or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › The Official AVS 3D Console Games Topic!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official AVS 3D Console Games Topic! - Page 22

post #631 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jupes97 View Post

Without wanting to sound rude I don't really give a crap what you 'think', both me & my partner noticed a marked improvement in it. I won't claim to be Einstein & give you a load of technical babble about how or why it is better, but it is!

I understand that you might take offense when I suggest that the improvement you genuinely felt might have been the placebo effect, but please don't. Visual quality is highly subjective and it can be difficult to compare without two side by side images, especially when the "before" and "after" are separated by some time. This is a science forum so I don't think I'm out of line asking for numbers (measurements as I suggested) to confirm what you saw, as well as raise questions and be curious about how these things work.
post #632 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I understand that you might take offense when I suggest that the improvement you genuinely felt might have been the placebo effect, but please don't. Visual quality is highly subjective and it can be difficult to compare without two side by side images, especially when the "before" and "after" are separated by some time. This is a science forum so I don't think I'm out of line asking for numbers (measurements as I suggested) to confirm what you saw, as well as raise questions and be curious about how these things work.

I really just joined the forum to say thank you to someone who helped me out after following a link to this thread from another site, I didn't realise I had to be Dilton Doilly to do so.

I'm not really bothered what you think and you don't even own a PS3 to try it out for yourself so I don't really know why you would bother entering into a discussion about PS3's in the first place. All I have to go by is my own eyes and for me it increased the effect 10 fold. The only 'scientific' answer I can give you is maybe it is the PS3's version of a 3D effect slider and Sony just haven't bothered telling anyone about it.

The fact you actually think I would go to the trouble of whipping out a tape
measure and measuring something on a screen does actually worry me a little though I must say. I don't even own a tape measure. I do however own a ruler
and I even have something you can measure if you like as you seem to have an awful amount of free time on your hands.
post #633 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jupes97 View Post

I really just joined the forum to say thank you to someone who helped me out after following a link to this thread from another site, I didn't realise I had to be Dilton Doilly to do so.

I'm not really bothered what you think and you don't even own a PS3 to try it out for yourself so I don't really know why you would bother entering into a discussion about PS3's in the first place. All I have to go by is my own eyes and for me it increased the effect 10 fold. The only 'scientific' answer I can give you is maybe it is the PS3's version of a 3D effect slider and Sony just haven't bothered telling anyone about it.

The fact you actually think I would go to the trouble of whipping out a tape
measure and measuring something on a screen does actually worry me a little though I must say. I don't even own a tape measure. I do however own a ruler
and I even have something you can measure if you like as you seem to have an awful amount of free time on your hands.

If this is how you're going to comport yourself, you might want to consider making this post your 4th and last one.
post #634 of 955
I got curious and dug out the tape measure, though not quite so curious that I felt like bothering with extensive tests of several content sources.

In any case, with Resident Evil: Apocalypse on 3D Blu-ray on my PS3, the difference in left/right eye separation was - as near as I could get to pausing on the same frames with the screen size settings at 51" and 10" respectively - exactly zero.
Just as I had expected from video content where - unlike games - the images aren't rendered dynamically.
post #635 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jupes97 View Post

I really just joined the forum to say thank you to someone who helped me out after following a link to this thread from another site, I didn't realise I had to be Dilton Doilly to do so.

I'm not really bothered what you think and you don't even own a PS3 to try it out for yourself so I don't really know why you would bother entering into a discussion about PS3's in the first place. All I have to go by is my own eyes and for me it increased the effect 10 fold. The only 'scientific' answer I can give you is maybe it is the PS3's version of a 3D effect slider and Sony just haven't bothered telling anyone about it.

The fact you actually think I would go to the trouble of whipping out a tape
measure and measuring something on a screen does actually worry me a little though I must say. I don't even own a tape measure. I do however own a ruler
and I even have something you can measure if you like as you seem to have an awful amount of free time on your hands.

Actually I do have a PS3, I just don't have any 3D Blu-rays. Someday I will though and so I'm very interested in this topic, hence my posts. Anyway, you say you're not really bothered what I think, but your post indicates otherwise. I apologize that you found my posts offensive, there was none intended. Other than that, I'll say I agree with xamphear's post.

