6. To 3D or Not 3D?
We attended the first-ever 3D Gaming Summit to learn what industry insiders plan to do about the future of 3D films and games.
After sitting through countless keynotes and panels at the 3D Gaming Summit, I walked away with two opinions.
The first is that most attendees are not decision makers. These people didn’t seem to fully understand and appreciate the 3D technology and had many preconceived notions. As I spoke with Rein after the summit, he told this writer that he is actively working with many of the “big studios” and that there’s huge interest in 3D, regardless of the technology.
“What they’re doing in films in 3D for the home will really help drive adoption. The films look great on home systems and the new 3D players are miles better, in every way, than the Blu-ray players that came out before them,” Rein said. “It’s a good time for [Hollywood] now.”
The second conclusion I made is that trouble is brewing in Los Angeles because the technologies that entertainment companies are employing aren’t blending together well. Some filmmakers and game developers still aren’t working together. That’s slowly changing, according to THQ Creative Director Luis Giglioti. For the first time, filmmakers are approaching game developers, and vice versa, in order to create memorable and exciting experiences.
“When was the last time a videogame made you cry?” Giglioti said.
For most of us, it has yet to happen. It may never happen with continued industry resistance. Whispers and hushed insults made the rounds at this conference. It felt like many of the film representatives at the conference consider game developers to be immature dorks, as they gossip quietly with their colleagues. However, several members of the game industry we spoke with said they wanted nothing more than to work together and to do whatever it takes to make the best product.
Some in the film industry are not only interested, but are already in the process of making deals with new partners in the game industry to begin production of new films and games. But progress is slow.
The biggest cornerstone is Nvidia, which is doing everything it can to get its technology into everyone’s hands. These may not be the best glasses available–they’re big, bulky, and heavy–but with more industry support, Nvidia could work to make better, lighter, and thinner glasses for less money.
I had the opportunity to view 3D gaming and 3D TV at a local Fry's Electronics store. I was not impressed with the technology. It still requires a lot of development and price reduction to an acceptable level.
I had the opportunity to view 3D gaming and 3D TV at a local Fry's Electronics store. I was not impressed with the technology. It still requires a lot of development and price reduction to an acceptable level.
Agreed.
I jumped on the i7 bandwagon, but I'll pass on by this one, for now.
Back when Nvidia first released their 3D Vision kit, I bought it. Back then, it was so new, I couldn't even find any reviews on the internet. Despite that, it worked perfectly for the most part. GUIs and 2D sprites in games produced a lot of eye strain, but it's merely a game design implementaion. Despite this, I have come to hate 3D gaming. It gives me migrains and does not make games any more fun. I returned my $600 3D vision kit, and am glad that I did.
Watching Avatar in 3D gave me a headache, not because the movie was bad or anything (on the contrary, it was spectacular), but because of the glasses. And that was only for 3 hrs.
Gamers play a lot more than that in one stretch. So atleast until a technology comes which allows us to play in 3D for long hours without giving migranes, I'l pass ...
I am waiting for Virtual Reality helmets or glasses with screens in those and head positioning/angle/etc adjustment for games. That is where I see the future, cost effective and addresses most of the issues. Resolution will slowly reach up.
I want 3D and I want it now. I have no issues with headaches. My only issue is price and standardization. Im with ATI for the moment. Very close to going back to Nvidia just for 3D vision.
I just spent an eternity putting in my comments only to lose everything when trying to submit again... why do I bother?
Take 2: I see another mess coming as far as competing standards go and early adoptoers (our heroes) will lierally pay the price again. There are 2 competing standards ATM (not this again), the most prevalent being the shutter glasses, and the other being polerised glasses (with differing standards here again). IMHO circular polerised glasses makes the most sense due to the fact that they are cheap and are less likely to give ppl headaches (shuter glasses have to give an alternating image to each eye... just the thought gives me a headache), not to mention all the other advantages of polerised glasses such as no need for power/transmitters, synch issues, maximum transmitter dist etc... But herein lies the problem, currently, NVidia is pushing the shutter tech and is here right now, but ATI is (seemingly) sitting on it's ass, though roumers are that it will back the polerised tech. What's ATI waiting for? It appears that 3d may very well be ruined b4 it even starts due to early adoptors getting stung (sorry guys... u really are our heroes) with hight costs and headaches etc. Word will spread that the tech is crap and everything will grind to a halt. If only the big corps (including the games and movie industry) will come to an agreement on a standard... dream on!
