[Coco] A bit OT Why 3-D is worth waiting bit longer. was:Game Developers Wanted

[Steve Bjork]

On 4/26/2011 7:09 AM, RJLCyberPunk wrote:
> I'd love to see Ghana Bwana in 3D Steve! :D

Last time I check, Ghana Bwana was a 3D game. (I know, not the 3-D you 
are talking about.)

As your may not know, I've written may 3-D Games.  But, Warp Fighter 3-D 
for the CoCo is the only one that ever hit the market.

This is why....

To get 3-D you must have was two images, one for each eye.  For a long 
time, the only way to get 3-D in the home was to use the two color 
glasses.  (As with Warp Fighter 3-D.)  As you know this technology is 
far from perfect.

As displays got smaller and cheaper, you could put an display in front 
of each eye.  SEGA used this type of system for their virtual reality 
headset called SEGA VR.  The 3-D did work, but some tester did complain 
of headaches and motion sickness and why it never came to market.  
Nintendo try their hand 3-D with VR Gameboy it was one of their biggest 
flops.   So far, 3-D gaming is not going well.  (I had titles for both 
systems that never saw the light of day.)

About the same time Kodak and Disney teamed up to create a new 3-D for 
the Disney parks using Polarized 3D glasses and two images projected on 
the same screen.  Since each image was Polarized to match a filter (and 
an eye), the viewer will see a 3-D image.  This passive type of 3-D is 
how your neighborhood theater shows 3-D films.

Now, most current 3D TV used an active type of 3-D glasses system.  The 
glasses use LCD to block an eye from seeing the image.  Then, the TV 
will show each image only while that eye is not blocked.  This sometimes 
causes a flicker effect and give some people headaches.  Also, LCD based 
TV have very slow response time (refresh) so you get a bit of ghosting.  
(DPL and Plasma systems make better 3-D displays.) The other problem 
with active 3-D glasses is the price of $100 to $200 for just one pair.  
(Some TV manufactures are working passive 3-D glasses system that only 
cost $10 per pair.)

How good are these 3-D home system? Fair at best.  The current HI-DEF 
standard was only design for 2-D and needs beefing up to handle 3-D TV.  
Blu-ray disk are the only media that works (sorta) for 3-D.  A new 
standard with a higher bandwidth is needed to make 3-D work.

The are movies in production that are using 5k cameras.  (That's 5,000 
pixels across.)  Only a five years ago, the top digital movies cameras 
where only 2k.  But to get 3-D to the point it looks real (like watching 
a live play) you need to boost the frame rate.  Right now, Peter Jackson 
is filming the Hobbit movie at 48 Frames Per Second for the best 3-D on 
film yet.  (Double the normal frame rate.)

I've seen IMAX movies shown at 48 frames per second and they pull you 
into the action.  This system is used in Disney Parks' Soaring over 
California ride.  (It's main reason why it's on the top of everyone's 
much ride list.)

So where does that leave 3-D for you?   Well, getting 3-D on your home 
TV is not something I would NOT pay extra for.  (I would not pay an 
extra $200 per viewer for the 3-D glasses.)  Really good 3-D in the home 
is still years away.

Remember, the marketing guys are using 3-D to buy their stuff.  At CES, 
a smart-phone manufacture talk about their new 3-D but would not show it 
off.  When it did come out, all it was a standard smart-phone with 
red/blue glasses that make look like a dork.

As I said, they are pushing 3-D to get you to toss your perfectly good 
stuff and buy their crap.

Hey, Nintendo got their new no-glasses 3-D game system, the 3DS. I 
played it, till I got a headache.

Steve (Warp Fighter 3-D) Bjork