I think there's plenty of people here who would measure something on a screen. Welcome to the AVS forums.
post #636 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Actually I do have a PS3, I just don't have any 3D Blu-rays. Someday I will though and so I'm very interested in this topic, hence my posts. Anyway, you say you're not really bothered what I think, but your post indicates otherwise. I apologize that you found my posts offensive, there was none intended. Other than that, I'll say I agree with xamphear's post.

I think there's plenty of people here who would measure something on a screen. Welcome to the AVS forums.

Lol seriously I wasn't offended nor am I bothered I just know what I am seeing. For example in Avatar in the scene at the beginning when they come out of chrio, set at 100" I can clearly see the back wall of the ship, on 10" I cannot as it goes back so far and is so tiny it can't be seen. I have tried another 4 title tonight flicking through tonight and all of them have much more depth and pop that just was not there before. I watch something in 3D pretty much every night so I don't usually go a long stretch without watching any particular film. nightmare Before Xmas for example the 3D was pretty much non-existent when I watched it 3 nights ago and tonight there was much more depth.

Also I NEVER suffered from eye strain watching blu's or playing games, I can play for hour after hour and nothing, but tonight & last night I am really suffering & have even got a headache from it tonight which has never
happened before, so something must be different!
post #637 of 955
We've got Miths showing that the screen size setting made no difference in Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Actual measurements vs anecdotal evidence. Jupes97, maybe something else has changed, such as your seating position, or maybe asking the PS3 to detect your display (to setup the screen size) fixed some issue, or maybe your eyes/brain have adjusted to 3D over time. Who knows. Again I invite you to make some simple measurements as I suggested. You've outed the fact that you own a ruler, that's all you need! Why do you own a ruler if not for times like these?
post #638 of 955
i tried out a few 3d blus, and changing the settings from 135" to 10" on my backwards compatible 80gb ps3 did not make a difference on the 3d previews, 3d menus, or the 3d feature (on both tron and tangled). i did not specifically measure it but i did keep in mind the distance of the black bars on the sides in certain shots (and their relation to the width of my screen's border) and no matter what the display size setting was, they did not move, so as far as sliding the frames left or right i don't think it does it. UNLESS it does actually do it on the ps3 slim but not the older ones...which would be quite the scandal lol, perhaps that would be worth testing too. also btw, on downloaded psn 3d video---like the uncharted 3 3d e3 trailer, i can confirm that different settings had no effect as well.

also i tested out killzone 3 and changing the display size setting doesn't make ANY difference at all for that title. if it did, it had to be extremely subtle. i didn't get the chance to test gran turismo yet, but i did mess around with the display size setting when it first came out and it did make some difference in a weird way (the minimum i tried was 40"), but i eventually settled on and thought the original 135" was better with both 3d intensity and convergence (i think that's what it is) set to max. it is not entirely accurate from the cockpit view (the windshield is stretched way to far) but from the bumper out to the distance is pretty true to real-life. normally i just keep it on bumper view with no hud and that looks fine, but given the developments with other titles it is worth taking another look at. i'll also test out shadow of the colossus pretty soon and see if it makes any difference there.
post #639 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunaluagua View Post

i tried out a few 3d blus, and changing the settings from 135" to 10" on my backwards compatible 80gb ps3 did not make a difference on the 3d previews, 3d menus, or the 3d feature (on both tron and tangled). i did not specifically measure it but i did keep in mind the distance of the black bars on the sides in certain shots (and their relation to the width of my screen's border) and no matter what the display size setting was, they did not move, so as far as sliding the frames left or right i don't think it does it. UNLESS it does actually do it on the ps3 slim but not the older ones...which would be quite the scandal lol, perhaps that would be worth testing too. also btw, on downloaded psn 3d video---like the uncharted 3 3d e3 trailer, i can confirm that different settings had no effect as well.

also i tested out killzone 3 and changing the display size setting doesn't make ANY difference at all for that title. if it did, it had to be extremely subtle. i didn't get the chance to test gran turismo yet, but i did mess around with the display size setting when it first came out and it did make some difference in a weird way (the minimum i tried was 40"), but i eventually settled on and thought the original 135" was better with both 3d intensity and convergence (i think that's what it is) set to max. it is not entirely accurate from the cockpit view (the windshield is stretched way to far) but from the bumper out to the distance is pretty true to real-life. normally i just keep it on bumper view with no hud and that looks fine, but given the developments with other titles it is worth taking another look at. i'll also test out shadow of the colossus pretty soon and see if it makes any difference there.

