Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Software Entertainment Games

Game Companies Intrigued By 3D Tech 23

Posted by Soulskill
from the bringing-depth-to-the-industry dept.
An editorial by Rob Fahey looks into the possibility of game companies experimenting with modern 3D technology. Over the past decade, advances in the field have been enough for film studios to give 3D another shot, but significant price-related hurdles remain when considering individual consumers. Quoting: "[The approach presently favored by game makers] has actually been around for some time. It displays the image for the left eye, then the right eye, in quick succession on screen — while the glasses you wear close LCD 'shutters' over your eyes so that each eye only sees the appropriate image. If this is done fast enough, the brain sees no flicker — just a continuous, steady 3D image. The best thing about this final approach is that some televisions already exist which could, in theory, support it. No new display technology is required, but what you do need is a TV screen which can display twice the number of frames per second as a normal screen — since you now need one frame for each eye, where previously you had one frame for both eyes. You also need LCD glasses synched to the television's refresh rate for each viewer. All of this lies in the realms of being moderately plausible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Companies Intrigued By 3D Tech

Comments Filter:
  • Developers have always loved it, but the glasses have been fragile and expensive. Might as well wait for 3d tv first, then you'll have cheap glasses. Everyone will get a 3d tv when it comes out, when the software (ie movies, tv show) is available and the price is right.

  • by wjh31 (1372867) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @02:05PM (#28581545) Homepage
    last time i saw a serious discussion about this sort of thing, it came up that when you use 3D instead of 2D, alot of special effect break. E.G.It becomes quite obvious that that choreographed punch went behind the other actors head. Will the worry of special/camera effects breaking put tv/film producers off encouraging the leap to 3D?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mewsenews (251487)

      Will the worry of special/camera effects breaking put tv/film producers off encouraging the leap to 3D?

      Short answer: yes.

      Long answer: As an anecdote, a visual effects artist is adding rain to a shot. With a normal film, this would be a simple matter of compositing. For a 3D film it would be very obvious if every raindrop was on a single plane, so the artist has to analyze the scene to compute depth of field of visible actors/props, and generate 3D rain that doesn't cause cognitive dissonance (a raindrop tha

      • by EdZ (755139)
        If you look closely at some (not all) 3D movies, you'll notice that anything beyond the near foreground is flat. Instead of rendering everything from two viewpoints, a series of depth planes are rendered, and these planes are shifted horizontally go get the stereoscopic effect. It cuts down on render time significantly, is (relatively) easy to bodge in using the z-buffer, and you can still cheat somewhat with layers of planar SFX rendering.
    • last time i saw a serious discussion about this sort of thing, it came up that when you use 3D instead of 2D, alot of special effect break. E.G.It becomes quite obvious that that choreographed punch went behind the other actors head. Will the worry of special/camera effects breaking put tv/film producers off encouraging the leap to 3D?

      If this means the actors will have to actually take the punch now, I think I might start enjoying Nicholas Cage movies.

  • by Mprx (82435) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @03:18PM (#28581953)
    I don't care about 3D graphics, but 60Hz LCDs are inadequate for displaying perfectly smooth blur-free motion. 120Hz LCDs can show almost as high quality motion as a CRT, so I look forward to them becoming widely available.
    • I think what you want is a reduced response time.

      A 120 Hz LCD with a response time of 8 ms would be a lot blurrier than a 60 Hz LCD with a response time of 2 ms.
      • by Mprx (82435)
        A big part of the LCD blur is caused by the sample and hold light characteristic. Watch some 60Hz content frame tripled on a 180Hz CRT (0ms response time) and you'll see almost identical blur to a fast LCD. Switching to 120Hz reduces this blur by half and well as improving the smoothness of the motion. For legacy 60Hz content you can either interpolate new frames (causing motion artifacts and increasing latency), use blank frame insertion (trading blur for flicker), or double the frames (keeping the SAH
        • The above post doesn't make sense to me.

          I just don't see how repeating frames on a CRT increases blurriness.

          I also don't see how sampling-and-holding increases blurriness on my hypothetical 0 ms LCD compared to using blank-frame insertion.

          Can someone explain this to me?

            • Eureka! Thank you. The blur is created by the eye, not the display.

              If your eye is following a moving object on a sample-and-hold display, there will be a discrepancy between where your eye expects the object to move to and where the object is displayed on screen. This discrepancy is the blur.

              Learning is good.

          • by Mprx (82435)
            Or on second thoughts, if you're happy with current video technology then you might want to pretend you never read this. Once you've seen the flaws you can't unsee them. Video standards are a ugly mass of hacks, so the more you learn the more annoyed you'll be.
  • by Megane (129182) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @04:15PM (#28582273) Homepage
    Someone should make those. It would be so awesome. [wikipedia.org]
  • It gave me a headache. If they do pursue this, I hope they release games in both so those of us that see no value in it can still play the games.

Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.

Working...