Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony's Solution To Split-Screen Multiplayer

Posted by Soulskill on from the no-peeking dept.

We discussed Sony's E3 announcement of the pricing and details of the Vita portable console (hands-on report), but they also made a stronger push into the 3D space, revealing a 24" display specifically designed for 3D gaming. Most notable about this display is that two players wearing 3D glasses can use it to view separate images on screen. This means that when playing with a friend, you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player. The Guardian has a good run-down of Sony's other E3 announcements.

157 comments

  1. Split screen multiplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Split screen multiplayer isn't a problem, so it doesn't need a solution.

    1. Re:Split screen multiplayer by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I loathe split screen multiplayer, and wish they would come up with a solution giving 2 players the whole screen to work with.

      Definite case of "YMMV" there, bud.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Split screen multiplayer by Nursie · · Score: 1

      True, if you're a pedant. The words "Split Screen Multiplayer" do not define a problem.

      However the problem of how to sensibly divide a screen for two players is quite nicely addressed with this tech. Not that I'll be buying it, because I already have a TV and this is a Sony.

    3. Re:Split screen multiplayer by migla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Check this out, you can do it yourself:

      "Full screen-split screen with any game."
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo

      They're using cheap glasses from going to movies with one person having two left lenses and the other two right lenses.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    4. Re:Split screen multiplayer by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      But with that you still have the problem of having a restricted view. With ACTUAL full-screen split-screen, you can see an entire screen's-worth of the playing field. With that workaround, you still only see half a view stretched over the entire screen. It does seem like a neat way to stop screen lookers though.

    5. Re:Split screen multiplayer by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I loathe split screen multiplayer, and wish they would come up with a solution giving 2 players the whole screen to work with.

      They did, and it's called "network play", where each player sits in front of his very own monitor, yet people play against (or with) each other! I know, amazing concept, that! What will they think of next?

      Ever since I saw Marble Madness and Populous split screen played with two mice on an Amiga, I have wondered why people want to crowd in front of a single monitor when they don't even look at the same thing. Do they like each other's body odour or something?

    6. Re:Split screen multiplayer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Some sat-navs do this but without the glasses by having a holographic screen. From the driver's seat you see the navigation display and from the passenger seat you see a DVD.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Split screen multiplayer by schlechtums · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that PC gaming is the target market with this "multiplayer without the split screen on your TV" technology.

      Can you honestly not imagine, oh, I don't know, some crazy and ludicrous hypothetical situation where two people own one console (a young engaged/married couple living together, siblings, you get the idea) and would want to play multiplayer together on it with each other but don't want to deal with the split screen? How about having friends over! That's a case where one person owns one console but would appreciate this technology. Since this requires a 3DTV, it's not going to be tiny either, which means no cramming together and smelling each other's asses is even necessary!

      Do you have that much trouble thinking outside of your own little world, or did you just want to come in here flexing your "back in my day" memories? Or do you just believe that everyone should be like you, that is to believe that networked multiplayer gaming is the only kind of gaming?

    8. Re:Split screen multiplayer by arth1 · · Score: 2

      How about having friends over!

      This tech will be useless for that. All your friends would need glasses too, and would only be able to see ONE of the two screens. So it's actually anti-social, excluding your friends compared to a normal game.
      As for multiple TVs, I believe the average number of TVs in a household is now above 2. And a games console is going to be cheaper than the glasses needed for this. So what's the problem, again?

    9. Re:Split screen multiplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a games console is going to be cheaper than the glasses needed for this. So what's the problem, again?

      OK, so now tell me this...how is the price of buying a second console PLUS buying an extra copy OF EVERY GAME going to compare to the cost of the glasses?

    10. Re:Split screen multiplayer by Plekto · · Score: 1

      The single worst thing about traditional split-screen play, though, is that you can see the other player. This solves that, so that you can for once actually use tactics and sneak up on them as opposed to being restricted to bashing at each other because you both know where you are at all times.

      You can do this with two machines networked together, but that's cumbersome. If you use a 1080P TV, it's essentially a 1000X1000 square that you'll be seeing - plenty of resolution to play a good game. (I'm figuring about 100 pixels at the bottom for status messages and so on)

    11. Re:Split screen multiplayer by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure that video shows an ACTUAL full-screen image for two different players at the same time.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    12. Re:Split screen multiplayer by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      No, it shows a half-screen image stretched to the full height of the screen. You're still missing half your FOV and everything looks all wonky.

  2. 2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I presume this halves the refresh rate rather than quartering it?

    1. Re:2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      I was thinking do you get all the colors too :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The active shutter is a LCD overlay on the lens that blacks out the vision when any but your screen is displaying. You get full colours when your shutter is open. Your brain fills in the gaps when the shutter is closed so that you don't notice (persistence of vision).

    3. Re:2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? by munozdj · · Score: 1

      Well, if the display is 240Hz it could provide 3D for 2 players (if the console supports it), or 2D for 4 players, I guess. it's only a matter of how high the refresh rate is

      --
      Democracy: Crowdsourcing a country near you
    4. Re:2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? by hughJ · · Score: 1

      Be interesting to know how the eyes would handle the flicker. Even through each eye is still getting 60hz, the period of time the shutter is open has gone from 1/2 to 1/4.

