Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

Truly, spoken like someone who has never lived with a woman.

More like the women I've lived with and known are more tech savvy than you are. Its not like Netflix and Hulu are an upper-middle class thing.

Some of us reach out and embrace practical technology as soon as its available.

[Feba]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

More like the women I've lived with and known are more tech savvy than you are.

Oh please. I'm not going to get into an e-peen fight over whether watching Hulu makes you tech savvy. Fact is, lots of people who don't mind Hulu still prefer to watch their TV shows and movies on a TV.

Seriously BBQ, if you can't see the practicality of two uniquely viewable images on a single screen, you must be blind.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

Seriously BBQ, if you can't see the practicality of two uniquely viewable images on a single screen, you must be blind.

I see what sounds good on paper. I don't see test results for it in application, nor do i see the long-term consequences of using such a technology. Just because they filed a patent doesn't mean it will see the light of day.

[Lmnop]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

I just wanna mention how funny it is to "solve" the split-screen problem in an era where no one wants split-screen gaming because broadband availability simply makes it a profit cut for console/game designers.

[Feba]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

I just wanna mention how funny it is to "solve" the split-screen problem in an era where no one wants split-screen gaming because broadband availability simply makes it a profit cut for console/game designers.

Not for companies like Nintendo that make their bread and butter on party games. Sure, it's less valuable to the Halos of the world, but if they're selling 3D glasses for bringing a friend over, that might be a middle line they could be happy with. "Well, this guy won't buy a PS3, but his friend will buy a pair for him to come over and co-op.", or "These guys both have PS3s, if we can get them to play together we'll sell two pairs of glasses", or if they adopt Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy "This guy doesn't have a PS3, but if we can make the 'split screen' multiplayer a more interesting experience for his friend to show him, he might buy one".

That is a good point though-- it's entirely possible that Sony patented this solely to keep it from going to market with a company like Nintendo.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

I thought patents expired after a certain time if you didn't actually create a prototype.

[Durahansolo]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

Sony is just setting up for PS9....

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdh4TqWFfX4&feature=related"]YouTube- Playstation 9 ( HD VIDEO ) & STEREO SOUND[/nomedia]

(Cmon you know you remember)

[Shirai]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

Betamax and UMDs were nice ideas too.

But seriously, glasses-free or get the fuck out.

This ^

[Laynton]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

Ok...so what I'm understanding from this is that this isnt really "3D" its just a way to view one screen at a time on a split screen game while playing on 1 TV and that the individual split screens are really only still regular 2D? or am I reading this wrong and the individual splits will be 3D as well?

If its spilt screen and still 2D than its just a waist of money imo. UNLESS you can have up to four players on 1 screen. (ie Halo) Then I can see it being more worthy of my next 3 pay checks. If you cant spilt it 4 ways then no way am I going to fork over a hell of a lot of money for that. Beside how many ppl actually play 1-on-1? Not thats its super uncommon but most ppl either play online (8-on-8 or more) or with a bunch of friends (2-on-2 or more).

If it is actually 3D then comes the fact of the eye strain on the ppl watching and not wearing the glasses. I know in movies when the 3D seens come in and your not wearing those crapy 3D glasses I almost immediately start getting a head ache...and my the end of the movie I'll have one regardless of me wearing the glasses or not. Most cases I'll take the headache for a good 3D move and not complain (good 3D = Avatar bad 3D = Clash of Titans) So what about the people waiting to play do they have to look at a screen where the colors are scuded (spelling sorry) and it looks like the TV got struck by lightning, which happened to one of my TVs and it looks like a 3D movie without the glasses x10 lol.

But thats usually no more than 2 hrs of sitting in a movie with a hand full of scenes that are 3D and last no more than a minute or two. Now take a video game that is constantaly in 3D with fast past movements for hours on end.....I think I would probably fall into a coma after an all night 3D MW2 killing spree with my room mate.

Pros and cons of this of course and with all new technology im betting there will be more cons than pros. I will prob not buy it now but will wait a couple generations of it and see how it will improve. No doubt that this has amazing potential and I cant wait for them to perfect it. ( Just pray Microsft doesnt get thier greedy hands on it other wise it will all go down hill) imo

[Durahansolo]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

bad 3D = Clash of Titans

That is not even considered 3D, movies that say 3D when they weren't shot in 3D with 3D cameras are what I call 2 1/2D. Usually the only thing in 3D in them are the title and the credits. .

[Feba]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

the individual split screens are really only still regular 2D?

Correct.

3D televisions work by generating two images-- one for the left eye, one for the right. Glasses are used to filter the images to the appropriate eye.

This technology works by generating two images-- one for Player 1, one for Player 2, or however else.

In theory, the technology could be expanded upon to provide for 3D and additional players. All that would be required would be to generate 4 images instead of two-- either two 3D images, or four 2D images. In theory, this could be multiplied to whatever number of viewers you want to provide a screen to. The practical limit here comes with refresh speeds and human eyes-- at current speeds, balancing them four or more ways like this would result in a much more noticable stutter in the image; or possibly the image seeming much dimmer (from darkening every other frame or the like). I'm not sure how fast the technology can be improved to, and I'm not sure if there would be organic obstacles to overcome there.

