bit-tech.net

Can 3D Shed Its Need For Glasses?

Comments 1 to 20 of 20

Reply
Flibblebot 28th May 2011, 11:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
although the technology is more adept at providing depth to scenes than making things pop out at you
Isn't this the point, though? When film makers move away from the "OMG! Throwing things at you!!" model of 3D cinematography and move towards a more natural version of 3D that provides depth to scenes, then we'll know it's a mature technology.

Until then, it's just gimmickry, certainly in movieland.
fingerbob69 28th May 2011, 11:32 Quote
"We also can’t help feeling that needing this kind of power [high-end grahics card in a box] on tap local to the TV is likely to be a problem for those wishing to have an auto-stereoscopic experience in their living room. "

Er, why would think that. A 3d box under your TV would simply join the exsisting gang of DVD player, Sky/Freeview, console etc. And it would remain natural until TV manufacurers integrated it into the TV ....just like the DVD, Freeview etc.
Flibblebot 28th May 2011, 13:05 Quote
I think it's more to do with power consumption - a high end GPU pulls a lot of power when running at full pelt, and I don't think most people would be happy with that just to watch 3D.
feathers 28th May 2011, 13:18 Quote
Absolutely nothing wrong with images extending out of the screen so long as what's projected is worthwhile.

Also this misinformation that 3d = huge GPU power is utter nonsense. It depends on the game requirements as well as the GPU.
feathers 28th May 2011, 13:19 Quote
I suspect many of the people who trash 3d have little actual experience of it.
steve30x 28th May 2011, 14:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
I suspect many of the people who trash 3d have little actual experience of it.

Or that it just doesnt work for a lot of us maybe? What you just said is very narrowminded.

Anyway I hope that if glasses free 3D soes eventually happen that it will work for everybody and if it doesnt work for everybody the picture seen wont look funny for people that cant see 3D. Also after reading that article I would much rather the 3D add depth to the screen rather than things popping out of the screen. In my opinion it makes more sense to have the depth in the screen rather than have things pop out of the screen.
Flibblebot 28th May 2011, 14:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
Also this misinformation that 3d = huge GPU power is utter nonsense. It depends on the game requirements as well as the GPU.
Did you read the article?

It wasn't talking about 3D gaming, it was talking about converting a stereoscopic 3D picture (like the ones at the cinema or on 3D BluRays) into a multi-view auto-stereoscopic 3D image; THIS is what takes the processing power, especially given that they've only got a limited amount of time to do that processing. No mention of gaming anywhere.
sub routine 28th May 2011, 14:48 Quote
meh, its a part of the industry thats still in its infancy. Just feels like the next big thing thats being shoved down our throats it`s more $$ right now that quality. Don`t get me wrong i for one am quite imppressed by it but i also am not star struck and will be quite happy to wait for a good few years yet till they can provide something worth while of my hard earned money.
maverik-sg1 28th May 2011, 15:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
although the technology is more adept at providing depth to scenes than making things pop out at you
Isn't this the point, though? When film makers move away from the "OMG! Throwing things at you!!" model of 3D cinematography and move towards a more natural version of 3D that provides depth to scenes, then we'll know it's a mature technology.

Until then, it's just gimmickry, certainly in movieland.

Totally agree, nuff said :)
Kaihekoa 28th May 2011, 16:56 Quote
The current 3D tech isn't sophisticated enough to attract a mass market. Most people's only experience with it is the gimmicky glasses required movies. It will be at least 10 years before any 3D technology is adapted by a mass market.
feathers 28th May 2011, 18:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
Also this misinformation that 3d = huge GPU power is utter nonsense. It depends on the game requirements as well as the GPU.
Did you read the article?

It wasn't talking about 3D gaming, it was talking about converting a stereoscopic 3D picture (like the ones at the cinema or on 3D BluRays) into a multi-view auto-stereoscopic 3D image; THIS is what takes the processing power, especially given that they've only got a limited amount of time to do that processing. No mention of gaming anywhere.

You know, it must be said I became somewhat lazy over the past few years. So lazy that sometimes I don't read an article, just look at the pics or skim through the text. I guess I will have to bite the bullet and start reading stuff again. That means no more copy and pasting of my standard argumentative pro-3d replies.

Is there anyone else here who instead of reading a hardware or game review, skips to the end conclusion page?
Toploaded 28th May 2011, 18:26 Quote
Awesome, glad to see things progressing in this direction. 3D that I care about may be a good decade off at least, but great to see it's in the pipeline.
Xlog 28th May 2011, 18:42 Quote
Imo, this is the closest we've come to true glassless 3D
kbk5_XEZ3DQ

and while iPont solution is a move to a right direction, it still requires viewer to find a "sweet spot".
Secondly while we have somehow limited way to display 3D continent, we have no practical way to produce it (multiple angle 3D)
ssj12 28th May 2011, 19:39 Quote
it will be glassesless eventually, smaller gadgets like the 3DS and such are making the tech cheaper on the small scale and will slowly start reducing the cost on the large scale.
lm_wfc 29th May 2011, 01:55 Quote
I don't see why people think adding depth behind is a bad thing. All 3d films I've seen look much better when the image has depth than when stuff pops out, it's like a window, you see through it.
Burdman27911 29th May 2011, 03:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers

You know, it must be said I became somewhat lazy over the past few years. So lazy that sometimes I don't read an article, just look at the pics or skim through the text. I guess I will have to bite the bullet and start reading stuff again. That means no more copy and pasting of my standard argumentative pro-3d replies.

Is there anyone else here who instead of reading a hardware or game review, skips to the end conclusion page?

Typically not unless it's something not entirely interesting to me... but if I do, I certainly don't make comments about content I never read, especially ones accusing others of misinformation.... but that's just me.
Kiytan 29th May 2011, 04:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lm_wfc
I don't see why people think adding depth behind is a bad thing. All 3d films I've seen look much better when the image has depth than when stuff pops out, it's like a window, you see through it.

Same, some of the shots of tree climbing in avatar 3D (especially when they look down) look amazing in 3D. (UP looked much nicer in 3D as well).
Hate the pop out of screen stuff though
lm_wfc 29th May 2011, 09:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiytan
Same, some of the shots of tree climbing in avatar 3D (especially when they look down) look amazing in 3D. (UP looked much nicer in 3D as well).
Hate the pop out of screen stuff though

Not seen UP, but avatar is still the only film I've seen I thought 3D was worth it.
runadumb 29th May 2011, 16:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lm_wfc
I don't see why people think adding depth behind is a bad thing. All 3d films I've seen look much better when the image has depth than when stuff pops out, it's like a window, you see through it.

I agree too a point but sometimes that depth makes the characters appear 2D in a 3D world. Like little cardboard cutouts. Maybe it's just bad effects.
Theres a trailer rolling in my local cinema at the minute that does it but I can't remember the name of it. The camera is flying over a large medieval army at an angle and they all look flat. Reminds me of Doom or Duke 3D. Whereas Tron's subtle use of 3D added that extra depth and was quite enjoyable.

I guess even after all this time they are still working out how best too use it. Although my mate personally thought Tron's 3D was pointless and much preferred the more in yer face style. Horses. Courses.
PingCrosby 30th May 2011, 09:23 Quote
I once tried to render a dead 3D parrot but I couldnt, cos Polly's gone.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums