Topic: Wii U games in stereoscopic 3D

Look at the Wii Street U app, now imagine that the Wii U can display the Google images in 3D with the said attachment. Same result as that setup in the video.

For location tracking, you'd have to set the GamePad on a flat surface in a designated area, whether it be in front of your TV or 3 feet away. The only motion tracking that loses calibration is the 6-axis part of the 9-axis. The location is set once you calibrate it, unless you go out of bounds, probably. By the time you're out of bounds, the GamePad's wireless range probably can't even reach the Wii U console.

Damn straight. I don't know why SCAR is under this illusion that his idea is fantastic because it really isn't. The fact is "enabling 3D" on a TV that performs well enough to run it is trivial, trivial enough that TV manufacturers throw it in as an extra. The hard bit is making sure that the refresh rate and motion blur is good enough that the effect isn't spoiled. If your TV doesn't include it then you can basically guarantee that any attempt to make it work will look crap.

As for them allowing the use of 3DTVs, they do. That's how they should do it and how they do do it and it has been confirmed by Iwata himself. I believe that a couple of games do use it and I know I have seen the option in Assassin's Creed 3 for example. A quick google shows that some people have indeed been able to get it to work. The fact that there have never been pages of threads about it either way and that it appears to be unknown to people in this thread says something about how little people actually care about it when push comes to shove.

@skywake
That's false, though. Refresh rate and motion blur have nothing to do with 3D. If the Wii U is putting out a 3D image at 60FPS, this said device wouldn't hinder any aspects of the image, except possibly resolution which is a common occurrence on passive displays, anyway.

Add in the GamePad with its 9-axis, and you basically have the Oculus Rift without a helmet thing.

I don't want to get into a he-said she-said with you again Scar, fact is it does impact it. You can't magic a TV into performing better than it actually does. The reason it's an issue is because of the way that 3D works. The only way to get a good image with a screen that wasn't build with 3D in mind is to use shutter glasses. Basically you throw the image from the left eye and right eye alternatively and so if your screen isn't good enough to swap between those two images you get crosstalk. It ain't pretty. The anaglyph method, which can be done in software anyways, is worse again. It works by filtering out colours from the left and right eye and so by its very nature reduces the colour resolution. If you do it post you lose half the resolution AND half of the colours. All sorts of horrible going on.

The idea that Nintendo would put out one of these products when they allow the feature the correct way out of the box is madness. If you really want to throw good money after bad at these sort of "solutions" then go right ahead because they are already compatible. However if you really want 3D then get a 3D TV because it does work.

Regardless of what ever 3d module you use, you have to admit, if Nintendo implemented that head tracking into a game it would make the game WAY more immersive and interesting. Like I mentioned, that 3d effect you see in that video is much better in person as I have seen it in person and I could only imagine if the IR head tracking used in this video was added to 3d glasses, it might be over kill but it would be a totally new experience that I think Nintendo could really benefit from.

Well it has a camera in the GamePad so in theory it could just track your head that way. If you think that's tricky you'd be right but given how well every camera under the sun does it these days I don't see it being a huge deal. How useful it would be outside of being just a cool gimmick is another story. The biggest problem would be the fact that the Wii U is more of a social console and so basically demands multiple heads to be in front of the TV for any and all gimmicky games......

Either way, it's just software. No special hardware required, the Wii U can do all of this out of the box.

@skywake
I know that you can't magic a TV into working better. Who's to say they would use color differences to make a 3D image. It seems like you're ignoring that there are other ways to do things, besides what's in front of you.

I already know for a fact that refresh rate has nothing to do with a 3D image.

I was only using anaglyph 3D as an example. The idea that altering an image to get a 3D effect isn't only restricted to colors or seeing 2 images one after the other. That's not even how you see 3D with your own 2 eyes, in real life.

It's a given that Wii U can support this stuff, out of the box. My point was that Nintendo could offer a 3D adaptor to avoid reliance on 3D TVs(which aren't worthwhile and are too expensive for most people) to support such features.

EDIT: If Wii U can already do this w/o said attachment, then that's even better.

So basically you're suggesting magic? What do you mean that this "isn't how we see 3D IRL"? Of course it is, you do realise that 3D works by displaying a different image to each eye right? That's how it works in real life, your eyes still work the same when you're viewing a synthetic 3D image. In real life there are about five ways to do this with a display:

#1 Shutter glasses.
This requires a good refresh rate and low motion blur but is trivial to add after the fact. All good TVs do this

#2 Passive glasses.
Needs to be built into the TV itself and therefore requires extra money to be spent over and above just "good TV" specs

#3 Auto-stereoscopic.
This is what the 3DS uses, it's hard to get right and does cost extra out of the gate. Also tends to fail with large screens

#4 Anaglyph.
Really sucks, red and blue glasses. This was the sort of 3D that existed first and was the reason why people hated it for so long

#5 Head Mounted Displays.
Literally a different screen for each eye. Compared to other options very expensive. Not happening.

All of that stuff is at the display side though, technically the Wii U supports all of them. If you want to get them to work you just feed in the 3D signal from a supported title. Again, not happening because nobody really cares about 3D anyways.

Oh, and there's a sixth way of doing it but that's a long, long way away from reality and is even more expensive to implement. Volumetric displays. Basically you have a pile of transparent screens stacked ontop of each other or some sort of spinning mirror with a projector running kinda like how shutter glasses work. Again, not happening especially with the bandwidth limitations of HDMI.

I hope that this technical laying out of the whole way everything works makes you realise how ridiculous and/or pointless what you're suggesting is.

@skywake
Ya, and the point if this thread is discussing how they would be able to get 3D without a 3D display, within the Wii U itself, with or without an accessory.

Just to add to one of your points, anaglyph is a form of passive, which is why I'm saying that there has to be another way to get a passive 3D image without altering colors and image processing via the TV.

That's why I'm speculating that they could alter the black and white levels, instead of the color(or something). Again, not everyone can justify a 3D TV as a replacement for their already good 2D HDTV.

Most 4K displays have 3D built in, but you're paying mostly for the 4K, at that point.

EDIT: Also, I was trying to say that color inaccuracies and showing you a different image, every split second, isn't entirely viable. Shutter glasses are the most "fake" form of 3D that you can have, because altering images on the screen is like looking at an old school film projector where you see an image as fast as the wheel can turn, with a different image angle in every frame. Go make a flip book with a different image to make it look like 3D, that's basically what shutter is, and it's the worst, IMO.

Shutter requires refresh rate, but you will never see 2 images simultaneously with that method.

Physics and the workings of your eye. You need to be able to filter out each image for it to work. You can do that by putting a colour filter over it because a blue bit of cellophane "kills" all of the red. That's why it looks blue. The Anaglyph method kills the colour and ontop of that it delivers differently tinted images to each eye. Therefore producing by far the least natural image.

The shutter glasses method by comparison is fantastic. Yes it produces flicker but nothing near what we were happy with back when CRTs were the only display option. Also like CRTs if you push the refresh rate up the flicker starts to disappear. If they can push the refresh rate up and eliminate crosstalk then there's really nothing to complain about with this method. Your flipbook criticism is weird given that all video sources are a series of still images. Not seeing both images at once? Ok, and the problem with that is? Have you tried and noticed this when using it?

As for your idea of what this thread is that's fine. However if this thread is about how to get 3D without a 3D with or without an accessory then that's what I'm talking about also. My point is that it's a bad idea and not something worth persuing. That if you want 3D the Wii U already supports 3D TVs. If you don't want to buy a 3D TV then you'll have to live with the fact that you can't view the small library of 3D compatible content.

Well, I really don't see the need for 3D anymore. I personally am more looking forward to 4K. Saw a 4K tv today and I couldn't take my eyes off it. Give it 2 years maybe and 4k might start to be a standard like 1080p is now. once that happens these beautiful 1080p highend tv's will be dirt cheap and I'm all to excited about that lol. 3D is a hit and miss kinda technology that comes and goes. I'd imagine the next time we see a 3D craze, it will be emmersive 3D where it will either be augmented or virtual. Thats not too far around the corner BTW.

I've got a very nice Samsung 3D monitor connected to the WIi U so I'm ready!

Me TOOOO! 55 inch samsung 6 series 6030. I just got it and love it!

4K is cool but even fairly high end PCs aren't really "4K ready" yet. Especially if you want solid 60fps with high details which should be the standard before pushing beyond 1080p. There isn't even an agreement on what sort of cable should be used to deliver 4K yet let alone content to play on them. Even the Netflix 4K announcement the other day had so much compression the streams would be at 15Mbps. That ain't 4K.

It's also probably more bandwidth than most people can handle... but it's not 4K either...

well like i said give it a few years. just like when 1080p came out. things just need to catch up now.

@skywake
I know 3D content is lacking, but not on a software level. There's already tons of 3D games on Wii U(RE:Revelations, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, Injustice, CoD, AC3). That's why I'm saying that 3D should be accessible on an OS level similarly to the 3DS. You don't go into settings to turn on 3D on the 3DS. The slider is right there and can swith back and forth as you choose.

The way they program these games is already in 3D, so basically every 3D rendered game technically already has a 3D mode as long as it's implemented. Those games I listed above alreasy have the option, but that's why I think it's important to do that from the system itself instead of going through menus, which is how things are being done now.

That brings me back to why Nintendo should/could make a device(or not, if it's not required), so that people can play games in 3D without buying a 3D TV. They'd be making a jump ahead of the market where 3D isn't very popular otherwise. Just my 2 cents.

If every single piece of content is 3D on Wii U by default, by choice, it makes sense to make sure that people can utilize those features. If you want things done right, you got to do those things yourself, and 3D TV manufacturers are not doing things right.

Depends on the price and the quality of the 3D. If it'd be really good i'd probably pay about 90 bucks for it.

@SCAR392
But you weren't saying it should be accessible in settings rather than it being an in-game option, you were saying there should be a piece of proprietary hardware. Frankly I would think unified settings would be a good idea but I don't see it happening and I really don't care anyways. The truth is that I'm not alone, people have voted with their wallets don't really care about 3D so it's a feature that people aren't really demanding. So pushing it isn't high on anyone's agenda right now.

Plus, if you remember, the Wii U launch hype period was surrounded by Nintendo making a song and dance about glasses-free 3D. They identified that 3D was being pushed hard btut people didn't want the hassle of 3D. They milked that for all it was worth. So it would have been odd for them to go out the very next year and rant about how great 3D glasses were. Also again the fact that nobody really cared anyway.

As for your other comments fine. You've had your 2c multiple times now and we all get it. It still doesn't make it a good idea. TV manufacturers? They are doing it right at least this time. They pushed 3D as hard as they could and competed amongst themselves on who's 3D display was better. Even making songs and dances about how their particular implementation was better. What happened was that nobody cared. I can't stress enough how little people actually care about this when push comes to shove.

If people DID care then we'd probably have seen some sort of unified and standardised 3D setting across all systems and a concentrated effort to make great 3D content. As it is they simply allow it because it isn't worth the effort but all of the tech is there already. Nintendo more than anyone has pushed 3D games, if things had played out differently you can guarantee that their Wii U titles would have been all 3D heavy. However it didn't so they're not.

end of story

@skywake
The situations are different, though.

The only people who had a chance to 3D game, were considerably wealthy. If 3D TVs would have been as accessible and affordable as regular HDTVs back in 2010 or so, we wouldn't even be discussing this right now. 3D TVs are just barely making it down to $400+ dollars. That's too late for alot of people who probably would have bought one, otherwise.

HDTVs were $600-1000. 3D TVs were $2000. It isn't just an extra feature if they were charing that much for it, years ago. Getting a 3D TV in 2010 basically upped the ante by double, in favor of 2D HDTVs. That's hardly fair, as you claim, when people "voted". That would be like saying only the people that live in the White House are able to vote on country wide decisions.

and in 2006 to 2008 the same was true of HDTVs in general but there was mass adoption there. So much so that Nintendo's then brilliant decision not to go HD in 2006 was starting to look like less of a good idea come 2008. The first HDTV I got was a 32" Samsung at $1300AU in 2008, for about the same price now ($1500AU) you can get a 60" LED backlit 3D TV from Sharp with a bunch of smart TV features. There was a premium for 3D TVs when they launched but it was nothing new and the price drop since then has been across the board. Plus there's the fact that the premium didn't last long at all, it was only about a year before 3D was just a nice thing that sometimes comes with it.

Then there's the fact that it is affordable now and people still don't care. They did buy LCDs and Plasmas, they did upgrade for HDTV and shiny 1080p gaming. They didn't buy 3D at all and they still don't. So it's fair all right, nobody has it so there's little point in creating content for it. That's how the world works. If nobody buys the thing you like people don't create content with it in mind. I thought this would have been an obvious thing to someone talking on a gaming site.....

And no, your whitehouse example is nonsense. If it was like anything it would be like someone not making content for platforms that don't sell. That's all that it is. If the platform doesn't sell because it's too expensive then that's just a reason why it doesn't sell. Especially when it does become affordable and still doesn't sell.