Blitz "convinced" the future is 3DTV

By Robert Purchese Published 30 July, 2009

Mass adoption next console generation.

Blitz Games co-founder Andrew Oliver is "convinced" that 3DTV is the future - but believes that like HDTV it will require a brand new generation of consoles before the technology takes off.

"For mass [adoption], I think, yes," he told Eurogamer in an interview published today. "That's the big question; that is the big question. It's going to be slow; it's going to be really, really slow.

"I don't know when the next console generation is," he added. "You can't ask me things like that! No idea, and I wouldn't tell you if I did!"

Oliver said televisions capable of emitting 3D images are available now from real shops, but have trouble selling because there's no content to display on them.

"You can actually buy a Samsung plasma 3D[TV] on the high street today in Britain. But you wouldn't know it and the shops wouldn't tell you, because somebody might go, 'Prove it!'" said Oliver.

He can prove it, with Invincible Tiger: The Legend of Han Tao - a PSN and XBLA game with optional 3D mode that is due for August. But this will be just the first 3D game to come from Blitz.

"I'm absolutely convinced it's the future, so we just want to be in it at the beginning, learn the lessons - I mean we've already learned quite a lot of lessons in the last year doing a small game, that we're now ready to take on a big game that will be really, really good," he explained.

"OK, so that's going to be out in a year-or-so's time, by which time there may be five per cent of people that have those [3D]TVs. And it will slowly grow.

"At some point they will announce Blu-ray 3D, they will have Sky 3D, and suddenly the floodgates will open and our games will be there."

Head over to our full interview with Blitz Games co-founder Andrew Oliver to find out much, much more. He's quite a chirpy chap.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (58) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #1 3 years ago

    Like the Virtual Boy was so successful - Sorry but untill they can prove wearing any form of '3D glasses' often to allow it to work doesn't screw your eyes up - Not going to happen

    @Zulu - yea but at the movies how long are you there for 2 hours tops - I'm seeing as an issue with gaming as many gamers would be sitting there for a LOT longer. You can't enforce short gaming sessons therein lays the problem
    Edited by 1 at 30/07/09 @ 12:16

  • ZuluHero #2 3 years ago

    Well, we are seeing it more and more with cinema releases - why not games too?

  • crwoody #3 3 years ago

    I met the oliver twins not so long ago and played this Invincible Tiger.

    Made me go bog eyed for a short while after.

    Not for me this 3d lark.

  • phycus #4 3 years ago

    I want 3d as in star wars battle chess game thing, not vomit inducing fake 3dtv as at present.

  • Widge #5 3 years ago

    Yeah, there was something on TV about this recently. As it forces your eyes to work in an unnatural fashion you end up getting a bit of a headache.

    Brain exploding WOW-ers ahoy.

  • LetsGo #6 3 years ago

    3D Dizzy pls, thx, bye.

  • mjakl #7 3 years ago

    Well, movies are showing that 3D is completely useless only hurts eyes and adds nothing. It'll be same for games.

  • crwoody #8 3 years ago

    @LetsGo

    Nah, have you seen the demo they put out? Looks naff.

  • rare_uk #9 3 years ago

    so why would you need a new telly for this - surely it's just a case of different colours on one screen to make a 3d effect?

  • bad #10 3 years ago

    Back in the days of VR headsets there was a fairly well recorded problem that often the horizon level of the virtual world was higher or lower than reality. Therefore after an extended session researchers described unpleasant (if temporary) side effects such as being unable to locate their mouths accurately and poking themselves in the eye with a drinking straw!

    I wonder if this will have similar effects - as presumably the 3D effect will force perspective unnaturally - screwing up your depth perception for instance? Driving soon after an extended gaming or movie session could prove 'interesting'.
    Edited by 1 at 30/07/09 @ 12:38

  • TonyCocaCola #11 3 years ago

    No

  • ZuluHero #12 3 years ago

    @rare uk

    If you read the article on the front page it’s not the same technology as the old style 2 colour-image stereoscopic, it’s the same as 3d films seen in cinemas atm (which are full colour). Its uses polarized glasses? (i think?)

