By now everyone’s chosen a camp; they either love 3D or they hate it.
Those who love it are holding on to the possibility of another “Avatar” and those who hate it are just sick and tired of the mountains of junk being produced, and so they should be.
Myself: I’ve been a stereoscopy enthusiast since the age of 11. When it’s done properly, it’s the difference between black and white and colour TV.
While many people hope it’ll just go away, I’m hoping they don’t screw it up so badly that we have to wait another 50+ years before the next attempt.
The last movie worth watching in 3D was Avatar and before that, it was Beowulf. Animated movies are also usually a notch above the live action films. There are two main reasons for the valid criticism of 3D movies: makeshift stereoscopic cinemas; and a failed attempt to appeal to stereoscopy newbies.
I saw Avatar twice in 3D and the second time round was in a very small cinema shortly before it went off the circuit.
These hack-job stereoscopic cinemas are visibly cheaper and have issues like blurry edges, low contrast ratio, and ghosting, among others. You want to make sure you get there while the movie is still in the main cinema for best results.
The second issue, which is in my opinion a bigger cause of stereoscopy hatred, is the deliberate reduction of depth which results in 3D being seen as a gimmick.
Depth is determined by how different the left/right images are from one another. The greater the difference, the more depth is perceived.
Unigine benchmark
The distance between ones eyes is what allows the brain to perceive depth and this is about seven centimetres for the average person. If a person with an eye distance of five or six centimetres were to watch a movie that was shot with a distance of seven or eight centimetres then the effect would look awkward to them, though not unwatchable.
At the moment, the standard distance to shoot stereoscopic film is probably as little as four or five centimeters apart. This makes it awkward to watch for people who have an average to larger distance between the eyes.
They are appealing to a minority for the sake of making it easier to see rather than making it more natural for the average person.
Prototype
3D Gaming
Here’s where things get exciting: Nvidia offers their stereoscopic solution in the form of Nvidia 3D Vision.
To cut straight to the point, 3D gaming is leaps and bounds ahead of 3D movies for the simple reason that the user is able to adjust things like depth and z-index. Thereby being able to customise the effect exactly to your individual needs.
The first iteration of Nvidia 3D vision was very good; a clear image, decent contrast ratio, minimal ghosting, etc. They have just released their second version, aptly called Nvidia 3D vision 2. This version apparently further improves on the contrast ratio and the glasses have larger lenses so you can take in the full 27-inches of the 3D monitors.
Being able to set the depth avoids the issues mentioned above but being able to set the convergence (z-index) adds a lot more value. Convergence basically affects where your 3D character will be standing; either popping out of the screen, inside the screen or somewhere in between.
From my experiences, the closer the objects are to screen level (z-index of 0) the better the effect.
Dungeon Siege 2
One of the best games I’ve ever played in 3D is Dungeon Seige 2 because of the large amount of particle effects, leaves, branches, magic effects, etc.
The more stuff there is floating in 3D space the better the effect is. Games that have you looking at a flat plane with objects jutting out will also have a good effect.
For example Diablo 3 would be better for 3D than an FPS game like Rage.
When pulled off properly stereoscopic 3D adds a huge amount of value to any game.
Stereoscopic 3D isn’t a bad thing << Comments and views
Loading ...
Doesn’t work