Is 3DVision like Avatar the movie in 3D? I'd like to know what 3DVision is like but there's no places demoing it here in Edmonton as far as I know....so would I get the same effect from watching Avatar in 3D?
Is 3DVision like Avatar the movie in 3D?
- Thread starter thilanliyan
- Start date
Haven't seen 3DVision yet either but the effect should be very similar to Avatar 3d (but slightly harder on your eyes since they're shutter glasses instead of polarized).
What I would do is, if you use nvidia go into the options and turn on anaglyphic 3d or if you use AMD go to iZ3D's driver page and download the anaglyphic 3d driver. This will let you use some cheap red/blue 3d glasses to at least see what your game will look like in 3d even if the color is bad.
I've read that the few games that really take advantage of the tech look badass but most games are very bland yet, so I doubt most games are gonna look as cool as Avatar3D did except for some racing games, but I'm sure that'll change in a year as this catches on.
What I would do is, if you use nvidia go into the options and turn on anaglyphic 3d or if you use AMD go to iZ3D's driver page and download the anaglyphic 3d driver. This will let you use some cheap red/blue 3d glasses to at least see what your game will look like in 3d even if the color is bad.
I've read that the few games that really take advantage of the tech look badass but most games are very bland yet, so I doubt most games are gonna look as cool as Avatar3D did except for some racing games, but I'm sure that'll change in a year as this catches on.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,236
- 11,387
- 136
scooterlibby
Senior member
- Feb 28, 2009
- 752
- 0
- 0
Schmide
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2002
- 5,745
- 1,036
- 126
I've seen all types of 3-d, including imax 3d shutter glasses, IMO shutter glasses will never compare to polarizing lenses, you always see some flicker from them.
Yet for a home setting that's all you're going to get. So no it doesn't directly compare, but it is cool.
Yet for a home setting that's all you're going to get. So no it doesn't directly compare, but it is cool.
I have Avatar and 3D Vision and it looks amazing in a DLP....no flicker no ghosting.
Game is not very good though but damn that jungle in 3d is worth exploring
Game is not very good though but damn that jungle in 3d is worth exploring
iZ3D is the only polarized system, no idea how well it works or whether they'll be able to work in Blu-Ray 3d support but they said they should be able to add it.
Zap
Elite Member
- Oct 13, 1999
- 22,377
- 7
- 81
My wife has an IZ3D 22" monitor. It works well enough. Stuff looks a bit darker than you're used. I've also used 3DVision (borrowed a setup from work for a weekend) and it tries to POP more. 3DVision is easier to use (just one control) while IZ3D needs more fiddling (keyboard shortcuts for two different controls) but you end up with finer control. IZ3D's effects seem more subtle and just kind of blends you in to the game while I had to turn down the effect with 3DVision.
We did have a problem with IZ3D drivers on Vista, but I've heard it has since been fixed.
We also had a problem with 3DVision in that every now and then something would happen and the shutters wouldn't be sync'd up or something, causing white flashing (due to light not being blocked when it should). I can imagine that if it happened to someone prone to seizures, it could be a big problem.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
The only time you'll see flickering is if there is some sort of flourescent lighting interference.
Otherwise, there is no flicker. If you've seen a 3DVision demo in a B&M store, chances are there is flourescent lighting overhead. Not the optimal place to see a demo of 3DVision. Unfortunately, there arent many other places to see a demo besides a show like CES.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
You don't say what kind of theater you saw Avatar in, but I'm guessing since you didn't mention IMAX that it was a RealD system. In which case you saw a circular polarization system in action.
The fundamentals of how the two technologies work are the same - that is they try to project different images to each eye by blocking the other eye from seeing what it shouldn't - so yes, the effect is basically the same. However I'd hesitate to say all games end up looking like Avatar, because they don't.
The great thing about modern video games is that it's conceptually easy to make them 3D. We already have a 3D world, so generating the offset views necessary to do stereoscopy is more or less as easy as rendering the same scene twice. This is easy compared to a movie, where they needed to film the entire thing with a stereoscopic camera (we'll ignore movies where 3D is added post-production).
With that said, have you ever used one of those old-school View-Master toys? All of the pictures I ever saw in one of those weren't quite 3D. Objects had depth relative to each other, but it seemed like the objects themselves didn't have any depth. It was like looking at a fancy pop-up book, where everything was a 2D cardboard cutout.
The reason I mention that is that in my own experiences with 3D Vision, the experience is inconsistent, and this is the point I've been leading up to. Some games looked like Avatar (Prince of Persia 2008 comes to mind), and other games looked like a View-Master (I found HL2:Ep2 to be particularly like this). It could work well, or for whatever reason objects in a game could seem to be as flat as a character sprite in Doom. The shutter glasses themselves are sound, but in spite of NVIDIA's drivers being able to construct a stereoscopic image, the resulting image wasn't always that good.