    @Bad

    I watched Coraline in the cinema (1 hr 30mins?) and suffered no ill-effects driving home (or touching my mouth, eyes or any other part of my body for that :p) - the technology is really good.
    Edited by 1 at 30/07/09 @ 12:51

  • Toothball #13 3 years ago

    I'd probably go for 3D games over motion controls as long as it lets me sit around while playing.

  • BillyBrush #14 3 years ago

    You can't do 3D without blocking one image off right? unless it's a hologram or something..

    So...it'll always need glasses, and fast moving things will always be tough on your eyes and brain trying to adjust to it..

    Soooo...i don't see it yet to be honest...if they can make a 3D that involves no glasses whatsoever (which is pretty much technically impossible outside the barmy hologram route) i can't see it taking off as quick as they think

  • bad #15 3 years ago

    @ZuluHero

    I was thinking about the TV vs Cinema question - if you have a nice big cinema screen, then presumably you can use a fairly natural level of artificial depth - give or take. Scale everything down to TV size and presumably the depth portrayed is similarly shortened.

    I'm just guessing really - it's not as immersive as VR so maybe that will prevent any undesirable side effects.

  • M_of_the_sys #16 3 years ago

    I was thinking about the TV vs Cinema question - if you have a nice big cinema screen, then presumably you can use a fairly natural level of artificial depth - give or take. Scale everything down to TV size and presumably the depth portrayed is similarly shortened.

    I'm just guessing really - it's not as immersive as VR so maybe that will prevent any undesirable side effects.

    Glad you guys cleared that up then otherwise it could've been pretty messy going to the toilet after a film at the cinema...

  • Dizzy #17 3 years ago

    3DTV next gen? VERY unlikely. Maybe in 15 years.

  • makeamazing #18 3 years ago

    Certainly not going to happen in the short term. I dont really see people rushing out to get something else because it gives them 3D... TVs generally last a long time and people only replace them when they are broken.. I wont replace my HDTV for one that includes 3D tech... so 3DTV in maybe 10 + years... maybe... but by then there might be another technology.
    Edited by 1 at 30/07/09 @ 13:13

  • ZuluHero #19 3 years ago

    @bad

    I see your point.

    I've only ever seen 3D in a cinema, so I don't know what would happen if the image was downscaled, but if it did, then I would imagine the residual effect to be no worse than the optical effects that you would get from something like a heavy bout of Guitar Hero (when you get that weird shifting down afterimage on your eyes)

    Besides, I don’t think TV manufactures would be allowed to put the technology into their sets if it caused any severe effects. But maybe we’ll see this in years to come if/when the technology becomes more wide-spread?

  • Rubarack #20 3 years ago

    A lot of people on the edge have already just bought expensive HD sets, I doubt they'll want to upgrade again for a very long time. I'm betting on head tracking being the next big thing, a very convincing and practical 3d effect with no need for glasses at all.

  • lasersrule #21 3 years ago

    If you have to wear special glasses, it'll always be a gimmick.

  • paulf #22 3 years ago

    it may well be the future - but at what date in the future it is viable is debatable, I like their attitude though and good luck to them on their venture

  • andywilkie35 #23 3 years ago

    Wasn't 3D a craze that went out of fashion about 20 years ago? If this is the future of games and films then I'll make this generation my last so I don't have to wear a pair of special needs glasses to be able to see what I'm playing/watching

  • PlugMonkey #24 3 years ago

    It's a total gimmick. The importance of stereopsis in depth perception is a massively over stated, and I don't see how adding it to games is going to increase my immersion in the game world any more than closing one eye decreases my immersion in the real world.

    "I'm betting on head tracking being the next big thing, a very convincing and practical 3d effect with no need for glasses at all."

    Yup, I reckon that would be a lot more impactful too.

    "Wasn't 3D a craze that went out of fashion about 20 years ago?"

    A bit like motion sensing controllers you mean. Not disagreeing, just saying, like.
    Edited by 1 at 30/07/09 @ 13:43

  • kangarootoo #25 3 years ago

    He is completely right.

