the real d system we use in cinema alternates the frames, the original film will be 24fps but it runs 144 fps ( i thought 70 each eye but its 72) a 'z screen' in front of the projector to alternates polarization then the audience wear glasses to ensure they are getting the correct image for each eye, the l1 r1 l1 r1 is triple flash that reduces the flicker
If you are going with a weird theory why go for crap like a LCD ? LED is still LCD
I mean, at least go with plasma, OLED or Laser.
And the frequency should be a multiple of the frame rate you want to see.
Although i hope Cameron manages to introduce a 48fps Movie standard as he wants to...
Didn't we have this discussion already in the hardware section? Nobody is going to buy a 1024x768 plasma for the price of a 1.5x the size of an LCD. 120Hz plasmas already add huge cost in addition.
About interpolation, what is not clear? Interpolation is occurring constantly on current displays. A console can't have a constant 60 fps, but the display is 60Hz, so the actual fps is interpolated on those 60Hz. It is exactly the same with 3D. A PS3 can't play all games in 120 fps, so if it manages to only have 22 for each eye (44 fps in total), these 22 will be interpolated to 60Hz (44 fps over 120Hz in total).
ah ok, thank you.
But in realtime it still sounds like trouble. I mean, if now there's a frame coming a little late it will just seem to stutter that moment. But now one eye might receive information in time and the other eye might not and the resulting effect might be really weird in 3D... i would really like to see that in action
iNatan wrote:
Didn't we have this discussion already in the hardware section? Nobody is going to buy a 1024x768 plasma for the price of a 1.5x the size of an LCD. 120Hz plasmas already add huge cost in addition.
No no, it doesn't work like that. When you have v-sync on, these kinds of issues are nonexistent. It might not be smooth (30 fps for me is not smooth enough, and console games are currently locked to 30 because they can't keep a persistent 60 fps), but there will not be issues of different eye frames not being in sync.
Again, this is not a new technology. Back when we had CRT monitors, I used to have shutter glasses and they worked very well considering the limitations of the technology. The problem with active shutter glasses is, no matter how fast, the eye and brain catch the flickering and it causes eye strain and headaches.
It all comes down to the user, of course, some people can use it for prolonged segments of time, while others feel the effects immediately.
As for 24p over 120Hz, it will be similar to current 24p over 60Hz, and that means some frame interpolation.
BTW, here is more on the techniques used in cinema (passive polarization):
and console games are currently locked to 30 because they can't keep a persistent 60 fps)
Oh come on we both know they dont even manage to keep 30fps up stupid consoles.
Gran Turismo and WipEout HD, two pretty meaty hardcore games originally run at 60fps. Not sure what framerate they run with 3D enabled (because I don't really understand it) but if they can shoehorn it into existing games so well like that I don't see an issue.
That video just just killed all motivation i had for 3D, nice vid though, thanks .
I always had a sense of 3Dimensionality with a regular monitor thanks to motion and perspective, anyway. So first ill see what those new TVs look like and see how, hopefully better, frame interpolation will perform...
And Ispep, sure the PS3 is capable of 60fps which would 30fps in 3D - or is the look somehow comparable to 30i with 60 independend half frames which kinda look like 60p ? Do you know that Natan?.
But almost no game is near that... so it just makes me wonder wether studios now start to optimize their games so much that its possible.
Yeah, they run at 60 fps (progressive), but both sacrifice detail for speed. In the case of GT, it is evident when you watch the replay, which is more detail rich and only runs at 30 fps.
Not all games can do this. It works well for a racer, because while racing at high speeds, details can be ignored, but it won't work in just about anything else.
3D in itself is not too much of a demanding task - a small shift in the camera position is used to simulate eyes. The problem arises from the need of double the framerate to feel same smoothness as 2D, and this is where current generation consoles fail.
My prediction is you will either see a reduction in detail to allow for faster rendering, or rendering to a lower, sub-720p, resolution and upscaling (like is done in a lot of games, already, for 2D ). You can even see some crazy stuff like rendering to nonstandard resolutions like 640x720 (half the horizontal resolution) to compensate for the need of rendering a scene twice as much. This is how Avatar does it currently on the 360 and PC.
The human eye notices more detail on the vertical axis, so it is not as bad as it sounds, but still pathetic when you compare to PC.
