id Software Boss: 3D Isn't Ready for Prime Time

[dnadns]

I don't understand why the focus in the article is so much on "lack off 3D content". You don't necessarily have to create content specifically for 3D to have 3D. Almost all the games out there are 3D. All you have to do is render the image twice from slightly displaced viewpoints and wear 3D glasses. This is how nVidia 3D vision works, and in principle it works with all 3D games.

3d cuts the frame rate in half since each eye has to have the image rendered and displayed one at a time. Refresh rate also comes into play with 3d working properly.

The TVs that do an automatic conversion run at 120hz (2x 60hz in 3D) and it doesn't matter what the game is actually outputting.

Actually there are HD TVs that can run at 600Hz but it doesn't change the fact that if incoming signal is 60Hz, you're only getting 60FPS. And it does matter that software and hardware can only put out so many images a second because if your non 3d game runs optimally at 60 FPS, once it goes 3D, you're only seeing 30 FPS. Stereo images are rendered individually and displayed individually. Just to the exclusion of the correct eye.

That's not entirely correct. The Sony KDL-40HX805 runs at up to 200hz and does the 3D conversion of native 2D material. It actually duplicates the video signal and therefore is not limited by the framerate of the original material.

What you are talking about is native 3D support by the content where developer or movie makers can fine-tune the effect. However the Bravia I was talking about is using an algorithm and duplicates the frames to create a fluid 3D effect.

And yes, these TVs are already available (just had a look at one at our local BestBuy equivalent).

 

[Tiamat666]

I don't understand why the focus in the article is so much on "lack off 3D content". You don't necessarily have to create content specifically for 3D to have 3D. Almost all the games out there are 3D. All you have to do is render the image twice from slightly displaced viewpoints and wear 3D glasses. This is how nVidia 3D vision works, and in principle it works with all 3D games.

3d cuts the frame rate in half since each eye has to have the image rendered and displayed one at a time. Refresh rate also comes into play with 3d working properly. Accidental premature post*** I bet the MS could release glasses that plug into the 360 controller to do 3d without modifying the hardware and all future games could be programmed to render in 3d--It's just that the 360s hardware already struggles with rendering things without doubling the workload. I'm guessing Nintendo could do the same thing but face the same problem.

TVs are an issue because the left image has to be gone by the time the right eye shutter reopens. SD TVs might have an advantage as I believe they run at 60Hz, so if you locked your game at 60 FPS then you could have 3D at 30 FPS. I'm not sure how much flicker there would be but... just speculating.

There are certainly technical issues. But not really a lack of content.

 

[Booze Zombie]

It's niche because it's a gimmick, if you'll pardon me saying.

 

[Corven]

Toshiba has "no-glasses" 3-D TV's due out the end of the year...

http://gizmodo.com/5620310/three-glasses+less-3dtvs-expected-by-toshiba-before-years-end

I was wondering why they haven't done this yet, if they can do it on the 3ds why can't they do it to a TV?

 

[Generic_Dave]

Toshiba has "no-glasses" 3-D TV's due out the end of the year...

http://gizmodo.com/5620310/three-glasses+less-3dtvs-expected-by-toshiba-before-years-end

I was wondering why they haven't done this yet, if they can do it on the 3ds why can't they do it to a TV?

Apparently they only go up to about 20-something " at the moment. But it's a start anyway. I remember reading about this ages ago and they said it wouldn't be ready until 2015...

 

[Danzaivar]

The problem (in my opinion) is that the change from SD to HD is too recent for people to be willing to change stuff yet. Half the people I know are still dragging their heels about getting a HD telly, noone I know is willing to fork out a few hundred quid AGAIN for another 4 or 5 years.

That and the glasses are just dumb as hell.

 

[dghjdgdjf]

Toshiba has "no-glasses" 3-D TV's due out the end of the year...

http://gizmodo.com/5620310/three-glasses+less-3dtvs-expected-by-toshiba-before-years-end

I was wondering why they haven't done this yet, if they can do it on the 3ds why can't they do it to a TV?

