Will someone please explain 3D!

[eSZee]

The real truth is probably because very few of us can afford a new 3DTV. Also some are probably annoyed that they have only just purchased a HDTV and yet within months we're going to see 3DTVs. Instead of being honest they prefer to call 3D a gimmick.

I remain open minded and won't pass judgement until i've actually seen these TVs in action.

The price difference between a normal HDTV and a 3dHDTV of the same spec is something like $300-$500. 20-25% increase isn't that bad if you want to get your hands on it immediately.
I think many people are still mad about it because it might be the cause for gt5's delay. Others are upset because it just doesn't interest them and they have to tell us that.

 

[II IVORBIGUN II]

The price difference between a normal HDTV and a 3dHDTV of the same spec is something like $300-$500. 20-25% increase isn't that bad if you want to get your hands on it immediately.
I think many people are still mad about it because it might be the cause for gt5's delay. Others are upset because it just doesn't interest them and they have to tell us that.

You are joking right?

I can buy a Samsung 40" 1080P series 5 TV from my local Tesco store for £450. The cheapest Sony 40" 3DTV is £2000!

Please tell me where I can buy a 40" 3DTV for £600/700 please. I will go straight out an buy one!

 

[eSZee]

3DTVs are based off top end models, from what I can find. So if you compare a $2400 samsung 46" LED 3DTV, the non 3d model is about $2000. Even then it's comparing a 240hz 3dtv vs an older model 120hz hdtv.
So no, you can't have a 3d version of your 2008MY, $600 mid-class LCD TV. Bummer.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

I think many people are still mad about it because it might be the cause for gt5's delay. Others are upset because it just doesn't interest them and they have to tell us that.

Or both, exactly

 

[Mr Latte]

You are joking right?

I can buy a Samsung 40" 1080P series 5 TV from my local Tesco store for £450. The cheapest Sony 40" 3DTV is £2000!

Please tell me where I can buy a 40" 3DTV for £600/700 please. I will go straight out an buy one!

Well not quite at that £700 price level just yet but not far off.

Will 40" LCD 3DTV @ £948.30 do okay?
Samsung LE40C750 7 Series 40" LCD TV 1080p 200Hz 4HDMI 3D Freeview HD

However this one below is getting the most attention right now as its a slim PDP Plasma 50" with 600HZ and a beautiful 1" thick design. Its also much cheaper than Panasonics 3DTV and many other brands of LED models.

Official Info

Available currently for approx amazing price of £1299
Price example with 2x Glasses and Samsungs Blu Ray 3D Player is rather good at £1589. Now compare that to Sonys prices and its a lot more for your money and a lot less.

Example Offer

 

[eSZee]

So, the whole 45 minute to an hour of warm up time for the 3DTVs to be 3d ready, it's a bit ridiculous. I didn't think it would be that much of a problem but sitting there for an hour, I was thinking, this is annoying.

 

[bjgil2]

So, the whole 45 minute to an hour of warm up time for the 3DTVs to be 3d ready, it's a bit ridiculous. I didn't think it would be that much of a problem but sitting there for an hour, I was thinking, this is annoying.

Ummm, what?

3D TV's don't need to 'warm up' into 3D mode.

 

[eSZee]

Ummm, what?

3D TV's don't need to 'warm up' into 3D mode.

According to samsung, the 3d looks better after the TV has warmed up for about an hour or so. I laughed when my friend told me this but I've heard that being said on a few occasions now.
I misworded my previous post.

 

[Lion-Face]

All TV's have a warm up period, it takes approx half an hour before you get the picture settled and at its best. So 3D would be the same I imagine.

 

[Mr Latte]

According to samsung, the 3d looks better after the TV has warmed up for about an hour or so. I laughed when my friend told me this but I've heard that being said on a few occasions now.
I misworded my previous post.

From the manual for their 7000 series UK 50" 3D Plasma its not in shops yet but is in the USA as the 8000 Plasma series.
If you really want to know it doesnt mention a time whatsoever and refers to optimizing the image and is listed as part of their health safety / warning.

I doubt it takes an hour for someone standing with glasses on waiting for it to optimize and maybe this is only in reference when the TV is turned on from cold?

 

[eSZee]

From the manual for their 7000 series UK 50" 3D Plasma its not in shops yet but is in the USA as the 8000 Plasma series.
If you really want to know it doesnt mention a time whatsoever and refers to optimizing the image and is listed as part of their health safety / warning.

I doubt it takes an hour for someone standing with glasses on waiting for it to optimize and maybe this is only in reference when the TV is turned on from cold?

