And "any" other game too for that matter as the 3D capability of the PS3 will be provided as a software update. Check the link and video 8)
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/04/p...-to-all-exist/
Printable View
And "any" other game too for that matter as the 3D capability of the PS3 will be provided as a software update. Check the link and video 8)
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/04/p...-to-all-exist/
Yeaaaaaaaaaaah :D
Lol hes in 8th place racing at venom.
Noob.
Yea, I noticed that as well. It's amazing, but I'm not gonna buy a $1000 TV just to play it though.
I get headaches just thinking about it. Do not want.
Stats, Fury, 3D Wipeout experience.... we keep getting this, yet all I want is 1.26 era online gameplay.
i have to agree with okam, plus who is going to get a whole new tv just for a gimmick like that?
A software update and hardware glasses?
Lance - LCDs are polarized as that's how they operate (except instead of your eyes - they rotate polarization around sub pixels giving you the primary colors) - well, manufacturers FINALLY caught onto this aspect. If you put polarized sunglasses on (or happen to have some polarizing film laying around your basement like I do) - hold it up to an LCD screen - as you rotate it, you can completely black out the screen, rotate it 90 degrees, and suddenly it's completely clear. Using the properties of polarization and extinction - they put polarized lenses into 3d glasses - 90 degrees off plane from one another. So if your left eye needs to see an image - the LCD rotates the polarization for that frame while the right is black, the the next frame, it rotates it 90 degrees off so the right eye sees it. The staggered images give you a 3d experience. Much akin to the red and blue glasses - except instead of filtering by color (those always made me queasy) - they filter by polarization - so all the color is retained. Couple that with 120hz - and each eye gets to see 60hz video, and your brain says "holy $h!t 3_@*#&ing_D" Or you have a seizure. Both entertaining.
So you need a tv set that has a set polarization (most older LCDs seem to be random so no dice) - and it must be able to do at least 120hz if you want to see 60hz 3d. And some polarized glasses - and that's by far the cheapest component here.
I know how it works; I was being ironic. :D
But I do appreciate the work you put into the explanation.
I like.
Given that the game should run in 1080p at 60fps in 3D, we would needQuote:
Originally Posted by IH8YOU
60 frames for the right and 60 frames for the left eye. I'm really questioned
whether WipEout HD is capable of rendering 120 frames per second. I guess
the whole thing comes along with a reduction in resolution or framerate, if
the 3D effect should be for real, i.e. the whole scene is computed twice
for each 3D frame (= two 2D frames), each with a different camera angle.
yeah, well polarization is just a way right ? you also have the lcd glasses synchronized with the screen am i wrong ?
anyway, i agree you need 120 fps to get 60 fps 3D, but i'm sure once you computed a scene for right eyes, then compute the same scene for left eye will be faster, some sort of algo or soft or hard will do this no ?
When the time comes that it can be done without wearing glasses or other hardware, then I might like 3D. <damned perfectionist.
I would think it would run at 30FPS for 3D, and split screen would be unavailable simply because this is already running below 30FPS all the time. So it would be 30FPS 3D (Division of the normal 60FPS into 30FPS for left eye, 30FPS for right eye). It wouldn't be as smooth, but it would still be better than split screen :)
I don't think I have the screen for that though, my screen is a simple computer monitor from a few years ago. Only 60Hz.
@chboing: Yes, I think some stuff can be reused while computing the frame
for the other eye.
@Lance: The time has already come, but those glasses-free displays are not much
in use in the gaming sector, yet. There are 3D-displays out there that uses
about 5 masks to synthezise a steroscopic picture such that while looking at it
produces a three-dimensional effect without using glasses. It works by
intercepting the rendering pipline (usually based on OpenGL) to force it to
render additional pictures with a different camera positions each. A special
driver will then pre-process these images and send them to the 3D-display.
I was on a trade show where you could test and even buy those 3D-displays.
There are only two downsides to them. First, you can't perceive the 3D effect
while looking from the 'sides', and second, the resolution displayed is always
less as the one internally rendered, because those masks do cover space on the
display as well, they are all weaved together in some way.
I had always some doubts about whether this technique works out or not. But it
does! And it looks very good! I even played a racing game on the trade show. Up
to my point of view it is the best solution for 3D gaming, but an expensive one!
There exist some 3D-displays that can display a resolution of 1080p, but
rendering multiple frames at 1080p puts a heavy load on current graphics
accelerator. One can get a low-resolution 3D display (about 800x600) for about
1k EUR as of today.
Those displays are currently used in some parts of the industry and in academia.
So what are the complete specification televisions that will allow the use of this technology?
What Hz would i need,
Whats size screen?
etc....
The mentioned technology is already incorperated into those 3D-displays. It's not like
that you can download a software and buy a usual display to get the same effect.
3D in movies - nah, don't really see the point so not very interested (although I realize I may well have to take that back sooner or later, it's not like that argument hasn't been used before to describe tech we now take for granted)
3D gaming - yes I'm definitely interested! Just seems like it would be a natural extension and more close to reality. It's a 3 dimensional world, friends :)
Until it feels like you're REALLY in the craft with side tvs and such, I don't think I'll care too much either...
Would rather want old Wipeouts online... but I won't mention it... :D
lol, Especially in WipEout HD when so much information is coming at you at one time BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING SO MIND NUMBINGLY FAST LIKE I AM RIGHT NOW! IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE MIND TO COMPREHEND ANYTHING AT THIS SPEED!
And it makes typing difficult, too. :) Good job, MEKAGORI.
It all sounds very lovely and technical. No real idea what most of you are on about I'm afraid and I do think on occasions ignorance is bliss 8)
I'm just wondering how mental zone 100+ would be in 3D !!
I will do it anyway!8)<---while typing in 3D :beer
stevie:donut
WTF, The HUD itself is not in 3D, but it has to be the thing that must come first! (like the missile lock-on)
i'm pretty pessimistic about rendering 60fps for each eye... and we can't see it in the video cause it's under...
Wow, that's good news! Now I'm really glad that the TV I bought back in spring is a 200Hz Bravia! Oughtta work on this one! :hyper
The one question I have is that its stated that the 3-D aspect will be a firmware upgrade. Is it optional to download the FW? Im sure there are plenty of folk (myself included) thatd dont have a 200mz tv yet.
Two things. A 200millihertz TV would be.... 1 frame every 5 seconds. And a 200Megahertz TV would be pointless - even for robots, ProblemSolver and Yeldar alike.
A TV that can do 3D must have a coupe of things aside from the 120Hz to render 60Hz towards each eye - Wipeout HD currently runs at 60Hz (as do most games and video sources today) A 60Hz TV could run 3D at 30Hz - which isn't as fluid - but it seemed to work for everyone in the days of the original Playstation. More importantly - 120Hz or 240Hz doesn't mean the TV does 3D - you need a 3D ready set, so don't just assume the faster refresh rates also mean you get 3D - you may not, so keep an eye open for that. Polarization, filters, input coupling all are just as critical as the refresh rate - so unless the set blatantly states it's 3D or 3D ready - it's likely not.
Also - I still want to see how the PS3 - a single PS3, that is, could render Wipeout HD/Fury at twice the speed - when you can see this system struggle just to maintain 60Hz right now.
All that stuff that advertises itself as ______-ready is only ready for you to add the extra hardware that will make it actually deliver ______ .
Well, I already wear one pair of glasses. They are kinda necessary for me to play WOHD in 2D... Contacts are unfortunately not an option for me.
I'll wait in the corner, shaking my fist at technology, until I can join the party.
Yes, I thought about that too. That 3D thing must be at 30FPS. Would be more fluid than split-screen as it is running right now (Which I theorize is around 20FPS, and not 30FPS like they said it would be), but not by much. I'd take 60FPS over fancy 3D anytime for serious gameplay, though I would try it out if I could in some instances.Quote:
Originally Posted by IH8YOU
Because, what other game is also in 3D? GT5? It's also at 60FPS 1080p. Motorstorm Pacific Rift? Not sure, I think it's 720p 60FPS...
Same here. That and I'll take higher frame rates over 3-D any day.Quote:
Originally Posted by mic-dk
Well they were saying in the video that youll need at least 200 hz. 100hz per eye. Another thing that was said is that there is no set date for 3-D gaming. That video is false :naughty
Source: http://kotaku.com/5353830/sony-backs...aming-timeline
For anyone interested, this is how the screens with 3D effect (without the use of glasses) work.
http://www.3d-forums.com/autostereos...splays-t1.html
The biggest problem is what format 3D will take.
There is still a LOT of technical issues to be sorted before either of the 3D systems are ready for consumer use,it takes a lot more than a 200hz TV set and the set would have to work in a different manner than the 200hz model you have now.
Toshiba called a meeting between the two different camps to sort it before there is another format war similar to HDDVD & BlueRay,it's scheduled for mid October,see if anything comes of it.
If they use the same system as in the movie "UP" it should look fine,if that's possible at consumer level in the next few years though I'll be very surprised.
meh :P
i dont see how a tech that requires everyone to wear glasses is going to catch on at all. similiarly the glass free approach is pointless as you need to be sitting at a very specific angle to get the proper effect. Does not translate to peoples living room's.
It's all very interesting from a geek perspective but totally not ready for general use imo.
I'm dreading the coming of 3-D because, AFAIK, it requires that you have full sight in both eyes. I'm partially blind and can't see out of my left eye; I can't see those stupid stereograms at all.
Is 3-D really so wonderful that it's worth shutting out a segment of the population?
Well, not to sound harsh, but that's like saying let's do everything in black and white because there are some people who are colorblind. :?
See, there's my question. As someone who can see color, I think color images are much better than black and white for video games (though you can still play them in B/W). I'm happy color TV was invented and wouldn't want to go back to B/W.Quote:
Originally Posted by eLhabib
On the other hand, the difference between standard-definition images and wide-screen high-definition is almost negligible to me, and I wouldn't have minded very much if HD had never come about.
What is the difference like with 3-D? Once you see a game in 3-D, is there "no going back", or is it just a nice additional thing to have?
Wait, what?! You obviously have never seen any good quality 1080p footage! It's like night and day!
Personally, I like 3D, it does add to movies (and presumably videogames) to give it that extra level of immersion, but it's in no way something I would need in a game. At least not as much as HD graphics - I don't ever wanna go back to SD :blarg
1080p, probably not yet. So far all I've done it watched DVDs and played PS2 games on my new TV (upscaled). I definitely like it more than SD, but not *that* much more. Certainly not as important as color vs. B/W. My opinion might change when I play something in real 1080p, of course.
Good to hear -- if the 3-D transition is less than the SD transition, iI must not be missing out on that much. Hopefully playing in 2-D will still be an option.Quote:
Personally, I like 3D, it does add to movies (and presumably videogames) to give it that extra level of immersion, but it's in no way something I would need in a game. At least not as much as HD graphics - I don't ever wanna go back to SD :blarg