Do S-3D Games Equal S-3D Movies?

[Neil]

Does S-3D gaming impact S-3D home cinema, or does S-3D home cinema impact S-3D gaming? Why?

Post your thoughts on this editorial.

Regards,
Neil

[yuriythebest]

I think the foremost factor is the 3d gaming simply because of availability of content. even in this day and age stereo3d movies are available only at a few places online, while most off the shelf 3d games will work to some extent in stereo3d. Once 3d gaming will take off then you'll get a lot of people with 3d capable monitors wanting video. I cannot see anyone buying a 3d monitor just for watching the very few movies that are currently available. But even more that movies, I would like to see live 24 hour news like bbc world or al jazeera english (good channel btw- the american politicians gave it a very bad reputation for some unknown reason but it has some of the best reporting I've seen) broadcast live in stereo3d. Also tv shows... having tv shows in stereo3d would change my life.

[chrisdfw]

I believe 3d in gaming will eventually comprise of a higher percentage of gamers (possibly 25%) once there is enough content and hardware available. It all depends on how easy it is to set up and how well it is marketed. 3d is especailly valuable in games where being immersed in the environment is critical in first person perspective type games.

I believe 3d in the home theater environment may have a small following but probably won't get passed 5-10% even if it is well marketed. People just don't want the hassel of 3d and most movies don't need it. With games we often desire more immersion than we do when viewing a movie. The movie would have to be done with immersion being a key factor in the experience. Adding 3d to movie's like Star Wars would be worth it and horrow films as well, but then you have movies that are comedies or dramas that just don't need the distractions. A regular 2d movie producer can use tricks with focus to keep your attention on certain objects/people in the frame that would be problematic in 3d. If you have something out of focus in 3d and your eyes try to focus on that object it will give you quite a headache and your brain will wonder what the heck is going on.

I think we are a long way away from glasses free 3d that can be viewed from any angle by multiple viewers and it won't be until that time that 3d starts to evolve into everyday use and not just a gimmick.

[Neil]

I'm somewhat relieved. I was expecting our staunchest members to rake me across the coals! The night is still young...

Regards,
Neil

[Freke1]

Who doesn't want to see a 3D video of their kids playing some 20 years later?
I think people (even grandma's) will be willing to put on some glasses to experience a "timetravel" back to the precious moments in 3D.

Darkening the room, putting on the glasses, the family together, "wow You remember that?..." atmosphere.
I loved it when Dad showed the old Super 8mm silent film from when we were kids.

Eventually people will be bored with 2D. Like silent movies or black and white.

[Dowjd]

As a newbie to S-3D, I think they are equal. Both gamers and cinema tend to have their own WOW factor.

I do disagree with those who say home S-3D cinema will not take off. I think what we need is a huge theater S-3D movie. Something on the line of The Matrix, Star Wars, Final Destination or Saving Private Ryan in S-3D. The point is something huge that will establish S-3D. Currently S-3D movies really only target kids. I believe the first BIG S-3D movie that targets adults will turn the tide. People like unusual, exhilarating, fun or thrilling. Seeing something fly past your face or a person getting blown up or cut in two in front of you tends to get your attention. Also how many sports fans would LOVE to watch their games in S-3D? Superbowl, Baseball, Nascar, etc.

I would love to be able to watch any movie in S-3D at home.

Just my thoughts

[nubie]

Is this thread supposed to connect to an article on the front page? Or is it just to put our opinions in?

I think that lack of content is the major blockage to movies in S3D at home. With the games there has been 3D data available for a very long time, and drivers that just need to access the data and display it.

For S3D movies there is no 3D data on any movie that doesn't have a panning scene, and the software is not available to make it 3D either (some software is out there, but the useful links I found were from a guy in Brazil putting up torrents to 3D movie conversions, I assume in Portuguese or Spanish, I haven't downloaded any though.)

The only movies released are of very poor res and quality, and mostly only anaglyph. No thought is given to HMD or full resolution shutter-glasses, or the other methods of display.

I am afraid that is all there is, I would much like to say it was different, but I don't think that home S3D movies and games are at all comparable. The content for games has been 3D since the DX and OpenGL beginnings, whereas S3D is still a gimmick even in theaters, and there just isn't any content.

If Brendan Frasier is the studios idea of pimping 3D content (still want to see that movie, its in RealD circular polarized DLP), then we are a far cry from mainstream as far as movies are concerned.

I think we need an artist to come along with a great story and bring the 3D along for the ride, without the cheese factor.

I could be way off and the problem is people don't like wearing the glasses to the theater. Even intelligent 20-somethings I said "3D movie" to didn't understand it wasn't anaglyph (one is in video game design, the other is now taking PC repair and Network Admin at the local college) so the message is not out there for sure.

I would love to see all of the Disney/Pixar movies in S3D (I am afraid they will muck it all up instead of just do a straight conversion, but whatever), because they are 3D movies to start with. The Incredibles in 3D would be really great.

If enough movies start coming out without a cheese factor, just straight acting and/or action I think people could start demanding the content. Once it is available in theaters it should start trickling down to homes. I don't think the PC gaming penetration will influence s3D from the studios/networks at all, it isn't a huge demographic, and the S3D gaming population is a fringe on that small audience.

[CarlKenner]

When they invented colour TV, they wondered which kinds of shows would be shot in colour and which would forever be shot in normal black & white. After all, you needed special cameras and special viewing equipment for colour.

I think 3D will eventually go the same way.

Lots of people have glasses for reading books, and don't consider reading-glasses to be too inconvenient for reading. I expect some people already have glasses they wear for watching TV. I don't think it is too inconvenient if the glasses are easy to recharge (as in, just put them down and they recharge themselves), or passive.

The problem is, getting some standard 3D format (or group of formats) that every DVD or BlueRay player supports, and can convert into the proper outputs for 3D screens, or into anaglyph for people who have no 3D screen.

Someone mentioned autostereoscopic screens that can be viewed from any angle. Now that raises a problem. You see, they don't need 2 eye images... they need 9.

You see, we are defining 3D as being 2 images, one for each eye. But that's only true if your position and head rotation is fixed in front of the screen, and if there is no way of adjusting the strength of the 3D effect. As soon as you can move or turn, or want to adjust the amount of separation, 3D and 2-images stop being synonymous.

With 3D games, the content is really 3D, so it can be viewed on autostereoscopic screens, you can change the separation, you can use head-tracking like Johnny Lee and look around the scene from any angle, etc. But home theater can never work that way, at least, not with 2 recorded images.

[nubie]

When they invented colour TV, they wondered which kinds of shows would be shot in colour and which would forever be shot in normal black & white. After all, you needed special cameras and special viewing equipment for colour.

I think 3D will eventually go the same way.

Lots of people have glasses for reading books, and don't consider reading-glasses to be too inconvenient for reading. I expect some people already have glasses they wear for watching TV. I don't think it is too inconvenient if the glasses are easy to recharge (as in, just put them down and they recharge themselves), or passive.

Edit: forgot to reply here. I think that mainstream moviegoers (read tweens-teens-young adults) don't like doing new things, they are highly clique'sh and are very image conscious. Convincing them to wear glasses or even see a 3D movie is something that the studios aren't brave enough to do yet. I could give less than a rats ass about personal appearance , when it comes to technical things.

The problem is, getting some standard 3D format (or group of formats) that every DVD or BlueRay player supports, and can convert into the proper outputs for 3D screens, or into anaglyph for people who have no 3D screen.

I entirely agree, even something as simple as interleaved frames (shouldn't significantly reduce quality or increase storage requirements if done properly, after all the two images should be very similar to start with , but optimization of the compression method can be done at a later date, there is more than enough room on a Blu-Ray for 1080p S3D movies.)

I think we do need hardware, but that it might as well be on the display hardware or software side. For DLP or Shutter LCD the TV can just sync up the frames properly and provide the shutter info. I am pretty sure that this could be done with a simple firmware update on most players. Shutter seems to be the most popular.

For Dual projection or iZ3D/Planar monitor we might need a box of some sort, although a "low-end" HTPC with a 2/3/4 core will probably be cheaper than any commercial box by the time standards are set. Considering a dual-output card is under $50 and the blu-ray drive is only $100 last I checked a PC makes more sense from a commercial standpoint until the standards are final. Most like shutterglasses or a monitor that does 3D though, so it may as well be in the display side.

Someone mentioned autostereoscopic screens that can be viewed from any angle. Now that raises a problem. You see, they don't need 2 eye images... they need 9.

You see, we are defining 3D as being 2 images, one for each eye. But that's only true if your position and head rotation is fixed in front of the screen, and if there is no way of adjusting the strength of the 3D effect. As soon as you can move or turn, or want to adjust the amount of separation, 3D and 2-images stop being synonymous.

With 3D games, the content is really 3D, so it can be viewed on autostereoscopic screens, you can change the separation, you can use head-tracking like Johnny Lee and look around the scene from any angle, etc. But home theater can never work that way, at least, not with 2 recorded images.

I think somebody is confusing auto-stereoscopic with a wide viewing angle with some kind of VR, but it could be me .

I would like to take Imax as an example, the entire theater is watching the same angle, but only two viewpoints (each eye), auto-stereoscopic displays that work for an entire theater, at wide angles, would be nice.