Gran Turismo and WipEout HD, two pretty meaty hardcore games originally run at 60fps. Not sure what framerate they run with 3D enabled (because I don't really understand it) but if they can shoehorn it into existing games so well like that I don't see an issue.
WipEoutHD keeps 60fps by dynamically lowering the resolution when needed, this could look very weird if your eyes happened to get two pictures of different resolution.
And GT5 hasn't been benchmarked yet. The demo can drop to 52 fps at times although it uses a simple track and only one car. I'd wait for the final version before I call it 60fps.
Yes, but the point is that it's a 60FPS game. How it achieves those framerates is neither here nor there and you'd be hard pressed to notice the resolution adjustments because it does it at speeds that would be impractical at best. The fact they've converted it into 3D and nobody has come out decrying it suggests the dynamic adjustment isn't having a negative effect... thus isn't it splitting heirs to bring it up?
With Gran Turismo I'm assuming they are using the GT5 prologue code as a base in the same way they did for the time trial 'demo' (which is not GT5, but I digress)... in that case we can call it a 60fps game because quite simply it is - and it's a 60fps game that is now converted into 3D. Which was my point. The marginal and very rare drop in framerates your talking about occur at certain points on a track and are what I'd call 'controlled' drops. They aren't variable framerate loss like you'd experience in an unoptimised game like say for example Ghostbusters on the PS3. And the introduction of extra cars and effects and so forth is taken into account (I guess with more aggressive LOD, etc).
*and as a PC gamer who plays iRacing at 1080p with 40 cars on track, online, you won't find me arguing against the fact the PC is capable of greater image quality and complexity at higher frame rates... but the PC also doesn't have a Polyphony Digital or Gran Turismo with it's breadth of content and artistic qualities either, so it's swings and roundabouts, and sometimes you have to make and accept sacrifices on both sides of the equation.
But either way the point is these games (originally made without 3D in mind and pretty intensive hardcore games at that) can handle 3D on the PS3. So I wouldn't worry. I'd be excited (if I had a compatible screen anyway).
Just don't forget that these 60fps are divided between the eyes, so now it is suddenly 30fps for each eye - ouch for a simulation. I really can't believe the PS3 can push anything near the 120 fps area, so resolution and detail will again suffer. I don't see 3D over detail as beneficial in any possible way aside from marketing purposes.
There is no debate that it is technically possible, the question is how and at what cost. Current generation consoles are so weak as it is, and straining them with 3D seems pointless.
What meant to say is that game developers should have other priorities then adding 3D support to their games. This generation of consoles is struggeling hard to maintain solid 30 or 60 fps at 720p (and sometimes even at lower resolutions) as it is and even exceptionally well crafted games like the ones you mentioned need to compromize to deliver solid framerates. Adding 3D technologies into the mix which make framerate issues even more troublesome concerns me and I fear lower quality settings or resolutions might become a norm to achieve this.
But maybe it's just me because I'm not really into the current 3D hype.
EDIT: Leo was two minutes faster. Agree, exactly what I meant.
I wouldn't disagree with either of you actually, but from what I've read of the 3D demos displayed I don't recall hearing any warning alarms sounded when it came to framerates. It's also worth repeating it's retroactive implementation, so the games weren't designed from the groundup to take advantage of 3D - and whilst I'm not expecting miracles I think the doom and gloom angle is premature. We don't really know how it's going to pan out, or even how Sony are going to handle it (it could be like the PSEye for example, and just the beginning of a long, long road to a dildo shaped controller in 3D space). I'm guessing it's going to be less invasive then you think, and its implementation in current-gen games like Gran Turismo might be a red herring. But, who knows...
Quote:
Just don't forget that these 60fps are divided between the eyes, so now it is suddenly 30fps for each eye - ouch for a simulation
Well, it wouldn't be the first 30fps racing game I've played, and the trade-off with its seemingly enhanced perspective for judging corners and occupied space combined with head-tracking might well be worth the cost in frame rate. But I am looking on the bright side, admittedly, and I'm still sceptical they can pull off the latter let alone the former in tandem.
Why dont they try something like headtracking which would provide a real depth perception
Like this guy does, you probably already know this
And now that i have a wii here i should try that sometime ...
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
stupid consoles.
). You can even see some crazy stuff like rendering to nonstandard resolutions like 640x720 (half the horizontal resolution) to compensate for the need of rendering a scene twice as much. This is how Avatar does it currently on the 360 and PC.
