3D is the new stereo sound, says Ubi News

I like the idea but till we have decent display options that can do it justice its a long way away.

No no no.

It's cool, I'll buy into it when it a better price, but I do not want everything in 3D. No no no Ubisuit.

I saw Up in 3D and I have had absolutely no problem going back to 2D. In fact I thought the novelty wore off pretty quick.

I will buy into it when it doesn't require extra equipment. The effect can be made with off the shelf components and some fancy programming.

The analogy is crap, anyway. You don't need to wear stupid goggles to hear stereo sound.

LOL

Would he like to buy an outfit from me? It's made of cloth that can only be seen by very intelligent people...

Indeed, would Stereo have replaced mono if you could only get it via headphones?

The 3D bit added nothing to Up.
Since Avatar looks like it'll be a shit movie anyway, 3D isn't going to save it's grace.

No, no it isn't. It's a gimmick and will do its schtick as it has in decades past and pack itself in mothballs for another ten to twenty years. And the sound analogy is shit.

Until I can do it without wearing an extra pair of glasses, no. Two sets don't sit too well.

I still enjoy my sprite based 2D games on the DS more so than anything your company makes, mate.

Oh dear . . .

You are about 15 years early guys. Come back in 2020 (ish) and try again.

/has only just bought a new TV

Surely 3D is the 7.1 surround? as in it'll take forever to catch on.

Kinda cool until your eyes freak out.

Isn't this thing with wearing silly glasses for watching 3D content supposed to be a thing of the past soon? I haven't really bothered to read much about the technology yet, but I'm pretty sure I've been hearing things about 3D TVs?

The 3DTVs require glasses as well.

It does look cool, but makes my eyes feel like they are going to pop out of my skull very quickly. Sadly, we'll only get real 3D when somebody figures a way to make a monitor capable of emitting multiple directed rays of light from every pixel. In other words, not very soon.

Ubisoft recent strategy => new tech + mediocre gameplay = win win!!
Atleast they are taking risks. 3D would have been better used in AC2.

Well I suffer from a slight squint from having whooping cough when I was two years old so this 3D technology doesn't quite work for me. I find I have to concentrate to make the two images blend together and that usually results in a headache. Sometimes it looks good but most of the time I see it as two slightly offset images which is exactly what it is.

Even with that though I don't believe 3D is anything more than a gimmick that comes and goes every few years. It's back now in order to drag more people into the cinemas but I don't expect it will last. It never lasted in the 80s or 50s either. As far as the home goes, this 3D technology requires new 120 Hz displays and I don't think people are going to dash out and buy yet another new HDTV for the few movies that will play in 3D, not when it could turn out to be another short-lived fad. It's not like you're going to see all the old movies and TV shows in 3D either as they were never filmed with it in mind.

If it takes off in a big way then as long as there's always the option to watch the movies in good old-fashioned 2D then I'll be happy with that.

Can someone please educate me as to what's so great about this "3D" malarky? My eyes already work in 3D, thanks, I don't want to have to buy yet more overpriced technology to accomodate the A/V industry's latest fad.

Clearly doesn't know that Dolby didn't come up with stereo.

Also 3D video is equivelant to binaural stereo.

as long as it's just an option. I have very poor eye muscle balance and find 3d movies really uncomfortable, so I won't be using this.

And another thing... as far as 3D games go, if current PC technology is anything to go by it will lead to more compromises in the game's framerate and the quality of graphics. With the NVIDIA 3D stereoscopic glasses for example in order for a game to run at 60 fps, it needs to be able to render at 120 fps, 60 fps for each eye... or that's my understanding of it anyway based on the Resident Evil 5 benchmark which sees 120 fps as being the ideal framerate for 3D.

I don't think it'll even take off on the PC myself as it requires a new display and more powerful graphics cards to maintain a playable framerate. It's a nice concept, I'm all for new ideas and everything, but I believe we're years off 3D becoming a standard myself and then who wants to wear special glasses to watch TV, wouldn't we all prefer holographic vision? ;)

I've tried every means of displaying 3D images demonstrated to the public since the mid-eighties - coloured lenses, polarised lenses, mini-screens, refracting displays...

Never has it ever been anything more than a minor novelty, with absolutely NO desire to use it as a matter of course.

this comment thread gives me some faith in fellow man

3D is a novelty and will be for many years to come until VR technology gets its move on

I love how 3D has been the future since the 60's (maybe earlier) and everytime the fads come back we're all 'ready' for it now. When are they going to learn that its just a gimmick people get bored of once the novelty has wore off. I've seen quite a few 3D movies recently one in 2D and then 3D and it seriously adds nothing to movie. It didn't give me any sense of actually being there or having things fly at me.

masterson : "Indeed, would Stereo have replaced mono if you could only get it via headphones?"

You're absolutely right. I think this technology is a byproduct of the major movie studios' push to try and get some consumer back to the theaters. It will never reach mass market IMHO.

By the way, this is not 3D, this is just stereoscopic imaging. You don't have volume representation, no occlusion and no paralax effect if you move around.

The next step will be autostereoscopic displays. Same effect without glass. This kind of display require the user to sand still in a sweet spot otherwise the 3d effect disapear. So again, too many restrictions to apply to a wide audience.

But the true nextgen display evolution is volumetric display, or holographic. Various techniques are already working, they are just too expensive right now. Check this out:

http://www.holografika.com/

When this becomes cheap, it will revolutionnize the way we look at games/films I think. Just think at how occlusion/parallax can become part of gameplay mecanics for instance.

Blue is the new orange, nobody wants to go back to orange. Incidentally, buy this blue cloth from us.

"Can someone please educate me as to what's so great about this "3D" malarky? My eyes already work in 3D, thanks, I don't want to have to buy yet more overpriced technology to accomodate the A/V industry's latest fad."

I have to say, being an old fart, I remember the 80's 3D re-invention (it's been around since the 50's or 60's), it was a fad back then and I thought it would be this time.

I haven't seen any 3D movies (not interested) but I tried NFS: Shift at the EG Expo and even on a small PC screen in a well lit hall it was amazing and everyone who tried it while I was there thought so to. The HUD hung in mid air and the depth of the track and the feeling of actually sitting in the car was surreal. plus the glasses are more like sunglasses now not the weird green/red of before. While I don't want EVERYTHING 3D, I did come out of the Expo knowing I'll invest at some point.

"Can someone please educate me as to what's so great about this "3D" malarky? My eyes already work in 3D, thanks, I don't want to have to buy yet more overpriced technology to accomodate the A/V industry's latest fad."

Yes your eyes work in 3D but ultimately when you're looking at a screen, you're looking at a flat, 2D surface.
In fact, your eyes work in 2D as well, but your brain makes a 3D image out of it. It does this by merging the seperate 2D images from your eyes together into a 3D representation. Each eye observes an object from a slightly different angle and that's exactly what 3D video does as well.

It renders double the number of frames of conventional video, where every other frame is meant for a single eye. By feeding different images to each eye, the idea of 3D is created. In practice, this means that objects that are closer to the viewer actually do appear closer than objects that are farther away.

While technically it's an interesting feat, it still comes at a far too large cost (both in terms of money and practicality) for the benefits it offers.

The only thing 3D gave me was a right bastard behind the eyes.

"According to Mallat, Ubi wouldn't have bothered putting in the option if it didn't think lots of consumers will end up buying the gear."

If there's any common sense left in the world, Ubi's got an unpleasant surprise coming.

Considering how many people still don't have HD TV's, and even then, many of those that do don't have a HD service. I don't see 3D TV taking off for quite some years yet, and even then they'll need to ditch those silly glasses for it to have any wide spread popularity.

I tend to find when I'm watching 3D films that I have to periodically remind myself that it's in 3D and coax myself back to marveling innocence, often from boredom.

I'll stick with my HD telly for the foreseeable future thankyouverymuch.

Wake me up when we have holodecks.

People are only just buying hd screens so how the heck they will be getting 10k plus circular polarized 40 inch screens any time soon is a little far fetched. It's going to take a full on 3D tv broadcast bombardment and sub 1 thousand pound screens to even make an impact in the market.