I don't know of any technology that allows good auto-stereoscopy other than a real hologram, or a psuedo "many layer projection" hologram.

[CarlKenner]

Autostereoscopy is normally lenticular, usually at the (coloured) subpixel level. With multiple views they normally use a diagonal lenticular array so the resolution (and more importantly subpixels staying together) doesn't suffer so noticeably.

Autostereoscopy sometimes only 2 views, one for each eye, for example the Sharp 3D display (supported by AssaultCube). But others have 5 or 9 or however many they want.

There are other ways of doing it though, like the one that simulates voxels (although I don't think it uses voxels).

EDIT: Oh, and Al Jazeera English is rubbish. It doesn't give an even slightly Arab view of anything. It is very pro-Israel, pro-USA, pro-war, pro-Lebanese government and anti-Arab. There is hardly a single Arab on the whole channel. The only reason a few Arabs like it is that it is anti-secular, pro-Islamic fundamentalist (fundamentalist in the women should wear bags over their head sense, not the national-liberation sense). If you want an Arab view of the news, see the Angry Arab News Service (although it takes a while to understand his running jokes that pervade everything). Anyway, I'd rather watch Democracy Now in stereoscopic 3D.

[yuriythebest]

EDIT: Oh, and Al Jazeera English is rubbish. It doesn't give an even slightly Arab view of anything. It is very pro-Israel, pro-USA, pro-war, pro-Lebanese government and anti-Arab. There is hardly a single Arab on the whole channel. The only reason a few Arabs like it is that it is anti-secular, pro-Islamic fundamentalist (fundamentalist in the women should wear bags over their head sense, not the national-liberation sense). If you want an Arab view of the news, see the Angry Arab News Service (although it takes a while to understand his running jokes that pervade everything). Anyway, I'd rather watch Democracy Now in stereoscopic 3D.

Cool will check it out. I meant when you only have a choice between the 24 hour news channels like bbc world, cnn, france24, al jazeera, press tv and fox the one that provides the most diverse views is al jazeera. many like fox, cnn and press tv are just propaganda. Strange that the US is trying to ban al jazeera for it's supposedly 'extreemist' views even though it's not even banned in israel- what about FOX News then?

[Neil]

Hi Guys,

Focus on the 3D please. Al-Jazeera has their own forums, I'm sure.

Regards,
Neil

[vicx]

Does S-3D gaming impact S-3D home cinema, or does S-3D home cinema impact S-3D gaming? Why?

Post your thoughts on this editorial.

Regards,
Neil

I agree with you Neil that gaming is a prerequisite of our industry’s success more than is the isolated successes in 3D Cinema.

Having given this some thought I'm wondering if your claim that "gaming is the prerequisite of our industry’s success"" might be more broadly stated that "stereoscopic visual computing championed on the PC platform is the prerequisite for success". Gaming naturally lends itself as a breeding ground for developments in 3D stereo because it is the pointy end of the PC platform both technically and in terms of the motivation of its participants. PC gaming also provides the most challenges and the highest rewards for its participants; which is all an enthusiast really needs --- besides hope

So yeah I am an enduser/enthusisast and all I would like for Christmas is some new developments, some new challenges and some new hope.

Ahh blast it I might as well ask for something concrete ... I want an LCD display that has a bios that allows for enthusiast level tweaking and a videocard that allows for enthusiast level tweaking via extended driver pages, and a game,sim or video renderer that allows for enthusiast level tweaking too. And I want Valve's Source engine games to be playable on an affordable HMD.

There now I feel better.

[vicx]

Who doesn't want to see a 3D video of their kids playing some 20 years later?
I think people (even grandma's) will be willing to put on some glasses to experience a "timetravel" back to the precious moments in 3D.

Darkening the room, putting on the glasses, the family together, "wow You remember that?..." atmosphere.
I loved it when Dad showed the old Super 8mm silent film from when we were kids.

Eventually people will be bored with 2D. Like silent movies or black and white.

Yep this is still early days for 3d stereo so 3d content will be precious down the track.

I think stereoscopic stills will go mainstream before stereoscopic film/video because its easier to do and it is something that can be supported cheaply. Lenticular screens and photo-frames are good enough for stills and stereo digicams can be made very cheaply - they could be doing this right now with camera phones.

Stereoscopic film/video is harder and more likely to grow via sports and documentaries than via Hollywood films. 3D is fundamental for projecting realism so sports and documentary footage gains a lot from it. Film is presently happily stuck at 24fps for goodness sake while the appetite for realism has been pushing HDTV manufacturers to interpolate higher frames 100/120hz/240hz for sports fans and adults who grew up on games and mtv (the games generation).