You know what's absolutely useless? A video of
Wipeout HD being played in 3D, with some schmuck wearing 3D glasses and babbling on about how much fun he's having. Well, that schmuck is this Engadget editor, the video can be found after the break, and we've gotta say: we loved it. Especially for something like
Wipeout HD, whose neon-infused tracks make for an almost too convenient example of rapidly approaching vanishing points, we'd say 3D could really be a quasi-"killer app" for consoles going forward -- especially if those fancy new motion controllers don't catch on for Microsoft and Sony. In many ways, 3D just seems to make more sense in a video game than for a movie, and the whole problem of finding content to deliver in the format has already been solved: a software update for the PS3
sometime in 2010 will enable it to provide a 3D viewing experience to "all" existing games on the system. We're sure there will be some exceptions, but it sounds very promising. The console itself pumps out a quite regular signal over HDMI, which the TV syncs up with your 3D glasses. A 200Hz TV, for instance, alternates 1080p frames, with 100Hz for each eye. Of course, you'll need a brand new TV, but at least it won't be restricted to just Sony televisions. Start saving those pennies!
posted September 4th 2009 7:47AM
When I worked at CCity a a few years back, we got a 20 hertz tv in the store, so is the editor wrong saying 200 and 100 Hz ? Or what am I missing? Thanks
Why is 3D suddenly becoming a huge deal? I've seen recent films in 3D and the effect isn't impressive enough that I would buy a new TV to achieve it. Heck, it was barely worth a few dollars extra on a cinema ticket.
And, that wasn't supposed to be a reply to this post. FAIL.
He means that the TV is 200hz and 100hz is used on each eye.
one thing that i loved was, whoever was holding the camera tried to shoot the video through A lens of the the glasses, thinking that us engadget viewers across the net would magically be able to see the game in 3D
@SimbaDogg
Actually, I think he was just trying to show how the frames alternate between each eye, making the 3D effect. I don't think even the camera-men for Engadget are that dumb.
"I've seen recent films in 3D and the effect isn't impressive enough that I would buy a new TV to achieve it"
I've probably seen those same films. The only one that really impressed me was Aliens vs Monsters. I missed Coraline, so I don't know if it was good or not (although I did see the preview in 3D and it seemed pretty impressive). And UP didn't really impress.
But the studios are just moving back into 3D so a lot of the stuff out is just a gimmick for now.
But for gaming I think this could be really good. I remember (and still have) the 3D glasses for the Sega Master System. The 3D using the shutter type glasses were pretty good. And that was on a dinky little 19" CRT about 15 years ago. I can only imagine how well games would look on a 60" HDTV with the type of power that the PS3 has under the hood.
I can see a bunch of assholes stalk this site, probaly around 10 or 12. I politely asked that someone clarify my hearing a tv called a "20 hertz" tv when I worked at a store, vs. the editor saying 100 or 200 hz, instead I get low ranked. Kiss my ass
i feel for you, professor. not long ago i asked how people managed to fill 120GB drives in game consoles on Joystiq, and got lowest ranked. i wan't even stating an opinion, i was just asking a question. but people read my comments as saying "large HDDs in consoles are useless this is stupid," and they low rank.
now, getting low-ranked isn't really a big deal, it's just, i dunno, kinda rude. in my opinion, the low-rank button shouldn't be used just when you disagree with someone. i typically reserve it for stupid inflammatory comments from trolls. people, this guy didn't do anything wrong or inflammatory. being ignorant doesn't deserve a down-rank.
also, people need to stop replying to the top comment when their comment has nothing to do with the first *cough*SimbaDogg*cough*.
just be nice, people.
anyway, about the article, MS could be in trouble with the Xbox if they don't do something. if i was buying my first console, i would probably go with a PS3, even though i'm an Xbox fan. passing up Halo and Gears would be difficult, but i guess anyone who doesn't yet have a console wouldn't be a big Halo fan anyway.
Dale,
Unless you're watching "The Final Destination" (a great 3-D flick, by the way), the effect is supposed to be subtle and not distracting. "Coraline" and "Up" were both significantly enhanced by 3-D without being in-your-face about it.
No, the editor meant 200MHz. 60 is common & 120 is pretty good, but if you want to run crisp "3D" its much better to have more MHz. How long ago did you buy this TV? Is it flat panel or is it CRT? 20 is pretty low. I think this could be cool for games but really, what I have seen in theaters is not worth it. Just wasted money for me. We need to get back to story writing with solid characters & good story lines. Many movies today are suffering for too much CG (live action movies with CG added) & not enough innovation & quality writing.
Thanks man for clearing that up , I think that was 120 hz tv we got now that I think of it
well..... does this mean it's technically possible to get this via 60hz TV as well? I mean, it would just be 30 fps each eyes and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, no?
You probably will still need a special TV to send polarized light that will be filtered by the respective lens of your glasses.
Fps are not the same as Hz. If the 3D glasses shuttered at only 30Hz the image would flicker and you would quickly get a headache. Just like with an old CRT running at a low refresh time.
I would think that most people could detect a difference, but many would not be "aware" of it. I know people who claim to not care if something is HD or SD, but clearly HD can provide more realism, and I think most people here would agree that the experience is better. The issue I guess is that not everyone can measure, or rather does measure, the quality of their experience with HD/SD or 60/30fps. We just get used to quality limitations and often don't see improvements because of our contentment with status-quo.
