very good article and very informative indeed , it actually made me care about 3D when they described the experience with WipeOut HD and Motorstorm and how it added to the depth in the game.
The Science
There are three main types of 3D technology currently in use across TV, cinema, and gaming: polarised, LCD shutter, and parallax barrier. To understand how each technology works, first, we have to look at how exactly our brains generate a 3D image. Our ability to see in three dimensions is based on the fact that we have two eyes, placed next to each other, which is known as binocular vision. This allows us to not only see the length, width, and height of an object, but it also lets us perceive the depth and distance of it.
Polarised glasses are a common sight at cinemas.
Because each of our eyes is in a slightly different position, each eye has a different perspective on whatever it perceives. If you close one eye at a time, you can look at the individual images that your eyes see and notice how objects appear differently in both. This difference is known as vertical shift. The closer an object is, the bigger the vertical shift. What our brain does is analyse the two images, and via a process known as stereopsis, combines them to form a single picture. The difference in shift between the images allows us to judge the depth and distance of an object.
The various 3D technologies fool the brain into giving an object depth by sending two slightly different images to each eye, replicating the vertical shift that happens in the real world. Films and TV shows use cameras with two lenses to capture those images, while 3D animated films and games can simply move the virtual camera perspective to render them. What differs between each of the different 3D technologies is how the two images are sent to your eyes.
158 comments
"IceQBkid Posted Oct 1, 2010 1:06 pm GMT Has anyone bothered to read the last page? 3D tech is bad for ur eyes...I wish it wasnt i really do but unless we evolve into some higher beings i do think 3D will flop over time" You've GOT to be kidding. They said the same crap about CRT TVs, and LCD monitors, and even crazy nonsense about safety glass being used for windshields. Our eyes naturally process 3D. Please, get over it. With current technology, if you sit, staring into a screen for hours on end, your eyes get strained, and can lead to injury. Thats why there are advisories to take breaks even with 2D games. Wow, swallow another pill and read another script. Better yet, don't post anymore.
I have one of those Sony 3-D tv's. Haven't hooked up my PS3 yet, but I'm curious to see how it would all look in 3-D.
Nope bought 55 inch Samsung 3D LED with wireless 3d blueray player 2 pairs of glasses and a 3d movies for $2600 same amount I bought my piece of crap Mitsubishi 61 DLP for 5 years ago. It is affordable and it looks incredible. Tons of movies just came out for xmas for 3d and my tv up converts the xbox to 3d even without wearing glasses. The depth added to games makes the image in HD so much more sweet. But true I dont play normally on 3d because the refresh rate for the tv is too slow and causes some games to be sluggish (controller and movement on screen are almost delayed/laggy) thats why the manufacturer added a game mode that you can switch between. Anyway this is the best picture of any tv I've owned regardless if it is 3d or not. The movies in 3d are so much better than the IMAX movies that you spend $20 a ticket to go see. Sorry I'm not convinced that it is a gimmick or will be declared worthless. Its just another step to somewhere else better like VHS/Beta or Cassettes were back in the day. Spend your time waiting for the next best thing I dont care but dont speak unless you know what your talking about.
Although I'm optimistic of the fact that I'm not gonna lay my hands on 3D for a really long time, this article was quite informative. Bookmarked !!!
Still wondering how cool it will be playing COD on one of these things XD. But i think i will pass until it it gets cheaper
I'm VERY happy with my Nvidia 3D vision glasses and my Asus monitor. I have tons of games that look fantastic... games that most people already play. WoW is fun in 3d... but some games are really quite stunning. It's hard for me to go down the path of the 3DTV and PS3 when there's simply no content. I have a library of thousands upon thousands of games that work in 3d... some old... some new. I'd say that I'd be more interested in getting a TV that works with Nvidia's 3dtv software solution and 3d vision... or perhaps I'll simply invest in a 3d projector. They're not out yet in 1080p... but some are really quite cheap.
I just want it for team Ico's titles.... and maybe nature programs! imagine a tiger running towards you! as in, not graphics or cg like in movies, but the real animal recorded, living and breathing on your tv screen---or what about a snake striking at you, or watching the eagle fly as if you could touch it.
Very nice article. It has everything you need to know to get into the new 3D world. 3D is still expensive and i think 3DS will be the cheapest way to "feel" it.
i have a master system, 3d glasses, about 50+ games, cartridge and little sliver cards, the gun, joystick, rollerball controller, and the standard 2 button rectangles. heavenly :D the 3d is awesome for being from 87
None of the Hype surrounding it makes me want to upgarde my TV (yet). Show me something amazing with 3D, then i'll buy into it.