If it is actually 3D then comes the fact of the eye strain on the ppl watching and not wearing the glasses.

3D systems are not made to be viewed by people who are not wearing glasses, except when they're made to take no glasses at all. You are not supposed to look at a 3D image without the proper viewing tools. This would be made for the people playing the game to enjoy; not for a game where you have a bunch of people all sitting around, passing the controller.

With this, the image would be completely incomprehensible to anyone not wearing glasses tuned to one of the channels. It would be two images interlaced with each other.

[Laynton]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

1.) Thanks for clarification Feba on the 2D/3D stuff. Thats what I thought it would be but just wanted to make sure. I hope that there is the power to come up with at least 4 spilt-screens...would be epic.

2.)

3D systems are not made to be viewed by people who are not wearing glasses

Exactly what I was getting at. If your having a tournament or party with a bunch of friends over playing mulitplayer Halo and you only have 1 360 are those not playing just suppose to go to the other room? I enjoy watching my friends frag each other just as much as doing it myself. Thats the one down side that is the biggest turn off to this system.

Not saying the system itself sucks just that its not multi-player friendly. (more than 2 ppl) Would be frickn amazing in single player though! Which is the biggest turn on imo!

Imagine a rpg coming at you in MW2 and missing you by inches or a car blowing up and parts flying by your face! I cant wait.

To be honest the only thing holding me back from probably getting it is the sticker price...its going to be super high as its the only one of its kind and no one else is making it. as of yet.

Is this the 3D TV that they have comercials for already? Im guessing you can watch regular 2D TV as well as switch it to 3D or 3D only?

[Feba]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

No no, I said it can only handle two players, not two viewers. If desired, additional glasses could be set to view either of the images, you just wouldn't be watching both at the same time. How easy it is to switch between channels would depend on how the hardware/software is set up; it could be near instant or it could be that you could only switch when you have control of the console (at a menu screen between matches).

It would be sorta like being at a lan party-- you could watch either of your friend's screens, just not simultaneously. On the plus side, this would save you from having to carry over an additional screen, console, and finding games that actually still support lan parties.

[Bricklayer]

Re: Why even you 3D-haters are going to be buying a set soon enough.

A couple of quick notes:

1) This is not patented yet. It's still in prosecution. The related patent documents can be found here and here. The first patent application is for 3D, and the second one is for 2D unsplit screen.

2) Sony filed all of the ideas initially in 2006. Looking through the prosecution history of the parent, it seems odd that Sony would already be filing continuations of the parent application, as the parent hasn't even received its first rejection yet. Maybe they knew the original application was too big, so they pre-empted the inevitable election/restriction requirement by immediately filing continuations.

3) As to this being "innovation" on Sony's part, well, maybe it was back in 2006 (huge maybe), but the real innovation was shutter glasses. Everything else is just a logical progression of technologies enabled by shutter glasses. I hope Sony doesn't get a patent for this.

4) Side note: I haven't read through the entire parent application (USPTO Google Patents), but it seems like NVIDIA's 3D solution for PC's would also infringe (if Sony gets this patent), since it contains a control unit (video card + shutter glasses thingie) that controls a display (your computer's monitor) to alternately display left and right perspectives of a scene "for perception as 3D images..."

---------- Post added at 12:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

The practical limit here comes with refresh speeds and human eyes-- at current speeds, balancing them four or more ways like this would result in a much more noticable stutter in the image; or possibly the image seeming much dimmer (from darkening every other frame or the like). I'm not sure how fast the technology can be improved to, and I'm not sure if there would be organic obstacles to overcome there.

Yes, these are the two major obstacles. The first is getting a good frame rate (240 Hz divided by how many different sources? And double that number of sources for 3D!). The second is brightness. If your shutters are only open 25% of the time, the brightness needs to be quadrupled. Another consideration is crosstalk between the images as they are displayed (maybe the "stutter" you mentioned, see here). Most monitors use scanning to refresh, meaning that certain rows are updated earlier than other rows. How do you prevent the viewer from seeing other video source images during the transition period? One way would be to shut off the glasses BEFORE the transition, but that means you have to crank up the brightness some more.

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------

No no, I said it can only handle two players, not two viewers. If desired, additional glasses could be set to view either of the images, you just wouldn't be watching both at the same time. How easy it is to switch between channels would depend on how the hardware/software is set up; it could be near instant or it could be that you could only switch when you have control of the console (at a menu screen between matches).

It would be sorta like being at a lan party-- you could watch either of your friend's screens, just not simultaneously. On the plus side, this would save you from having to carry over an additional screen, console, and finding games that actually still support lan parties.

Without the practical limitations, the game developer could come up with a third "viewing" channel, where action from both players could be shown in a true split screen, or they could even automate a full screen observer mode with changing camera views, etc.