You call it a FAD I call it progression in entertainment.

Hope this helps you understand how criminal the TV industry is and clears up how 3d will soon be old news.

Its helped me understand, really it has....

 

[BlacqueJacques]

If you want "real 3d images" I suggest looking out the window...........

My sentiments exactly!

Or save up some money and sign up for a weekend racing school (which I just may do one day; Mont Tremblant has a Jim Russel school....mmmmm

 

[Stonemonkey]

The clour depths in normal blu ray alone are more than capable of creating a 3d effect

wrong.

Stereoscopy 3d is a fad and is pointless for all images apart from close up as the human eye can only see 3 dimensions past 20ft so for everything from 3d football to most ps3 games it will be completely pointless as it is unrelistic to use 3d on images that have a depth of more than 20ft.

I could see that it's posible that at a greater distance convergence would have less effect but I don't agree that it makes it pointless.

If you are going to buy a new tv go with LED it really sharphens up the picture and gives greater depth to colours.

LED TVs are still just LCD with variable backlighting.

As for gt5 the only use were 3d will be a use is in cockpit view as you have a close layer with a more distance layer but 3d can then creater the effect that objects may come through the cockpit window screen so it is completely useless.

I'm looking forward to the sense of depth it gives to an entire scene.

A few unknow facts about tvs:
over 150hz refresh rate makes no difference to motion blur,
The majority of colours that can be displayed on a HDTV cannot be seen by the human eye, as HDTVs display 7 vivid colours even though we can only see 3 (red,green,blue)

Care to elaborate? afaik HDTV screen pixel are made up from reg/green/blue components.

It is well known in the tv industry that 3D is just being used to fill the gap between HDTV and HDx4 which is a new display system that will use and new more powerful hdmi cable which has 4x the bandwidth of the current HDMI cable and HDx4 has four times the pixels of current HD

why would they use something to just 'fill the gap' between HD and a higher res? your reasoning doesn't make sense.

and the tvs required to power this will be cell tvs which will have and operating system of there own which the tv runs on and will be powerded by either IBM 30nm chips or intel 30nm chips and will be on there way in 2011
Hope this helps you understand how criminal the TV industry is and clears up how 3d will soon be old news.

Not really.

3D TVs without glasses work using something called multi-parallax, the video bellow gives you the idea it used to need infra red like in the video but now it can be done using head tracking technology

(Johnny Lee headtracking vid)

No, the 3D TVs without glasses do not and will not work anything like that video.

 

[cakefoo]

Why must everything we do have to become more "realistic"? There is nothing wrong with watching movies in "2d" - I can still see depth, I can still tell if something is real or not etc. Where have all these realistic graphics got us with games? I'd argue games are much worse (gameplay wise) than yesteryear. Sure they look good, but there is no real substance. I fear movies will go down the same path with 3d. Was Braveheart, Citizen Kane, Ben Hur, Dark Knight, There will be Blood etc in 3d? Better question, would those movies have been even better in 3d?

If you want "real 3d images" I suggest looking out the window...........

I'm looking out my window... I see the same thing that's been there for the last 10 years.

 

[Mr Latte]

If you want to sound stupid say something like.

"If you want real 3d images I suggest looking out the window"

Or yeah If I want to enjoy 3D in racing games I should go do a track day, or do go-karting or watch a real race or just wise the hell up!!!!


I await the "3D is Crap" thread and then you guys can all be anti 3D with all your wise crack ideas in their.
Some of us even though we may not buy into the hardware are curious to understand if indeed it will be good and improve the fun of the game or indeed it will be overhyped.