[Ziero]

Originally Posted by Raydeus

By the way speaking of 3D displays I'd have to repeat what I've said before about the feature that interests me the most. Which is being able to display 2 video sources on the same display.

That would make multiplayer games much better since you'd be able to forget about split screen.

Among other very practical benefits like being able to watch TV with your significant other without actually having to suffer through the latest soap opera. <_<;

...but TVs can already do that. I know I used to play PS2 games while watching TV at the same time all on one screen. TV sound came through the TV speakers and the game sound came from the surround sound speakers. It was freaking awesome.

But still, to do multiplayer games on multi-input TVs you'd need two game systems and games...and in the end it's still nothing more then an overglorifed split screen.

Edit: Holy crap I remember that movie XD

[Raydeus]

Picture in picture or are you talking about something else?

If games supported 3D display multiplayer you'd be able to play a 2-player game without the need for another system or choose to see the game in 3D instead for single player.


The real issue I have with this is the use of shutter glasses. Unless they are very light and cheap they are going to be a freaking pain to use, specially if you have more than 2 people trying to see the TV.

[Ziero]

I mean displaying multiple sources at the same time on the same television. I still don't see how having a 3D TV will allow you to play a 2 player game any differently then it being split screen. You would still to "split" the screen for each player. Unless it's some sort of wacky 3D concept where one player sees one thing on the screen while another player sees something different.

[Raydeus]

Eh, that's exactly how it works, and why it's able to display 3D in the first place.

What it does is it displays 2 different images (alternating one for each eye) while synchronizing the shutters so they block the image that isn't supposed to reach a specific eye.

In short, just alternate blinking with each eye and that's basically how it works. So to display 2 video sources at the same time you just sync the blinking so one user sees the odd frames and the other only sees the even frames.

So theorically you'd need a 120 frames-per-second display to be able to display a 60 FPS 3D image or two 60 FPS video sources, plus a set of shutter glasses per person watching.

The way I see it in the end it will all depend on 3 factors:

- Cost compared to regular LCD sets of similar resolution/refresh rate.
- Software support for it.

- And the most important thing by far: The lightness, cheapness and effectiveness of the shutter glasses. Not to mention people who already needs to wear glasses would probably require contacts to use this.


I really wish Sony had chosen polarization technology instead but it probably just wasn't as cost effective as simply adapting the current LCD technology for 3D display use.

[DakAttack]

Originally Posted by Raydeus

Eh, that's exactly how it works, and why it's able to display 3D in the first place.

What it does is it displays 2 different images (alternating one for each eye) while synchronizing the shutters so they block the image that isn't supposed to reach a specific eye.

In short, just alternate blinking with each eye and that's basically how it works. So to display 2 video sources at the same time you just sync the blinking so one user sees the odd frames and the other only sees the even frames.

So theorically you'd need a 120 frames-per-second display to be able to display a 60 FPS 3D image or two 60 FPS video sources, plus a set of shutter glasses per person watching.

The way I see it in the end it will all depend on 3 factors:

- Cost compared to regular LCD sets of similar resolution/refresh rate.
- Software support for it.

- And the most important thing by far: The lightness, cheapness and effectiveness of the shutter glasses. Not to mention people who already needs to wear glasses would probably require contacts to use this.


I really wish Sony had chosen polarization technology instead but it probably just wasn't as cost effective as simply adapting the current LCD technology for 3D display use.

This is you being the most interesting you've ever been. Would that really work? Wouldn't the TV and the shutters need to be synchronized?

[Raydeus]

You hurt my e-feelings.

And yup, the thing that makes or breaks the efect is the synchronization of the shutters with the images currently displayed on the screen.



Edit > Not only does the shutter effect have to occur in a precise matter, but because there are so many glitches that can occur you need higher frame rates than the theory would say to achieve the proper effect. Like requiring a 160 FPS display (instead of 120FPS) for a 2x 60FPS 3D effect .

That's why polarization works so much better, but to make it work Sony would have to effectively do something more akin to merging 2 displays into one TV set, which would probably be very expensive.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

In short.

Shutter - Double+ frame rate, synchronized shutter glasses.
Polarized - Double pixel count, polarized glasses.

[Gyotsha]

I recently bought a 3d monitor for my pc lol

Not the glasses though. At $299.99, no thanks.

It works the same way Raydeus is talking about though. It has a real refresh rate of 120hz and requires the shutter glasses for the 3d to work. The only problem is that it puts more demand on a video card, since the frames it has to put out per second is doubled. This may make it a little hard for a PS3 or a 360 to accomplish.

So even if the 3d shutter technology becomes popular enough to make it to home theatre systems, we probably wouldn't see much 120hz gaming until the next gen consoles.

That's my 2 cents anyways.

[Durahansolo]

Originally Posted by Gyotsha

Not the glasses though. At $299.99, no thanks.

GeForce 3D Vision Kit only $199 kekekekeke

[Raydeus]

In my opinion it's still too much for a TV add-on. I seriously doubt Sony would be able to market those shutter glasses for anything above 100 bucks (and that's being optimistic, maybe more like 50) if they really want 3DTVs to catch on.

For gamers 200 bucks for high performance Shutter glasses (with the mandatory dual-card system and increased price monitor) is barely passable.

[Gyotsha]

Originally Posted by Durahansolo

GeForce 3D Vision Kit only $199 kekekekeke

Not in Canada