Support NeoGAF

[Speevy]

So all advancements should stop, because you're worried developers may waste resources? Again, I ask how you can consider this to not be a selfish stance?

No, advancements should not stop, but I would prefer more practical applications based on things I haven't seen before, rather than things I have seen before...popping out at me.

Again ... all advancement should stop. Crap, this basically happens every 5 years. Deal with it, or don't. No one is forcing you to have every new gadget the day it releases. Similar, you shouldn't be forcing people to not have their new-fangled toy.

You're on a rampage, aren't you? I didn't say all advancement should stop. I never said anyone is forcing me to buy something. And I never said other people shouldn't enjoy the new technology. What I said was that I hope the day never comes when people are questioning why I don't have one, because the technology does not appeal to me.

What I take issue with is the TV manufacturers' inability to create a less expensive solution than "Buy another TV." I'm pretty sure this sentiment is widely held. Yep, I'm certain it is.

I'm kind of confused how this gels with the rest of your posts ... at all. How does 3D television change this at all? It's the exact same situation repeating itself.

To be honest I was merely hazarding a guess at what you were getting at with that "LOL THAT MAKES IT OKAY." nonsense.

What does this have to do with what I said? Nothing. Are you purposely being obtuse?

You said in no uncertain terms that all things being equal, a better setup would make a better game. I asserted that although you may enjoy a better A/V experience, the gameplay is still the same and no one could take that away.

Are you going to keep making insulting responses, because the only one acting like an ass in this thread is you.


I don't care for 3D technology, but I wasn't going to rain on anyone's parade who did. I made a rather innocuous statement at the beginning of this topic, and you pounced all over it like someone had greatly offended your most deeply held beliefs.

Whatever your problem is, get over it. I'm not going to engage your nonsense.

 

[FiRez]

I just saw a 3D demoed at a local shop: the small frame (42") ruined the effect for me, in my case it seems that the screen needs to cover most of my visual area, just like in the teather.

 

[MonthOLDpickle]

Only movie I actually seen in 3D that doesn't do the stupid throw stuff at screen crap was Avatar.

And yes


lol3D of today.

 

[Android18a]

I was born with a squint, where one eye is at the wrong angle. I've since had it corrected, but I will never be able to see in true 3D. So 3D tech doesn't work for me at all. I can't even "do" the red/blue old style ones. I can only see through the red OR blue lens at once, my brain "filters" the eye I'm not using out to stop the double vision that I would have got because of the squint.

 

[Stitch]

It's a sailboat.

 

[killdatninja]

but nothing really jumps out of the screen like it's supposed to

There seems to be a huge misconception that 3d is all about things popping out of the screen. It's an effect that is rarely used, the 3d is more about depth than anything. Don't expect things to be popping out at you, I would say you would see it probably 5% of the time throughout the entire movie.

The biggest problem with 3d store demos is that it's ruined by ambient lighting/reflections, and best buy tends to be relatively bright. Lighting can make or break the effect, that, and the monsters vs aliens demo is the worst display of 3d I have ever seen.

If you have a chance I would recommend you see a 3d demo from a plasma, by far in motion does a much better job than an LED does. Captures the stuff that should be going "popping out the screen" much better.

I will say this though, the bottleneck for 3d at this point is the shitty active shutter glasses. I don't care that you have to turn them on, they just don't seem to always sync properly and just don't perform well when there's a lot of action/movement going on.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

That a'boy Speevy, well played

 

[Raistlin]

No, advancements should not stop, but I would prefer more practical applications based on things I haven't seen before, rather than things I have seen before...popping out at me.

Like what though? TV is half visual, so adding more to the visuals (ie. the next dimension) seems logical. Would you prefer they go after smell-o-vision?

You're on a rampage, aren't you? I didn't say all advancement should stop. I never said anyone is forcing me to buy something. And I never said other people shouldn't enjoy the new technology. What I said was that I hope the day never comes when people are questioning why I don't have one, because the technology does not appeal to me.