To MickeyK: I do think he said the TV needs to be a specific type, built for 3D, but I don't think it is polarized. I'm pretty sure he said there are synchronized shutters. So, I would assume that one side of the glasses actually closes, or somehow blocks one's view, repeatedly-- same concept, different technology. I'm thinking this is a cost effective idea, since the image from the TV, or the display technology, wouldn't be any different; the TV would just have to be able to communicate with the glasses so they're clear on which frame is being displayed, and the glasses do the physical work. Maybe I'm wrong on that one.
I thought the screen alternated between each signal (left eye/right eye) on the screen and the glasses acted like blinkers in sequence with the screen, i.e. cover right eye when the left image is on the screen.
The human eye is meant to see at 25 hz but to avoid nyquists you'd want you'd want each eye signal to be twice that and as theres two signals twice again to 100Hz.
Of course it's a lot easier if you can stick to multiples of the frequency of your power supply.
I read an article several years ago about the 3D technology that is just being rolled out now. It said something to the effect that although normally 30 MHz is enough for a human when trying to produce a 3D effect you need at least 100 MHz or the viewer will start to get disoriented. I can't remember the exact details but it was something to that effect.
Those are shutter glasses. Using LCD tech to open and close each eye in sync with the screen.
They are not polarized or red and blue, or anything like that.
My Samsung DLP is suppose to support some sort of 3D viewing with accessories from Samsung, never really looked into it as it required 3D content. The TV is a little over 2 years old, not sure what tech was used to make it work or if it was even available in the US to start with, ports are there on the TV though.
@MickeyK, for this 3D type the light is NOT polarised in a special way.
The screen flashes very fast showing the left eye image, then right eye image, then left eye image etc. The glasses are electronic with super fast shutters that are synchronised with the console. When the console displays the left image, the right eyepiece is blacked out, and vice-versa. It does this so fast your eyes don't notice and your mind sees a different picture from each eye.
It does look very good, but you obviously need a TV of 120-200Hz.
@Kasi... So in your theory you'd just need a 200Hz Tv (5ms response time at least also) and these glasses?
Would be nice!
i wish it will work with 120Hz..
It should. When I run PS3 games on my Samsung, it reports the refresh rate at 60Hz. My TV supports 120Hz, so I don't see any reason it couldn't do 60Hz of each frame type. I'm not sure why they gave the example of 200Hz, since most newer TVs come in multiples of 60 and 24Hz.
This is all being demonstrated in Germany -- and over in Yurp, 50Hz TV (and electricity) is the norm. Hence the doubling to 100. I suspect NA sets will be 120Hz instead.
They quota 200hz because Sony's new Bravias come with motionflow which runs at 200hz
I believe panasonic has a tv running at 600hz NeoPDP or is that just marketing bollocks?
Ditto guys. I have a samsung dlp led set that does 120Hz and it says it does 3d all over place. Lets hope this will work on 120Hz
@Dan,
that's reassuring and logical. Thanks for chiming in.
It should work on 120Hz and up. Since the one Nvidia is releasing or in beta testing stages works on 120Hz + their glasses.
I think most 120Hz TVs these days just take a 60Hz signal and double it up within the TV with some clever post processing.
AFAIK they cannot handle a 120Hz signal.
They don't need an 120Hz signal, 60 fps(30 right, 30 left) at 60Hz is plenty for 3D, then the TV just shows each frame twice to get the 120Hz rate to avoid eye strain during 3D.
but will the image quality be crappy and washed out like 3d movies?
have you seen a 3D movie lately?
Go watch "UP" and tell me if if it's 'crappy and washed out"
Yeah, they arent using red and blue lenses now, so there is no need for any alteration with regard to colour.
UP was the movie I had in mind when I commented. I've seen 3d and 2d movies on the same screen at my local theatre and the 2d ones are always brighter and clearer.
...well then you know the problem!
Your local theater sucks.
Superman Returns was in 3D and that was a horrible viewing experience tbh. I'm sure it will work far better for computer generated content. Live action still looks like balls and gives you a head ache imo.
i think its your theatres rather than the actual 3D
my theatre has a few dedicated 3D screens,
and also does imax 3D.
The third dimension is TERROR!!
-jp
i already forked out on a nice 1080p HDTV, like fuck will i go out and buy a new one just to see games in "3D" when they are already in 3D... find a way to utilize this so it works on a normal tv and i know it cant be done but sony FIND A WAY or your only gonna get the likes of ass's "soulja boy" who can afford all this tech!
cry more.
oh man, this is just like people whinning that their 4 year old P4 processor couldn't play Crysis.
you know what??? GET OVER IT
@kingofwale - well actually, the back of my Crysis box (just installed it) says P4 is fine :)
And who's fault is it that you didn't do any research when buying your new TV? People have known for a few years now that you need at least a 120hz TV to view 3D on. It's not Sony's fault that you're uninformed.
Oh my god! You mean technology advances?? Waaaaah!
I wonder if this 3D stuff will work with movies.
I'm sure quite a few people would want to watch porn with this.....................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeOm-V6GJ7w
As it happens, I just acquired a 200Hz HDTV, unfortunately I'll never be able to experience 3D because I'm 85-90% blind in my left eye.
I feel your pain ijyt. I've recently become 100% blind in my right eye. Freaking sucks.
I'm blind in my right eye, so I too, feel your guys pain. :( Hopefully in the future they can figure something out for people like us.
Don't mean to be rude, but wouldn't 3D video games give you a disadvantage in the depth-perception side of things?