    But I reckon it will take another 10 years before there is significant market penetration.



    "I don't see how adding it to games is going to increase my immersion in the game world any more than closing one eye decreases my immersion in the real world."

    That is the largest amount of nonsense I think I have ever read.

  • kangarootoo #26 3 years ago

    Btw, anyone talking about levels of immersion should stop "imagining" what it will be like and go see a film in a decent 3D cinema. The effect is pretty damn extraordinary.

    Anyone dismissing this because its not that good when they close their eyes and imagine what it would be like is being deliberately bonkers.

  • ZuluHero #27 3 years ago

    Well said kangarootoo :)

    To all those people complaining about wearing glasses - i have to wear glasses to see normally, so when i want to watch a 3D film, I have to wear the 3D glasses over my normal glasses! I see the whole "if I have to wear glasses I’m not bothering" as a non-issue really. The effect you get from it is more than worth it!

    It all comes across a bit technophobic, which surprises me a little given your chosen hobby.

  • kangarootoo #28 3 years ago

    @bad

    The size of the screen won't change the effect in the way you desribe. The important part is how far apart the two "cameras" were when the scene was captured. That distance scales with the size of the screen, so the effect remains constant.

  • kangarootoo #29 3 years ago

    @ZuluHero

    Good point. Many peple will simply have to "wear glasses" when they watch the TV, and as you say the effect is profound enough to more than outweigh that absurdly insignificant setback. I've seen a few films in 3D, and I tell you, I would wear a 5kg hat and a pair of jelly slippers if that is what was needed to continue doing so.


    On a related note. The new Tron Legacy film will apparently be shown in 3D at selected cinemas.

  • schnide #30 3 years ago

    There are quite a lot of news items relating to article items these days, I think Borderlands took up half the front page the other day because of it, and Halo ODST too as well. Does this need to keep happening?

  • PlugMonkey #31 3 years ago

    ""I don't see how adding it to games is going to increase my immersion in the game world any more than closing one eye decreases my immersion in the real world."

    That is the largest amount of nonsense I think I have ever read. "

    Really? How? Presenting a flat image stereoscopically vs presenting the real world non-stereoscopically. Seems like a fair comparison to me. Stereopsis really isn't that important.

    The only time it's really powerful in films is when they fire something out of the screen at you to make you duck involuntarily, because that's about the only thing stereopsis is the key to perceiving in the real world. It's fun, but does it massively increase your immersion? If you lost one eye would the world suddenly become flat and lifeless? No, I think it would get old pretty quickly, would have limited practical applications, and the effect is always pretty blurry too.

    Now, if as Rubarack said, you tracked head movement and made the parallax on screen move correctly based on small movements of your head, you would have something that would have a far more powerful 3D component, as that is a far more important depth cue for your brain. Of course, you can't do that with a film, and you can't do that for a few hundred people all at once - but with one person playing a game...

    Why copy films, when games could be doing something far more powerful that films are incapable of? And you don't need a new telly, just something along the line of Project Natal, and it won't make your eyes bleed.

  • Redeye #32 3 years ago

    I'd like to raise a quite serious question at this point (which, for me, is a rarity, but there you go). What if you've only got vision in one eye?

    I'm actually 90% blind in my right eye - even though I've got perfect vision in my left. Would I still be able to gain the true benefits of this technology? Old-school 3D doesn't work for me in the slightest, so if the future is 3DTV, will I be forced to switch off and go and do something else instead?

    *does the old John Cleese 'hand-over-the-eye' routine and climbs on a desk*

  • BillyBrush #33 3 years ago

    @Redeye

    Unfortunately, you'd be shafted - the 3D they have now still relies on two images and blocking one off from each eye....it's not actually that different from the old red and green glasses in principle...exept it doesn't bodge the colours

  • BabyJesus #34 3 years ago

    Lets see the affordable tech first before jumping into this.

  • kangarootoo #35 3 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    "Really? How? Presenting a flat image stereoscopically vs presenting the real world non-stereoscopically. Seems like a fair comparison to me. Stereopsis really isn't that important."

