Wii U Forum

Topic: Wii U games in stereoscopic 3D

Showing 41 to 60 of 84

AuthorMessage
Avatar

OdnetninAges

41. Posted:

Yes, I would buy it. I freakin' love 3D.

Console Usernames: Rc

LOL, NOPE

My 3DS needs to be repaired. It won't turn on anymore.

The Blue Blur VS. The Blue Bomber.

Miiverse Profile

NSLU Playthrough with friends

Check out Ninten-Times!

Brilliance

Nintendo Network ID: Ages97

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Neko_Chan

42. Posted:

If only they made a SNES 3D Classics range........

復讐は私のものになります!- 全蠍人
Vengeance will be mine! - Scorpion
この戦いは最後になります!- 奎良
This fight will be your last! - Sub-Zero
The only thing to fear, is fear itself!
YouTube Channel | Nico Nico Douga | Miiverse | deviantART | Hatena

3DS Friend Code: 2809-8065-2098 | Nintendo Network ID: MarioOtaku350

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SofaKing

43. Posted:

supermario182 wrote:

i dont see why you think it would be a good idea to release a separate adapter or whatever to get a crappy version of 3d that would use crappy glasses on regular tvs and look bad. i do think nintendo should've supported actual 3d tv's though.

Check out the video and then tell me why an attachment like that would make a crappy 3D effect.

Nintendo Network ID: Mitsudude

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

44. Posted:

@Sofaking
I watched the video and understand how it works, but the accessory I'm talking about would basically just turn your 2D HDTV into a 3D TV, and would be specifically used for Wii U use, unless stated otherwise.

in response to what's going on in the video, the GamePad by itself would be able to do the exact same thing seen in the video. 9-axis allows the GamePad to track location and other motion which is basically what's going on in that video. In otherwords, the GamePad paired with my said device would technically be able to do the same thing without it being as complicated.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

45. Posted:

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.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

46. Posted:

supermario182 wrote:

i dont see why you think it would be a good idea to release a separate adapter or whatever to get a crappy version of 3d that would use crappy glasses on regular tvs and look bad. i do think nintendo should've supported actual 3d tv's though.

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.

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

47. Posted:

@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.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

48. Posted:

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.

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SofaKing

49. Posted:

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.

Nintendo Network ID: Mitsudude

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

50. Posted:

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.

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

51. Posted:

@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.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

52. Posted:

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.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

53. Posted:

@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.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

54. Posted:

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.

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SofaKing

55. Posted:

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.

Nintendo Network ID: Mitsudude

AuthorMessage
Avatar

WiiULoveGBA

56. Posted:

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

That guy! UGH! "Hey, look at me. I ride a broomstick, and I was into stickers before it was cool." Pshhhhhhhh. He doesn't know about sticker power.

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SofaKing

57. Posted:

TwoTheNines wrote:

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!

Nintendo Network ID: Mitsudude

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

58. Posted:

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...

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SofaKing

59. Posted:

skywake wrote:

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.

Nintendo Network ID: Mitsudude

AuthorMessage
Avatar

WaveBoy

60. Posted:

SofaKing wrote:

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.

for me, i have no desire for 4k....I sit 11 feet away from my 1080p Panasonic plasma, and i can't bear to sit any closer for Film/tv related content. they say 8 feet away for 1080p content is the optimum distance, which i think is insane & uncomfortably close. I'd have to be sitting closer than 8 feet to even notice 4k. eek! It would seem to come in handy for certain videogame genre's like first person 'whatevers' and what have you, or for giant a** screens OR for people that do like to sit incredibly close to their tV's. For now, 4k content is slim pickings and isn't realled needed. There wont be one Wii U game to support 4k, and since most wii u games are 720p they would problably look like Master Splinters A** being blowing up to a much higher res.

at this point i'm curious about Panasonic's new line up of 2014 LED's where they're claiming that they're just as good as their higher end 2013 plasmas(ST60 for ex) I highly doubt they will be considering panasonics 2013 LEDs were mediocre....But if they are on par i'm jumping ship and getting a 60' LED. If there's a big gain in motion resolution(without the need of gimmicky motion interpolation) to match plasma, incredibly deep inky black levels, no clouding, great viewing angles, no back light bleeding while delivering an ultra bright image, with white whites, a cleaner/crisper image in general & no glare which are the strong points of LCD/LED technology than I'm IN. my current S60 has amazing blacks, good motion(Plasma CAN do better), beautiful rich and vibrant colors, accurate color + extensive pro controls all with 34ms of input lag(Still wish it were 1 frame or less)....the downside? I wish it were a lot brighter, i wish the whites were wighter(in warm2 for movies) and i wish the ABL was less agressive.

I'll sell my panasonic s60" plasma and put it towards a higher end panasonic 60" LED, if panasonic has magically found a way to match it's top tier 2013 plasmas including mine....Plus these LED's would HAVE to be whipping out 35ms or less of input lag.

Edited on by WaveBoy

Currently Playing: Donkey Kong Country Returns!
We shall swim to Bubble Island, or you will suffer the wrath of my Trident Laser!
80's FANATIC & King of NES Tekkidome!