I got a 3D TV yesterday and I'm lovin it. However, I would suggest people wait on it. I've got Wipeout in 3D and it looks awesome. The TV I got came with a 3D IMAX sampler and I bought My Bloody Valentine 3D, and they all look awesome. I got to work today looking for more 3D stuff, and I knew the content was limited but I didn't realize HOW limited. And WipeOut like I said looks great, but I've gotta wait a few more months before any big time 3D games come out aside from little downloadable games. I also don't think 3D will make HDTVs obsolete by any means. It might eventually make it's way into being a standard feature, but I definitely don't think EVERYTHING will be in 3D until auto-stereoscopic. I would've kept on waiting, but it was a great TV at the price I was waiting for with the bundles I wanted, so I dived into it. Probably shouldn't have lol
to all the haters, you can't fight progress. you may be a little upset right now because the technology is still expensive, but it's not going anywhere. first adopters will be gamers, then huge sports fans, then maybe eccentric movie buffs, then little by little it will seep into every household and tv channels will soon all support 3D, much like the HD revolution
I don't know, I like the slightly layered 3D it looks cool. I've heard people say they didn't like Avatar 3D because it didn't look very 3D but thats why I liked it. I enjoy the subtle 3D, not the WHOAAAAAAA in your face 3D.
HD is a massive improvement but 3D is a total gadget. That's not gonna enhance the quality of the games anyway I would expect team ICO to do a great job with such technology, but I tried Pacific Rift the other day and it was pointless
they fail to point out that if one of your eyes doesnt work (if like me you have lazy eye for example) that you neednt bother getting excited ... we cant see it
I find media turning 3D a quite natural thing too. And I felt similar about widescreen finally becoming a standard for displays at home. Because our vision isn't square, and it's not 2D either. I would still agree though that almost all classic films and such should still be viewed in 2D. But if you can make new ones in 3D, it's great, it would only add to the experience. Especially with games being played in real-time. After all, they are already made in virtual 3D, only it doesn't come out of the screen. It's about time that we can almost really "be there". Otherwise, even though it does add a dimension to games, they wouldn't have started making games in 3D. (And I'm still talking about the 3D-visuals in general, without the glasses and such.) It was already made to make things seem deeper and more real. Also, I don't think it's unhealthy at all. If anything it keeps your eyes "trained", when you focus on different depths in the image. Personally, my eyes have become lazy, at least one of them, from working behind 2D-screens too much over the last decade or so. And I used to have a very sharp vision. Once I started using 3D-technology, I couldn't focus well with films at first. Later on though, I found it "trained" my eyes to work better at different depths in the image. But that's just my experience. If anything else, the rule of taking a break every hour or so still applies. But that's not only for your eyes...
Explain how you can view 3D with shutter glasses without a 3D player? Black Ops for 360 in 3D makes no sense? Is it just the polarized technology or does the 360 actually use BlueRay and we were all fooled?
Hoorah for 3DS! I want one so bad! The DS will always be the best handheld gaming system. I sold my DS Lite and got PSP 2001, and I'm sorely regretting it.
Sweet i cant wait for 3D contact lenses /sarcasm. I dont know watz worse , the overhype of 3D, grown a$$ people using Twitter, Justin Beiber(dont care if i spell his name wrong). We are a nation full of gullible idiots.
3D is still being utilized with newer tech, but with the same general ideas as were used in the 50's. Even the approach Nvidia is using. The best chance for 3D to truly be useful is for the screen being used to play the games or media to support 3D natively. That way people can program for a screen and the technology in the screen and not specifically for Nvidia, AMD or Intel graphics processors. The soon to be released 3DS is a good example of this kind of tech. People will use 3D when they no longer have to use glasses and suffer with sub-par color and brightness from the technology. This is why imo Nvidia's approach is strictly a short-term model. There will be a significant difference between games built for native 3D screens versus a software overlay to add it after the fact and a slightly more refined approach from the 1950s. That is why Avatar was so successful as a 3D movie because it was built for 3D from the beginning and not just tacked on.
Just like blu-ray until it is easier for people to get their hands on it will struggle. Even more so now that only gamers will consider buying this.
Yah i have nvidia 3d kit and 120hz monitor the only games that play good in 3d and dont give you a headake .Are world of warcraft and gothic 3.. Battlefeild bad company 2 looks good but after 15mins with it on your head gets sick and you have to shut off the ir imiter.But the hoel reason why i bought the kit was for Crysis 2.Crytek put 3 years of 3d reasearch into the game. (other thoughts ...i wish i could play killzone on my pc)
For guys bulls***g 3D. i think this is the natrual evolution to 2D gaming. sure it needs a little refinement but then so does everything else :) As far as it being bad for eyes is concerned, i think they said the same for CRT TVs when they came out. now we have LEDs an plasmas.I think if you can afford it then go for it. If not theres nothing else that you can do other then wait and maybe it'll be good cus then technilogy might have improved slightly when you are able to afford it. oh an for Bluray, lweill what more to say then PS3 FTW.
3D allows to better anticipate stuff when gaming? Who wrote this? Ask any competitive gamer out there they'll tell you 3D interferes negatively on their ability to play the game. It's a fun and immersive gimmick but I'd definitely not go online with it. It's just a trade off. With 3D you're like "waow things pop out", then you get bored of it, switch back to 2D and you're like "waow the image quality is so much nicer". Just make your pick.
Avatar? You mean that 2 and half hour Pocahontas ripoff with a stupid 3D gimmick to boost up sales?
3D is a gimmick, always has been, always will be. A gimmick which can give people headaches.
Amazing that we have this technology too many years in the past. Looking forward to get one of the DSi 3D. It is ok or what happen if I use lenses or spectacles?
- The main reason for the failure of the virtual boy was the fact that graphics didn't really popped out, and it just looked red and tiresome, and the new technology may be awesome, but it is way too expensive for some people (me included), So my guess is that people are going to opt for a cheaper LCD or regular LED tv screen instead of buying the more expensive but totally awesome LED 3D capable screen -
@apocalypsehorse - You're friendly aren't you? Toy Story 3 isn't REAL 3D.. it's simulated 3D.. end of.. @sabas10 - to quote your own post '..3D-telly's (actually this is a fake name because it isnt in 3D, but in 3D-ready or 2D-popup)' Now about these different types of 3D that exist :-s ... There's Full HD 3D, REAL 3D, multi-dimensional 3D (or 4D).. So which is 3D then??? In my opinion, if it doesn's simulate stereoscopic, free-focusing depth of field 3D.. then it aint REAL 3D. So for now, with me apparently not knowing what I'm talking about, you carry on enjoying your 'whatever you wish to call it REAL, TRUE, FULL HD 3D' experience while I'll just enjoy it when the real thing comes along. Good day (in full HD 3D)
Speedy scenes like some in avatar results in a blurry an messy image. So i've decide to wtach the movie again in classic 2D. So my point is: 3D it's fun it's great but has no chance at all to replace neat 2D images. I'm gonna get those glasses for the PS3 for sure. I'm gonna enjoy it too. It is true that you end up kindda tired after a long session of 3D. That's why 2D films and games of the past survived easly against 3D. Same old story, of the same fight.
@ IceQBkid Um it didn't quite say that. It stated that for SOME people it could be bad. Just the same a seizure inducing lights. You take precaution before you use any said product. Almost everything has warnings, and just because you read one here doesn't mean this is more of a priority then eating rotten cheese that has been unrefrigerated, and didn't bother reading the package warning. I can only see a flop in the battle, but not the war. IF it does flop it will re-introduce itself again, and again, and again. And, the tech won't be the reason for the flop. It will be the price. But this is supply and demand. If people start incorporating this stuff into your daily lives then prices will drop, but it has to break that initial unknown supply mark. I personally can't see this tech ever going away. We have way to many smart people in our world for that to happen. And I am even convinced that consumer halographic media will also come within the next 2 or 3 decades. Humans + brains + curiosity + science = cool shhh in the future.
Nintendo 3DS's resolution is only 400 x 240? Come on... That's lower than the PSP! The Iphone's resolution is 960 x 640.
Has anyone bothered to read the last page? 3D tech is bad for ur eyes...I wish it wasnt i really do but unless we evolve into some higher beings i do think 3D will flop over time
If you have never seen anything 3D you must be living under a rock.. 3D has been around for years heck even cereal boxes have it at times. This will work but It should not cost so much. If anything why dont they invent something to put over your screen like you do with a PSP protector and make it so it shows the picture in 3D. Sounds so much cheaper but eh..
3D in movies and games is another ploy to reap as much money as possible with providing a cruddy experience.
Just close one eye and see what happens... Try it a few times while playing a game, watching tv, or even looking at pictures. Monocular 3D - your brain always searches for depths cues and when you only peer through one eye, it doesn't realize you are looking at 2D surface. Try it, like a pirate...
Conversation powered by Livefyre
Featured Games
-
The Orange Box
(PC) -
Resident Evil Revelations
(3DS) -
Nintendogs + Cats: GR
(3DS)