That's basically an oximoron though. If a 'day never comes' where some people are questioning why you don't have something, means that something wasn't a success. Therefore, you are hoping it isn't a success.


btw Speevy, I'm not trying to be a dick - just confused by your stance. It seems paradoxical.

What I take issue with is the TV manufacturers' inability to create a less expensive solution than "Buy another TV." I'm pretty sure this sentiment is widely held. Yep, I'm certain it is.

I give up :lol

That's one of the most absurd things I've read here in months. You're expecting large-scale HW-upgradeable CE products? lulz

"hey guys, check it out ... firmware 4.62 replaced my screen with a holographic projector"

To be honest I was merely hazarding a guess at what you were getting at with that "LOL THAT MAKES IT OKAY." nonsense.

The implication of your statement was you would have preferred HDTV to not be successful. And somehow, you were using that sentiment as a justification for wanting the same for 3D.

You said in no uncertain terms that all things being equal, a better setup would make a better game.

Actually, I should have worded it clearer. The cliche of 'all things being equal' doesn't mean all things being equal. It means all things being equal, except for the following. In this case I was stating, let's say you have a game. Now take that game, and have it at a higher resolution ... with everything else being the same. Which one is better? Obviously the latter.

For some reason you are bringing the same old lame, 'higher resolution doesn't make a game better'. In and of itself? Obviously not. It's a tool, just like any other. However the march of tech allows for my original point to keep moving forward. When used correctly, you get something better.

Interesting though, I would actually agree with your assertion. A better set up would make the experience better ... even for the exact same game. That's only logical.

I asserted that although you may enjoy a better A/V experience, the gameplay is still the same and no one could take that away.

Except ... that was my point :lol Why should we NOT have a better A/V experience?

Are you going to keep making insulting response, because the only one acting like an ass in this thread is you.

Don't worry, I'm done. If thinking you're POV is completely in the right makes you feel better, have at it.

I don't care for 3D technology, but I wasn't going to rain on anyone's parade who did. I made a rather innocuous statement at the beginning of this topic, and you pounced all over it like someone had greatly offended your most deeply held beliefs.

Whatever your problem is, get over it. I'm not going to engage your nonsense.

lol

You don't seem to realize that such a statement really isn't innocuous. But hey, whatever.

 

[supermackem]

I dare say if you cant see it in superstar dust then you wont see it ever. That is without doubt the best 3d thing ive yet seen, the other stuff i think people expect everything to jump out of there tv its also more about depth and feeling like you could put your arm in your tv. Stardust however does have plenty of wtf its coming out of my tv moments.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

It's not too surprising - there will be a % of people out there who have focus issues with depth perception due to a wandering eye or some other problem. Even if it's a very slight, it's usually enough as the brain will unconsciously adjust the perception of the problematic eye so the person isn't even aware of the issue unless someone's following its movement.

 

[calder]

3D rarely works for me, mostly it just looks fuzzy and slightly out of focus. Drove me nuts watching Avatar in the theatre, and it's the same every time I look at a display model in Best Buy or wherever. Every now and then it seems to snap into focus, like my eyes just happen to catch a scene right and the 3D pops out for me for a few seconds, then it's gone again and it's just a faint annoying blur again for 10 minutes.

I've always just assumed it's because I have one eye that's much stronger than the other, my dominant (sadly) right eye is weak but my left eye seems to have near perfect vision and it's like during 3D they fight each other. Bummer.

 

[AranhaHunter]

It's not too surprising - there will be a % of people out there who have focus issues with depth perception due to a wandering eye or some other problem. Even if it's a very slight, it's usually enough as the brain will unconsciously adjust the perception of the problematic eye so the person isn't even aware of the issue unless someone's following its movement.

I don't have a wandering eye, a lazy eye, cross eye or anything like that though. I am nearsighted on both eyes (they are both equally bad in that aspect), so maybe that's an issue.

EDIT: Just googled and saw this. Says 4-10% of people can't see it.

 

[Brimstone]

I have gone to those "4D" and 3D things at WDW and Universal Studios and I saw the 3D in those things just fine. IIRC I've used both the blue/red glasses (long time ago) and the polarized glasses (more recent) and I saw the 3D just fine there. I have yet to go to the movie theater to watch a 3D movie (but I definitely will on the next half decent movie that comes out in 3D so that I can test it and see if I can see it there).

Keep in mind at these places you probably saw those "3D things" was a result of a DLP projector. DLP projector technology is low flicker. In operation, it combines Pulse Width Modulation with Bit-Splitting.


Amir Majidimehr that used to work at Microsoft (he did the HD-DVD stuff), posted his opinion on 3d at the last CES show in January.

The slower response time of LCDs is definitely an impediment to good 3-D. The best I saw at CES was Mitsubishi rear projection lastervue (DLP) set. It was the only 3-D that I thought was worth watching. I thought Plasma demos at Panasonic were also dismal despite the Arts article. The field of view is just too small with a flat panel to make the experience convincing. Plus there are way too many other artifacts.

Then later he mentions

I saw a ton of demos at CES and none came even remotely close to what I saw with RealD in a local theater. Even if the 3-D panels were perfect in this regard, they face an impossibility: small screen. Something is very odd when you are staring at a 50 inch set from 8 to 10 feet away with the objects losing their 3-D perspective at the edges. It makes the display more fake than it is otherwise. In theater, the screen is much larger, filling your field of view completely.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1215849

Amir has a good perspective on technology. He just about sees all the stuff out there and is objective.



A Laservue uses a laser light source which is very bright.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

I've done user studies on this when I worked in film. The reason why you, and some other people have no problem seeing the effect in a dark theater on a large screen vs a TV in ambient light has to do with you having wider than average peripheral vision.

In a theater it's dark and the screen fills most of your peripheral vision, with a TV in a lit room, what you are seeing to the side and beyond the television is dimishing the effect for you. It happens in about 6 percent of the population. Sit close to a big tv in a dark room and the effect will be much more pronounced.

 

[Poyunch]

Heck I can't even see 3D with those dual image things where you cross your eyes. The pre-E3 3DS thread made me feel so sad.

 

[soldat7]

That's like saying, 'I hope we never reach a point where HD is the norm'. Just because you don't like it, don't be a fucking ass.

Well, not everyone can see 3D. There is a segment of the population that is largely unable to see 3D. He has a point.

Astigmatisms, amblyopia, and strabismus are more common that you'd think. Not only that, some people just struggle getting both eyes to coordinate together while viewing 3D.

 

[ganbareneopokekun]

go and try these :lol

klicky klicky

 

[SnakeEyez]

Since 3D sends an image to each eye, would someone like Sagat not be able to see the 3D effect? I ask because I have a lazy eye and my vision out of that eye is pretty horrible.

 

[DonMigs85]

Since 3D sends an image to each eye, would someone like Sagat not be able to see the 3D effect? I ask because I have a lazy eye and my vision out of that eye is pretty horrible.

Replace it with a Sharingan

 

[Brimstone]

Since 3D sends an image to each eye, would someone like Sagat not be able to see the 3D effect? I ask because I have a lazy eye and my vision out of that eye is pretty horrible.

My low tech suggestion is, stare at a display, then cover one of your eyes with a hand. This is what the shutter glasses do but really fast. It blocks the light to one eye, while the other gets light and then it alternates.



Or better yet try a demo in a store.

 

[Zoc]

Google "stereoblind" and you'll find out lots, lots more about 3d vision, also called stereopsis, and that some people can't see it. 2 or 3 percent of the population is completely stereoblind, and about 1 in 5 have weak stereo vision. Nobody really knows why. Very few animals have stereo vision, even the ones with two eyes, so a lot of biologists think it is a quite recently-evolved ability.

 

[ResidentDante]

 

[revolverjgw]

Since 3D sends an image to each eye, would someone like Sagat not be able to see the 3D effect? I ask because I have a lazy eye and my vision out of that eye is pretty horrible.

Sagat isn't real

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Since 3D sends an image to each eye, would someone like Sagat not be able to see the 3D effect? I ask because I have a lazy eye and my vision out of that eye is pretty horrible.

Are you serious?

Of course you can't see 3D with ONE eye. Thats pretty much the concept of 3D, regardless, of 3DS, movies or real world. You absolutely need both eyes to get two different views, which may then overlap and create one 3D image in your brain.

And no, even if you would see two images with one eye, it wouldn't change anything.

 

[Monty Mole]

Since 3D sends an image to each eye, would someone like Sagat not be able to see the 3D effect? I ask because I have a lazy eye and my vision out of that eye is pretty horrible.

Probably not then.

But, cheer up: from your point of view, you eyes likely see an almost-2D world which your brain will already be compensating for. In your world, TV is already mind-blowingly realistic without glasses

 

[Always-honest]

do you accidentally bump your glass of the table when you are trying to grab it?

 

[jonremedy]

Heck I can't even see 3D with those dual image things where you cross your eyes. The pre-E3 3DS thread made me feel so sad.

I can't watch those either, no matter how hard I've tried. I still see 3D in cinemas though. Saw Avatar and Beowulf, one of them RealD, the other Dolby 3D (don't remember which was which though).

 

[Manager]

I have the same problem. I was cross eyed as a little child so I guess that may have stayed, though it's not noticable anymore.

Couldn't see 3D in Avatar (ended up with me watching the movie without the glasses, watching the shitty blue/red mess) and can't see it in Monsters Vs Aliens 3D either. There's only one scene, around 1 minute in, where he plays pingpong towards the camera. I see a small 3D effect (nothing special) but it's nothing compared to other people: they get so terrified at that scene that they scream in the store.

My extrajob is selling TV's and we have the Samsung 3D set setup. The Samsung guy said 10% can't see 3D but I don't know if I agree with that. Hundreds of people in all ages have tried it and they all say the same thing: "Omgklgffoomfg". Actually haven't seen any other human being not seeing the 3D or depth at the store.

A couple of colorblind people tested it too there and they can see the 3D, though they're not supposed to, don't know how that works.

Feels like I'm missing out on TV content in the upcoming 10 years, until they probably fix this somehow. Fn' sucks. Kind of hard selling a 3DTV too when I don't even understand what effects 3D have.

 

[Raistlin]

Well, not everyone can see 3D. There is a segment of the population that is largely unable to see 3D. He has a point.

Astigmatisms, amblyopia, and strabismus are more common that you'd think. Not only that, some people just struggle getting both eyes to coordinate together while viewing 3D.

I suspect an even larger number of people are colorblind. Should we not bother with that?

A couple of colorblind people tested it too there and they can see the 3D, though they're not supposed to, don't know how that works.

Why shouldn't colorblind people see this type of 3D?

 

[Ricker]

10 bucks says the glasses were off. Some turn on automatically I've found and can get a little wonky and not turn on sometimes (demo glasses probably get beat up and therefor are unreliable, but who knows).

All I know is that I had a similar experience at my Fry's and then suddenly the glasses turned on and it was like OHHHH there it is. If they are off there's just this headache inducing effect that seems kinda sorta 3Dish but not really....it should be extremely obviously 3D. Try again and make sure the glasses are ON.

Yeah,the Best Buy that first showed the sets,had a little red switch on the side of the glasses but sometimes it was off and I saw people picking the glasses and trying them out but with no staff around to tell them they probably thought it wasn`t that great hehe...

But I read that there`s 10% of people that can`t see 3D at all also...

 

[MikeE21286]

My friend thought he couldn't see it, but he forgot to turn on the glasses.

I think that's what I might have been doing too.. I just went into Best Buy and put the glasses on and I did not see the 3d in Monsters vs. Aliens

 

[Vagabundo]

GAF I'M WORRIED i WON'T SEE IN 3D TOOO.


Seriously; I have a lazy eye.

 

[Orgun]

You need magic eyes

 

[OgTheClever]

It might be a tumor

It could be lupus.

 

[OneMoreQuestion]

Silly question, might be a clue though.
How many working eyes do you have?

 

[StuBurns]

It could be lupus.

It's never lupus.

 

[big_z]

GAF I'M WORRIED i WON'T SEE IN 3D TOOO.


Seriously; I have a lazy eye.

you might not be able to see it.

also depending on your eyes you may have trouble as well. for example if one eye is near sighted and one is far sighted you're fucked.

 

[Amneisac]

I have a mild case of a pretty rare condition called Duane's Retraction Syndrome where I'm missing a certain nerve and have some miswired eye-muscles. I can't see 3D effects because I have fucked up binocularity, but I figure even if 3D becomes widely accepted there no reason why I won't be able to play all the same games with about the same experience in 2D. I think there's a sizeable enough portion of people who won't be able to play in 3D that games/movies will still be viewable in 2D. I would be a little bummed though if gameplay got to a point where it was somehow unplayable in 2D.

How the industries treat colorblindness isn't really a good precedent for 3D-blindness, though because a colorblind person can watch a color broadcast and their eyes/brain see it the same way they see everything else. Whereas 3D can't be watched (comfortably) by someone who just sees both images on the screen the whole time. Now of course in gaming true colorblindess is pretty horrible because it can lead to eating the poison mushroom, etc. etc. It'll be interesting to see if 3D gaming ever gets to an equally frustrating point for us 3D-blind viewers.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Also, I despise the idea that someone who spent $700-1500 or more on a television still doesn't have a television that is prepared for the future. It's absurd.

Lol, future-proof is one of the most absurd terms there is. The speed of technological advance is increasing, not decreasing. The only hardware that is future-proof is a time machine.

I'm not worried about 3D catching on in any big way as long as it requires glasses. I'm also one of those people who can't even see it most of the time due to a dominant eye.

 

[Animation-Imp]

You don't have a problem with your eyes, because they have nothing to do with the 3d effect.
You have a problem with your brain, well not exactly a problem...

The shutter glasses work at a rate of 120 frames per second. Each second each eye gets 60 images and 60 black frames. For most brains this rate is too high to experience the left and right image seperatly and they merge the 3d in their brain in the same way they merge animations or movement.

This however isn't true 3D. In normal space we see 3D permanently, our left and right eye provide a constant image. This is also the case with the anaglyph images (red/green) and the real3D with polarized glasses. So it's logical you can see those because they use the same method you use to see real life 3d space.

The eye strain you experience and the fact the 3d doesn't seem to work for you suggests your brain is somehow capable to differntiate between the left and the right image. You somehow see both and your brain tries to focus your eyes to grasp what's going on with the image.
As 3d vision speaks to other parts of the brain than movement vision it is more than possible that you can't differntiate 12 frames per second in movement, but still can feel de 120 fps left right swith.

 

[Vagabundo]

you might not be able to see it.

also depending on your eyes you may have trouble as well. for example if one eye is near sighted and one is far sighted you're fucked.

I'm a little far-sighted, but in both eyes; so i wear glasses for reading and watching TV.

I can see out of the eye and even read, but it is always blurry.

I might try some vision exercises, they have helped me before..

Vision training on the 3DS - improve your 3D Vision!!!

EDIT: OK we might need to organise a GAF eye exercise group:

http://www.wikihow.com/Exercise-Your-Eyes

 

[Yen]

I read some people can't see it because of an overly dominant eye.

I've this. God hates me.

 

[GCX]

I was born with a squint, where one eye is at the wrong angle. I've since had it corrected, but I will never be able to see in true 3D. So 3D tech doesn't work for me at all. I can't even "do" the red/blue old style ones. I can only see through the red OR blue lens at once, my brain "filters" the eye I'm not using out to stop the double vision that I would have got because of the squint.

I'm on the same boat as you.