Well poo to you lot, I think 3d is pretty rad. It would be better though if the 3d was utilised to make some new gameplay concepts that couldn't be done in 2d rather than just to enhance existing visuals.

stop trying to sell us things we dont need or want. 3D is a poor fad, introduced by the cinemas to try and stop piracy (its alot harder to copy/film a movie in the cinema when its in wonky vision). Made even worse by the fact they charge you for glasses EVERY TIME you visit regardless of having your own pair.

This entire thing is so Sony/Toshiba/Samsung etc can try to flog us YET ANOTHER telly we dont need.

besides most people dont even have a HD telly yet.

The guy is a recycle bin visionaire. I like for example BlueSky's and Pixar's animations in 2D so I can concentrate on the superb and funny details. There's just *some* of the movies who are suited for 3D.

@mr_pink:

"It would be better though if the 3d was utilised to make some new gameplay concepts that couldn't be done in 2d rather than just to enhance existing visuals."

I have to agree with that, and in time we'll probably see a lot of innovation in that space.

As for liking or disliking 3D, I'm not necessarily against 3D gaming as such, it's just that it's way too early for yet another big upgrade. In a decade or two, sure, but already? Not a chance in hell.

What happened to virtual reality by the way? I remember way back in '92 on a school trip to London, those huge black and yellow VR helmets and gloves were all the rage in the arcades over there (I never got around to giving it a try myself though - can't remember why, but I probably didn't feel like standing in line for half an hour).

Did that type of VR ever actually amount to anything in the entertainment industry? I seem to recall reading about it being used in certain fields of science, but I'm having a much harder time remembering coming across anything about VR ever being used for games again.

Psst, Ubisoft. Not even HDTVs have become the standard yet and you're talking about 3D!?

No, but surround ( 5.1 & up ) has already replaced Stereo for me. Like ive said before im a sucker for good quality. Ive even made most my friends let me build their entertaintment center the least and place all the speakers, in some cases choose tv and player equipment other than speakers, just so I can enjoy myself when we hang at their places.. Yeah when I start using 3D I wont like not using it no more and thats why I wont be using 3D till I buy me full 3D equipment to know ill be capable to enjoy whatever is thrown at me at its max. ( not thrown since im a consumer with will of his own, not many left if you ask me.. )

So I can understand what they say but they should know that the public just got equiped with HD tvs. Not many will go get themselves 3D capable equipment just cause of their release. That will not happen and even a 3D junky like me wont do it and thats how I know.. Simple stuff :P Cant wait till its worth its money with more support though. Ofc ill be there and waiting for it like many others.

Student here so hope in hell of experiencing any of this as i can't afford to buy new TV's for all this new stuff. Going to stick with full hd for now.

On the bright side hopefully in a few years time a lot more games will have this at which point the TVs will be cheaper and ill have one.

Good to see this moving forward onto consoles as well.

I'd say 3D was the new surround sound, some people will want and will swear by it, but decades after its release the majority of people simply still won't bother because of the extra kit required.

@rhinoxious

you couldn't of said it better.

Myself i have surround sound and it is so much better hearing things all around you is so much better in games, and films.

But 3D wont be like that until i can walk around a full interactive holographic deck. Images popping out of a screen would irritate me i would much prefer to have surround rather than that.

I'm more interested in head tracking tbh; you get the same basic effect but without the glasses and eye strain. :)

I'm hoping someone will use it in Natal. It'll only work with single-player-per-screen games but that's ok in my book.

Edit: realised that not everyone will be familiar with the term. Johnny Chung Lee did some great concept work using wii remotes http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/

""3D is to pictures what Dolby Stereo was to sound," he told the Financial Post. "No one wants to go back to mono." "

Bollocks.

Complete and utter nonsense!

3D is a completely worthless gimmick that should stay in American theme parks. It brings absolutely nothing to films, especially live action films, where as Stereo Sound was a massive and worthwhile step forward.

Oh and Avatar looks about as appealing as shots of Joe Brand with her gash out.