Apparently they only go up to about 20-something " at the moment. But it's a start anyway. I remember reading about this ages ago and they said it wouldn't be ready until 2015...

Yeah, but the resolution is quite horrible, it's expensive as F*ck (pardon my french), you have to sit right infront of it from a specific distance (not to close and not to far away) or it wont work and you get naucious if you look at it for a longer period of time.

I'm just glad theres some people out there with some actual sense. I'm not saying 3D will never become a big and regular thing, but it's just not there yet. The technology is not advanced enough for it being worthwhile. And personally, I'd rather wait for VR games then playing games in 3D. (Even though that might take a looooong, long time.)

 

[Generic_Dave]

Yeah, but the resolution is quite horrible, it's expensive as F*ck (pardon my french), you have to sit right infront of it from a specific distance (not to close and not to far away) or it wont work and you get naucious if you look at it for a longer period of time.

I'm just glad theres some people out there with some actual sense. I'm not saying 3D will never become a big and regular thing, but it's just not there yet. The technology is not advanced enough for it being worthwhile. And personally, I'd rather wait for VR games then playing games in 3D. (Even though that might take a looooong, long time.)

I have heard there is one in Dev by Samsung and somebody else in a joint venture, and it gives a 120 degree window in front of your TV for the 3-D effect...but that was on one of those BBC or CNN "Tech-specials" so I wouldn't hold my breath.

And sure while we're dreaming, I'll skip VR and go straight to the Holodeck.

 

[squid5580]

Toshiba has "no-glasses" 3-D TV's due out the end of the year...

http://gizmodo.com/5620310/three-glasses+less-3dtvs-expected-by-toshiba-before-years-end

Well that solves one problem. Now what about the eye strain? I went and saw Piranha 3D and man were my eyes tired after.

 

[righthanded]

I don't understand why the focus in the article is so much on "lack off 3D content". You don't necessarily have to create content specifically for 3D to have 3D. Almost all the games out there are 3D. All you have to do is render the image twice from slightly displaced viewpoints and wear 3D glasses. This is how nVidia 3D vision works, and in principle it works with all 3D games.

3d cuts the frame rate in half since each eye has to have the image rendered and displayed one at a time. Refresh rate also comes into play with 3d working properly.

The TVs that do an automatic conversion run at 120hz (2x 60hz in 3D) and it doesn't matter what the game is actually outputting.

Actually there are HD TVs that can run at 600Hz but it doesn't change the fact that if incoming signal is 60Hz, you're only getting 60FPS. And it does matter that software and hardware can only put out so many images a second because if your non 3d game runs optimally at 60 FPS, once it goes 3D, you're only seeing 30 FPS. Stereo images are rendered individually and displayed individually. Just to the exclusion of the correct eye.

That's not entirely correct. The Sony KDL-40HX805 runs at up to 200hz and does the 3D conversion of native 2D material. It actually duplicates the video signal and therefore is not limited by the framerate of the original material.

What you are talking about is native 3D support by the content where developer or movie makers can fine-tune the effect. However the Bravia I was talking about is using an algorithm and duplicates the frames to create a fluid 3D effect.

And yes, these TVs are already available (just had a look at one at our local BestBuy equivalent).

If the source isn't formatted for 3d, you're missing the information to display it in 3d. Not to say you can't fudge the output to give it the effect, but this isn't Blade Runner where extra information can be rendered from nowhere. You just can't get 1 image to render 2 perspectives accurately.

 

[dnadns]

That's not entirely correct. The Sony KDL-40HX805 runs at up to 200hz and does the 3D conversion of native 2D material. It actually duplicates the video signal and therefore is not limited by the framerate of the original material.

What you are talking about is native 3D support by the content where developer or movie makers can fine-tune the effect. However the Bravia I was talking about is using an algorithm and duplicates the frames to create a fluid 3D effect.

And yes, these TVs are already available (just had a look at one at our local BestBuy equivalent).

If the source isn't formatted for 3d, you're missing the information to display it in 3d. Not to say you can't fudge the output to give it the effect, but this isn't Blade Runner where extra information can be rendered from nowhere. You just can't get 1 image to render 2 perspectives accurately.

Then welcome to the age of Blade Runner, because that's exactly what it is doing.
You might want to check it out first before going further on about it.

 

[righthanded]

That's not entirely correct. The Sony KDL-40HX805 runs at up to 200hz and does the 3D conversion of native 2D material. It actually duplicates the video signal and therefore is not limited by the framerate of the original material.

What you are talking about is native 3D support by the content where developer or movie makers can fine-tune the effect. However the Bravia I was talking about is using an algorithm and duplicates the frames to create a fluid 3D effect.

And yes, these TVs are already available (just had a look at one at our local BestBuy equivalent).

If the source isn't formatted for 3d, you're missing the information to display it in 3d. Not to say you can't fudge the output to give it the effect, but this isn't Blade Runner where extra information can be rendered from nowhere. You just can't get 1 image to render 2 perspectives accurately.

Then welcome to the age of Blade Runner, because that's exactly what it is doing.
You might want to check it out first before going further on about it.

You're the one making ridiculous claims. Post a link. I find no relevant information on this magical technology. As a computer science and electrical engineering major, the ability to accurately render two 3D perspectives from one 2D image isn't in the realm of science.

 

[dnadns]

That's not entirely correct. The Sony KDL-40HX805 runs at up to 200hz and does the 3D conversion of native 2D material. It actually duplicates the video signal and therefore is not limited by the framerate of the original material.

What you are talking about is native 3D support by the content where developer or movie makers can fine-tune the effect. However the Bravia I was talking about is using an algorithm and duplicates the frames to create a fluid 3D effect.

And yes, these TVs are already available (just had a look at one at our local BestBuy equivalent).

If the source isn't formatted for 3d, you're missing the information to display it in 3d. Not to say you can't fudge the output to give it the effect, but this isn't Blade Runner where extra information can be rendered from nowhere. You just can't get 1 image to render 2 perspectives accurately.

Then welcome to the age of Blade Runner, because that's exactly what it is doing.
You might want to check it out first before going further on about it.

You're the one making ridiculous claims. Post a link. I find no relevant information on this magical technology. As a computer science and electrical engineering major, the ability to accurately render two 3D perspectives from one 2D image isn't in the realm of science.

First hit on google

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/specs/KDL46HX800_mksp.pdf

Take note of the "can convert personal 2D material to 3D" line.
Now the line with being a cs major would seem a bit embarassing, bit I won't take you on it too heavily. Btw. there is no magic in converting 2D images to 3D, but the results are not as refined as native 3D. Also it more of a real-time rasterization problem in terms of processing power than a theoretical problem.

 

[righthanded]

It's

That's not entirely correct. The Sony KDL-40HX805 runs at up to 200hz and does the 3D conversion of native 2D material. It actually duplicates the video signal and therefore is not limited by the framerate of the original material.

What you are talking about is native 3D support by the content where developer or movie makers can fine-tune the effect. However the Bravia I was talking about is using an algorithm and duplicates the frames to create a fluid 3D effect.

And yes, these TVs are already available (just had a look at one at our local BestBuy equivalent).

If the source isn't formatted for 3d, you're missing the information to display it in 3d. Not to say you can't fudge the output to give it the effect, but this isn't Blade Runner where extra information can be rendered from nowhere. You just can't get 1 image to render 2 perspectives accurately.

Then welcome to the age of Blade Runner, because that's exactly what it is doing.
You might want to check it out first before going further on about it.

You're the one making ridiculous claims. Post a link. I find no relevant information on this magical technology. As a computer science and electrical engineering major, the ability to accurately render two 3D perspectives from one 2D image isn't in the realm of science.

First hit on google

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/specs/KDL46HX800_mksp.pdf

Take note of the "can convert personal 2D material to 3D" line.
Now the line with being a cs major would seem a bit embarassing, bit I won't take you on it too heavily. Btw. there is no magic in converting 2D images to 3D, but the results are not as refined as native 3D. Also it more of a real-time rasterization problem in terms of processing power than a theoretical problem.

Understand that the ability to make something appear 3D is not the same thing as making it 3d. And making something appear 3D is not the same as being able to extrapolate a 2 sets of images out of one image and assign different depths to parts of an image. Not Blade Runner territory in the least, which was a claim you wrongly made. It's not a problem with rendering, it's a problem with information.

Algorithms for depth probably wouldn't be all that difficult to formulate-- things at the bottom or center of the frame are almost always going to be closer or focal points, or you can compare one frame to the next to see what's moving/not moving/ and at what rate. If all else fails, like for wide angle sports shots, where 3D wouldn't be noticeable, you don't need to figure out depth. If you have processing power and time (since broadcasts and recorded media don't need immediate response to input, unlike video games) of course it's doable. It's going to be more along the lines of a Ken Burns documentary, where they deconstruct old photos, assign pieces to different planes, resize them, and then move each plane at a variable speed giving the impression of depth and moving perspective? Yeah, not quite the same as being able to construct a second perspective out of a 2D image. Hence why I called this technique fudging and not true stereoscopic 3d. You can't use this technique to see anything that wasn't captured in the original image. There's no looking up anyones dress if it's not what the camera did.

 

[dnadns]

It's

That's not entirely correct. The Sony KDL-40HX805 runs at up to 200hz and does the 3D conversion of native 2D material. It actually duplicates the video signal and therefore is not limited by the framerate of the original material.

What you are talking about is native 3D support by the content where developer or movie makers can fine-tune the effect. However the Bravia I was talking about is using an algorithm and duplicates the frames to create a fluid 3D effect.

And yes, these TVs are already available (just had a look at one at our local BestBuy equivalent).

If the source isn't formatted for 3d, you're missing the information to display it in 3d. Not to say you can't fudge the output to give it the effect, but this isn't Blade Runner where extra information can be rendered from nowhere. You just can't get 1 image to render 2 perspectives accurately.

Then welcome to the age of Blade Runner, because that's exactly what it is doing.
You might want to check it out first before going further on about it.

You're the one making ridiculous claims. Post a link. I find no relevant information on this magical technology. As a computer science and electrical engineering major, the ability to accurately render two 3D perspectives from one 2D image isn't in the realm of science.

First hit on google

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/specs/KDL46HX800_mksp.pdf

Take note of the "can convert personal 2D material to 3D" line.
Now the line with being a cs major would seem a bit embarassing, bit I won't take you on it too heavily. Btw. there is no magic in converting 2D images to 3D, but the results are not as refined as native 3D. Also it more of a real-time rasterization problem in terms of processing power than a theoretical problem.

Understand that the ability to make something appear 3D is not the same thing as making it 3d. And making something appear 3D is not the same as being able to extrapolate a 2 sets of images out of one image and assign different depths to parts of an image. Not Blade Runner territory in the least, which was a claim you wrongly made. It's not a problem with rendering, it's a problem with information.

Algorithms for depth probably wouldn't be all that difficult to formulate-- things at the bottom or center of the frame are almost always going to be closer or focal points, or you can compare one frame to the next to see what's moving/not moving/ and at what rate. If all else fails, like for wide angle sports shots, where 3D wouldn't be noticeable, you don't need to figure out depth. If you have processing power and time (since broadcasts and recorded media don't need immediate response to input, unlike video games) of course it's doable. It's going to be more along the lines of a Ken Burns documentary, where they deconstruct old photos, assign pieces to different planes, resize them, and then move each plane at a variable speed giving the impression of depth and moving perspective? Yeah, not quite the same as being able to construct a second perspective out of a 2D image. Hence why I called this technique fudging and not true stereoscopic 3d. You can't use this technique to see anything that wasn't captured in the original image. There's no looking up anyones dress if it's not what the camera did.