But I'll just live happily ever after in my own little 2D world.

 

[AranhaHunter]

do you accidentally bump your glass of the table when you are trying to grab it?

Only when I'm shit faced drunk. I don't know why some people are assuming I have a lazy eye or am cross eyed or some shit like that, I know some are trying to be funny but some of you are serious. The only thing I have on my eyes is myopia. I actually went to the doctor last year to get my eyes tested to see if I could get laser eye surgery and the doctor said my eyes were perfect and in perfect health condition. My eyes are strong enough to do the surgery if I want to.

You don't have a problem with your eyes, because they have nothing to do with the 3d effect.
You have a problem with your brain, well not exactly a problem...

The shutter glasses work at a rate of 120 frames per second. Each second each eye gets 60 images and 60 black frames. For most brains this rate is too high to experience the left and right image seperatly and they merge the 3d in their brain in the same way they merge animations or movement.

This however isn't true 3D. In normal space we see 3D permanently, our left and right eye provide a constant image. This is also the case with the anaglyph images (red/green) and the real3D with polarized glasses. So it's logical you can see those because they use the same method you use to see real life 3d space.

The eye strain you experience and the fact the 3d doesn't seem to work for you suggests your brain is somehow capable to differntiate between the left and the right image. You somehow see both and your brain tries to focus your eyes to grasp what's going on with the image.
As 3d vision speaks to other parts of the brain than movement vision it is more than possible that you can't differntiate 12 frames per second in movement, but still can feel de 120 fps left right swith.

Thanks for the explanation. Is this something that I could possibly get used to?

 

[XiaNaphryz]

The Samsung guy said 10% can't see 3D but I don't know if I agree with that. Hundreds of people in all ages have tried it and they all say the same thing: "Omgklgffoomfg". Actually haven't seen any other human being not seeing the 3D or depth at the store.

A couple of colorblind people tested it too there and they can see the 3D, though they're not supposed to, don't know how that works.

WTF? Most types of color-blindness have nothing to do with how modern 3D works (i.e. not the anaglyph stuff) - it's got nothing to do with color.

And LOL at the idea that your small sample of anecdotal evidence is enough for you to deny the 10% claim.

 

[Gek54]

I have no problem seeing 3D in any application but will say these 3D tvs with shudder glasses are the worst. Anyone not seeing it, you are not missing anything. Spend your money on the best 2D image, I wouldnt be surprised if the 3D tv hype was completely dead before this time next year.

 

[Jme]

It's a sailboat.

A scooner

A schooner is a sailboat stupidhead

Spoiler

I can't believe nobody did this yet...for shame people

 

[McLovin]

At first I thought maybe you didn't turn on the glasses.. but according to the OP you did. I know the're a certain percentage of people who can't see that type of 3D. If I were you I'd try a seeing a 3D movie at the theater. If that doesn't work then I guess you just can't see it.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I was born with a squint, where one eye is at the wrong angle. I've since had it corrected, but I will never be able to see in true 3D. So 3D tech doesn't work for me at all. I can't even "do" the red/blue old style ones. I can only see through the red OR blue lens at once, my brain "filters" the eye I'm not using out to stop the double vision that I would have got because of the squint.

I have the same problem. Heck, I would have flunked the vision test of my driver's license exam had I not been aware of what I was supposed to see and manually focused my eyes one at a time in order to view both parts of the image.

I'm pretty skeptical about the 3DS. Couple this with left-handedness and I know there's going to be a handful of games that are just outright unplayable. I'm sort of hoping that all of this newfangled 3D tech dies out like the original 3D glasses did however long ago that was.

If nothing else, this bullshit gives me newfound sympathy for colorblind gamers.

 

[Mudkips]

I guess we probably will start seeing 3D home projectors releasing soon, which would work with polarised glasses, but they might cost a bit more seeing as you are essentially buying two projectors in one in that case. They should work for you, though.

For projectors, you need a screen that retains the polarization, too.
I'm pretty sure they industry has decided on active shutter glasses.