Maybe having never played/watched anything with 3D glasses help but I have absolutely zero desire to jump into this. And I mean really, zero, nothing, nada.
3D is the new bluray, which was the new DVD etc.
It'll be mainstream eventually. As for eyestrian, that is a concern, but I suspect it has more to do with synced lens focusing on the projectors.
Where is the 1D for those of us with low end hardware?
Oh now, shutter glasses will win.
Give everybody headaches.
And because of that 3D will fail again!
These people really should realize the limitations of shutter glasses and go for polarized glasses.
Guess this is the new VHS versus Betamax.
(The technical inferiour solution has won back then: VHS won. )
I believe/fear this will happen again.
Shutter glasses require users to sit in the “sweet spot,” directly in front of the screen, to see the image properly. This isn’t true for all technologies, but Nvidia’s technology requires it for now. Polarized lenses, on the other hand, can allow viewers to properly see the image at any angle, so long as they are circular polarized glasses, the de-facto standard at the 3D Gaming Summit.
And still some industry is backing shutter glasses?
What a retards! I want polarized gaming and films/tv/movie.
I can't believe they actually are that dumb.
ATI just has to come out with a good polarized standard.
People will notice that it's more resistant/flexible/less-error-prone then shutter.
The advatage of the headaches thing will win many over anyway.
It will be liked more by the consumers.
The shutter people are really stupid.
Does anyone remember the 3d demo that was put on using the wii remote. Thats what I want. It gave the illusion of 3d and would make the game more immersable, also It was dirt cheap and didnt have to have a special tv. It was with Johnny lee. Head tracking. Why cant they just do that.
I have 3 pairs of the Polarized glasses as I bought them each time I saw a new 3D movie at the cinema, they are so cheap they are almost a disposable item. Who wants to pay $100+ for a pair of shutter glasses which could easily be damaged.
@annymmo
It's not just a simple case of "oh, I want polarizing glasses to win." 3D images based on polarizing technology require 2 overlayed images, one with horizontally polarized light and the other with vertically polarized light. This is simply not possible to do using a conventional LCD, as they weren't designed with this in mind, and is hence why nVidia uses the shutter glasses option.
Unless a new type of computer display with with something like h and v sub-pixels can be produced, gaming is stuck using the shutter technology for now.
@Fox Montage
iZ3D has apparently accomplished this using conventional LCD technology. If you go to their site they explain it. Basically they have 2 LCD screens produce the required image. From what I have seen the technology isn't perfect yet, but alot of people like it (I saw this iZ3D monitor at a Microcenter on display, but it was on an old computer with the cheapest shitiest glasses possible, it looked like crap, but also not a fair stab at what it could be like).
I finally tried nVidia's 3D when I found a demo of it running on Dirt 2 at a store. Everything was a blurry separated mess until my eyes focused a certain way, just like those pictures with hidden 3D images which were popular for a while some years back.
The effect is like floating 2D planes of images just like red/blue 3D comics in the 80s only this was full color. It is neat, but keeping your eyes focused at the same distance for extended periods is a leading cause of eye strain and is believed to accelerate the development of Presbyopia.
If shutter 3D becomes the new "normal" way people view TV, movies and games youth could end up with 50 year old eyes by the time they are 30.
I hope this technology is just a stepping stone to something more healthy.
I had the opportunity to watch Avatar with both polairzing and shutter glasses and I found the experience to be less of a strain with the polarizing system. There was some (small) amount of flicker with the shutter glasses just at the edge of some content and I did find them more of a strain on my eyes than the polairizing ones though both were quite acceptable, which is more than I can say for the movie.
Having a single standard for 3D across all formats, cinema, video and gaming makes sense and polarizing glasses seem to make more sense in this regard. Perhaps Oakley et al can produce a stylish set that you can wear to the beach and the theatre. From a user perspective standards wars suck
With Nvidia's hardware, you have to keep in mind that on the PC the depth can be adjusted. Demos you have tried publicly probably aren't suited for you...they're suited for the last person who complained when a store employee was around to change the depth.
However, if you're watching video, then depth is preset and generally it isn't a problem. For games, yes, I've had problems even at the lowest depth setting. But that's a personal matter, because everyone's eyes are different. You may be able to see more depth than I can without irritation, or perhaps less. It really depends on the person.