    5. Re:2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? by munozdj · · Score: 1

      I think it would be kind of like watching things with a strobe light. I read somewhere that the retina "holds" the image it's getting for some time, that the image doesn't need to be persistent in order to see it, but I digress, it's just a theory loosely based on some reports I'm not even sure I read

      --
      Democracy: Crowdsourcing a country near you
  3. I gotta hand it to them. by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

    This is actually pretty darn clever. Maybe I don't know of the prior art everyone and their brother knows, but colored me impressed by a company I no longer expected this from. Not just in realizing this could be done, but in the executives allowing it to reach market.

    --
    by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    1. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just in realizing this could be done, but in the executives allowing it to reach market.

      Realising it could be done was a pretty neat jump, but the executives were probably all over it. Bearing in mind Sony makes 3D-enabled PS3s, 3D-enabled Blu-ray players, 3D movie projectors and pretty much every other 3D hardware under the sun, having another opportunity to push the technology can only be in their favour. No doubt they'll be pushing for 3D-exclusive split screen in games in the future.

      So, it goes like this: You want to play the latest games? Buy our PS3! You want to watch HD movies on it? Buy our Blu-ray disks to go with your PS3! You want to do that in 3D? Make sure you pay extra for one of our 3D HDTVs to go with your Blu-rays and PS3! Want to do this in exquisite comfort? Buy our sofa! It's in 3D too, and you don't even need glasses for it!

    2. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's clever but I'm not sure they deserve the kudos for it, I've seen dozens of people suggest this very approach to multiplayer as a useful way to utilise 3D over the past several years (since it reared its head again) - I even remember having a discussion on this very topic with a friend back in '06 (I remember the date as I can remember the project we were working on that spawned the discussion). This is just more evidence that if you're already a global mega-corporation it's much easier to put these ideas into production (and, more importantly, lock everyone else out with IP laws). What I'd like to see is some kind of free to register patent equivalent where regular people with a good idea but without the funds or drive to produce it can donate these more obvious technology applications on an open source basis, meaning any company can use them to create interesting new technology but no one company can own that technology.

    3. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by tgd · · Score: 1

      Poor patents are issued today because the system is overwhelmed by submissions from individuals and corporations paying tends of thousands per filing.

      And you think things would get better by making them *free*!? If you think an idea is worth protecting, suck it up and pay the money. Tens of thousands of individuals do.

      If you don't, all you need to do is publish something about it. When you had that idea in '06 (and its not anything new -- active LCD 3D wasn't uncommon even in the early 90's, and I saw this done back then!), you could've whipped up some software to do it, or tossed a blog posting online and that would've counted as prior art.

    4. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you realise 3D is just two slightly different images going to different eyes, it's not a huge leap to sending two completely different images to different people. I thought about it at least a couple years ago, and I'm not dumb enough to believe I'm the only or even first one to do so.
      As long as the TV's refresh rate and glasses' shutter speed was fast enough, you could have theoretically unlimited "split screens" on the one TV.
      Obviously only works on the shutter-based 3D though. The 3DS's autostereoscopy and the move towards polarizazed displays/glasses would make this impossible.

    5. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow so you are complaining about the fact that you did not create something, but Sony did. And now it's somehow Sonys fault? I think you should spend more time thinking out your opinion and less time distributing your principles no matter what.

    6. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you realise 3D is just two slightly different images going to different eyes, it's not a huge leap to sending two completely different images to different people. I thought about it at least a couple years ago, and I'm not dumb enough to believe I'm the only or even first one to do so.

      Indeed, one of the first things I thought of when I took delivery of my Sony 3d TV was that wouldn't it be handy if the lady could watch X-Factor\Strictly\Other rubbish TV, while I watched\played something else with headphones on the same screen. Hell, it would be nice just to blank out the screen! ;)

    7. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that the PS3 has to create 4 images per frame for 3D for 2 players? At 1080p this is a LOT of pixels to push. I'd wondered whether this sort of thing was possible some time back, but assumed it would not be feasible as the frame rates would need to be lowered too much. If it works as advertised though, I'm definitely up for getting one! (and I'd written Sony off)

      --
      Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
    8. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Sene · · Score: 1

      Indeed, old idea that has been tossed around in the net for quite some time already. Next phase is of course 240Hz 3D tv that allows two player 3D gaming from the same screen.

    9. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by somersault · · Score: 2

      It would be in 2D, at least for now. I think if you were going to start splitting into 4 images instead of 2, the flickering would be far too annoying (I tried a 3D Sony TV in one of their stores, and noticed a slight flickering even with 60Hz in each eye). I much prefer polarised 3D to active shutters..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that the PS3 has to create 4 images per frame for 3D for 2 players? At 1080p this is a LOT of pixels to push. I'd wondered whether this sort of thing was possible some time back, but assumed it would not be feasible as the frame rates would need to be lowered too much. If it works as advertised though, I'm definitely up for getting one! (and I'd written Sony off)

      Not particularly, if it's the same thing I'm thinking of.

