It is currently Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:20 pm



Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
 3D ready games vs Convergence 
Author Message
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 775
Reply with quote
Hi I been meaning to take some screenshots of what I think the branded Nvidia 3d ready games are and what Nvidia and the game studios are missing. Take a look at these screenshots in 3d and decide for yourself.
Notice how I turned up the convergence with low depth to give background buildings and objects more depth? I know this is not recommended but this is how I want to view 3d games only without the double view mess.
Attachment:
MirrorsEdge01_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge02_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge03_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge04_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge05_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge06_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge07_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge08_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge09_50.jpg

Attachment:
MirrorsEdge10_50.jpg

I really hope the studios can make stunning 3d instead of boring half scene depth.
Attachment:
MirrorsEdge11_50.jpg

And this game Mirrors Edge is only rated as being "Good" for 3d vision but gives an idea on how 3d can be an awe'd with at least some full scene depth fov minus the lack of support fixes for double sceen wrongularity.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
http://www.cns-nynolyt.com/files/doms-systemspecs.html My System specs In HTML

Image

Cyberia on Youtube

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Image


Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:17 pm
Profile WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
Nice photos. They look similar to how I played the game (ie high convergence, low depth). A lot of noobs on the Nvidia forum like to jack the depth up to 100% but thats not how you get a good stereo image. It looks like you know what you are doing.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:29 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
There are so much window violations due to the position of the convergence plane that most of these images are very uncomfortable for me. And they force me to converge to a very short distance in front of me, which is very unnatural for my eyes and makes them hurt.

I'd really be curious to know what your screen size is, at which distance from your eyes you watch it when you play and what is your interocular distance.


Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:17 pm
Profile WWW
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 775
Reply with quote
Fredz wrote:
There are so much window violations due to the position of the convergence plane that most of these images are very uncomfortable for me. And they force me to converge to a very short distance in front of me, which is very unnatural for my eyes and makes them hurt.

I'd really be curious to know what your screen size is, at which distance from your eyes you watch it when you play and what is your interocular distance.


I am using a 22 inch monitor from about 3 feet away with an interocular at lowest around 2 inches or less. The thing is it don't hurt my eyes but the point I am trying to make is that in these screenshots that is the kind of 3d effect I want to have "without" the double imagery. I know all you guys here at mtbs3d have been talking about this effect for a long time, but when will the day come when the games look clear in 3d with alot of convergence? As it stands now 3d ready games are gold by showing a clear 3d image but are lacking the stunningness of what stereo3d is. And the only reason your eyes become unnatural just like mine is cause there is to much interference with the deplaced, unbalanced converged objects giving only certain shots a meaningfull 3d effect. Like always the sides of the screen shown like these blurr out and cannot even be distinguished and also closeups but the background and other objects look real hey? Most of the objects are proportioned so they have a look of volume with back and siding and looks as though the game is real.

Sadly the 3d ready games makes me feel uncomfortable and I lose interest in the 3d effect because its not giving enough 3d, everything looks 2d after awhile and becomes passay 3d.

_________________
http://www.cns-nynolyt.com/files/doms-systemspecs.html My System specs In HTML

Image

Cyberia on Youtube

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Image


Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:56 am
Profile WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:28 am
Posts: 7
Reply with quote
Isn't convergence basically the imaginary distance between the two game camera's? Shouldn't this be set to the same inter ocular distance of human eyes for the most convincing effect?


Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:49 am
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
Dom wrote:
I am using a 22 inch monitor from about 3 feet away with an interocular at lowest around 2 inches or less.
I've measured the distance between the left and right images of one of the closest point in your first screenshot (tile corner in lower right). After taking into account your display and eye parameters it gives a negative parallax of 2.765", which means this point appears 58% out of the screen.

