Gimmick? How is it a gimmick? I've found one downside to the system so far, and that is that the filters on the shutterglasses won't entirely block out the brightest parts of the picture, resulting in a noticeable amount of ghosting. It's hardly a gimmick however. It's full 3D, causes no headaches, and can actually improve your performance in games (a chain link fence, for instance, will block maybe 10% of what's behind it, but with two separate images you can see something moving behind it instantly). Your issues really seem to deal with how 5up4 1337 you look using it, and not the actual technology.
I really do hope that stereo gaming will push people back to PCs from consoles, but as long as you go around telling people it's a gimmick they aren't even going to try it out.
Yes, as another poster pointed out that is in fact becoming the standard. I think it's still worth it to point out the difference between that and the shutterglasses tech though, as the OP alluded that you could achieve 3D with passive glasses via stereoscopy on a standard 120hz LCD.
Hmmm this confuses me. You say it spins three times per frame, but that would mean the eye that's not supposed to be getting the frame would still see it 1/3rd of the time? Right?
Well you probably had more right than I thought. It does look like theaters are moving to a single projector with a spinnylens (technical terminology for a lens that spins). This would indeed require 120+ hz to look smooth, but, again, it's not currently possible to do with your average TV.
It just rubs me the wrong way... they might as well have named the military guy 'Sgt. Evil McBadass', or the wheelchair dude 'Hiro Protagonist'. Oops, wait, I liked that book... damn.
It's just the stock nVidia 3d setup: 120hz monitor and shutterglasses. I didn't mean to imply I had no glasses. It's certainly not perfect for a 3d home theater, but it works well enough for one person playing video games. I've never even actually seen a glasses-less system, so I was confused when you said it was the standard.
Yeah right after I posted about the spinning wheel I realized that's probably how it actually is done. Why buy two projectors when we have the tech to sync really fast spinny things?
Not really. Maybe you don't have a 3d display, but that's your fault.
Sure, it would probably have to be sourced from a screener copy (or at least recorded with two cameras, each with a different lens), but it's not like nobody would be able to watch it. In fact, let me know when you find a copy. I've already paid for a ticket once, and I'd like to see it at home before my Hollywood masters have deemed that enough time has passed to release it on 3D blu-ray.
No grays? So the scientists were all evil then, cause they essentially made the genocide possible? I mean, all good, cause they helped the smurfs in the end? If only there was a color, say something between black and white, that could express the moral ambiguity of their situation...
Is there a stereoscopic torrent out? Just needs to be double width, side by side left and right. I ask because some of us living here in the future have stereoscopic displays but only video games to play on them:(
Good god man... you have all the right words, but have failed to actually grasp the technology. You're confusing two ways to view 3d.
The theaters DO use polarized light, but that's the only part you got correct. They don't do 120hz images (well I guess they COULD, but it's not an integral part of the 3d effect), they just use a left and a right projector with different lenses to polarize the light into two orientations. How would they even change the polarization of each frame if it was one projector? Two different lenses spinning really fast?
The 120hz figure you picked up off some Wikipedia page has to do with shutterglasses. This is the more consumer friendly version that actually can be achieved on a standard TV. The glasses for this type of 3d are completely different from your theater glasses, though. They work not by polarization, but by completely blacking out one eye at a time, in sync with the two 60hz images coming out of the TV. Nothing is polarized, it simply shows you a left image while blacking out your right eye, and vice versa.
There's some poster below me talking about the 'standard' for home 3d to be holography, or some crap. Please don't listen to them. I kill zombies in 3d on a nightly basis from the comfort of my home, so I kinda know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Why do you have a laptop then you dumb fuck? Especially if you don't even take it with you. Christ. Go back to Amish country if you're just gonna bitch about new technology.
"4) If we use your definition of "decade", then what are we going to call the decade that includes the year 1985 A.D.? "I Love The 80's Including 1990 But Not 1980"?"
We call it 'the 80s', you stupid piece of shit. Note how there's no 'decade' in that phrase, or even the whole fucking sentence. You starting to see how they're DIFFERENT things? 1985 is in the 80s. 1985 is in the 199th decade. 1990 is in the 90s. 1990 is in the 199th decade.
When I say 'this century', people assume I'm talking about the 21st century. When I say 'this millennium', people assume I'm talking about the 3rd millennium. So why is it that all of a sudden, when I say 'this decade', I don't mean the 201st decade?
You're right. We don't HAVE to use year 1 as a starting point. It's arbitrary. It's meaningless. But it's fucking standard, and there's no point in suddenly counting decades starting with year 0 just because people say 'the 80s' more often than they actually refer to 'standard' decades.
So you just gonna ignore the reply you've already gotten to this point?
"If you say the best of "the decade" you are implicitly referring to the current decade as counted from the first one until now. The same goes to "the century" and "the millennium". It is correct to refer to the 80's as the period from 1980 until 1989. Every one of those years really belongs to the 80s. Buts. as you said, the first year of our calendar was 1. There was no year 0. This makes the first decade go from 1 to 10. So, it is correct to say that the [current] decade will end next year."
Your response to this post only pointed out the fact that he got Jesus' age wrong, and you even managed to respond a full seven minutes after he corrected himself! You didn't actually refute anything, and even continue to argue your points. Why? You trollin bro?
If you can't say with certainty that something strange is going on, then you've created a bad experiment. Seriously, how can you say, with certainty, that there really is ANYTHING going on in your experiment? If you can't track down the source of your bad data, then how do you know the source of your 'good' data? It's only 'good data' when it matches your hypothesis?
Because massive game development companies never make mistakes, right? If EA was a person it'd be drooling 24/7. I need an account to save my GTA4 game? Really? On your website? You just need my personal information? Yeah real fuckin feasible. How about I just pirate the hell out of it...
Slashdot Mirror
Shhh, everyone be quiet. Let them figure out there's no such thing as 'the android' on their own. It will be hilarious when they finally catch on.
Gimmick? How is it a gimmick? I've found one downside to the system so far, and that is that the filters on the shutterglasses won't entirely block out the brightest parts of the picture, resulting in a noticeable amount of ghosting. It's hardly a gimmick however. It's full 3D, causes no headaches, and can actually improve your performance in games (a chain link fence, for instance, will block maybe 10% of what's behind it, but with two separate images you can see something moving behind it instantly). Your issues really seem to deal with how 5up4 1337 you look using it, and not the actual technology.
I really do hope that stereo gaming will push people back to PCs from consoles, but as long as you go around telling people it's a gimmick they aren't even going to try it out.
Oh what the hell I thought you were PizzaAnalogyGuy. Get outta here, we got enough of yous guys.
Yes, as another poster pointed out that is in fact becoming the standard. I think it's still worth it to point out the difference between that and the shutterglasses tech though, as the OP alluded that you could achieve 3D with passive glasses via stereoscopy on a standard 120hz LCD.
Hmmm this confuses me. You say it spins three times per frame, but that would mean the eye that's not supposed to be getting the frame would still see it 1/3rd of the time? Right?
Well you probably had more right than I thought. It does look like theaters are moving to a single projector with a spinnylens (technical terminology for a lens that spins). This would indeed require 120+ hz to look smooth, but, again, it's not currently possible to do with your average TV.
It just rubs me the wrong way... they might as well have named the military guy 'Sgt. Evil McBadass', or the wheelchair dude 'Hiro Protagonist'. Oops, wait, I liked that book... damn.
It's just the stock nVidia 3d setup: 120hz monitor and shutterglasses. I didn't mean to imply I had no glasses. It's certainly not perfect for a 3d home theater, but it works well enough for one person playing video games. I've never even actually seen a glasses-less system, so I was confused when you said it was the standard.
Yeah right after I posted about the spinning wheel I realized that's probably how it actually is done. Why buy two projectors when we have the tech to sync really fast spinny things?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrumanShowPlot
Unique, except for that Twilight Zone Episode, and all those other things on that page that came before it.
Not really. Maybe you don't have a 3d display, but that's your fault.
Sure, it would probably have to be sourced from a screener copy (or at least recorded with two cameras, each with a different lens), but it's not like nobody would be able to watch it. In fact, let me know when you find a copy. I've already paid for a ticket once, and I'd like to see it at home before my Hollywood masters have deemed that enough time has passed to release it on 3D blu-ray.
No grays? So the scientists were all evil then, cause they essentially made the genocide possible? I mean, all good, cause they helped the smurfs in the end? If only there was a color, say something between black and white, that could express the moral ambiguity of their situation...
Whenever someone looks into a microscope you can see the light it projects through the eyepiece reflecting off of their eye. Cool stuff.
The first time I heard 'unobtanium' I had to resist the urge to punch the first person I saw in the groin.
Is there a stereoscopic torrent out? Just needs to be double width, side by side left and right. I ask because some of us living here in the future have stereoscopic displays but only video games to play on them :(
Yeah and GUESS WHERE THAT PLANET IS?!
Damn space monkey.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Good god man... you have all the right words, but have failed to actually grasp the technology. You're confusing two ways to view 3d.
The theaters DO use polarized light, but that's the only part you got correct. They don't do 120hz images (well I guess they COULD, but it's not an integral part of the 3d effect), they just use a left and a right projector with different lenses to polarize the light into two orientations. How would they even change the polarization of each frame if it was one projector? Two different lenses spinning really fast?
The 120hz figure you picked up off some Wikipedia page has to do with shutterglasses. This is the more consumer friendly version that actually can be achieved on a standard TV. The glasses for this type of 3d are completely different from your theater glasses, though. They work not by polarization, but by completely blacking out one eye at a time, in sync with the two 60hz images coming out of the TV. Nothing is polarized, it simply shows you a left image while blacking out your right eye, and vice versa.
There's some poster below me talking about the 'standard' for home 3d to be holography, or some crap. Please don't listen to them. I kill zombies in 3d on a nightly basis from the comfort of my home, so I kinda know what the fuck I'm talking about.
"Only Japanese people, with their..."
"This Christmas, I'm passed out from wine..."
"...'enjoy' such a 'game'..."
So you're a racist drunk who passed out instead of spending time with his family on Christmas, and you hate fun.
Your comment is valuable why? +5 insightful? Seriously?
I hope someone bludgeons you to death with a Guitar Hero controller.
Why do you have a laptop then you dumb fuck? Especially if you don't even take it with you. Christ. Go back to Amish country if you're just gonna bitch about new technology.
"4) If we use your definition of "decade", then what are we going to call the decade that includes the year 1985 A.D.? "I Love The 80's Including 1990 But Not 1980"?"
We call it 'the 80s', you stupid piece of shit. Note how there's no 'decade' in that phrase, or even the whole fucking sentence. You starting to see how they're DIFFERENT things? 1985 is in the 80s. 1985 is in the 199th decade. 1990 is in the 90s. 1990 is in the 199th decade.
When I say 'this century', people assume I'm talking about the 21st century. When I say 'this millennium', people assume I'm talking about the 3rd millennium. So why is it that all of a sudden, when I say 'this decade', I don't mean the 201st decade?
You're right. We don't HAVE to use year 1 as a starting point. It's arbitrary. It's meaningless. But it's fucking standard, and there's no point in suddenly counting decades starting with year 0 just because people say 'the 80s' more often than they actually refer to 'standard' decades.
So you just gonna ignore the reply you've already gotten to this point?
"If you say the best of "the decade" you are implicitly referring to the current decade as counted from the first one until now. The same goes to "the century" and "the millennium". It is correct to refer to the 80's as the period from 1980 until 1989. Every one of those years really belongs to the 80s. Buts. as you said, the first year of our calendar was 1. There was no year 0. This makes the first decade go from 1 to 10. So, it is correct to say that the [current] decade will end next year."
Your response to this post only pointed out the fact that he got Jesus' age wrong, and you even managed to respond a full seven minutes after he corrected himself! You didn't actually refute anything, and even continue to argue your points. Why? You trollin bro?
"On what evidence do you base this claim?"
Graph the data. 10, 10, 7. Connect the dots. You see what I see? That's right, hockey stick.
If you can't say with certainty that something strange is going on, then you've created a bad experiment. Seriously, how can you say, with certainty, that there really is ANYTHING going on in your experiment? If you can't track down the source of your bad data, then how do you know the source of your 'good' data? It's only 'good data' when it matches your hypothesis?
Cause you can overdose on water, yet you drin--
Actually nevermind. Bad things are B A D bad and that's just the way it is.
Because massive game development companies never make mistakes, right? If EA was a person it'd be drooling 24/7. I need an account to save my GTA4 game? Really? On your website? You just need my personal information? Yeah real fuckin feasible. How about I just pirate the hell out of it...