      3D works by dedicating one frame to the left eye, then one to the right eye. This works by dedicating 1 frame (entirely) to player 1 and 1 frame to player 2, but without 3D.

      They're using the fact that you can have 1 lens view 1 image and not the other in a binary fashion. I think to honestly do 3D for both players would either require serious GPU power and active shutter displays that are properly setup, or longer, possibly noticable, delays in between displaying your frame. No gusta.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo It's similar to this.

    11. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Sene · · Score: 1

      This is currently only 2d for 2 players. So the same 120Hz refresh rate is enough. For the next stage 240Hz is required from the screen already, and also what you mentioned, a load of power to push all those images in HD resolution.

    12. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Somehow, the "Cave Johnson" voice seemed to come out loud and clear in that last paragraph.. And it captured the apparent Sony approach nicely!

    13. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by SilenceBE · · Score: 1

      " but colored me impressed by a company I no longer expected this from"

      As a friend told me that has worked at sony in the past, Sony exists out of multiple independed entities. So it is perfectly normal that one department is real cool and relaxed and another department is a real PITA.

      For example Sony DVD players supports divx for a long time (I have a really old one) which their movie department isn't that happy about. 90% of the people using DIVX aren't playing legal content.

      Sony Imageworks for example has some real cool open source projects which I really love.

    14. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by tru3ntropy · · Score: 1

      This guy did it with a normal tv and two pairs of cinema 3D glasses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo

      --
      In Google we trust.
    15. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      the ps3 can't even create one 1080p image at any decent rate. no game runs beyond 720p, most run on even lower resolution.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    16. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      And, while it wasn't active shutter, there have been luxury cars in the recent past using parallax barrier 3D tech to show navigation to the driver, and a movie to the passenger, on the same display.

    17. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      Look up "defensive publication." It's done all the danged time.

      --
      --Jim (me)
    18. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      This is actually pretty darn clever. Maybe I don't know of the prior art everyone and their brother knows, but colored me impressed by a company I no longer expected this from. Not just in realizing this could be done, but in the executives allowing it to reach market.

      There's something Sony didn't mention out loud: the display shows different pictures to the two different players, but it'll apparently be 2D, not 3D. 3D just for one person requires twice the bandwidth as compared to regular 2D, and 3D for two requires four times that, so there's simply not enough bandwidth to do it.

    19. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3D has only become popular in recent years. Avatar was released in December 2009, which is seems about right for the demand of 3D. 3D TVs became available in 2010, so what the fck were you and your homey doing in 2006? I'm gonna have to call bravo seirra on this post. There are many reasons to hate Sony, but this is not one of them.

    20. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this clever? You still have only 1! handheld... how the hell do two people play on one handheld?

    21. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      Actually, Metal Gear Solid 4 runs at 1080p natively. I'd assume there are a few others that do the same.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    22. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is if the glasses will work with other 3DTVs and the feature will be supported on other TVs. I've got a 55" Bravia 3DTV and I would love to be able to use this feature. Really all it is is a different shutter pattern for the glasses, so there is no reasons they shouldn't make this available on any 3DTV that has compatible glasses.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    23. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      Lair is 1080p native. Wipeout HD, too. I'm sure there are a few others, but most of them are earlier games. Everyone seems to have settled on 720p as the 'standard', for now, in order to ensure enough eye candy.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    24. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by ifrag · · Score: 1

      Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriot = 1024x768 (2xAA, temporal)

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    25. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      There are NO full board AAA titles on PS3 that run at 1080p native. Wipeout HD gets away with it because its a simple game. Nothing with Lair's (Lair = 800x1080 (2xAA) - AA buffers are merged to produce 1600x1080 for further scaling) complexity will run at 1080p on PS3

      --
      Good-bye
    26. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      Ah... it's 1024x768 upscaled to 1080p. I assumed it was 1080p, because that's what the display said on my TV when the game fired up. But this makes sense... a high-quality, full 1080p game like MGS4 would be tough to make.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    27. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by ifrag · · Score: 1

      Lair = 800x1080 (2xAA) - AA buffers are merged to produce 1600x1080 for further scaling
      (sounds odd but might be accurate?)

      Wipeout HD = dynamic-framerate-dependent 1080p framebuffer (1280x1080 to 1920x1080)

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    28. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by ilguido · · Score: 1

      This is just more evidence that if you're already a global mega-corporation it's much easier to put these ideas into production (and, more importantly, lock everyone else out with IP laws).

      The fact is that, at least in Europe, you have to implement your idea into a real device to patent it, so to show that:
      * you can build it for real
      * it is useful
      It's a much worse situation when someone patent just an idea, just waiting for someone else to do the dirty job (i.e. implementing the idea into a real device) and profit.