    Well I have two things to say to that.


    If you write it like a mathematical equation it might make sense, but the actual effect of going to see a film in 3D is rather more emotive than that. You have quite clearly never watched a 3D film (like a modern one, not the red and green stuff of yesteryear) or you would know what I mean.


    Put simply, watching a room full of people in a 3D film is NOT the same as watching a room full of people in real life. Clearly you think it is, and its not an unlikely assumption to make, but it simply isn't.

    In real life your brain says "that there is a room full of people - nothing unusual here", whereas when observing a 3D film your brain says "every part of my normal operation is telling me that image should be flat, but it has depth" and the result is in essence an uncontrolled "Holly CRAP!!" reaction by your brain.

    My only explanation is that the effect is not so realistic as to be identical to true binocular vision. There is just something weird about it. Perhaps it might be described as less realistic, but this is one of those moments where less reslistic is not a bad thing. The end result is stunning, regardless of how it comes to be.


    Regardless, your so certain statement that the immersion is fiction is to dismiss the millions of individuals who pay extra for the effect, and the hundreds of campanies that are investing millions in developing this tech. This, from someone who thinks closing one eye makes the whole world look like normal television.

  • Redeye #36 3 years ago

    BillyBrush: Thought as much.

    *sticks two fingers up to 3DTV and settles down for a good session of plain old-fashioned 2DTV gaming*

  • kangarootoo #37 3 years ago

    @Redeye

    It sounds on the face of it that this new tech won't work for you. It is all based on giving a slightly different image to each eye, so if one of your eyes can't process the image the effect won't be witnessed :(

    It might be suggested that the result would be just like watching normal TV, but in fact it would be worse. Besides having to wear glasses that are useless to you (without them your one good eye would see both images, which looks messy), what you would end up seeing even when wearing the glasses is a 2D image, within which the camera focus is placed on specific objects (it is one of the caveats of 3D cinema, the film maker has to decide in advance what you will be looking at and point both cameras at that - the result is depth of field blur elsewhere in the picture).

  • Redeye #38 3 years ago

    kanga: Sounds like I (and doubtless others that don't have perfect stereoscopic vision) will be left behind in this great new 3D future that faces us. Ah well, I'll just have to go off and invent holodecks or direct neural feeds or something. :D

  • kangarootoo #39 3 years ago

    P.s. perhaps one of the reasons that 3D cinema is so profound is because the binocular width isn't the same as real life (how far apart your eyes are). So when your brain see a 3D film, it is seeing a version of 3D that it has not witnessed before. Hence the otherworldly effect.

    E.g. imagine you were suddenly looking through the eyes of a hammer head shark, or a rabbit. Sort of.

  • ZuluHero #40 3 years ago

    "...and the result is in essence an uncontrolled "Holy CRAP!!" reaction by your brain.

    This. It always surprises me how many people in the audience reach out in front of them to touch what they are seeing or cower by the effect.

  • LOLLERS #41 3 years ago

    In real life your brain says "that there is a room full of people - nothing unusual here", whereas when observing a 3D film your brain says "every part of my normal operation is telling me that image should be flat, but it has depth" and the result is in essence an uncontrolled "Holly CRAP!!" reaction by your brain.

    Thats what leads to really bad films though. Charging extra to people who are impressed by a room full of people, BUT IN 3D!

    I was really impressed by the 3D in UP, not because I thought HOLY SHIT IT'S LIKE I'M THERE, but because the effect was secondary and complementary to the film. I don't think they once tried to make things shoot out the screen at you and as a result of that, and the way it was shot and directed, it felt more like watching a stage show than a film. That for me is where 3D can really shine, because you obviously could never produce UP as a stage show - it enhances the experience and makes it more believable, or immersive, if you like. Would I pay extra to see it? Probably not. Is it worth pursuing and making a standard? Yeah probably, as much as HD, Surround Sound etc is. If you don't agree, then why don't you watch all films on a small black and white screen with a man playing a piano next to it?