It violates one of the most known rule of stereo 3D, ie. that objects should never appear at more than 50% out of the screen. Besides, most of your scene appears out of the screen and since the camera is very dynamic, it also violates the rule that say that objects should appear slowly from in to out of the screen to let time for the eyes to adapt.
Dom wrote:
The thing is it don't hurt my eyes but the point I am trying to make is that in these screenshots that is the kind of 3d effect I want to have "without" the double imagery.
There is no way game/driver developers would use the same convergence settings as yours, because they're know to be very bad for most people. Here is a figure from a paper by Bernard Mendiburu ("3D Movie Making" book, "Monsters vs Aliens" and "Meet the Robinson" movies) showing comfort zones for stereo :

Image

I've measured one of the most distant objects in your first screenshot (the highest building) and it uses a positive parallax of 0.12", this means that your scene is mostly out of the screen and violates most of these comfort zones.

Besides, the theoretical max value for positive parallax should be equal to your interocular distance (2" in your case as you said), so with a farthest point at only 0.12" of positive parallax you are essentially halving your depth budget.

Dom wrote:
Most of the objects are proportioned so they have a look of volume with back and siding and looks as though the game is real.
With the settings you use the scene produces a doll-house effect with everything looking a lot smaller than it should, so it's not realistic at all even if it produces a good depth for you.

The only interesting side effect in your case is that far objects shouldn't exhibit much ghosting, I guess that's the reason why you did use such settings. And I can understand why since you seem to be using one of the worst technology in this respect (LCD).
cyberheater wrote:
Isn't convergence basically the imaginary distance between the two game camera's? Shouldn't this be set to the same inter ocular distance of human eyes for the most convincing effect?
The distance between the two cameras is the separation, and it should be equal to the one of the eye for the scene to be at the normal scale as you said. The convergence as used in the NVIDIA drivers corresponds to the position of the virtual screen plane, where the rays from the left and right eyes cross.


Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:30 pm
Profile WWW
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 775
Reply with quote
I understand fully why theres so much eye fatigue since in simliar situations the stereo3d image makes you go crosseyed and making your eyes strech to much but really if there was no artifact mess like double or triple images duplication then it would be way easier on ourselves. And the only good reason for having this much convergence with fixed First Person FOV giving the dollhouse effect is cause it looks real. Even though everything looks smaller a bit the character in game is not bigger so it makes the inside of the game most normal with great stereo3d.

I wonder if the game studio actually made the game 1to1 ratio of real life though? Cause if they did'nt then thats why theres certainly a dollhouse effect. Maybe the studios need to add in size ratio mappings along with better convergence screen placements.

Can you tell me that your satisfied with the "3d ready games"?

And also if the studios can make full scene depth fov I will be a happy 3d gamers and movie watcher.

_________________
http://www.cns-nynolyt.com/files/doms-systemspecs.html My System specs In HTML

Image

Cyberia on Youtube

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Image


Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:53 pm
Profile WWW
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
Dom wrote:
I understand fully why theres so much eye fatigue since in simliar situations the stereo3d image makes you go crosseyed and making your eyes strech to much but really if there was no artifact mess like double or triple images duplication then it would be way easier on ourselves.
It's not ghosting that makes our eyes hurt when they converge on close things, it's their design :
- the ciliary muscle change the shape of the lens to obtain a clear image for objects closer than the resting point of accommodation (31.5" in average) which is painful for long periods of time ;
- the extraocular muscles maintain the image projections of objects in the centre of the retinas when they're closer than the resting point of vergence (40" in average) which is the crucial stressing factor in visual strain ;
- there is a vergence-accommodation conflict when looking at stereoscopic images which causes visual fatigue and discomfort when superior to 1/3 diopters.

That's why we generally look at our monitors from a distance of 30-40". And that distance should be augmented to account for the pop-out when viewing 3D images.

