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 Sep 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?
Add my name to the 'blind in one eye' engadget club. It already has 3 more members than I thought it would!
I guess we can just wait it out until they figure out proper 3D holograms.
@ CreepinJesus
Yeah it would. I've been blind in my left eye since birth, so IRL depth perception isn't such an issue, but small fast moving objects coming straight at me leads to embarrassing and painful results.
Probably why I hated sports, or never really got the whole ":o" over widescreen. :P
I have amblyopia in my left eye, was discovered when i was 9. after trying different exercises, patches & stuff, we gave up. sucks man. i am 20 now, & cannot drive, watch 3d movies, play cricket.
first, i'm really sorry for all of you.
second, there will come a time when there will be artificial eyes or some kind of implant/contact that can be wired into the brain. it's just a matter of time.
there is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/606938.stm
there was a newer one somewere that was connected were the eye was instead of the back of the head and the eye came in glasses and was wierless to the head and had improoved vision.
Clearly engadget readers watch too much porn.
Wait, why does this need a new telly? Previous 3D techniques had polarised glasses that had each eye's LCD chunk blank out every second frame, alternating between each frame.
the result was crystal clear 3D on my ancient screen. The reason it stopped working with flat panels was the low response times, so if your tv has high enough response times theres no reason this won't work on your current telly.
Of course, it depends on what technique it uses. the above worked fantastically in the past though.
Well, either the source or the TV has to have the transmitter to control the glasses -- and my guess is that HDMI timing isn't quite good enough to send that signal from the source.
Well, why couldn't there be a box that plugs in between the ps3 and the TV to intercept the timing? Even if that part was a bit pricey, it'd still prevent requiring a new TV.
I'm pretty certain it just needs a TV with a good enough refresh rate. Here's hoping anyway.
if your TV is "3d ready" meaning it has the plug for the glasses, and is atleast 120hz, then it is a "new tv"
I am not sure why Paul kept saying "you need a new tv" because lots of us have TVs with the 3d glasses hookup and a 120hz+ refresh..
The 100hz/200hz thing is a europe thing because the power and tv signals are all 50hz (High voltage, 50hz signal and low current 'cause they had to use all the copper for the war and had to use aluminum or tin wiring, and stateside we didn't have those problems so we have 60Hz, 120v and higher current on copper wires), so stateside it'll be 120/240
@Matt G. Wow. Thanks. I learned something today!
Hey Matt,
Perhaps you can answer my question... I just purchased a fairly new 600hz panasonic plasma tv (42") with 720p, a rather cheaper model because I don't have a lot of money. Do you have any idea if I can expect this to work with 3D tech, as I've never seen a glasses input on my tv. Could the glasses be plugged into the ps3 perhaps for this to work? Or am I SOL?
Thanks for any help.
well..
i like the idea of 3d n all..
but to me...gaming usually takes a couple of hrs....
n lately i went to see "ice age 3" n "Up" in 3d...
wearing that 3d glasses its really annoying...
i dont wear glasses so it kinda bothers me.....
does like sony comes with a more comffy 3d glasses cuz i hate to wear glasses to play a video game....
i think it would bother me....
in b4 grammar police. (but i do not deny that, son i am disappoint)
Open up! This is the grammar police! We know you're in there! We've gotten reports of missing letters, improper use of punctuation, and using the word "like" in it's unintended manner.
Any resistance to improving your grammar, and in turn your way of life, will be met with a swift and repeated bashing in of your head with our grammar clubs.
wow this is nice
Attention companies trying to push 3D for some reason:
You have three options here to avoid failure. Either make it work on my existing TV, find a way to make it work without the glasses, or quit wasting your time with this doomed fad.
I might wear some glasses to see 3D on my existing TV. I might even buy a new TV if it works without glasses. I'm sure as hell not going to buy a new TV and wear glasses just to play some PS3 games in 3D. It's just asking too much.
Or you could stop being a hater(whiner) and grow up and just realize sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and get over it.
What you're asking is impossible. It's like saying, "Make ice cream taste delicious, but without the milk." Or even, "Make Rush sound awesome, but get rid of Neil Pert." It just can't be done.
"What you're asking is impossible"
One of his options was "quit wasting your time." That is certainly doable.
So don't, people keep buying new stuff when they need to (or want to) or when their old stuff breaks down. This time they'll be going with 3D.
there are alternate ways to make 3d work on your current monitor/tv, the only thing is, it needs drivers/special glasses, stuff that might require new hardware such as ps4 or w/e, shutter technology is expensive yet cheap for that reason, it can work on anything, only it has to have a second "field" to draw the 3d layer on, and the person to wear the glasses to get the 3d effect.
read more about different types of 3d here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_display
how to get 3d on ur current monitor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mudweYKciog
I think all three of those are possible. In fact, all three have been done.
3D without the glasses is expensive.
3D with the glasses is cheap but problematic (and usually don't work well for me).
Quit wasting our time works, but doesn't give us 3D.
A $3K monitor I saw at Siggraph a couple years ago had the best 3d I had ever seen without glasses. I believe that used a sliding lenticular lens over a monitor, and an eye tracking system to register it perfectly for you.
Those colored glasses, and even the polarized ones they've been using for that old Michael Jackson thing at Disneyland and in the newer movies don't really work for me. Cheap, yeah. But you get what you pay for.
@risk: I immediately tried that iz3d method using the super bowl glasses. It worked about as well as it did during super bowl. Horribly. It's probably just my eyes, but those colored glasses never worked well.
I'm all for the lenticular lens method. No glasses, probably cheaper as you make 'em. Not the sharpest thing in the world, but it delivers a damn convincing illusion.
And people all over the world are getting sick to there stomach after playing for more than 1 hour on the 3D TV set.
I object to your use of the word, "schmuck." It is a very rude and vulgar word. It's from the German and means "Jewel." However, the derogatory meaning has to do with a certain part of the male anatomy.
I'm sure your vocabulary is big enough to find and use a more suitable word(s).
rofl
what a schmuck
He's a schmuck's schmuck.
@David B. Monier-Williams
The German word "Schmuck" means "Decoration". The German word for "Jewel" is "Juwel".
The reference to certain male anatomical parts comes from it's use in Yiddish where it is a common insult.
In American English schmuck simply means a stupid or foolish person.
Get your facts right if you are going to throw your "schmuck" around !
I suppose it all depends on your definition of the word. The definition I am seeing goes as follows:
"a foolish or contemptible person"
Admittedly the definition does then go on to say that the origin of the word comes from the Yiddish for penis but that's the way things go for languages and I believe that only the current dictionary definition is really important. If the man wants to describe himself as a penis, well, who are we to argue?
it looks fun
actual smooth 200Hz ... on a LCD TV ?
Yeah ! Right ! An then you wake up in your bed ?
Latest features on LCD TVs to have a better response time was to do some tricks on the backlight but not actually having a better LCD response time.
Since here you need a clear separation between images (you don't want to seen a trailing left image with your left eye), plasma might be the recommended technology for 3D.
Screw Plasma..... OLED
Wave of the future.
"OLED - Wave of the future."
But you need to work at Goldman Sachs to by one.
Woot woot! 3D Gaming is neigh. While consoles will bring the tech mainstream, you can buy the technology today. Geforce 3D Vision, with the Samsung 2233RZ, works with hundreds of games. Right now, I'm working on Mass Effect, Call of Duty 5, Burnout Paradise, and Mirrors Edge. Soon, I'll be playing Aion: Flying. In 3D. It's AWESOME.
Also, for games that use OpenGL instead of DirectX, the monitor refreshes at true 120hz. FINALLY, your monitor can push 120 FPS. Gamers who can spare $100 - $200 on their next build should seriously consider investing in this monitor, if not both the monitor and 3D Vision glasses. I hope my glasses work with Sony's TV.
In response to some of the commenters who want to view 3D content on their 60hz TV's, I have to say that Sony probably won't enable the tech on 60hz. While that would certainly move more units, it would also destroy 3D gaming. First, telling any old 60hz display to display one image, then display a completely new image sixty times a second would lead to HORRIBLE ghosting. Second, playing your games at 30FPS (60 frames halved, 30 for each eye) looks terrible and will give people headaches. Who wants to drop 2k on a TV they can only play games on for an hour at a time?
Really.... playing games at a framerate that's still faster than TV will hurt the eyes?
WRONG.
Games are getting too snobby about refresh rates.
I'm sure the horses will be very pleased.
They need to combine this with head tracking .. you can peer around objects by moving your head to the left/right/up/down maybe even zoom (or something) slightly by moving forward/back (or using a controller). Then it would be awesome. Well total awesome would be if they made goggles with high res and accurate zero lag head tracking.
They need to combine this with head tracking .. you can peer around objects by moving your head to the left/right/up/down maybe even zoom (or something) slightly by moving forward/back (or using a controller). Then it would be awesome. Well total awesome would be if they made goggles with high res and accelerometers or other spatial and motion tracking and accurate zero lag head tracking (u prolly want a hand controller enabled too for use in stuff like moving forward so u dont bump into things).
