Stereoscopic (S-3D) Support thread

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

Hi! I'm looking to enable stereoscopic (S-3D) output on the Pandora.


Some options could include


1) Swapping screen for auto-stereoscopic display such as the MasterImage Display


2) USB ---> SisUSB(providing it can be accelerated to acceptable speeds) ---> Matrox Dual head (for dual output)---> 2X Pico Projector with quarter wave retarder used to achieve separate polarization --> Silver screen with passive glasses.


3) S-Video Scaler / Dual output

 

[Nintendo]

Good luck, lol...


And, no thanks...


[ x ] Not interested


Nintendo 3DS is VERY gimmicky and if done on Pandora it will also be nothing but pure gimmick, which is imo, meh.

 

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

Good luck, lol...


And, no thanks...


[ x ] Not interested


Nintendo 3DS is VERY gimmicky and if done on Pandora it will also be nothing but pure gimmick, which is imo, meh.

We have two eyes in order to sense depth. Clearly the human depth sense is no gimmick. Just as color, sound, haptic feedback and other sensory communication methods are not a gimmick, binocular depth presentation as well is a valid and compelling feature.

 

[Prometheus]

Voted for "Absolutely". I know it can't be done on the display as-is, but I'd love an excuse to buy like to see what can be done with video glasses that might support it.

 

[Nintendo]

It could eat the battery power away quick smart!


RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Garg]

I'd be interested in an autostereoscopic replacement screen, particularly if it integrated front & rear cameras (or a swivel camera). I have a feeling it might be cheaper to buy a 3DS, though.

 

[ChaosWarmech]

Not interested. At first when I heard about the 3DS I thought it was really cool. But then I saw it and I was like 'meh.' I felt the same way with 3d movies. I prefer regular ol' 2d.

 

[chole]

[ x ] Not interested

Waitwaitwait .... what kind of world do we live in where Sony isn't interested in 3D?


This is like Nintendo posting "Adding accelerometer support to the Pandora is just lame, man!"

 

[peca]

I think, that for simple 3D we (OK, not _we_ but _some_involved_programmer_could_bring_for_us_) can use anaglyph visualization (+ red-blue glasses). Others can experiment with active glasses driven trough EXT port UART and blinking screen (+ bleeding eyes :-/ ).

 

[scorpio]

the problem with stereoscopic image is that it's not 3D - it tricks your eyes into thinking it is 3D through parallax difference. The 3D object do not exist as finite objects your eyes choose to focus on, so the screen has to "guide" your eyes through a pre-decided focal point by the cinematographer or programmer. This is why you get headaches after watching it for while - your eyes want to change their focal depth but can't due to blurring/jitter.


the only true 3D will be actual projected holograms in a real spacial area OR some sort of device which tracks the conversion point of your pupils and adjusts the depth of field in the simulated stereoscopic plane. Until we have technology at that level 3D does not exist, it is just a cheap trick to make you hand over more cash.


I love your willingness to do this, and if you achieve it I will applaud you simply for technical challenge for getting it to work. I think it will be amazing, and you are very smart if you manage to get this to work - BUT it will have very limited applications.


gotta love modders

 

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

the problem with stereoscopic image is that it's not 3D - it tricks your eyes into thinking it is 3D through parallax difference. The 3D object do not exist as finite objects your eyes choose to focus on, so the screen has to "guide" your eyes through a pre-decided focal point by the cinematographer or programmer. This is why you get headaches after watching it for while - your eyes want to change their focal depth but can't due to blurring/jitter.


the only true 3D will be actual projected holograms in a real spacial area OR some sort of device which tracks the conversion point of your pupils and adjusts the depth of field in the simulated stereoscopic plane. Until we have technology at that level 3D does not exist, it is just a cheap trick to make you hand over more cash.


I love your willingness to do this, and if you achieve it I will applaud you simply for technical challenge for getting it to work. I think it will be amazing, and you are very smart if you manage to get this to work - BUT it will have very limited applications.


gotta love modders

Hi Scorpio!


I must correct you: All binocular stereopsis (3D Vision) is due to horizontal parallax, whether it is on a planar (flat) screen, or whether one is viewing the real world. You may be referring to the fact that one's eyes are accommodated at the screen while they may be verged (rotated) on objects that are perceived either in front of, or in back of the screen. This, by itself, should not give headaches. Like anything else, bad content, bad encoding, or bad presentation leads to viewer discomfort.


Holographic presentation is a wonderful concept, I totally believe the technology will come, just as I believe in the flying car.


First things first my friend

 

[elwing]

I think, that for simple 3D we (OK, not _we_ but _some_involved_programmer_could_bring_for_us_) can use anaglyph visualization (+ red-blue glasses). Others can experiment with active glasses driven trough EXT port UART and blinking screen (+ bleeding eyes :-/ ).

anaglyph are fun... Quake 1 (using Darkplace cf "r_stereo_redcyan" and such) is fun. I don't know if some quake1 or 2 engine for the pandora supports anaglyph, but it seems that IOQuake3 support anaglyph... guess someone lucky enough with a pandora might try... (http://wiki.ioquake3.org/Stereo_Rendering)

 

[scorpio]

the problem with stereoscopic image is that it's not 3D - it tricks your eyes into thinking it is 3D through parallax difference. The 3D object do not exist as finite objects your eyes choose to focus on, so the screen has to "guide" your eyes through a pre-decided focal point by the cinematographer or programmer. This is why you get headaches after watching it for while - your eyes want to change their focal depth but can't due to blurring/jitter.


the only true 3D will be actual projected holograms in a real spacial area OR some sort of device which tracks the conversion point of your pupils and adjusts the depth of field in the simulated stereoscopic plane. Until we have technology at that level 3D does not exist, it is just a cheap trick to make you hand over more cash.


I love your willingness to do this, and if you achieve it I will applaud you simply for technical challenge for getting it to work. I think it will be amazing, and you are very smart if you manage to get this to work - BUT it will have very limited applications.


gotta love modders

Hi Scorpio!


I must correct you: All binocular stereopsis (3D Vision) is due to horizontal parallax, whether it is on a planar (flat) screen, or whether one is viewing the real world. You may be referring to the fact that one's eyes are accommodated at the screen while they may be verged (rotated) on objects that are perceived either in front of, or in back of the screen. This, by itself, should not give headaches. Like anything else, bad content, bad encoding, or bad presentation leads to viewer discomfort.


Holographic presentation is a wonderful concept, I totally believe the technology will come, just as I believe in the flying car.


First things first my friend

yes that is right, and i agree about the bad encoding and improper keystoning correction etc but for example in a moving car playing the 3DS is impossible because the images don't line up properly and you get a headache - but I do agree that if you keep still, have ideal viewing angle and the images have no aberration or differences and conversion point is accomodated for then yes the illusion is excellent and of high quality.


can't wait for holograms though!

 

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

I think, that for simple 3D we (OK, not _we_ but _some_involved_programmer_could_bring_for_us_) can use anaglyph visualization (+ red-blue glasses). Others can experiment with active glasses driven trough EXT port UART and blinking screen (+ bleeding eyes :-/ ).

anaglyph are fun... Quake 1 (using Darkplace cf "r_stereo_redcyan" and such) is fun. I don't know if some quake1 or 2 engine for the pandora supports anaglyph, but it seems that IOQuake3 support anaglyph... guess someone lucky enough with a pandora might try... (http://wiki.ioquake3.org/Stereo_Rendering)

It's fun but not really a technical challenge Anaglyph is great for comic books and print media, it's just when it's used for a long time there is a high amount of "retinal rivalry" well your eyes are getting two VERY different sets of color information. So you lose out on all the colors, and when you take the glasses off your world is tinted! Also content has to be adapted to have less of a depth effect for anaglyph because of the format is prone to ghosting (crosstalk)

 

[Asiyura]

I got a massive headache watching Avatar in 3D at a cinema. (plus the images were nice, but the story was lame)


And I seriously doubt that the encoding was bad

.


That's why the idea of using glasses or changing the screen of the pandora to get "3D" do no interest me.


If I really wanted a console with a 3D screen, I would have bought a 3DS

[off-topic]


What pisses me off are the TV makers that sell old technology like it was a brand new one. And make you pay lots of cash for it.


I mean, you could play Magic Carpet in stereoscopic vision in 1994.


Or even Rad Racer on you NES…


[/off-topic]

 

[bismuthdrummer]

I voted no-glasses, but what does the Pandora realistically stand to gain from this?

 

[Stereoscopic_Panda]

I got a massive headache watching Avatar in 3D at a cinema. (plus the images were nice, but the story was lame)


And I seriously doubt that the encoding was bad

.


[off-topic]


What pisses me off are the TV makers that sell old technology like it was a brand new one. And make you pay lots of cash for it.


I mean, you could play Magic Carpet in stereoscopic vision in 1994.


Or even Rad Racer on you NES…


[/off-topic]

Solution for 3D headaches: Watch more 3D! Simply the vergence / accommadation mismatch must be decoupled. In fact people got headaches when movies first came out due to the unnatural frame rate of 24 fps. Color was a bit shocking too!


It's not really fair to call newer 3DTV "old technology" any more than one could say a digital watch is old technology because there were analog watches before that.

 

[darfgarf]

I voted no-glasses, but what does the Pandora realistically stand to gain from this?

in my case one less pandora owner, cant' and never will be able to watch anything in 3d, one eye is so dominant i barely use the other, hence really poor depth perception, and it's impossible to use any 3d tech, all i see is a flickering image (it's funny as hell seeing a salesperson trying to sell me 3d gear)

 

[Nintendo]

I voted no-glasses, but what does the Pandora realistically stand to gain from this?

Nothing.

 

[Asiyura]

3DTV is, indeed old tech.


1982, an arcade game named subroc 3D used shutter glasses (two rotating discs with a half painted in black) synced to the monitor.


The Master System had a pair of LCD shutter glasses to play e few games (Zaxxon 3D is part of them).


The Famicom had a similar system too.


In the late 90's there were a whole lot of companies that were selling shutter glasses for computers (And at the time, I was hoping to get one, but I couldn't afford them).


The only "innovation" is that now, the LCD screens are fast enough to hit the 120Hz…


So it's at least a 28 y.o. technology.