| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (83)

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:24PM Shagittarius said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I hope your LCD does 120hz or Sony is going to be asking you to upgrade your TV again.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:26PM Shagittarius said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Not to mention but you'd also need to have the game support 1080p or even on a 120hz LCD it wouldn't work.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:27PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seems more like a "next gen" idea to me. PS4.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:39PM SoulBlade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think you're right. This is next gen tech, but I think it's still pretty cool (though I'd need to see it to affirm that). It might also be why they chose WipeoutHD as an example since it supports 1080p.

I still want it
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:42PM Shagittarius said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Oh its very cool, I use to play Everquest with this tech back in the day and it was truely awesome. I would like nothing more than to see this catch on. However, LCDs are pretty popular and unless you have an LCD capable of 720p at 120hz your not going to be able to use this tech.

I originally said the games had to run at 1080p, but I realize that they could run at any progressive resolution and be ok.

How many people have 120hz LCDs though?
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:53PM AwesomeTown said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Shag, I haven't seen one up close, but can the average person see a difference with a 120hz lcd? Basically, other than this 3D, is there really any incentive right now to justify the price difference for the 120hz panel?
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:02PM Zertoss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
120Hz supposedly makes a huge difference when viewing SD content. I've got a 32" from Panasonic that has a 120Hz refresh rate, but I haven't tested it to see if there's a noticeable difference.

I've got it plugged into my homemade PVR, so it runs at 1080p constantly. I'm pretty sure it only does 120Hz at 480p.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:03PM SoulBlade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've got one! Yea for waiting to jump in!

Heh.. but I think you need a 120hz because you have to render two frames and overlap them as one for the 3D effect. Basically you have to double your framerate. I could be dead wrong, but that might be why the higher refresh rate is needed.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cheer up. No one's asking you to upgrade anything. It's always your choice. Besides, that refresh rate is unnecessary as you can clearly see that they are polarised glasses. Meaning the screen emits 2 differently polarised images at the same time. Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy#Linearly_polarized_glasses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_glasses

Free tip: Check details before you go on a rant lest you look silly.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:12PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't like the 120hz televisions. I considered purchasing one but the extra frames make what your watching look fake. You can see the enhancement going on right in front of you. Besides, wouldn't a regular plasma suffice since the only reason LCD's had to do 120hz was to compete with the picture quality of plasmas?

What about the tech Sony showed off using the Playstation eye to give the illusion it was 3-D at CES last year?
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 5:07PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
nips:

The term Stereoscopy doesn't indicate the method used to achieve the 3d effect. All methods of achieving a 3d effect are called Stereoscopy. The only way your polarized theory works is if everyone buys a new TV, you can't display polarized images through any standard in-home TV set made currently.

Most likely it would be the method I am referring to in which 2 images are show to 2 separate eyes. Hence why you need 120hz and a source that is progressive scan in nature.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 5:16PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
2 separate images trading time on the same display device, and glasses that block out one eye during every other frame.

*Just to clarify.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 5:56PM AwesomeTown said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ok, you guys have confirmed what other stuff I've heard, is that a lot of people notice it, but some just don't like it. I'll have to check it out myself at the store, but man, this 3d sounds pretty nice.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 6:57PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Awesome Town,

Yes I didn't like 120 HZ televisions. They use an algorithm to add in the extra frames so if it isn't native then it looks fake and twitchy. The one I saw actually added another extra frame in between the additional to give it better transition. It just didn't look natural to me at all and the guy at Best Buy said most people prefer either a Plasma or a 60 HZ LCD HDTV. The whole reason that LCD TV's had to do 120 HZ was to eliminate the motion blur more prevalent in traditional 60 HZ LCd TV's which is not in Plasmas. It's hard to explain without looking at the actual screen. Also, the pricing structure is not on par with 60 HZ televisions. I have found that the newer 60 HZ LCD HDTV's do fine during motion and you can get A much larger TV than a comparable priced 120 HZ. For example, take a look at these links ...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8835479&st=LG+52LG60+Scarlet+LCD+TV&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1209772377723

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9034323&st=Sharp+Aquos&lp=7&type=product&cp=1&id=1218010851328

I ended up getting that 52 inch Sharp Aquos at my best buy for $1,400 instead of $1,900. It's an incredible TV and a great value. The stores are more willing to deal with a 60 HZ model than a new 120 HZ model.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 9:24PM AwesomeTown said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks Little Big johnnynumber5.
I haven't be bothered at all with my current LCD, so I don't think I'd want to spend the current price premium. But I won't be in the market for a larger TV until later this year, so I'll reevaluate it then.
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2009 10:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Shag: I know I gave a link to the applicable part of the article, and it's not my "theory" it works I have seen it with my own eyes. I also never said anything about having to buy it... ah what's the point... go have fun.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:25PM Klitorisaurus said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Wow....

... you're a douchebag.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:24PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All I know is that they have to take advantage of this to make Jaws 3-D: The Game.

Oh that would be sweet! OK, maybe not.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:44PM Dirty said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You just made me think of Back to the Future 2.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:03PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, but the Jaws 3-D movie was so classic. Just too funny to watch.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:24PM Duke said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Dude, what?
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:26PM Haggard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Rendering games like this has an impact on performance, because the image has to be rendered twice at two slightly different angles (and then they are overlaid on each other).

I'd rather see head tracking, since all that technically does is move the camera in the game world but has a powerful effect.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:44PM Dirty said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
How about both.... THE FUTURE IS NOW!
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:49PM Brett from Atlanta said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No doubt head tracking is badass, but I think I'd rather have 3d. Head tracking requires me to move instead of just sloth into a chair and prepare for the inevitable seizure that wipeout hd will give me.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:02PM Haggard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If I remember correctly, the console versions of CoD don't have the lean function (to keep the controls simple), along with a lot of other console shooters.

Now imagine if instead of how the PC does it, which is with a fixed distance lean to the left a right mapped to two keys, you were able to move your head in 360 degrees and any distance you wanted to have a completely free lean ability and without having to worry about buttons, instead doing something fairly instinctive.

Plus you get the eye-poppingly eerie effect that 1:1 tracking gives to the objects on screen.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:26PM Kif said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You shouldn't have to tell someone their dead.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:27PM Kif said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Oopsie *they're*
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:30PM Zertoss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tried this on my PC years ago when I got a pair of glasses with a Geforce 3. Mechwarrior 4 looked pretty damn cool.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 6:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
can you link us to the device that you used. Did you use something like this?

http://www.edimensional.com/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=28

I thought of buying one. Why'd you stop using yours?
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 6:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I tried this with Rad Racer back in '87 on the NES. It was awesome? I can't remember. All I remember is headache.
Reply

Posted: Jan 9th 2009 9:26AM Zertoss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, I had a pair of glasses like those, J. I stopped using them because the flicker at 60Hz-75Hz, which is all my CRT supported, gave me a headache in some games. Also anything that wasn't rendered in D3D/OGL (things like the HUD in a lot of games) wouldn't double correctly, so you'd see all of the 3D stuff popping out at you with all of the 2D stuff flickering on both sides of the screen.

Also, the glasses weren't DVI compatible. ;)
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:31PM SirDigby337 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Give up Alien Lord, you're already dead, just accept it.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cool!
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While this sounds really cool, it also sounds like something that would need to be patched into games one at a time. Something that third parties wouldn't waste their time on without any incentive, like a bullet point on the box. Like say, trophies, they're comparative to achievements, but without any standardization or regulation outside of "Platinum is for getting all of the rest". So some games might patch in 3d, and it will be part of the hud popping out instead of anything meaningful, neat but kinda useless.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:42PM Zertoss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
On the PC, it can be done with Nvidia's Stereoscopic drivers (not sure if ATI has an equivalent), so the games don't actually need to be programmed to support it. You do have to make some tweaks to some games, though.

I imagine the same could be done on consoles. I don't know how well it would run at 1080p though.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Head Tracking + 3D + WipEout in-car view = wowsomeness
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:39PM SoulBlade said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
and run it at 2160p!
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
at 240 fps!
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
...while getting a blowjob....
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 4:36PM MrHashbrown said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You'd have a seizure, go blind, and orgasm all at the same time.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 5:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
seems like that would be an awkward way for your mom to find your dead body
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 5:26PM Courtney said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Wouldn't that be an awkward way for anyone to find your body?
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:39PM Levi said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Troll king alien lord, where's your troll queen, lord vesper?
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:41PM TheSound said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Holy hell, imagine playing God Of War III in 3D....

*head asplode*
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:43PM Levi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm more interested in this autostereoscopic tech that's emerging... 3d without glasses... Mmmm
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 5:51PM 343 Guilty Fart said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you're talking about that Magic Eye stuff I fucking hate those things. Yes, I still can't see the schooner.
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 11:21PM Levi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nah. Google autostereoscopic, or search for it here. No glasses, goggles, or cross eyes needed :)
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
im playing it right now, this is awesom....*THROWS UP*
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you reference your bias directly, it must not be true!
Reply

Posted: Jan 8th 2009 3:49PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You are Hi-Bias!
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW