You can get 22" 3D monitors now for under £200... So the price barrier is beginning to drop...
3D moniters/games?
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
You can get 22" 3D monitors now for under £200... So the price barrier is beginning to drop...
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
Any system not using glasses will be a fudge, whose results are far inferior to those systems using glasses. Personally, I suspect most people would go for the cheaper solution, with better results, and wear the glasses.
Think for one second how a flat screen can send different images to each of your eyes? Basically impossible... Until we can produce holographic projections in true 3D I'm afraid glasses are here to stay (IMHO)
It works like those holograms, a corrugated piece of card with different images at a different angle. One for each eye but is LCD obviously rather than paper, it only works if you stand near the middle but for PC users or people with big screens that isn't a problem.
I can't be sure they will perfect the tech for a while but we will see in a couple of years, it looks quite promising to me, I do think we will have glasses less 3D before another resolution increase (SuperHD or whatever they call it) and with the speed screens are increasing in size other than 3D what else is there?
3D glasses always make my eyes hurt after a while and i'm pretty sure i'm not alone in that regard. Besides, does it really offer anything? I wouldn't be surprised if Crysis 3 incorporates full 3d rendering just to give those people who stroke themselves the moment a new screenshot is released something to talk about. But in general? Why bother? All it does is make it look better, it won't help you aim or have more awareness, no more or less than a bigger FoV would.
Too messy and contrived. Sit or lean 2-3 inches out of position and the whole system falls apart, as your eyes are in the 'wrong place'.
How is a TV going to beam distinct images to each of your eyes, when your head (eyes) can be in any number of locations?
Fair points... If it adds to the immersion/fun, then that's what it's all about. As the article above said, those folks who tried Left 4 Dead in 3D seems to come away impressed!
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
3D games are already as 3D as you can get, it is only your crappy 2D screen that makes them 2D. It isn't like a film where the camera is also 2D so it needs to be "made" 3D or use a 3D camera.
That doesn't really seem to make any sense?
3D games are not already in 3D? They are no more 3D than if I draw a picture on a piece of paper - which in your analogy is the monitor?
If we assume at the end of the day a 3D film is shot such that we have two views (one for each eye), and software (a game) is written such that is can render two views (one for each eye), then from there the technology/obstacles are the same. ie: A TV/monitor with glasses are required for example in order to project those two images to each eye. Having/producing two images is not a big issue, it's getting those images into each eye that's the problem.
I think it's safe to say you're wrong:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
I'm not ATI bashing - indeed, if I were to get a new card it'd be ATI - but most users are on nVidia hardware.
Unless i've got the science wrong, that makes no sense. Yes games could be thought of as 3D thanks to how an engine may be able to render an image at a point other than on the front of the screen, unlike a camera from a film. But how would you get a monitor to do that? Unless you intend to develop some kind of futuristic 3 dimensional monitor that would undoubtably be a similar size and weight to the extremely unpopular CRT monitors of old then the only way you can render 3d is to use glasses to 'trick' your eyes into depth perception on a 2d screen, which makes my eyes hurt after a while.
Er....because it's nice to have things that look better? Otherwise we'd all still be looking at space invaders graphics.
Sorry, i meant to say it'd 'feel' better, as in more realistic if it was 3d. If the Crysis 2 screenshots, however post-processed, are anything to go by then isn't that the level of graphics the future holds for 2d? Jumping into 3d is unlikely to be a benefit to anything in terms of gameplay or graphics. If anything its going to be a downgrade.
I don't know... I think we'd need to see it... But surely a FPS in clear 3D must be more involving/immersive than (unrealistic) 2D?
Anyone here tried one of the current 3D offereings Can you comment?
Have a look at the article sleepery linked - http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Main.html
We would but you're still looking at a monitor... until gaming progresses to VR type immersion theres really not going to be a difference. A set of 2d screens in a 180 degree circle around you would be more immersive than 3d on a flat screen in front of you i'd imagine. Besides, at the end of the day, immersion is down to the developer. You can't be immersed in something that sucks.
Very different scenarios and effects.
With screen(s) all arround you (g: 180 degree arc), your eyes would tell you all the objects you can see on that screen(s) are X feet away. ie: The image is flat. So the illusion is broken somewhat.
Now do the same thing, but put some glasses on, and every object on the screen(s) appears to be the correct distance away. That fly buzzing around seems to be only a couple of feet away, while those trees seem sever hundred feet away... The illusion would most lilely be far more immersive.
I would be very surprised if the glasses worked correctly at all angles. Its quite likely it would be more immersive as 3d, but its unlikely to make a difference in online play. Offline play i'm sure you could be drawn into the game a lot better. At the end of the day you're still required to wear the glasses which is by far the biggest problem. The question is, would your average developer bother with such a thing?