Showing 21 to 31 of 31
21. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 05:42 BST
I heard the GamePad might be able to do 3D with passive or active glasses, but it won't be auto stereoscopic like 3DS. I guess they figure that if you have the 3DTV, you'll try it on the GamePad.
If the GamePad ends up doing passive or shutter 3D, I would buy the glasses, that's for sure.
22. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 06:01 BST
It could be done but I don't think it would be. For a start I doubt think the screen on the GamePad is fast enough to make it a reasonable experience. It's technically possible but I doubt it would be pretty. Passive glasses won't work at all because the screen isn't manufactured to support it. Ontop of that for a third party to do it without Nintendo upgrading the firmware to explicitly support it you'd run into problems with the compression they use. Because it's wireless.
23. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 06:46 BST
Wireless has nothing to do with being able to support 3D. The GamePad screen can really do anything, as long as the software inside the Wii U is running. The Wii U console streams to the GamePad, the GamePad just shows what it's processing.
I just looked up shutter and passive. The active shutters make stuff show up in HD, but there's a battery and flickering can be noticeable. Passive is cheaper without the battery and overall is easier to watch, but the resolution is cut in half.
Ultimately, it all depends on what Nintendo will alow the GamePad to do. Passive AND shutter could be done. The actual pixels have nothing to do with the 3D, but shutter glasses seem to be the best option.
There HAS to be a processor that decodes the 3D files. There are separate boxes that convert 3D to anaglyph, which also counts as passive.
I admit, this post probably reads like a mess, but active shutter glasses seem more capable, so if Nintendo ever adds 3D, it will be shutter, then no resolution will be lost.
They aren't going to add 3D while the debate between passive and shutter glasses are still relevant, and hardly anyone has a 3DTV anyway. Sony 4K TVs will still do shutter I think, and Toshiba is trying autostereoscopic, but it doesn't have parallax so the affect is lost.
It's pretty confusing, but shutter will be the format Nintendo will support to keep the resolution on the GamePad if they do end up using it.
EDIT: Actually, it looks like Sony is going with passive for the 4K TVs. I'm trusting that decision. That just means they made better passive glasses.
Edited on Thu 30th May, 2013 @ 07:16 by SCAR392
24. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 07:10 BST
A few things
In short, no. It won't happen. The fact that you find it all very confusion should be your cue to walking away slowly. You don't understand what you're talking about here.
Edited on Thu 30th May, 2013 @ 07:14 by skywake
25. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 07:14 BST
For what it's worth, I have a 24" Samsung Syncmaster T24B350, I paid $200 for it. Two HDMI, built-in speakers, line-out for audio, which I use to run my Wii U through my stereo. Also has composite and component inputs and the old spiral F connector that you can use to hook up your awesome VCR to. I use it as a computer monitor and TV for games or movies.
Lots of censorship here...
Dragon friend safari
Nintendo Network ID: Dylan1
26. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 07:25 BST
You walk away slowly. I'm actually trying to figure the stuff out. I'm trusting Sony's decision with passive lenses being the way 3D is displayed in future displays. Auto stereo is ideal, but that can't always happen.
What I find confusing is the application of various methods of displaying 3D, not the actual technology. LG has supposedly had good passive lenses since 3D HDTVs, that doesn't mean their displays were up to par with that method.
3D being on the GamePad would strictly be for off-tv, not simultaneous 3D with the TV.
Any freaking TV can do 3D. The argument is what is a practical way to use it, if possible.
Granted, 3D processing isn't built into older TVs. You can buy a converter box that converts stereoscopic 3D into anaglyph.
Edited on Thu 30th May, 2013 @ 07:29 by SCAR392
27. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 07:34 BST
I didn't say that passive 3D wasn't good infact I think it's quite a bit better than active 3D. I simply said that your assertion that the GamePad can support 3D and could run passive 3D with a piece of software that supported it and some glasses was nonsense. The suggestion it could do active 3D is also questionable. I've explained my reasons for saying this in more detail than a forum "argument" would usually demand.
Last I checked "figuring stuff out" didn't involve ignoring the voices of people who are correcting your misunderstandings. Then simply asserting something as true and giving that more weight than the word of the dude who seems to know what he's talking about.