I think that's what I said. They said the effects become more immersive after the TV has been on for a period of time.

All TV's have a warm up period, it takes approx half an hour before you get the picture settled and at its best. So 3D would be the same I imagine.

I have noticed that with the LED screens but with LCD or even DLP I don't think it was as noticeable. Maybe a few seconds.

 

[Mr Latte]

Yeah but my point to illustrate the manual directly rather than use speculation like "about an hour or so".

As stated most TVs will work at optimium level when their lamps/lighting reach peak performance but I dont think 3D requires any specific difference to be used. If you find out any more by all means keep us posted.

 

[eSZee]

Yeah but my point to illustrate the manual directly rather than use speculation like "about an hour or so".

As stated most TVs will work at optimium level when their lamps/lighting reach peak performance but I dont think 3D requires any specific difference to be used. If you find out any more by all means keep us posted.

The manual is more vague than my about an hour or so. 45 minutes to an hour taken from a tech is more concrete than "some time" from a manual, to me a least.
I'll ask my buddy exactly what the samsung guys told him or ask him to ask again as he sees them every other week or so when bring new stuff for him to try out.

 

[Mr Latte]

The manual is more vague than my about an hour or so.
I'll ask my buddy exactly what the samsung guys told him or ask him to ask again as he sees them every other week or so when bring new stuff for him to try out.

Yes but it refers to optimization not that it wont work right away.
Ive been reading forums with people having taken delivery of the Panasonic 50" 3DTV and no comments regards 3D warm up are being mentioned their.

I dont think its going to be a big issue.
Also just found a site selling the Samsung glasses for under £50 👍

 

[eSZee]

Yes but it refers to optimization not that it wont work right away.
Ive been reading forums with people having taken delivery of the Panasonic 50" 3DTV and no comments regards 3D warm up are being mentioned their.

I dont think its going to be a big issue.
Also just found a site selling the Samsung glasses for under £50 👍

I already corrected that before. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Mr Latte]

Its no probs, best we know the good and bad about 3D, shams....

Here is a funny little video that demonstrates 3D and what 3D is.

This may help those that made earlier comments "about 3D allowing you to look around stuff" or 3D is all about stuff just floating in mid air.
Perhaps some of you fail to fully understand what 3D or depth perception is and this might help.

 

[Flogger]

I have experience with Infineon equipped 3D projectors, and in my experience it hurts my brain after a few minutes. Your brain is synthesizing the image from alternate left/right views, so it isn't a "natural" process. Things might get better if you create new neural pathways during the process. The net result is more diorama then real-life, with 2D objects placed at various distances from the viewer.

 

[northcong]

1. Did it really delay GT5? You have proof? If it is true, you really think I'd let it bother me that much?

2. No, you're right, I can't afford a new 3DTV right now - I just spent a few grand on replacing my amp, speakers, speaker cable and interconnects How old are you, 12 or something? "Lack of money" responses usually indicate a low age group.

3. True, I don't like the glasses, but if you want the facts, I don't have perfect 20:20 vision, so do not get the full effect anyway. Given that I don't need 3D glasses to see the world in proper 3D, why would I be happy having to need 3D glasses to see a display in pseudo 3D?

Yes, the TV is a prototype, just as every 3DTV started out. Why do you assume the technology will be far more demanding? As for the need to cut down on resolution, it's ironic that they are doing that very same thing with 3D on the PS3...


Yep, I've seen that before - basically uses the IR sensor in the Wiimote fixed near the TV, and uses that to track IR emitters attached to your head. Very cool, but tracking head position is going to be key going forwards, especially with multiple viewers! I think true 3D with parallax will be a fair way off yet, but I don't think it will be long before TVs are released that offer pseudo 3D like we are getting now, but without the need for glasses.

Edit: Just went off and watched it again. Even off-screen, you get the impression that some of the targets are leaping forward off the screen, so 3D with glasses...no thanks. I want to be able to look around things.

I think the technology shown in this video makes no sense, because if you wanna a 3D experience then you have to move your head all the time, which leads to a interesting idea for games but rubbish for movies.........

 

[Quintin03]

I think the technology shown in this video makes no sense, because if you wanna a 3D experience then you have to move your head all the time, which leads to a interesting idea for games but rubbish for movies.........

it doesn't lead to a 3D effect but it lets you look around things. Combined with 3D it should work perfectly. For one person only though.

 

[Stonemonkey]

I have experience with Infineon equipped 3D projectors, and in my experience it hurts my brain after a few minutes. Your brain is synthesizing the image from alternate left/right views, so it isn't a "natural" process. Things might get better if you create new neural pathways during the process. The net result is more diorama then real-life, with 2D objects placed at various distances from the viewer.

Your brain is interpreting a scene given two images, much like in real life where each eye provides a different view, no need to create new neural pathways or anything of the sort. The problems are that the lens in your eyes are still only having to focus to the distance of the screen while you eyes are converging at a different/variable distance and that the point of view in 3D video doesn't change when you change your position. The second point there can be dealt with in gaming by using the headtracking shown above. The headtracking alone would enable you to look around objects and also give your brain some visual cue from small natural movements but it'll still look flat on the screen as that is what your two eyes will tell you, add stereoscopy and you add another visual cue and if both are done well I think the effect could be pretty amazing.

 

[Myansie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEUsknsTfyo&feature=player_embedded

This is a really good tease for how racing games will feel in 3D.

This is a cross eyed preview of the Nurburg Ring 24 Hr. None of it is CG, it`s all real stereo camera shots, but there are a bunch from the bumper and inside the cockpit similar to the traditional GT game play angles. The sensation of speed and space is absolutely incredible.

 

[RickNU]

But the 3D is a opcion right ?

Like if we wont we play in the 3D if not we arent required to play with the 3D
We can put and taking off right ?

 

[R35-Vspec]

If you go to a local electronics store you may find a 3D TV with glasses for preview. I had a chance to try one, and there was a video about Nurburgring .. I dunno maybe 24hrs event. But before you experience 3D you'll have to switch the power on in your glasses. What can I say it really looks cool. There's a completely different experience than regular HDTVs. You may feel like you're there in the TV you know wam'sayin'? But here's the bad thing. I only had the glasses for less than 2 minutes and I had an eye pain after taking them off and until now I still feel the pain but not so painful .. and this was 2 hours ago!. But I haven't had a chance to try it in a game

 

[novcze]

But the 3D is a opcion right ?

Like if we wont we play in the 3D if not we arent required to play with the 3D
We can put and taking off right ?

yep, just another feature of the game (like headtracking), nothing mandatory

 

[Mr Whippy]

My problem is that much like these silly depth of field effects added by game authors, the focal point is pre-chosen.

This means that when I bring the a gun up to look down the sights, close objects now become blurry. Wow, it 'looks' so great, but it also means I can't see things near me in detail any more. Then it instantly feels un-natural because I'm looking on the screen at the foreground but it's staying blurry. Instant "effect" fail, and ruins the immersion for me.


The technique used here with stereoscoping images will mean an infinite focal point is used, which makes sense (because otherwise they would have to choose one), but it is ultimately wrong, because naturally our eyes converge on a point all the time, not at infinity.

NOW, if they could have eye tracking technology to see where we were focussing on screen, and then calculate it's depth, and alter the stereoscopic images appropriately, then it would be really really very nice.
If they tied in some subtle DOF effects with that too, then it would be nicer still.



As it stands right now though, it's just an 'effect'

When it is done in a realistic way then I will probably enjoy using it. Right now it's not though, it's just another layer of 'gloss' to make a game look more sparkly, that may detriment the experience as much as it might benefit it, like the DOF effect in my first paragraph it can ruin things as much as make them look nicer sometimes!


OOooooo, sparkles!


Dave

 

[Stonemonkey]

My problem is that much like these silly depth of field effects added by game authors, the focal point is pre-chosen.

This means that when I bring the a gun up to look down the sights, close objects now become blurry. Wow, it 'looks' so great, but it also means I can't see things near me in detail any more. Then it instantly feels un-natural because I'm looking on the screen at the foreground but it's staying blurry. Instant "effect" fail, and ruins the immersion for me.


The technique used here with stereoscoping images will mean an infinite focal point is used, which makes sense (because otherwise they would have to choose one), but it is ultimately wrong, because naturally our eyes converge on a point all the time, not at infinity.

NOW, if they could have eye tracking technology to see where we were focussing on screen, and then calculate it's depth, and alter the stereoscopic images appropriately, then it would be really really very nice.
If they tied in some subtle DOF effects with that too, then it would be nicer still.



As it stands right now though, it's just an 'effect'

When it is done in a realistic way then I will probably enjoy using it. Right now it's not though, it's just another layer of 'gloss' to make a game look more sparkly, that may detriment the experience as much as it might benefit it, like the DOF effect in my first paragraph it can ruin things as much as make them look nicer sometimes!