To keep the vergence-accommodation conflict to less than 1/3 diopters for your 30" (0.76m) viewing distance, using the Descartes formula you shouldn't have objects closer than (3*0.76)/(3+0.76) = 0.61m (23.9") which means 15.5cm (6.1") pop-out at most.
Dom wrote:
And the only good reason for having this much convergence with fixed First Person FOV giving the dollhouse effect is cause it looks real. Even though everything looks smaller a bit the character in game is not bigger so it makes the inside of the game most normal with great stereo3d.
In the first screenshot the closest line of tiles should be approx. 10 feet wide but it appears as 10" wide (58% of your 18" screen width). That's a 1:12 scale, hardly smaller a bit...
Dom wrote:
I wonder if the game studio actually made the game 1to1 ratio of real life though? Cause if they did'nt then thats why theres certainly a dollhouse effect. Maybe the studios need to add in size ratio mappings along with better convergence screen placements.
Yes, developers use uniform scales in first person shooters, In Quake III 1 unit = 1 foot and players are 7 feet high, in COD4 1 unit = 1 inch and players are 6 feet high. That's why NVIDIA says that a realistic interaxial is ideal for first person camera (p. 42) and a large interaxial is good for RTS (for the doll-house effect).
Dom wrote:
Can you tell me that your satisfied with the "3d ready games"?
I've yet to try a "3D ready" game since I've got only low end hardware.
Dom wrote:
And also if the studios can make full scene depth fov I will be a happy 3d gamers and movie watcher.
What you call full scene depth fov does halve the depth budget as I said before. And it's quite normal that you see distant things flat since there is no depth perception after 200 yards in real life either.


Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:24 pm
Profile WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11394
Reply with quote
Not sure about all this science, I just know those screenshots look really good.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:31 pm
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 775
Reply with quote
I agree with the rules of stereo3d and thanks Cybereality for telling the truth about how stunning3d can be.

To me when I use 3d its all about giving a perspective on the actual character's eyes in game not about myself and how close it comes to the size of real life. Its just that its to hard to be imerssed into an real enviroment on a small monitor or any monitor even a projector at 200 inches. And that giving a smaller yet more volume dynamic view makes it worthwhile.

The reason I say full scene depth fov is not really cause of the 200 yard restriction, its so that all the stuff in your view is giving a 3d effect, I mean if you look around your room you can see everything in 3d with depth and volume but if you seen a 3d ready game or game without convergence dollhouse effect the objects would look blurry and pretty much flat. And thats within around 2 or 3 meters ingame.

So if the gaming studios are trying to replicate real life model ratios and 3d effects then they need to either adjust for given stereo 3d rules or write some new ones to apply better effects.

The whole depth factor in stereo3d actually seems like it makes the picture fatter and bigger. I guees it because you would need to be a bigger person with wider eyes but this whole reason for setting up 3d to your personal attributes like eyes spacing has been missed by many.


The only fix I can see is that the character and or the x axis don't converge making the tester see what moves wrongly and make that object static or have really minute adjustments coorilated to the whole scene.

Or have a hotkey to set both "depth" and "convergence" simutainiously and have a OSD to show where the threshhold is going to be for window violations. Could'nt the camera view also be curved so that the image is shown going more outwards giving a sense of round depth? Maybe just at the edges and on close ups where the 3d image distorts and also some kind of magnification.

_________________
http://www.cns-nynolyt.com/files/doms-systemspecs.html My System specs In HTML

Image

Cyberia on Youtube

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Image


Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:46 am
Profile WWW
Terrif-eying the Ladies!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:35 am
Posts: 894
Location: As far from Hold Display guys as possible!!! ^2
Reply with quote
Fredz wrote:
There are so much window violations due to the position of the convergence plane that most of these images are very uncomfortable for me. And they force me to converge to a very short distance in front of me, which is very unnatural for my eyes and makes them hurt.

I'd really be curious to know what your screen size is, at which distance from your eyes you watch it when you play and what is your interocular distance.


YEAH lol, IT looks like toyification attempt on projector, only it 'd want to fill itself into the room.

_________________
-Biased for 0 Gen HMD's to hell and back must be one hundred percent hell bent bias!


Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:03 am
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
cybereality wrote:
Not sure about all this science
It's easy to verify, I've given all the related links. The only information from me was the distance calculation for the vergence-accommodation conflict, but I've tested the formula with the distances in the research paper I referenced and the results are coherent.
Dom wrote:
I agree with the rules of stereo3d and thanks Cybereality for telling the truth about how stunning3d can be.
Dom and cybereality, I don't question your honesty, I just tried to present what can be found in the research field on this subject. If these parameters suit your vision then good for you, but don't expect it to be the same for most people.
Dom wrote:
The reason I say full scene depth fov is not really cause of the 200 yard restriction, its so that all the stuff in your view is giving a 3d effect, I mean if you look around your room you can see everything in 3d with depth and volume but if you seen a 3d ready game or game without convergence dollhouse effect the objects would look blurry and pretty much flat. And thats within around 2 or 3 meters ingame.
The thing I don't understand it why you don't use positive parallax, don't you see depth behind the screen ?
Dom wrote:
So if the gaming studios are trying to replicate real life model ratios and 3d effects then they need to either adjust for given stereo 3d rules or write some new ones to apply better effects.
Game profiles use parameters that should suit most people and stereo drivers offer the possibility to adjust them to your needs. I don't see a problem here.


Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:47 am
Profile WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:28 am
Posts: 7
Reply with quote
Fredz wrote:
...The convergence as used in the NVIDIA drivers corresponds to the position of the virtual screen plane, where the rays from the left and right eyes cross.


Makes sense. A high convergence means you're getting a macrovision look at the scene hence the toyification effect.


Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:28 am
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 775
Reply with quote
Fredz wrote:
The thing I don't understand it why you don't use positive parallax, don't you see depth behind the screen ?


Yes exactly when I use positive parallax it don't do anything good for stereo3d in my mind. It only makes the scene bigger with a tiny bit more depth but not scene depth. It actually makes the scene look more blurry and give more image noise.

And just to say Fredz I am not trying to discredit you at all and I thank you for giving me and others insight into what studios are doing cause it brings some light to why they are not making games with SEME in mind and thats Stereo Entertainment Multimedia Enviroment. They are only making character close to screen 3d enviroments.

_________________
http://www.cns-nynolyt.com/files/doms-systemspecs.html My System specs In HTML

Image

Cyberia on Youtube

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Image


Thu Oct 21, 2010 2:42 pm
Profile WWW
Certif-Eyed!

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 642
Location: Valencia (Spain)
Reply with quote
Although I prefer to use realistic stereo settings, I admit that those screenshots look awesome. It's also a great way of enjoying stereo. It has the problem that the closests objects are rendered behind your head, and you see them as double images because it's impossible to focus on them. You would need to turn your eyes into your brain like sponge bob :) I think that summarizes what Fredz was trying to explain.
The solution would be to have a near clipping plane farther than usual to avoid the rendering of the closests objects.

The doll house effect doesn't have anything to do with the scale used it the game. The units you use in a 3D engine are arbitrary. What it's important is to keep the same units convention so everything has the correct proportions respect to each other. It's is the stereo settings plus field of view what can make the graphics appear from real sized to doll house, so it's up to each one to set them to his/her liking.

In my case, when the FOV of the game can be changed, I adjust stereo settings for real life stereo (i.e. to see things like I would in real life). That means that from certain distance there is no longer stereo effect at all apart that objects are 'at infinite', as it happens in real life. Then is when I feel that the game looks amazing and that it's like being there.

But doll house effect is also great when you want to feel like you are playing with a scale model that you could grab with your hands. I suppose that as stereo-3D settles itself down the two approaches would be taken into account and so the near clip will be placed where it's more suitable in each situation.