Edited on Thu 30th May, 2013 @ 07:35 by skywake
28. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 07:44 BST
The Wii U is the hardware that would be processing the 3D, and software does play a part.
If software wasn't relevant to how hardware handles such processes, plug ins for media and Dolby sound decoders wouldn't even exist.
29. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 08:07 BST
I didn't say software was irrelevant I said that there are hardware limitations. Passive 3D isn't a software update it's something that has to be built into the screen itself. Active 3D can be a software update away ontop of a hardware add on for a screen but the screen has to be fast enough to support it in the first place. The Wii U GamePad definitely doesn't have passive tech built in and I highly doubt it is capable of running decent Active 3D.
Ontop of that the GamePad is wireless and so has bandwidth limitations and it's compression has been designed specifically for 2D. You'd have to solve that problem if you wanted to avoid crosstalk even before you considered how to make the display separate the image. There is also the fact that Nintendo already have stated that one of the main reasons the 3DS' bottom screen is not 3D is because they didn't see the value in doing it on the second screen. That even if there was value you'd spoil the effect with fingerprints anyway. There are immense challenges ontop of little will to do so, more than enough reason to assume it'll never happen.
I have said all of this already and I'm not going to repeat it again. If you have some evidence to refute any of my claims then go for it but I'm not going to bother to respond if you continue to talk over my responses rather than at them. I've lost count of the number of times in this thread you have made up stuff to support your argument against a claim I wasn't even making.
Edited on Thu 30th May, 2013 @ 08:09 by skywake
30. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 09:33 BST
Well, it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm fine with not having 3D on the bottom screen of the 3DS and the GamePad.
I'm still wondering though, because a polarized filter on the actual display is the only thing needed for passive to work, much like glasses free displays. That isn't too expensive on a 480p optimized LCD(which is what the GamePad is).
If passive 3D glasses worked with the GamePad, we'd see the exact same resolution on of the 3DS on the GamePad. The better graphics the Wii U can produce in comparison to the 3DS would automatically make for a better picture.
In conclusion, I think the GamePad will do passive. If it doesn't, oh well, but I'm gonna be optimistic with this one.
Just because AC3 used anagylph on the GamePad, doesn't mean that it can't. Hell, we could of possibly been playing AC3 in passive 3D if Ubisoft had known the GamePad was capable(if it is).
A side note, would be that Nintendo could of also done this, to guarantee a 3D push for Wii U isn't a failure if everyone doesn't have a 3D screen. Everyone would have a 3D screen if this is true.
I know for a fact Nintendo will be pushing 3D eventually, and the GamePad(if passive capable) will make sure pushing 3D won't be a waste beyond the TV space.
Don't give me s***, it's totally possible Nintendo has polarized their screen, but no one knows.
Edited on Thu 30th May, 2013 @ 09:34 by SCAR392
31. Posted: Thu 30th May 2013 10:03 BST
It's not the polarization it's alternate polarization for each row/column of pixels. That's the whole expense of it, and it isn't free, and it has to be done when it's manufactured. The glasses themselves cost less than $1. If the GamePad was build to use Passive 3D Glasses we would definitely know about it and they would have made sure the glasses were in the box.
But if you're that certain you can do a test. Find some 3D glasses from the movies and put them against an LCD screen other than the GamePad horizontal to the frame of the screen. Light from all LCDs are polarized and the cheapest way to do that is to have the entire screen polarized in the same direction. What should happen is one of the 'lenses' (it's not a lens but it seems like the reasonable thing to call it) will let most of the image through and the other will block most of it. Rotate it 90 degrees and they'll swap. Now do the same with the GamePad and the same will happen.
If however the GamePad by some miracle shows the same thing through both lenses (alternate lines of bright/dark pixels that look identical on both lenses) then it does have a passive 3D screen. Has to be with 3D Glasses. I don't have any on me ATM but you can do that experiment if you wish to prove me wrong. Otherwise quit it with these ridiculous theories.
Edited on Thu 30th May, 2013 @ 10:04 by skywake