What I really don't understand, is why can't they make this work with regular HDTV's by syncing the glasses with the game system, instead of the display. Heck, I'd even settle for a long USB cord to be plugged into the PS3, if I had to give up wireless.
I KNOW this can be done. Heck, I was doing this with my Amiga 500 almost 20 years ago.
My only prayer is that SONY (and other TV manufacturers) will provide hardware add-on's to their existing Bravia line-up. After all there is indeed a USB port (for installing firmware upgrades) that can be re-programmed to be an interface for an add-on component for the glasses-sych module.
SO many ways they CAN provide this function for existing TV's.... I hope and prey they do (because I'm a casual gamer, just bought a 50-inch BRavia, and so as hell won't buy a new TV soon just for 3D capability).
Please release it next week and kill xbox for me will ya Sony.
I tend to feel that 3D is absolutely rubbish - it really doesn't add anything to movies and I don't expect it to add anything to video games either. However, I would pay good money to play WipeOut on an IMAX screen. As far as "immersive" experiences are concerned an IMAX screen gives a much better sense of it such that motion sickness is not uncommon. Mind you, even 1080p probably looks rubbish on an IMAX screen and you can hardly put one in your front room but those are trifling that I will not concern myself with.
Movie theaters have 2 types of 3d, polarized and stereoscopic. you have to go to a good theater to see it stereo scopic (the ones that make you turn your glasses back in) I have the nvidia 3d vision and I must say it is AMAZING, you feel like you are IN the game and can examine every 3d model. It's a whole new way of playing. Don't knock it till you try it. I'm conservative, but when I saw it I bought a new pc rig, 3d tv and 3 sets of glasses.
Sorry but it is a gimmick. I can quite understand that it is interesting to be able to study the 3D objects in the game but it does not make any changes to the actual game itself. In much the same way as adding 3D to a cinema movie does not change the actual plot (although you are guaranteed to have gratuitous scenes that are only there to show off the 3D effect), adding 3D to video games is not going to change the gaming experience itself. I do remember playing Virtual Reality games many years ago (stand in an enclosure with a headset that projects the game and changes the view according to how you move you head) and I can see something like that being interesting because the 3D view is a fundamental part of the game but you aren't going to get that from a simple pair of glasses that turns a 2D image into 3D. Mind you, the virtual reality games were rubbish and the company went out of business...
Further, I strongly dislike having to wear glasses to appreciate the experience - they feel strange and make you look an idiot. Heck, I don't even like wearing sunglasses.
Kelmon, I also used to think it was a gimmick.
And then I saw Coraline in 3D at a decent cinema. It's not about 3D changing the storyline, it's about adding atmosphere and doing it subtly. After that movie alone I went from loathing 3D to loving it. It gives directors a whole new level of cinematography to play with. I for one hope that 3D is here to stay this time around.
I cannot wait to see what developers can do when aiming to create a true experience for 3D gaming, imagine a Silent Hill game where the atmosphere is even more intense.
But I guess, you will always have people who hate change. Hell, we still have people using Windows XP. My only advice to you is to give it a chance, catch up on some modern 3D movies (I hear Avatar is going to be a game changer), just don't write it off so quickly.
For the record, the last 3D movie that I saw was Beowulf at the London IMAX on the South Bank - I think that classifies as being a decent cinema and 3D system. I simply am not convinced that it changes the experience at all, much like I do not feel that surround sound really makes a difference (yup, I remember the hype over that when Jurassic Park came out and you could hear the dinosaurs behind you). Let's be honest here, the only reason why Hollywood is pushing 3D is because it makes piracy more difficult and they can charge you extra to rent the silly glasses.
I think there is a IR emitter above the screen, so the glasses will be IR connected via USB to the PS3 and then the emitter box will have a sync cable to the display. Same as my 3D vision. I hope it works with my BRAND NEW 73" Mitsubishi that I still owe $3k on.
I think everyone's forgetting one very important aspect of this.
Neither the PS3 or the 360 have been able to consistently hit 60 FPS, now we are asking them to render each frame twice(right, left).
I see a problem here.
I think you are forgetting one very important aspect FPS is not Hertz!
Yes, but before the frame can go to the TV and become Hz, it has to be rendered as a frame by the console.
If a game is only running at 30 FPS, and we make it 3D, you have to halve the number of frames to account for drawing each one twice.
The refresh rate of the TV has nothing to do with that.