Quantcast
Do you care about 3D?

Forums - Sony Discussion - Do you care about 3D?

theres definitely a market for 3-d and im one of them



Around the Network

I definitely think 3d is the future of gaming, and I am looking forward to it. But all existing 3d technologies halve a games framerate. Considering that to me anything under 40 fps looks horrid, and anything under 30 is essentially unplayable then I think 3d should wait a generation or two



I have tried it... and frankly, I don't see the big deal about it, there's annoying glare with any kind of sun, and the glasses don't feel all that comfortable. If they find some way to get rid of the bloody glasses, then yeah.

So, basically in 10 years, maybe.



I am a PC gamer, and also have a NDS now, but without access to a Nintendo Wii until End of 2007.

Currently playing: Super Smash Brothers Brawl(Wii), Mystery Dungeon: Shiren the Wanderer(DS), Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (DS), WiiFit(Wii)

Games Recently Beaten: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King (Normal; Very Hard after the next DLCs become available)

1 word: RTFA

A Bad Clown said:
No, 3D has been ruined by Avatar to the point where instead of IMAX pop outs it's cutouts.

Your right on that, hopes the video games developer will do better.



Netyaroze said:
uber said:
there is no possible way to do 3D without glasses without having a hologram projector.


i think 3D gaming is going to blow people's minds. just think how popular the films are. this is an interactive medium that is fully 3D....it could take immersion to the next level. imagine bullets flying at you and actually moving in your seat out of instinct. i can't wait. i love shooters, and so i think 3D gaming will be great for the genre.

for other types of games it might be nothing more than a cosmetic difference.

 

I also thought that. It would make 3d without glasses impossible for the next decades holographic projection is still nowhere.  We will see holographic 3d maybe in 30-40 years.

 

But I replied once to a thread were they said 3d without glasses is atleast a decade away because you need 15 times the resolution to do that. How exactly it works I dont know but its the same principle like nowadays.

 

I edit the link to the thread where a developer made a statement if I find it in the next minutes.

 

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=94250&page=2

 

Here some quotes out of the text:

 

"Glassless 3D would be ideal," he said. "But it's just not possible to do that now and get the same quality experience. You would need at least 50 times more pixels to get a display to provide the same 3D experience that we provide with our TV. We are still 10 years away from that kind of technology."

"Glassless 3D is available today for digital signage and advertising," Park explained. "But the technology is not ready for TVs, because it would hurt people's eyes or give them a headache to look at today's 3D displays for any length of time. It will be at least a decade before we can get the technology to make glassless TV a reality."

That said, some manufacturers claim they have developed technology that doesn't require glasses. Phillips uses a technology it calls WOWvx. 3M and Toshiba also showed off glassless 3D screens at CES. 3M has created a thin film technology that can be used to beam light selectively to the viewer's right and left eyes.

 

 

I made an calculation for the 50 times more pixels first I forgot some elemntal mathematics but then I got it right 6480*16000 Would be neccessary for 3d without glasses according to this guy.

 

What underline is real, many people had the chance to see the 3D glassless philips TV. With the help of mirrors (1) it send 2 images at a slighty different angle which convert on each eyes. Their glassless 3D TV will automatically upscale a 1X resolution to 4X resolution 3840×2160. Its already a reality, but yes, it will probably takes 6-10 years before it can be on mass market because the technology to build those TV is too expensive at the moment. Phillips even decided to stop marketing the project for the moment because they had a hard time selling them. They targeted shops and malls, insisting on the fact the store could have a 3DTV to promote stuff. They didnt sale enough because it was too expensive and decided to stop for now.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/



Around the Network

Played around a bit with Avatar running in 3d at the Taipei Game Show recently. It was pretty meh for me, but my other two buddies quite enjoyed it. Found it really blurried things up, although it could have been an added effect to increase the perceived depth-of-field. The flying sequences were much cooler with 3d, but the third person stuff didn't really add to much to the experience, and kind of confused things when foliage and stuff came too close to the front plane, obscuring much more of the visual field than I would have liked.
Also, they had Assassin's Creed running on one of those glasses-less 3d tvs. Hard to judge it as the game was only running at maybe 5 fps, but the 3d effect was very minimal, and only really noticeable when you were standing directly in front of it from about six to eight feet away. Even then it could not visually compare to the 3d effect with glasses.



I'm looking forward to it, anything to enhance the whole movie and gaming experience is a plus for me and after what I've read about how good Wipeout HD looked in 3D, it only makes me more interested.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Maybe in 10 years or so I will but right now I'm more than happy with HDTV.



Sometime less is better than more. 

3D might be just too much for the average gamer



disolitude said:

All of ya'll that want a 3D and are from Canada can pick up the only 2009 plasma that supports 3D for dirt cheap this week.

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/samsung-samsung-42-plasma-hdtv-pn42b450-pn42b450/10120713.aspx?path=4093f81895d1faad7c5b669e696e227fen02

and I see why .. it has a native resolution of 1024x768 .. that's neither HD nor widescreen, which means on a 42" screen HD material will look horribly pixilated

btw, I don't see any evidence of it supporting 3D?