    From what i've seen of this Blitz game, it seems more like the 3D effect is used to add depth to the environments than anything else. Combined with something like Natal, that could provide a quite compelling experience along the lines of playing some kind of badass puppet show...
    Edited by 2 at 30/07/09 @ 15:56

  • kestral #42 3 years ago

    I think the future is HDTV - most people don't have it yet and the prices are still ridiculous try and find a 100hz 1080p capable HDTV from an established brand for under £500!

  • BillyBrush #43 3 years ago

    Anyway, movies won't drive new tech like this....games won't drive tech like this....only porn can

    Soo...if some big ole titties look good in 3D, blitz will be quids in
    Edited by 1 at 30/07/09 @ 15:59

  • kangarootoo #44 3 years ago

    @LOLLERS

    Well sure, a rubbish film viewed in 3D will be mildly less rubbish for a little while. Nothing more.

    I can agree on that one :)


    @kestral

    Samsung is an established brand. One of the best in the business in fact (Samsung make the LCD panels that turn up in most other manufacturer's TVs), and I'm sure they make several TVs like that for under £500.

  • AliRay #45 3 years ago

    Just to add a little perspective here; wasn't Mark Rein (or another Epic guy) saying how half the market of gamers haven't even gone HD yet? Doesn't that make a 3DTV upgrade a bit far-fetched right now?

    And to back this up further, there were several EGers commenting in that thread that THEY still used big ol' CRTs and weren't bothered about the upgrade to HD.

    I think these Blitz guys are getting ahead of themselves just a touch.

  • TedMoseby #46 3 years ago

    Thought this whole article was a bit of wishful thinking/nonsense speculation first, and then came across this news on Digital Spy: -

    [link url=http://www.digitalspy.co .uk/digitaltv/a168356/sky-to-launch-3d-tv-channel-next-year. html
    ]http://ww w.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a1...[/link]

    Which isn't to say its fact - it's not as if they're great at facts over there, as they seem to think that Starcraft 2 is an MMO.

    Still don't really see the appeal of the current fad of 3D films - e.g. notice in the trailer for "The Final Destination" how absolutely every single potential method of death/killing now involves something that can conveniently fly out of the screen at the audience!

    It's the same old film nonsense: doing something just because you can, rather than doing something to serve the story better.

    Can't see myself buying a 3DTV anytime soon...

  • AliRay #47 3 years ago

    Also: who's really going to wear 3D specs to do all their gaming? Stupid idea!

    /dons Live headset so he can talk during multi
    /picks up plastic guitar for Rock Band
    /puts plastic sword attachment onto Wiimote for Zelda.

    Bollocks.

  • Stoatboy #48 3 years ago

    @AliRay: If over half of gamers still use SD (and I'm one them) that means there are a lot of people who may consider a 3d-capable tv as their next upgrade rather than a normal HD one, perhaps? I think a fair few people are still on SD because they've got nice big CRTs that would be expensive to replace with similarly-sized HD screens, rather than because they don't want HD. That's certainly where I am. But I occasionally consider getting something HD and less bulky, so if the price is vaguely sensible I'd definitely consider getting a tv that can do 3d too next, just to future-proof it a little.

  • FireMonkey #49 3 years ago

    Some people are saying this won't take off, or at least not for 10 / 15 years time.
    Blitz did say the next generation, and didn't Sony say the PS3 was going to be around for something like 10 years? So that's about right then.

    Also, just because a lot of people haven't yet gone HDTV (me included) doesn't mean they won't go to 3DTV. People do not just buy the next model up each time. When my reliable old tv dies, I'll take a look around to see what is on the market. If there are 3D tv's out there that aren't much more than a standard HDTV, and things using it, then of course I'll jump straight to that Tech.

  • PlugMonkey #50 3 years ago

    Kangarootoo said: "In real life your brain says "that there is a room full of people - nothing unusual here", whereas when observing a 3D film your brain says "every part of my normal operation is telling me that image should be flat, but it has depth" and the result is in essence an uncontrolled "Holly CRAP!!" reaction by your brain.

    My only explanation is that the effect is not so realistic as to be identical to true binocular vision. There is just something weird about it. Perhaps it might be described as less realistic, but this is one of those moments where less reslistic is not a bad thing. The end result is stunning, regardless of how it comes to be.