_________________
Zalman Trimon ZM-M220W / Acer H5360 with Another Eye2000 shutters / nVIDIA GTX760


Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:49 am
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
crim3 wrote:
It has the problem that the closests objects are rendered behind your head, and you see them as double images because it's impossible to focus on them. You would need to turn your eyes into your brain like sponge bob :) I think that summarizes what Fredz was trying to explain.
I'm not sure I follow you, in real life I can converge my eyes without difficulty to obtain a unique image of two objects placed apart at a 70 cm (27") distance, so I don't get what you mean by objects rendered behind the head.

In the first screenshot I can easily converge my eyes on the closests objects which are only at a 5 cm (2") distance from each other, what I can't do easily is to accommodate at the same time to get a sharp image without eye fatigue.

It's particulary notable in this first screenshot because of the lack of texture and the repetitive pattern of the tiles. My eyes are naturally trying to fuse the closest intersections of the tiles since they look very similar and are only at some millimeters from each other, but my brain does understand that they don't in fact correspond to the same tile and prevents my eyes from accommodating correctly.

So my eyes and my brain are competing to find the good correspondance, hence the difficulty to accommodate and converge at the same time. Coming closer to the screen does help solving this conflict and allows me to fuse the corresponding tiles and accommodate, thus reducing the eye strain.

There are other screenshots that are quite hard to fuse, especially the 2, 3 and 8 because of heavy window violations in the left and right borders, the 8 because of the heavy occlusion in the middle of the image and the 11 because of the unfusable red rope especially at the bottom of the screen.

The 6, 7 and 10 images are quite nice looking because they don't exhibit much of the defaults of the other images, in fact I really don't understand how anyone could enjoy the other images.


Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:06 am
Profile WWW
Certif-Eyed!

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:11 am
Posts: 642
Location: Valencia (Spain)
Reply with quote
After further analysis, I think that what I meant with that paragraph is basically... hmmm... poo.
It came out from the idea that when you rise convergence the whole scene is being pushed towards the viewer. So, at some point, geometrically speaking, the closest objects will go through the viewer's head. But after recreating it in my mind, I've realiased that the two views of the object will dissapear at the edges of the screen. To happen something like what I said in my disgraceful post the screen should surround the viewer.

_________________
Zalman Trimon ZM-M220W / Acer H5360 with Another Eye2000 shutters / nVIDIA GTX760


Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:58 am
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 712
Reply with quote
oooh, yeah I like those screen shoots. I like experementing with 3d and taking it to the extremes. I played custom levels of quake III and unreal tournament with settings near what you show in your photo's. I had to turn off the gun animations and the gun sights. But the trade off is great immersion if your eyes can take it. Ive also, played NHL 2003 with similar settings- and gave myself a nice dose of eye stain that took about 3 day before I felt better. I like going to the extreme 3D. Though I've learned to do it in moderation now. Thanks for the photo's. And I think the 3D ready games are a little tame in the 3D.

Great thread by the way.

cheers

_________________
AMD HD3D
i7
DDD
PS3
Panasonic Plasma VT25 50" (Full HD 3D)
Polk Audio- Surround 7.1
Serving up my own 3D since 1996.
(34) Patents


Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:50 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:47 pm
Posts: 98
Reply with quote
One problem Mirror's Edge has with 3d is that it doesn't work in 3dvision with 1024x768. Just won't enable. When I get a fix for this I can't wait to replay in S3d. Does look like it'll be a really cool game in S3d.


Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:19 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 2:05 pm
Posts: 190
Location: between dimensions
Reply with quote
Great discussion, just read through it.
I've posted comments on the DDD driver and Iz3d here - viewtopic.php?f=106&t=5874&p=55358#p55358
In the end it is a matter of personal preference :)


Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:47 am
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 7
Reply with quote
"all" the mirrors edge examples come off as toyified to my eyes.
Nice thing about the effect is. The objects really look like toys as in "holy crap that looks like it's real!". Which is great when trying to explain what interactivity brings to the immersion table to someone whose prejudice is from the bad film experiences.
Putting on the glasses to such a person it is usually the toy effects immediate illusion of reality that helps to "sell" the effect when a naysayer is navigating a world immersed for the very first time.
In which case hearing the exclamation "Holy Sh|t" is very satisfying when converting with convergence.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:16 am
Profile
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 775
Reply with quote
Exactly, toyification is in sense a systematic concept to get volume out of stereoscopic 3d. For 3d to be realer and sustainable the switch to depth volume cubic "stereo entertainment multimedia environment" is needed by and encouraged by 99% of entertianment viewing public.

_________________
http://www.cns-nynolyt.com/files/doms-systemspecs.html My System specs In HTML

Image

Cyberia on Youtube

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Image


Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:09 pm
Profile WWW
One Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 7
Reply with quote
From a different perspective. when sculpting in cg the toyified model really brings a new level of awareness of your models volume. Before all artists had was silhouette along with intuition when making edits in 2d space to describe a 3d volume. For somone sculpting "flat" having to work essentially blind all these years the freedom of actually seeing the model before you while interactive rotating it in my viewport is almost a religious experience. ( certainly sublime! You have to take into account what 12 years of suffering countless late night hours might give to add to such a liberating emotion )
Problem is... As technolgy is still seperated between the haves and have nots. A quadro solution that offered the same power my current sli geforce gives me ( not to mention it would be silly to use a work station card when I want to view my end result the same as it will be rendered in the end... ON a consumer card for game design ) IS not close to affordable. Therefore I can only review my work in a game engine and not work interactive "DURING" the sculpt.
My weapon of choice ( Maya ) uses openGL.. so I am guessing that it will be awhile to real time vertex level sculpting is possible in 3d. ( although I am hoping it may be possible with Maya's new viewport 2.0...
( Not sure if that uses directX? ) There have been quadro hacks for geForce cards in the past ( giving them quadro abilities ).
Hopefully some kind of solution and latitude may be available to game designers some day who need to work on these cards not only cuz they r affordable, But It makes sense that they see what the end customer does for the best result. I imagine when that day happens, the quality of entertainment fer everyone here is going to go way up! ( The talent I see is easily far ahead of the poor technology available to describe what one is able to achieve "unleashed". The machine to render as much does not exist. ( yet I keep hearing the argument that technology is way more powerful than is needed already. Hogwash.. The game doesn't exsist fer yer watercooled gtx cuz of least common console denominator economics and nothing else )


Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:57 am
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Posts: 5752
Reply with quote
Great thread here!

This is why we adjusted the ratings in GameGrade3D so that the convergence or out-of-screen factor isn't treated as a benefit or a penalty - it's treated as an option of available visual flexibility. Personally, I really like out of screen effects and convergence control as I find games to be very tame without it.

I've done a lot of demonstrations over the past few years, and they all featured out of screen effects. It's very rare that people complained of discomfort (and I always ask while they are playing what their comfort is like with the 3D). I think what matters most is that gamers have the choice to adjust according to their personal taste because our eyes are different, and we don't have to be limited to a one size fits all approach the way movie theaters do.

Regards,
Neil


Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:56 am
Profile WWW
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:18 am
Posts: 159
Reply with quote
I always set the separation to max, and then the convergence as high as I can stand given the typical view in the game (some games more, some less, often depending on things like whether the player's weapon juts uncomfortably out of the screen.)

I like a little toyification and don't care too much about whether it's realistic or not. I often start out with the convergence a little too high, and then my brain adapts after a short while. I just like the more extreme feeling of depth. But it can be disorienting when the game jumps to a cut scene where everything is already super close or with a different FOV, and it suddenly feels like you're trying to focus on the end of your nose.

Hate it when games have locked convergence, they usually make it too weak (Deus Ex HR is the worst culprit I've seen). One exception was Dead Rising 2, where it's locked a bit too strong, but I got used to it fairly quickly.

I really think games that lock convergence should lose points as far as s3d ratings go.


Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:50 am
Profile ICQ
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 25 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.