    29. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      i dunno man, i don't think i ever saw ANY game run at 1080p.
      on the other hand, my shitty laptop with shitty intel graphics can spit out mw 2 easily at 1080p. though all other games don't go above 720p.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    30. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Drantin · · Score: 1

      The short story Double-Take by Winston K. Marks covers the concept, although in there it was in a theatre as an evolution of 3D movies, where one viewer could watch a movie from the male lead's perspective, and the other from the female lead's perspective.

      The story was written in 1953. Is that prior art enough? You can check here a bit over half-way down for the story.

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    31. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "At 1080p this is a LOT of pixels to push"

      Nope, because you're still only displaying a 1080p stream overall. Different Camera views is trivial.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    32. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by JimFive · · Score: 1

      Next phase is of course 240Hz 3D tv that allows two player 3D gaming from the same screen.

      With the current setup you always have image going to your eyes. For two-player 3D you would have to have 2 blank cycles (for the opponent's screen) for each frame (1 cycle left eye, 1 cycle right eye, 2 cycles no eyes). I think that would be very straining, even if it was L - 0 - R - 0, because the predominant signal from your eyes would be blank.

      Not saying they couldn't do it, but I think it's a harder problem.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    33. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Can people stop selling it as 3D, it's sterescopic. The picture does not change when you move.

      --
      I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
    34. Re:I gotta hand it to them. by Sene · · Score: 1

      I would assume that it will be tricky. Also if one player is in completely light area and another in completely dark would strain the screen like crazy.

  4. One thing they probably didn't think of... by stonedcat · · Score: 1

    What about people who aren't playing and want to watch?

    --
    You can't take the sky from me.
    1. Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares.

    2. Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... by delinear · · Score: 1

      They have a set of glasses with each side attuned to a different player and they just close one eye or the other :)

    3. Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just buy another glass and sync it to eiter one of the displays.
      [sarcasm] it's just $69 per viewer [/sarcasm]

    4. Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2

      I'm assuming without the glasses you'd see both screens superimposed on each other. While it could be annoying, you'd get to follow both players this way.

      And if you want to go with one player only, you don't need the glasses. Just blink really really fast. :)

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    5. Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's their new DRM scheme: non-players are not licensed to see the game.

    6. Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Oh they thought about it, don't worry. They'll just sell you as many $70 pairs of glasses as you want people watching.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
  5. Limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely now the problem will be if the PS3 can produce two 1080p outputs off its GPU or will the graphics have to be degraded.

    1. Re:Limitations by NinetyOneDegrees · · Score: 1

      The issues here are framerate and buffering.

      Computer displays are double buffered. That is, you have an image being displayed and an image being drawn to. Finish drawing and you flip them. This is all well and good, but a 1080p 32 bit display takes 8 Megs. We need another 8 for the back buffer, possibly another 8 for a depth buffer and the same again for player 2. That's 48 Megs allocated just to drawing the graphics. You might be able to do something simpler with triple buffering but that doesn't save you a lot.

      Framerate - we're drawing twice as many pixels and twice as many polygons. There's very little scope for optimisation here.

      If you can make the scene a lot simpler, then you can actually gain in both of these. If you are absolutely certain that a display will be drawn in less than a sixtieth of a second, then you can just draw that while the other image is visible. This means you only need a single buffer per player. You might even find another way of dealing with depth if things are simple enough.

    2. Re:Limitations by Tukz · · Score: 1

      Since the article is about their upcoming hand-held device, how is that relevant?

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    3. Re:Limitations by dreemernj · · Score: 1

      Considering how few games for the PS3 are currently 1080p, it seems unlikely there will be anything other than small puzzle games that are actually 1080p to each player through this television.

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    4. Re:Limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest reading TFA before you go telling other people what it's about.

    5. Re:Limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the summary? Do you think the Vita is what the 24" HDTV is designed for? Seriously? At least understand the summary, never mind the article, before you go bashing people about their comment's "relevance".

    6. Re:Limitations by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      If you can make the scene a lot simpler, then you can actually gain in both of these. If you are absolutely certain that a display will be drawn in less than a sixtieth of a second, then you can just draw that while the other image is visible.

      So we'll have 3D versions of Battlezone, and it'll be called state of the art!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    7. Re:Limitations by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      please people, pay attention!!
      why do so many of you think that ps3 runs its games in 1080p? i've seen a lot of ps3 games and none of them goes above 720p, most are even lower.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  6. Also - CHEATING :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I understand things correctly, you could wear a pair of glasses not in this mode, then simply close one eye to see you opponents screen and close the other to see your own screen.

    I should sign in...

    1. Re:Also - CHEATING :D by cbiltcliffe · · Score: -1, Redundant

      I should sign in...

      No...you should just not post insightful shit as AC, because I was going to say the exact same thing, and now you've gone and taken my +5 Insighful, and made it -1 Redundant, and didn't even get any karma for yourself.

      What a waste, you insensitive clod!!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    2. Re:Also - CHEATING :D by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      You're gonna have to be blinking might fast, lad.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    3. Re:Also - CHEATING :D by pancakegeels · · Score: 1

      3D sends a different image to the left eye to the right, and the glasses for these screens flicker appropriately to only show one image to each eye. From what I can gather, If the sync for the left eye is employed in both lenses, the screen will display Gamer 1's screen. If the sync for the Right eye is used, then similarly the right eye will show Gamer 2's image. If you have the usual sync on the glasses, you will see both images - one in each lens. If it is a sufficient advantage, you could play with your game screen, one eye shut, and peek at your opponent's screen by switching which eye you have open.

    4. Re:Also - CHEATING :D by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh, thank you. I misunderstood the "not in this mode" bit, apparently :-)

      That does make a lot more sense.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    5. Re:Also - CHEATING :D by pancakegeels · · Score: 1

      :) Brilliant, and funnily enough it has been done http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpR3b1gm-w

    6. Re:Also - CHEATING :D by Khyber · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/v/Uef17zOCDb8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&hd=1

      Fast enough for you?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  7. virtual boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We had a console using glasses before (though not in the configuration with an extra monitor) and it was a trainwreck..

    "3d" (stereoscopic) tv is also failing because of the mandatory glasses.... so why should it be different for ps vita?

    Come back when you do it without glasses. (At least for stereoscopic imaging we know for quite a while that it is possible, also would love to see volume displays sold to common people).

    All this kind of stereoscopic hype is so 19th century!

    1. Re:virtual boy by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Umm... that's nothing to do with Vita, Vita is the new handheld.

      And 3d is failing for a lot of reasons. Glasses are part of it, sure. Complete lack of content for home users is another big one though. I bought a 3dtv but I'm damned if I can find anything I want to use it for.

    2. Re:virtual boy by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      I don't think glasses are the problem, so much as the crappy-fake 3d gives most people headaches and still looks fuzzy because the angles of the stereoscopic images aren't quite right. In this case, you have 2 glasses viewing a one 2d-image and filtering out the other. So, potentially, there would be little to no fuzzing as your brain isn't trying to integrate images at angles it's not used to processing. It could work well for this particular use.

  8. Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still say fuck'em.

  9. nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    old hat, been known about for ages. How long before they patent n player games, and then say 'wow, now we can do 3d for 4 players... only 1/8 framerate, and luminosity so low you can't see to complain'

  10. "Sony Didn't Solve anything" (as seen on reddit) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some dude on reddit posted a link showing the same technique on existing hardware with polarized lenses (lower resolution).

    video

    Downside: Half the vertical resolution.
    Upside: Bystanders don't have to pay for active glasses; it's already available.

  11. Flicker by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"This means that when playing with a friend, you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player"

    Right, it means you sacrifice 50% of the refresh rate instead. And with all the 3D TV's I have seen so far, that means FLICKER!!

    1. Re:Flicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"This means that when playing with a friend, you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player"

      Right, it means you sacrifice 50% of the refresh rate instead. And with all the 3D TV's I have seen so far, that means FLICKER!!

      Will you really miss 50% of 120Hz?

    2. Re:Flicker by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No you wont. Because 99% of all game players already are playing at 60hz.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Flicker by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but not a great deal. Stick CRTs in front of people and everybody will say 50Hz flickers. Some won't have a problem with 60. I'd guess about half would be happy with 70, and most would be happy above 85. So at 60, yes you'll probably notice a bit of flicker, but probably not enough to bother you. Smaller screens bother you much less with flicker anyway, so I doubt people will be bothered by this.

      It's not that long ago that people were happy with their 60Hz TV sets (or even 50Hz here in the UK). It's really no big deal.

      --

      jh

    4. Re:Flicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you wont. Because 99% of all game players already are playing at 60hz.

      Exactly, and that (effectively) includes 3D gamers. Hence the rhetorical question.. ;)

    5. Re:Flicker by Krneki · · Score: 1

      >"This means that when playing with a friend, you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player"

      Right, it means you sacrifice 50% of the refresh rate instead. And with all the 3D TV's I have seen so far, that means FLICKER!!

      Will you really miss 50% of 120Hz?

      120Hz total, 60Hz per eye.

      So it will be at 30Hz. It will be like the current shitty 3D movies in the cinema.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    6. Re:Flicker by arth1 · · Score: 1

      To me, it seems like a solution looking for a problem, much like the Wii, but without the benefit of viral marketing.

      3D glasses will soon join the Foreman grills, stack of T-Shirt transfer paper and Cuecats in the basement. This secondary use for them won't do anything to stop that. Anything that adds inconvenience will fail. Having to put on glasses and only run certain games is an inconvenience.

    7. Re:Flicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something I've come to notice over the years is that refresh rate "flicker" means different things to different people (though it shouldn't). I've had a number of people complain about "flickering" from a "low" refresh rate, when what they were actually describing was screen tearing due to not having v-sync enabled. Not the same thing, and even when you demonstrate it for them, some still insist that it's "flickering" due to having a low refresh rate.

    8. Re:Flicker by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Of course, back then, a 60 Hz TV set was designed for actual 60 Hz operation, and the phosphors were still lit up pretty brightly by the time the beam came past again.

      60 Hz shutter glasses, OTOH, intend to block light as soon as the frame ends. Therefore, you need a much faster refresh rate on shutter glasses than you would on a CRT that had relatively slow phosphors.

    9. Re:Flicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use my Foreman grill all the time. I don't even have a basement. I have no desire to have a 3D TV in the house and to wear glasses while watching it.

    10. Re:Flicker by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      Your math... It hurts my head. It won't be at 30Hz, it'll be at 60Hz, just that the left eye's 60Hz are out of phase with the right eye's 60Hz. Cinema's framerate is at 29.97Hz, whether it's 2D or 3D, as they broadcast both images at the same time, BUT a cinema projector will fire the image 3 times (typically) per frame so the light doesn't (appear to) flicker.

    11. Re:Flicker by Krneki · · Score: 1

      True, I fucked up the cinema Hz with frame rate.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    12. Re:Flicker by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but most weren't /that/ slow. Plenty of people used 60Hz CRT monitors and didn't think they were hideous (I'm not entirely sure why though), and the persistence of those phosphors was tiny (after about 5% of the vertical size they'd reverted to mostly black).

      --

      jh

    13. Re:Flicker by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      My 60hz display isn't black 50% of the time.

      A strobe light with a 0.5 duty cycle isn't exactly the same thing as a light source that's half as bright but doesn't flicker on and off.

    14. Re:Flicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, it seems like a solution looking for a problem, much like the Wii, but without the benefit of viral marketing.

      In what way was the Wii a "solution looking for a problem"? It was a good solution to a very specific problem that Nintendo had, which was: "We need to make a console that will lead the current generation in sales and make us zillions of Yen". Was the Wii remote gimmicky, well yes, yes it was, but it resulted in sales that, for many many months, dwarfed the combined sales of the Xbox360 & the PS3. There's something to be gleaned from the fact that Sony and Microsoft have since come out with their own gimmicky control mechanisms.

      I'd spend more time berating you if you weren't so obviously trolling.

    15. Re:Flicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understand, most active shuttering TVs refresh at 120+ Hz, or 60+ Hz per channel (L/R or P1/P2).

      That 60+ Hz effective refresh rate is equal to or better than:

      + standard desktop LCD monitors (60 Hz)
      + NTSC and PAL television signals (59.94 and 50 Hz, respectively)
      + framerate of most console games (30 Hz, with the occasional 60 Hz)

      If you can perceive flicker at that rate, you'll have trouble with a lot more than just 3DTVs. ;) Maybe you were using a bad/misconfigured pair of glasses?

    16. Re:Flicker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The television probably has a 120Hz refresh rate, meaning both people will get to see the game at 60Hz and unless you have very sensitive eyes won't notice the 'flicker.'

      This technology could have other great uses as well: two people could watch different tv stations or movies on the same tv, using headphones for separate audio.

  12. Sony steals ideas... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    The second 3d tv's came on the market almost ALL gaming forums were full of the "Screw 3d, how about full screen for 2 player co-op?"

    Sony steals that idea and patents it as their own.... Nice.

    Thanks sony!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Amarantine · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, for once, Sony actually listens to what people want... and you're STILL complaining?

    2. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      So, for once, Sony actually listens to what people want... and you're STILL complaining?

      You think listening to someone else's idea & patenting that idea are the same thing?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    3. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not their fault if none of the people the forums we're "full" of never filled a patent.
      You're really grasping at straws here.

    4. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're two unrelated things and Sony did both, as they should.

    5. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because ANYONE in the 'gaming forums' was going to do it?

      I hate Sony as much as any red-blooded geek but c'mon...

    6. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think having an idea & creating a product that works are the same thing?

    7. Re:Sony steals ideas... by EdZ · · Score: 1

      And you think those forum goers actually thought up the idea themselves, rather than looking at previous examples of multi-user separated displays (some fixed viewing position ones have been used in cars for quite a while) and parroting it as ORIGINAL IDEA DO NOT STEAL.

    8. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't patent ideas, you patent implementations.

    9. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think coming up with an idea and developing it further are the same thing?

    10. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      So, did Sony actually patent this thing? And is there actually prior art in the gaming forums? Some links would be nice.

    11. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think listening to someone else's idea & patenting that idea are the same thing?

      Did Sony patent it? It seems to be a product of the 3D technology rather than a new technology which would be limited to this TV alone. I imagine current TVs and games can be updated (via software) to support this, if needed.

      If there is a patent please link to it, it would be interesting to read.

    12. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      given that 99.9999% people that came up with that idea had no intention of implementing the idea, who's worse, sony or the 'possible' patent trolls?

    13. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too lazy to login...

      So maybe instead of crying about it on a forum, maybe they should have patented it instead? I don't know much about patent law, but I have been under the impression that to patent something you need something slightly more technical than just an idea. If you can just patent high end ideas, then point me to the nearest patent office, because I've got a ton of em, and I wouldn't mind profiting off of someone elses R+D.

      Sony may be a bunch of jerks, but as the above said, they are at least paying attention to the consumers. It's a lot easier to squeeze money out of people when you give them something they want/like.

    14. Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the DLP booth at CES 2007 or 2008 had an example of just what is being described here, not sure how it plays as far as IP goes but it definately was done years ago.

  13. "sony solution"? by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or anything putting "sony" and "solution" in the same phrase just don't make sense anymore?

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
    1. Re:"sony solution"? by lpp · · Score: 1

      Sure it makes sense:

      -In a dread inspiring voice: The Sony Solution-

      Dislike someone? Hack them to death!

  14. Not unlimited in reality by Vario · · Score: 1

    It is not only about refresh rate and shutter speed. One key problem is brightness and ghosting. If you do basically a time multiplex and want to achieve the same brightness level you have to boost the amount of light coming out of the screen quite a bit. Additionally all shutter glasses are not 100% dark, so even now you often see ghost images.

    1. Re:Not unlimited in reality by Uhyve · · Score: 1

      While the ghosting is in part due to the glasses, it's also because of general LCD ghosting caused by high LCD response times, you can see this in 3D Vision monitor reviews, since they all use the same shutter glasses. Sony screens have actually been some of the best for 3D lately, to the point where ghosting is almost unnoticeable, but that's with two very similar images, you've got to wonder what the ghosting situation will be like with one person watching football and the other watching American Idol.

      On the brightness point, that's why I'm saving up for an insanely bright projector...

  15. Give me a break by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Hahaha how can anyone be talking about Sony and multiplayer in the same sentence now.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local co-op. Durrr.

    2. Re:Give me a break by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      But this is the whole point. Nowadays the only way their multiplayer is safe is when it is not over a network. So it is obvious they would try to give you better 2-player support on the same display.
      So next time PSN is down, they will say "Stop complaining. We gave you the best multiplayer that doesn't require a network, so, go out, buy a 3D TV and find a friend!"

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    3. Re:Give me a break by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. Shouldn't that be "...go out, find a 3D TV, and buy a friend!" ?

    4. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We only have to buy our lady friends.

    5. Re:Give me a break by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Renting is usually a better arrangement.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  16. Man, I hate this idea so much by Legal.Troll · · Score: -1

    that I wish someone would trash Sony's servers, steal its customer data, and torch its corporate headquarters. Because that's just the right way to do things.

    --
    "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
  17. Smearing by Inda · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have a two-yea old, mid-range 42 inch Panasonic plasma and it suffers from smearing. Even though it has a refresh rate of 200hz, it is noticable on fast panning action.

    I assume other large TVs also suffer from smearing.

    With this new 'solution' I imagine seeing a ghost image of the other player's screen, or am I way off the mark?

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    1. Re:Smearing by Zwets · · Score: 1

      I have a two-yea old, mid-range 42 inch Panasonic plasma and it suffers from smearing. Even though it has a refresh rate of 200hz, it is noticable on fast panning action.

      I'm no expert, but I've read the "200Hz" means the TV tries to calculate in-between frames. This doesn't work well for fast panning action, which might be causing the smearing. Try to see if you can get rid of the smearing by turning this "smart" feature off.

      --
      One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
    2. Re:Smearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were the case, 3DTVs wouldn't work.

      Your TV is not marketed for 3D display because it ghosts too much. 3DTVs are specifically designed to reduce or eliminate ghosting.

    3. Re:Smearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way off mark. The images are displayed so you can only see the image of the imagine looking through a color filter and your friend has a different color filter. Only the red glasses can see the red image and blue can only see the blue image. This is the basic concept behind this.

  18. Why when I heard SONY and SOLUTION by SharpFang · · Score: 2

    Why when I heard SONY and SOLUTION I immediately thought "They came up with a way to have people who want to play split-screen to pay for two copies of the game instead of one. Some licensing/payment/authentication scheme that enables split-screen only if both players purchased the license."

    I know, I know. Don't give them ideas. I hope they don't read Slashdot.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  19. Dust 514 by Jessified · · Score: 1

    On a sadder note, DUST 514 is going to be ps3 exclusive?!?!?!? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!

    1. Re:Dust 514 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is very control-heavy for their online games, and apparently wouldn't let CCP do the things they wanted on Live. No PC because KB+M destroys a controller in FPS's.

  20. not Free by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Look up "defensive publication." It's done all the danged time.

    But his requirement be that it's free. Something like halfbakery.com is probably what he's looking for. The WP article on it lists some of its competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfbakery

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:not Free by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      There's nothing more free than the public domain, which is why a defensive publication is used. The halfbakery thing seems uneccesarily convoluted. I suppose that some definitions of "freedom" are GPL-like, in that maybe he wants to allow people to pseudo-freely use his ideas as long as they agree to certain conditions?

      --
      --Jim (me)
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Step 1: by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

    Make sure that Russian hackers have all your personal information and credit card numbers.

  23. Never again sony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't care what you create... not now not ever.
    Fuck you Sony.

  24. Here's a tip Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it requires glasses, I don't want it.

    I already wear glasses, your glasses will not fit over them. I am not buying another special pair of glasses for your broken system. 3D is a failure, I don't want it in my home.

    But it's irrelevant anyway, after the removal of features from your console and recent blunders in security, I'm not buying another Sony console again.

  25. SQL injections ... by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    is there anything they can't do?

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  26. Three little words by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    "wearing 3D glasses"

    Never mind. Still nothing to see here.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  27. Looks great by kimvette · · Score: 1

    It looks like a great 3D TV, until they gain enough popularity and Sony decides to remove the multiplayer feature.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  28. SONY STOLE THIS FROM Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article was posted exactly one year ago:

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2010/07/08/on-tap-at-microsoft-a-3d-display-without-glasses-and-multiple-programs-at-once/

    1. Re:SONY STOLE THIS FROM Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's actually really cool. I like that a lot.

      And it just made me think of something awesome (which I'm sure has been thought of and discussed extensively before, but I never saw it). If you are tracking head motion, then it's actually possible to custom tailor the rendered view to reflect your head position. So for instance...you ever finding yourself playing a game and you physically lean your body to try and see around some obstacle in the game? What if the game actually rendered the screen from a slightly different viewpoint to make this work? Is anybody working on (or already done) anything like this for Kinect?

  29. So, instead of 50% screen real estate by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    You lose 50% of the refresh rate (e.g. 120Hz appears as 60Hz for each player). After all, I'm assuming that they're using the glass's active shutter system to display half the frames to one player and the other half to the other player. Or did they do something different?

  30. Great for two players, what about the viewers? by effigiate · · Score: 1

    Like many have said, I think this is a great idea. One of the things I dislike about multiplayer on the same console is the amount of screen you lose. This would be great for two vs. two as well; both players on one team can only see their teammate's screen and not their opponent's screen.
    The downside to this is you can't have people watch you play. They're either going to see your screen or their screen, they won't be able to see both. I imagine games that use this technology will have a "traditional" multiplayer for when there are more than two people in the room.
    Regular 3D just looks blurry to someone without glasses beacause the two images are pretty similar. What happens when the images are drastically different? It will be impossible to watch.

    1. Re:Great for two players, what about the viewers? by tepples · · Score: 0

      One of the things I dislike about multiplayer on the same console is the amount of screen you lose.

      In Bomberman or Street Fighter IV, how much screen does each player lose?

  31. like this? Re:Sony steals ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this:

    http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/021224A/

    would have to annoy their patent lawyers....

  32. Security Purposes? by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

    Would it be possible to use this concept to allow only one person to see what's on a screen? This could be a potentially powerful tool for security and secrecy.

    --
    But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
  33. Re:Special glasses seems an overcomplication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about multiple display output? You could get the same effect (with the same drawbacks) from having a second video out on the console. Even better, you could choose to rotate the displays so that the other player can't see your screen.

    Course, you'd have to write the games to be compatible

    Ooh, even better, you could use two output displays and two consoles! Then you could connect them via some sort of network.... uhm... oh.

    Er, nevermind.

  34. I did this in 1999-2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm really happy that this is coming to market, but it would be nice to get some credit. I implemented and published work on this about a decade ago.

    Single Display Privacyware: Augmenting Public Displays With Private Information
    Garth B. D. Shoemaker and Kori M. Inkpen
    In Proceedings of ACM CHI 2001

    You can read it here:
    http://www.garthshoemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/shoemaker_sdp_long.pdf

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Don't tell my office.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....they'll have us sharing workstations and monitors!!

  37. Sold with ONE pair of 3d glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After convincing you to buy a $500 (cheap) 3DTV to play multiplayer games with a "friend", they give you just one pair of 3d glasses.
    Buying the other one is another $70.

    So really, it's $570 for a 24" 3DTV which you can use for multiplayer.

    Also, no mention of - when in this multiplayer mode, is each person seeing 3d or 2d? My guess is 2d but interesting how TFA or the summary didn't bother mentioning that. I also guess that all the sony sales ppl will not mention the multiplayer 2d mode or will simply lie about it.

  38. You loose half of the screen anyway by wye43 · · Score: 1

    you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player

    Yes you do, the 3D display process is already halving your resolution - which is exactly the same thing: you lose 50% of screen.

  39. One of the most efficient adverts ever by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    I got to the 4th character and knew that the subject was not going to be on my shopping list.

    But I read on anyway and it still sounds bizarrely bizarre. Like, you're going to have friends round to play a multi-player game, and they're not going to bring their own laptop? Weird concept. How are you going to swap porn and jack off together. Yeuch - the very idea of jacking off onto someone else's keyboard is ... strangely appealing.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  40. hello webmaster by formation · · Score: -1

    Check to see if your Company name is available http://bit.ly/m2IHF4

  41. Terrarium by Under-Glass-Gardens1 · · Score: 1

    Terrariums custom designed with silk flowers. Terrarium UnderGlass Gardens LLC, dedicated to supporting botanical gardens throughout the world, offers custom designed botanical reproductions displayed under glass in terrariums utilizing the highest quality permanent florals.