Hi,

first of all I want to say a massive thank you to Luna. I was always very impressed with the 3D I am getting on my samsung D6510. And Uncharted 3 looked great. But I have always had problems with ghosting/xtalk when gaming in 3D. But after altering the screen size (something I wouldnever have thought of and do not even remember setting it in the first place) the difference is staggering!

Now, after setting the screen size down to 10'' almost all crosstalk has been resolved in Uncharted 3 which makes for a much more clearer and view-able picture which alone makes a big difference but also the level of depth now available it incredible. As posted earlier, UC3 looks like you are looking into a model world making controlling people running around in it with bullet tracers wizzing out the screen. The textures also look a lot clearer and defined. To produce this quality image in 3D really is an impressive technical achievement. Very impressive and if everyone can see this effect then I think this could really be a watershed for the take up of 3D gaming. I have had to dial back the ingame depth setting back a little (80%) as the effect is so strong it does strain the eyes a little (taking off the glasses during round breaks is highly recommended!!)

Luna, you also posted that with KZ3 you did not see any noticeable difference after changinf the screen size, but here again I am experiencing a better quality picture. I cannot quite tell if the depth if much different but it certainly looks deeper than when I last played it. I have also no crosstalk whatsoever which makes for a much smoother game and makes me want to play it through again.

After reading the other posts regarding 3D blue rays (ignoring the genial squabbling) I gave Tron a go too but I did not see any noticeable difference here. I will try with some others tonight.

So, thanks to Luna for a great tip. Would be good to know which games this does and does not have an effect and to settle the 'raging' battle of whether this can take an effect on 3D Blue Rays too!

All the best,
Rob
post #640 of 955
You're welcome for sure! Just wanted to help and I also think that UC3 with the right settings could make everyone a believer in 3d gaming because the difference is huge, and cannot be mistaken simply as a 2d+ mode. I keep the display settings on 11" for it because like you said, 10" is simply too much...but 11" is SLIGHTLY too much as well (and 12" a tiny bit too little) so maybe 10" with a notch down in the game is the best? i'll have to try it out.

also i'm not 100% sure what the display size slider does for KZ3, but i felt like it wasn't a drastic "depth switch" like it is for UC3 and child of eden. HOWEVER, it may in fact be working on a different level. for super stardust hd, what changing the setting does appears basically to "push" the entire gameplay scene a bit further back in the screen, instead of stretching the plane of view. so basically stuff that would easily pop-out before got pushed back into the screen a bit and the neutral point of view seemed to be further back. the frames would be different because more separation would be seen (and perhaps that is what helps eliminate the ghosting, as it gets drowned out in the noise more easily i'm guessing). however on the correct setting the gameplay field depth is closer to the surface of the screen, so it is easy to see that the planet is more rounded, and the explosion and particle effects readily come out of the screen instead of being located mostly on the other side of it. this could very well could be the same type of utilization going on in killzone 3, with everything getting pushed back into the screen a bit (which makes it seem like you could see a little farther), and thus also more separation in the frames across the entire image (perhaps helping hide the ghosting), but the "stretch" of the depth seemed similar to me, but i'll definitely take another look at it tonight
post #641 of 955
I just played an hour or two of Batman: Arkham City in 3D. The 360 version actually supports stereoscopic 3D output now. There's a toggle and screen size adjustment just like the PS3. I wonder why Microsoft isn't getting the word out that they can do 3D too.

Anyway, it's a really dark game (like the first one) so I had to turn up the brightness a bit using the in-game menu, but other than that it's awesome. I'm sure the resolution is taking a hit versus playing it without 3D, but the ability to perceive depth is going to make the batarang so much more fun.
post #642 of 955
Doesn't Arkham City use "simple" reprojection 3D similar to Crysis 2? I think I read somewhere that they would be using the same Trivioz system they used on the GOTY edition of Arkham Asylum, just this time also supporting 3D TVs rather than just old fashioned anaglyph.

If that's the case I assume it should mean an only minimal performance and graphics drop, but of course also not depth on par with proper stereoscopic rendering.
post #643 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miths View Post

Doesn't Arkham City use "simple" reprojection 3D similar to Crysis 2? I think I read somewhere that they would be using the same Trivioz system they used on the GOTY edition of Arkham Asylum, just this time also supporting 3D TVs rather than just old fashioned anaglyph.

If that's the case I assume it should mean an only minimal performance and graphics drop, but of course also not depth on par with proper stereoscopic rendering.

There is an anaglyph option, though this time around it's not called TrioViz, like it was in Arkham Asylum. It's called something like Inficolor. In addition, there's the 3DTV option, which when selected, automatically switched my display device into 3D mode, just like PS3 games do (but unlike SBS content).

As for how the game engine itself is rendering the 3D, be it through reprojection or not, I have no clue. Supporting Anaglyph wouldn't prove they were using reprojection, especially since they appear to have dropped the TrioViz trademark, which may mean they're no longer using their code in the engine of the game. That said, reprojection, when done right, is fine with me. You can only push so many pixels, so trading a little depth for more resolution is alright by me.
post #644 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by xamphear View Post

... That said, reprojection, when done right, is fine with me. You can only push so many pixels, so trading a little depth for more resolution is alright by me.

That I agree with. Unfortunately .
Too many of the graphically intensive 3D console games have had unbearable performance and/or visual trade-offs in 3D, so until the next generation of consoles arrives hopefully sooner rather than later, I'll also take less depth (a "faked" 3D method if you will) over something I can barely stand playing in 3D.

Although some graphically impressive games do manage to pull off proper stereoscopic 3D without too many obvious trade-offs. I've been playing a bit of the Uncharted 3 multi-player beta/pre-launch and it looks and runs very well in 3D, with only a minor visual hit that I've noticed.
post #645 of 955
99% sure arkham city uses trioviz, inficolor is also a trioviz thing and it is an unreal engine 3 game. that doesn't mean it will look horrible though as gears of war 3 uses trioviz and actually looks really good for the most part, and when set to max looks SUPER deep. that's actually how i figured out the uncharted 3 display setting trick, cuz i was initially disappointed that gears 3 looked deeper LOL...of course there is no comparison now. if arkham city is anywhere close to the depth of gears then that'll be great, and i'll be getting it on tuesday. but yeah trioviz utilization should be full 720p (on ps3 at least, 360 would be half-720p in side-by-side mode unless it upscales everything in 1080 mode) rendered for one eye + reprojection for the other. still haven't had the time to test anything else out btw
post #646 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunaluagua View Post

99% sure arkham city uses trioviz, inficolor is also a trioviz thing and it is an unreal engine 3 game. that doesn't mean it will look horrible though as gears of war 3 uses trioviz and actually looks really good for the most part, and when set to max looks SUPER deep. that's actually how i figured out the uncharted 3 display setting trick, cuz i was initially disappointed that gears 3 looked deeper LOL...of course there is no comparison now. if arkham city is anywhere close to the depth of gears then that'll be great, and i'll be getting it on tuesday. but yeah trioviz utilization should be full 720p rendered for one eye + reprojection for the other. still haven't had the time to test anything else out btw

Ah, okay, I didn't know that Inficolor was a sub-brand of Trioviz.

As for depth, there's one part very early in the game where you're on top of a building and the whole of Arkham City is around and below you... There was PLENTY of depth to that scene, it looked great.
post #647 of 955
I tried reducing the PS3 screen size setting with the Uncharted 3 Subway Multiplayer and got poor results. I own a Vizio E3d420vx LCD passive 3DTV, and pretty much any screen size below 42" at maximum slider depth caused noticeable ghosting and headache-inducing eye-strain.

I first tried setting it at 10", and that gave me a headache within about 30 sec of gameplay. 21" gave a similar result. 32" was bearable, but I still had to move the 3D strength slider down to reduce ghosting, making it similar to 42" at max strength.

It seems the screen-size trick won't work well with every game and every TV. I'll try it again with Super Stardust HD on my setup sometime, as I'd really like to find a way to give that game more pop-out.
post #648 of 955
yeah that is what i was expecting when you change the setting on a smaller-sized lcd display, but like you said i think the effects of changing up the display size vary for every actual screen size and individual display manufacturer and type (lcd, dlp, plasma, etc). i think the point of trying other sizes is to get a more accurate height:width:depth size ratio as close to 1:1:1 as possible, and for all i know for smaller screen sizes they are by default closer to that. i don't have a smaller 3dtv so i can't test it, but on a projection screen it varies a lot and helps greatly (but even on a huge screen a setting of 10" on uc3 is uncomfortable).

there are a ton of factors that go into bad/headache/eye-strain inducing 3d including the amount of separation of the left and right frames, where the convergence point is, as well as how far the person is sitting away from the display, and even the disparity between the focus point (the plane of the screen itself) and the illusory focal distance which is how far away virtual objects are. it also doesn't help that virtually EVERY game and movie calculate these figures differently so it's hard to even "get used to" anything. it seem like the safest bet is just for companies to turn down the depth to the point where it won't physically bother most people, even if the 3-dimensionality isn't that accurate. luckily at least there are ways to make it more true-to-life on some games.

ideally there should be a database on what settings make for the most accurate 3d experience for each game that takes into account display size and viewing distance (perhaps akin to projector central's excellent distance calculator), as the further the viewing experience gets from reality, the more easily it becomes a physical issue. i'll personally be trying out about 10 3d games within the next week and will report here for the results per my screen size (135" dlp), but any other size or display type than that i don't have the means to test it.

on another note, i have a spare uncharted 3 multiplayer subway code and whoever pm's me first gets it!!
post #649 of 955
well that was fast, code is GONE!!!!
post #650 of 955
Any release day 3D impressions on Batman, I was pretty pleased with the 3D in Uncharted 3, but curious how Batman looks. Debating whether or not to get it on 360 or PS3 (I prefer the 360 controller and that is what is hooked up to my theater, but the PS3 is hooked up to the 3D TV).

Thanks.
post #651 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by xamphear View Post

I just played an hour or two of Batman: Arkham City in 3D. The 360 version actually supports stereoscopic 3D output now. There's a toggle and screen size adjustment just like the PS3. I wonder why Microsoft isn't getting the word out that they can do 3D too.

Anyway, it's a really dark game (like the first one) so I had to turn up the brightness a bit using the in-game menu, but other than that it's awesome. I'm sure the resolution is taking a hit versus playing it without 3D, but the ability to perceive depth is going to make the batarang so much more fun.

Many 360 games have had 3D options for a while now.

How do you get the Arkham City into 3D? I only see an option for infinicolor. There is no 3DTV option?
post #652 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by obveron View Post

Many 360 games have had 3D options for a while now.

How do you get the Arkham City into 3D? I only see an option for infinicolor. There is no 3DTV option?

I don't mean a side-by-side setting in the game itself, I mean actual 3D frame packed HDMI output, respecting the 3D settings in the dashboard.

The 3D option shows up for me in-game. Press right once for Inficolor, and press it again for stereoscopic. Maybe it only shows up if you're connected to a HDMI 1.4 compliant display device? Maybe you need to turn on 3D in the system settings of the dashboard, under display.
post #653 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by prayformojo View Post

Any release day 3D impressions on Batman, I was pretty pleased with the 3D in Uncharted 3, but curious how Batman looks. Debating whether or not to get it on 360 or PS3 (I prefer the 360 controller and that is what is hooked up to my theater, but the PS3 is hooked up to the 3D TV).

Thanks.

I posted some a couple days ago about the 360 version, here's an update and summary:

It's definitely using reflection to create the right/left eye views, so the depth is a little limited, but still looks very good. I'd bet that the PS3 version uses the same method. The upside is that the resolution and framerate don't take a huge hit. You can max out the 3D depth by going into the system settings of the 360 dashboard and changing the display size to something small, like 10 inches.

The 3D effect only seems to get a little muddled when there are fast moving objects very close to the camera. A small tradeoff for being able to aim batarangs with actual depth perception.
post #654 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by xamphear View Post

I don't mean a side-by-side setting in the game itself, I mean actual 3D frame packed HDMI output, respecting the 3D settings in the dashboard.

The 3D option shows up for me in-game. Press right once for Inficolor, and press it again for stereoscopic. Maybe it only shows up if you're connected to a HDMI 1.4 compliant display device? Maybe you need to turn on 3D in the system settings of the dashboard, under display.

Oh ok. I'll have to update my dashboard for those new 3DTV options. Kinda sucks, I prefer side-by-side to framepacking. 1920x540 > 1280x720.

Ofcourse it depends on the actual render resolution, but side-by-side has the potential for more pixels, and it no-loss scales into 1080p perfectly (720p has lossy scale).
post #655 of 955
I played Arkham City for a few hours on my Mitsubishi 73838 using my PS3 and I thought the game looked great in 3D. In my opinion it is one of the better looking 3D games I have played. I would put it a fraction of a notch below Super Stardust 3D. Super Stardust 3D looks better all around, but it is a far more simple game. Arkham City has a lot going on with a lot of various levels of depth that it handled very well.

*The games that I have played in 3D are Avatar, Black Ops, Super Stardust, Tumble, and a few demos. The demos all disappointed, and I don't know if that is because they release a lower resolution for demos maybe? Arkham City is similar to Black Ops' campaign in 3D, which I thought was good, but for some reason I found the multiplayer to be fairly poor. Hope this makes sense.
post #656 of 955
i've been playing arkham city for a good while today and have to say that it is a STUNNER. no, it's not true stereoscopy, but trioviz reprojection, but it works VERY well with the art style...which has a comic book sense to it but modeled in a 3-dimensional world. the ps3 trioviz implementation doesn't completely have the action figure/claymation look or pop of uncharted 3, nor the definition or depth of the nvidia 3dvision pc implementation seen in arkham asylum....but it is a whole lot closer than i thought it would be. also on ps3 in true 720p it is RAZOR SHARP, especially with no anti-aliasing (i know that sounds undesireable but it only adds to the definition in 3d, and the only time you see jaggies is sparsely on batman's cowl around his mouth/chin (not his "bat ears"), but even then i like how clean it looks). the compressed color palette also makes the lack of anti-aliasing a non-factor since the highs and lows of all the objects mostly blend together. neither 360 or ps3 has anti-aliasing this time around btw

another thing that is great about arkham city is that you don't lose ANY visual quality it seems in 3d compared to 2d, where as in uncharted 3 and killzone 3 they have to make some sacrifices with the models, environment, and lighting (moreso kz3 for the last one). it truly looks like a AAA game in 3d without VIRTUALLY any negatives. however there are a few glitches that have popped up, but they are rare.

1. about 25% of the time when the game switches to a pre-rendered cutscene, for half a second one eye will be black and the other will be still the correct frame. i don't know whether this has to do with hard disk fragmentation on the install or not, and it has only happened 4 times total, perhaps out of 20.

2. some higher detail model of buildings "pop-in" when you're gliding around the city but it is VERY infrequent, it has happened only twice over more than a few hours...and again perhaps might be cause by hard disk fragmentation.

3. when looking down what should be a straight plane (like the floor of a building or down a street), the depth will look more like a curve, like everything is going slightly up and down a small hill. it's not that bad but it is something to note. gear of war 3 also has this artifact but slightly worse as it has more depth across the plane of view. arkham city definitely has a LOT of depth too, which was the main thing i was hoping for, and it looks great especially when looking across the city, or down the halls (and when flying and diving). and since it is true 720p on ps3, it doesn't have negative that gears has in side-by-side half-res mode that the further you look "into" the screen, the harder it is to see what's going on. hopefully the 360 will be able to update with framepacking hdmi 1.4 3d and there will be a patch for both games.

overall i say that this game is a must get and it uses 3d VERY effectively...but also due to the art style and content, it can get away with the trioviz implementation a lot easier than other games can. i also very briefly tested it out with different display size settings and set to 10" it look a little bit deeper but not a whole lot when compared to my accurate screen size setting (135") but it did seem preferable. i'll have to look at it again though. also btw, i started playing it in 2d first and it looked really FLAT, like it was begging to be seen in 3d, and was made to be viewed that way. for me it is definitely the only way to play.
post #657 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunaluagua View Post

i've been playing arkham city for a good while today and have to say that it is a STUNNER. no, it's not true stereoscopy, but trioviz reprojection, but it works VERY well with the art style..

Arkham City does indeed have true stereoscopic 3D.
post #658 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickoakdl View Post

Arkham City does indeed have true stereoscopic 3D.

Yes, it has two full resolution HD views, one for each eye, which is all you need for stereoscopic. However the views are projections from a single viewpoint, meaning that each eye is seeing the same view, only shifted. In this sense, it's not quite "true" stereoscopic 3D, where each eye is seeing a truly different perspective.
post #659 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by xamphear View Post

However the views are projections from a single viewpoint, meaning that each eye is seeing the same view, only shifted.

So is each eye seeing the same image? If so, how could that add any depth?
post #660 of 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickoakdl View Post

So is each eye seeing the same image? If so, how could that add any depth?

It's the same image, just altered. I would do a very poor job of explaining it, so just google "trioviz reprojection".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › The Official AVS 3D Console Games Topic!