OOooooo, sparkles!


Dave

That's not quite right, you're right about the depth of field being a problem as no matter what distance the object you're looking at is meant to be the lenses of your eyes have to focus to the distance of the screen and no depth of field effect can solve that and will only look bad.

With the stereoscopy though, the geometry is drawn in such a way that if the object is beyond/further away than the screen then your eyes tend towards being parallel and looking almost straight forward, if the object comes toward the screen then at the point where it is at the screen there is no offset between the left/right depiction of that object and your eyes converge towards that point on the screen. Once the object comes out of the screen the offset causes your eyes to converge on a point between you and the screen and go slightly cross eyed but no more than you would if you were actually looking at a real object between you and the screen.

It's due to that behaviour over the entire scene that gives the 3D effect as when you look at objects at different depths your brain adjusts the convergence of your eyes as well as your brain processing the periphery of your view and taking into account the offset of parts of the image you're not directly looking at.

The depth of field problem brings up another issue, in the real world the lenses of your eyes are used to adjusting their focus in accordance with the convergence of your eyes and naturally work together but the problem with stereoscopic viewing is that while the convergence changes depending on what you look at in the scene your lenses must stay focused to the distance to the screen which is unnatural and the loss of one of the depth cues used by your brain.

 

[Mr Whippy]

But that IS the problem.

Things inside the screen are not at infinity. The screen is about 1-2ft away, the apex is maybe 100m away, the hills are near infinity. Stereoscopic imagery could detect where you are looking and adjust the stereo images to follow your eyes convergence... but as you said, that could then mess with your eyes desire to focus at that distance too (as you say, the convergence and focus tie together)


But, it is a common technique to use parallel cameras to generate imagery for stereoscopic use since it means you get some depth information from it, and it doesn't force a focal point.
The Nvidia GPU Gems documentation have some interesting techniques for methods to achieve it if I remember correctly.
Perhaps it would be bad to try vary the focal point even if you had that information to do it.


I also recall having fresnel lenses used to help "push" the screen to infinity so your eyes are naturally looking out to infinity which helps realism (high end flight sims used that technique, not sure today with the 360deg projections though)




I'm fairly certain with the right imagery though, you could be fooled to focus not at infinity, or at the screen, but at discrete points in between... and it feel natural and ok, but you would need some other cues such as Z-buffer related blur or similar to 'reassure' the eye that it was focussing correctly for the convergence chosen... Hmmmmmm


Dave

 

[Stonemonkey]

I have no doubt you're right about the articles you've read and from what I've seen most do discuss just rendering with two offset cameras and the pros and cons of parallel and converging setups and I agree totally that it's impossible to get it right with such a setup and that also applies to shooting 3D movies. What a lot of the articles fail to go into is that in computer graphics the geometry can be calculated in such a way that it is correct and your eyes converge appropriately for the distance of the object you're looking at in a scene. The only problem still being that the lenses in your eyes will always be focusing at the screen distance, the only way I can think of really dealing with that would be to have some sort of variable lenses in the 3D glasses which adjust using eyetracking but for the convergence nothing like that is required, only slightly modified perspective calcs.

 

[MatskiMonk]

3D, IMHO is a gimmick..

However, one issue I don't know if has been raised yet... 3D requires HDMi v1.4.. (as opposed to HDMi 1.3x, which is probably the most common standard)...

Not sure what the implications of this are yet

 

[Mr Whippy]

I have no doubt you're right about the articles you've read and from what I've seen most do discuss just rendering with two offset cameras and the pros and cons of parallel and converging setups and I agree totally that it's impossible to get it right with such a setup and that also applies to shooting 3D movies. What a lot of the articles fail to go into is that in computer graphics the geometry can be calculated in such a way that it is correct and your eyes converge appropriately for the distance of the object you're looking at in a scene. The only problem still being that the lenses in your eyes will always be focusing at the screen distance, the only way I can think of really dealing with that would be to have some sort of variable lenses in the 3D glasses which adjust using eyetracking but for the convergence nothing like that is required, only slightly modified perspective calcs.

Yeah, there is no perfect set up yet.

I'm sure the 3d will be worth it for this game if you really want it and have a decent rig.

I'm looking forward to per-eye HD screens (like old VR stuff), with stereo images, fresnel lenses to push the images to infinity, and head tracking so as you look around you get rendered where you are looking.
THAT will make GT pretty immersive. Probably not too far away either

Won't help Sony sell many huge 3d screens though haha... that said they could sell lots of expensive goggles instead

Dave