So I guess in a nutshell the answer is no. In practice it's not the same effect as Avatar did a better job of selling a 3D world with 3D objects, as opposed to 3DVision which can vary between that and a 3D world with 2D objects depending on the game. And to be fair this is comparing a single movie that was painstakingly edited together to be the best 3D experience possible, compared to a number of games where 3D is either completely forced via drivers or at best only became a focus half-way through development (3DVision has only been on the market for a year).
Ultimately the effect is going to depend on what game you're playing and your own visual capabilities. Few if any games are going to look as good as Avatar. This doesn't mean they look bad, it just means that Avatar set the bar higher than what most games will look like. That's the advantage of getting to generate things ahead of time as opposed to having to do it in real time.
Finally, there will be some differences due to the projecting technology. Circular polarization means that you can tilt your head without disrupting the 3D experience; this isn't something that you can get away with for shutter glasses since they're linearly polarized. If you shift your head to any significant degree, the polarization will cause the monitor to look darker/black. I also find the shutter glasses to be straining and can only bear them for about an hour or so, but this heavily depends on the person. On the flip side I find the shutter glasses to be better about blocking out images the other eye can see.
The fundamentals of how the two technologies work are the same - that is they try to project different images to each eye by blocking the other eye from seeing what it shouldn't - so yes, the effect is basically the same. However I'd hesitate to say all games end up looking like Avatar, because they don't.
The great thing about modern video games is that it's conceptually easy to make them 3D. We already have a 3D world, so generating the offset views necessary to do stereoscopy is more or less as easy as rendering the same scene twice. This is easy compared to a movie, where they needed to film the entire thing with a stereoscopic camera (we'll ignore movies where 3D is added post-production).
With that said, have you ever used one of those old-school View-Master toys? All of the pictures I ever saw in one of those weren't quite 3D. Objects had depth relative to each other, but it seemed like the objects themselves didn't have any depth. It was like looking at a fancy pop-up book, where everything was a 2D cardboard cutout.
The reason I mention that is that in my own experiences with 3D Vision, the experience is inconsistent, and this is the point I've been leading up to. Some games looked like Avatar (Prince of Persia 2008 comes to mind), and other games looked like a View-Master (I found HL2:Ep2 to be particularly like this). It could work well, or for whatever reason objects in a game could seem to be as flat as a character sprite in Doom. The shutter glasses themselves are sound, but in spite of NVIDIA's drivers being able to construct a stereoscopic image, the resulting image wasn't always that good.
So I guess in a nutshell the answer is no. In practice it's not the same effect as Avatar did a better job of selling a 3D world with 3D objects, as opposed to 3DVision which can vary between that and a 3D world with 2D objects depending on the game. And to be fair this is comparing a single movie that was painstakingly edited together to be the best 3D experience possible, compared to a number of games where 3D is either completely forced via drivers or at best only became a focus half-way through development (3DVision has only been on the market for a year).
Ultimately the effect is going to depend on what game you're playing and your own visual capabilities. Few if any games are going to look as good as Avatar. This doesn't mean they look bad, it just means that Avatar set the bar higher than what most games will look like. That's the advantage of getting to generate things ahead of time as opposed to having to do it in real time.
Finally, there will be some differences due to the projecting technology. Circular polarization means that you can tilt your head without disrupting the 3D experience; this isn't something that you can get away with for shutter glasses since they're linearly polarized. If you shift your head to any significant degree, the polarization will cause the monitor to look darker/black. I also find the shutter glasses to be straining and can only bear them for about an hour or so, but this heavily depends on the person. On the flip side I find the shutter glasses to be better about blocking out images the other eye can see.
Last edited:
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
Seeing Avatar with I-max was a treat but the 3d stereo effect in games is much more pronounced with 3d vision, with the ability to add insane levels of depth. However, there are some limitations and trade-offs depending on title. When tweaked, the stereo3d effect in games is amazing at times with the added depth and out-of-screen abilities but also can be frustrating as well with the limitations.
Schmide
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2002
- 5,745
- 1,036
- 126
I truly think the one thing that made avatar a 3d success was the sparing use of the 3d effect. Too often they design the movie to the 3d and over do it, rather than use it just enough for the immersion effect.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
I used the red/blue trick on World of Warcraft and it did make me want the true glasses (if I could afford them of course).
Just sitting in one of the cities staring at my character in 3D was cool. Although sometimes someone would run towards me and startle me as they came out of the screen at me.
The color from the red/blue is awful though.
I've been to several 3D movies and the interactive part of the gaming makes it even better than what you experience at the movies.
I want to try it on a racing game or flight sim next.
Just sitting in one of the cities staring at my character in 3D was cool. Although sometimes someone would run towards me and startle me as they came out of the screen at me.
The color from the red/blue is awful though.
I've been to several 3D movies and the interactive part of the gaming makes it even better than what you experience at the movies.
I want to try it on a racing game or flight sim next.
Last edited:
You would definitely want a gaming monitor with great pixel response time. A CRT would be king at anaglyphic. LCDs have ghosting due to colors on edges of objects having to flip from red to blue on a whim when you turn the camera.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter