ATI Evergreen 3D Code May Soon Go Into Gallium3D

[V!NCENT]

With 3D capable TV's / displays it'll become very important in the near future.

Place your bets, people.

+

= a $5 upgrade to make your TV 'three dee'.

[TomcaT-SdB]

By 3D, I'm talking about active (shutter glasses) stereo (driver supported passive stereo, similar to nvidia's clone mode, would be cool too, but that can be done in software if need be)... Anaglyph was fine for it's time, but I'd rather not have the off colors and headaches

[etnlWings]

We knew what you were talking about, we were simply being sarcastic about your suggestion that such functionality will be, "very important".

[V!NCENT]

We knew what you were talking about, we were simply being sarcastic about your suggestion that such functionality will be, "very important".

Once those "Free Dee Tee Fee!!1111!11" things come out that do not require glasses, adding some depth to the UI will probably make desktop use a bit more attractive.

I've seen these gimmicks been tried before. We'll see if/what sticks. This tech is the most redundant tech on the planet. Without it you can still do everything behind your computer.

[droidhacker]

By 3D, I'm talking about active (shutter glasses) stereo (driver supported passive stereo, similar to nvidia's clone mode, would be cool too, but that can be done in software if need be)... Anaglyph was fine for it's time, but I'd rather not have the off colors and headaches

If you really want a headache, just play with those shutter glasses for a minute or two. I have yet to experience a 3d technology that doesn't cause excessive strain on your eyes. One of the primary reasons for this is that there is a relationship between distance and FOCUS... which is lost with *all* implementations of 3d from 2d surfaces.... and unfortunately, NOBODY has thought of a way to replicate the focus component of 3d off of a 2d surface.

We are, of course, talking about the focus of a lens. Your eye contains a flexible lens that adjusts its focus based on the distance perceived.... if the actual distance doesn't match the perceived distance, then your brain has to force the lens to conform to a REAL distance that does NOT match the PERCEIVED distance, and over extended periods of time, this strain is what causes head and eye aches when looking at simulations of 3d.

There actually is one way to make a 3d simulation that doesn't needlessly strain your eyes that DOES work.... involving smoke and mirrors -- aka "holograms". If you project your images against an object in 3d (which can actually be a column of smoke for example), then you solve the problem. Unfortunately, doing so actually requires a space as large as the scene you are reproducing, which has to be done on a scale of 1:1 (otherwise your brain will actually perceive that object to be an unnatural size), which means no close-ups, except when you actually place yourself closer to a life-sized hologram.

[curaga]

Bets on the success of that would have awesome ratios :P

When 20% of people get a headache from it, another 20% can't even see the effect, and many of the rest don't give a damn...

I also remember reading how a study is being started for seeing how using that affects the development of eyes and vision in children.

[rohcQaH]

once the object is reasonably far away, there isn't much difference in eye focus any more; the problem just goes away.

A standard cinema hall should be ok for the back rows, objects around or behind the screen would have a very similar eye focus. Of course you lose the ability to display near objects.
In other words, as long as the movie industry insists on force-feeding us overdrawn 3d-effects with large eye distance and character's noses in our face, I'll translate "great immersion" to "headache".


Computer monitors on the other hand? Way too close. It may work with a *slight* 3d effect, with a scene that's just a few cm in front or behind the screen. But that's just "look, I've got 3d buttons on my UI", not ego-shooters. Worth it? Probably not.

[klikklak]

Oh crap, not the "3D is a fad" brigade.

If you like 2D so much, pluck out one your eyes, I'm pretty sure you won't get 'eyestrain' after that.

Yes, I have the nvidia solution and yes, I would love to see anyone implement this on linux. Shutter glasses tech works reasonably well, I get no significant eyestrain from using it for a few hours, but I do get serious pain from the idea that I would have to install and boot in to windows just to play a game.

droidhacker, you sound very technical with your argument about focus. In my experience I had to learn to focus inside the picture, the 3d effect became better after awhile because of this. That's why they have eye separation toggle in the settings. And holograms, good grief this is a tired argument. If you live in the future, please send me a teraherz computer, because I've decided that I won't use any of these stone age machines. What good is a computer if you can't visualize the whole internet anyway?

How many of you critics have seen 3d for any sustained period of time? How many bought a system for it? Let me guess, you saw Avatar and thought it sucked, then you read engadget and were convinced that you have the right opinion. bloody luddites.

Anyway, 3d critics should read emacs' antinews and see if they understand the joke.

[whizse]

I dunno, I'm a pretty big fan of House of Wax, and I'm in the 3D-fad brigade

[etnlWings]

If you like 2D so much, pluck out one your eyes, I'm pretty sure you won't get 'eyestrain' after that.

Funnily enough, plucking out an eye would probably be less painful than reading this piece of 'jump off a cliff' mum logic.

How many of you critics have seen 3d for any sustained period of time? How many bought a system for it? Let me guess, you saw Avatar and thought it sucked, then you read engadget and were convinced that you have the right opinion. bloody luddites.

How many technophiles waste money on the latest gimmicks, then go to ridiculous lengths to justify it, if only to themselves.