Look, I slightly grow tired of arguing. Feel free to check it out in person or not for yourself. I've seen it work with various types of content, including games.
You are discussing something thats not even possible with current 3d movies. The 2nd perspective is simply a couple of cm away for 3d pictures (eye distance to be exact).
So believe what you want, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

[righthanded]

It's

That's not entirely correct. The Sony KDL-40HX805 runs at up to 200hz and does the 3D conversion of native 2D material. It actually duplicates the video signal and therefore is not limited by the framerate of the original material.

What you are talking about is native 3D support by the content where developer or movie makers can fine-tune the effect. However the Bravia I was talking about is using an algorithm and duplicates the frames to create a fluid 3D effect.

And yes, these TVs are already available (just had a look at one at our local BestBuy equivalent).

If the source isn't formatted for 3d, you're missing the information to display it in 3d. Not to say you can't fudge the output to give it the effect, but this isn't Blade Runner where extra information can be rendered from nowhere. You just can't get 1 image to render 2 perspectives accurately.

Then welcome to the age of Blade Runner, because that's exactly what it is doing.
You might want to check it out first before going further on about it.

You're the one making ridiculous claims. Post a link. I find no relevant information on this magical technology. As a computer science and electrical engineering major, the ability to accurately render two 3D perspectives from one 2D image isn't in the realm of science.

First hit on google

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/specs/KDL46HX800_mksp.pdf

Take note of the "can convert personal 2D material to 3D" line.
Now the line with being a cs major would seem a bit embarassing, bit I won't take you on it too heavily. Btw. there is no magic in converting 2D images to 3D, but the results are not as refined as native 3D. Also it more of a real-time rasterization problem in terms of processing power than a theoretical problem.

Understand that the ability to make something appear 3D is not the same thing as making it 3d. And making something appear 3D is not the same as being able to extrapolate a 2 sets of images out of one image and assign different depths to parts of an image. Not Blade Runner territory in the least, which was a claim you wrongly made. It's not a problem with rendering, it's a problem with information.

Algorithms for depth probably wouldn't be all that difficult to formulate-- things at the bottom or center of the frame are almost always going to be closer or focal points, or you can compare one frame to the next to see what's moving/not moving/ and at what rate. If all else fails, like for wide angle sports shots, where 3D wouldn't be noticeable, you don't need to figure out depth. If you have processing power and time (since broadcasts and recorded media don't need immediate response to input, unlike video games) of course it's doable. It's going to be more along the lines of a Ken Burns documentary, where they deconstruct old photos, assign pieces to different planes, resize them, and then move each plane at a variable speed giving the impression of depth and moving perspective? Yeah, not quite the same as being able to construct a second perspective out of a 2D image. Hence why I called this technique fudging and not true stereoscopic 3d. You can't use this technique to see anything that wasn't captured in the original image. There's no looking up anyones dress if it's not what the camera did.

Look, I slightly grow tired of arguing. Feel free to check it out in person or not for yourself. I've seen it work with various types of content, including games.
You are discussing something thats not even possible with current 3d movies. The 2nd perspective is simply a couple of cm away for 3d pictures (eye distance to be exact).
So believe what you want, but that's not what I was talking about.

When I said it wasn't Blade Runner shit and you said it was, I was right. It's not a big deal. I'm not looking for an apology or anything, I'm just pointing out the reality of a technology.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

Toshiba has "no-glasses" 3-D TV's due out the end of the year...

http://gizmodo.com/5620310/three-glasses+less-3dtvs-expected-by-toshiba-before-years-end

I was wondering why they haven't done this yet, if they can do it on the 3ds why can't they do it to a TV?

Apparently they only go up to about 20-something " at the moment. But it's a start anyway. I remember reading about this ages ago and they said it wouldn't be ready until 2015...

too bad the world is ending 3 years earlier.

Hollenshead got it f******** right.
3d has a long way to go. And Glasses to watch TV. F*** YOU!
Anyway about 30% of the audience is getting an immediate headache from glassless 3D and they don´t know why.
So stay tuned. More funny things are on the rise.

 

[Miumaru]

Seems every day id makes me love them more and more. id apparently wants to be a top dog again (and all signs point to them succeeding)
Plus they are helping make TESV better (since Bethesda will likely use their engine for it)