If I were you I would make sure I knew what was being discussed before putting in my two cents.

thetonestarr said: pbroy said: Can anyone see 3D in these pictures? タッチパネル付3D液晶ディスプレイ LCD with Touch 3D 撮影しながら、3D映像を見ることも可能 While shooting, 3D images can be viewed 画面を縦にしても横にしても3D表示が可能 Even if the vertical or horizontal screen that can display 3D You can't see 3D in a photograph. When you take a picture of an ACTUAL 3D environment, does the photograph come out "3D"?

The 3D effect works by tricking the eye by supplying a separate image to both the left and right eye.  Since your monitor is incapable of doing that, naturally, these images won't appear to be 3D.  It DOES NOT generate a 3D hologram that hovers above the screen for all to see.

ok, to put my few cents on this in regards to the Nintendo won't and can't.

Nintendo has shifted there focus from a Better design, to an Experience design. NES > SNES > N64 > GC with Wii breaking the tradition. GB > GBP > GBC > GBA >GBLite? with the DS breaking tradition. As pointed out the DS is significantly more powerful than the GBA. Where as the Wii wasn't the same jump. The breaking tradition wasn't in the power it was in the hot the games were played. The Experience. I think this is pretty much well covered.

The fallacy being assumed is that going a visual 3D is just a standard increase, like more res, more poly pushing. It's not. the 3D is a new Experience, that's why it's enjoyable in the movies 20 years ago and making a return now. Though yes 3D is going to need more power, but it's not the power Nintendo is considering it's the Experience.

How is Nintendo going to get 2 3D Renders of a scene? Will Nintendo have to double it's power? The answer is No. NDS 3D does not need to double in power. Instead it needs to create a minimal restructuring of the game process.

input
\/
handle game logic
\/
create/update Scene
\ / \/
3dcore1(render left) 3dcore2(render right)

The current DS has
1 developer accessible CPU
1 backend CPU to handle input, audio..... ie non game logic

What get's over looked is that attached to the main CPU is a 3d core chip and a 2d core chip. Which handles the visual rendering of the scene. If Nintendo were to put in an extra 3d core chip, both have pure read access to the same memory. So both can be rendered in parallel from the same game scene. This would actually provide the needed 3D power requirements, without needing to significantly increasing the power of the system. So yes the DS does have a 3D core, so all it needs is another one and some creative parallel processing then 3d becomes not very expensive at all. No double ram, no double CPU. If anything it could run on pretty much the same power as the DS has now.

Few important questions:

1) cost, what is the estimated cost for these screens?

2) if it uses a camera, wouldn't it require some processing power dedicated exclusively to the 3D effect? even so, doesn't 3D have to display two images simultanuosly, practically eating up a large ammount of horse power just for the effect?

I think this is once again a case where graphics will remain almost the same, but with a few improvements. Why would they create a handheld with Gamecube graphics at a time when they're selling a console with similar results? I think Nintendo has asked themselves that question, and they're not gonna do it.

That's a great explanation, so the 3DS won't technically need a lot of additional processing power for displaying two 3D images, that's great.

CrashMan said: thetonestarr said: pbroy said: Can anyone see 3D in these pictures? タッチパネル付3D液晶ディスプレイ LCD with Touch 3D 撮影しながら、3D映像を見ることも可能 While shooting, 3D images can be viewed 画面を縦にしても横にしても3D表示が可能 Even if the vertical or horizontal screen that can display 3D You can't see 3D in a photograph. When you take a picture of an ACTUAL 3D environment, does the photograph come out "3D"? The 3D effect works by tricking the eye by supplying a separate image to both the left and right eye.  Since your monitor is incapable of doing that, naturally, these images won't appear to be 3D.  It DOES NOT generate a 3D hologram that hovers above the screen for all to see.

Yeah. Besides that, though, a camera capable of photographing something in true 3D is rare and expensive. 99.9% of the time, cameras work just like one eye. No 3D can be done that way.

cool, cant wait too see this thing in action.

I wonder if a handhed could ever use plasma

Plasma = outdated technology that all manufacturers have been working to leave behind for quite some time now. Ever since LCD TVs came out, plasmas have been on the out.

And now we've got LED and OLED TVs slowly replacing LCDs.

You have a few inaccuracies here.

1. Plasma > LCD (picture quality). Only reason LCD dominated is due to its ability to reduce costs quicker and thus the market chose the lower priced system that has close enough capabilites. Plasma images are far better when comparing similar quality products.

2. LED *is* an LCD display. Only difference is the source of the light. Typical LCD tvs use a couple tube lights, whereas LED tvs use LEDs.

Extra info:

Main reason Plasma are better than LCD is that a Plasma can create true blacks and therefore have far better color representations. They can do this because they can control individal pixels light sources whereas the tubes in LCDs can't turn off completely. So black in a LCD is actually a grey.

There are two types of LED tvs. The really thin TVs have the LEDs installed on the side of the LCD screen and work *exactly* like regular LCDs. Absolutely no difference in quality when everything else is the same. The other LEDs that are the same thickness as regular LCDs have the LEDs behind the screen. This allows them to work similar to Plasmas and actually turn off individual pixels resulting in real black and far better colors overall. This is where LCD tvs finally become superior to Plasmas because they can match their visual quality while being far more efficient.

3. OLED (Organic LED) tv is a completely different type of tv that will take a few more years to become cost efficient enough to produce at large scales. Sony was producing an 11" OLED for over $2000. However, these will be amazing in not only quality, but efficiency and size.