    Regardless, your so certain statement that the immersion is fiction is to dismiss the millions of individuals who pay extra for the effect, "

    I would say the end result is spectacular. As in 'a spectacle'. At no point have I claimed that the effect doesn't exist, or that it isn't fun (I said that in my last post ), only that I don't find it very immersive. I anything, I find it the opposite; it's quite jarring.

    The reason for this, as you've touched on yourself, is that it overdoes the effect to try and achieve something through binocularity that your brain doesn't really do in the real world. My brain is presented with different information from each eye, but that's not the main reason I perceive depth in the world. It comes way down the list after perspective, size permanence, occlusion, and parallax movement - particularly the movement of objects in the visual field as I move my head about. All of which can be empirically proven, or you can just close one eye and have a bit of a look about. If I asked you tell me which of two poles was nearest to you, I can guarantee the 1st thing you would do would be a completely involuntary movement of your head, at which point you would instantly be able to tell me regardless of whether you were operating one eye or two.

    Based on this, I have two contentions to 3D TV being the Next Big Thing in games.

    Firstly, once you get past the "Holy CRAP" stage, the effect is fundamentally unsatisfactory. It's a gimmick. A fun gimmick, one that I have paid for in the past and would pay again for in the future, but not one I would want applying to every film that I watch because ultimately it's jarring, or weird as you said. It just looks wrong, and while that's wierdly fun to begin with, I think it would get old.

    Secondly, why would games want to focus on this badly executed application of a relatively insignificant depth cue, when there's a really majorly important one (the head movement/parallax thing which is a constant piece of extremely important unconscious depth perception) that would be far more powerful in making you feel a part of the world you were interacting with.

  • ZuluHero #51 3 years ago

    "Firstly, once you get past the "Holy CRAP" stage, the effect is fundamentally unsatisfactory. It's a gimmick. A fun gimmick.."

    I'm sure people said that about colour TV when they first saw it...

    ;)

    Edited by 1 at 30/07/09 @ 20:07

  • IronCladChicken #52 3 years ago

    @ZuluHero
    Naaa The jump to colour was like the jump from VHS to DVD
    3D is more like DVD to Blu-Ray.

    (They did say it about video games though ;) )

  • PlugMonkey #53 3 years ago

    I'm sure people said that about colour TV when they first saw it...

    ;)

    I'm sure they did, but there's little doubting it looks more like the real world than black and white TV...

  • DaftVice #54 3 years ago

    I saw a 3DTV last week demoed in the shops. It's really strange because you just don't expect it to work without glasses of some kind. It works and it's quite impressive even though at the same time it was a bit of a crappy demo. The big problems I found was that it didn't seem to work if you stood closer than 5 feet and after looking at it for about a minute I got a bit of a headache (that might just be me though).

    I wouldn't be surprised to see 3DTV at around the same level HDTV is now, in 5 years time. With films like Avatar and Tron pushing the tech I don't think it is that absurd.

  • kangarootoo #55 3 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    I guess we will just have to put this down to taste, and sorry I stated you hadn't seen 3D films when you clearly have.

    You found the effect jarring and less immersive, I found it either awesome or (at quieter moments where I stopped noticing it) otherwise benign. I still dispute your claim that it is badly implemented, but that is on the basis that I have throughly enjoyed the experience every time.

    If you don't enjoy it, then I can't really argue with that I guess. I do believe I am in the majority though, and by that measure I think a time will come where all TVs have 3D capability (even if perhaps by the time there is market penetration, the technology has improved somewhat).

    Again, I give it 10 years for reasonable penetration of the high/mid end of the market (not every set, but a fair number, the way there is a fair number of HDTVs out there now).

  • PlugMonkey #56 3 years ago

    I suppose the thing with stereoscopic 3D is that is doesn't, and isn't trying to, create an impression of 'depth'. I'm not looking into a 3D world, as I am when I look around the real world, I'm looking at a flat plane that has things popping out of it. It's a cool effect, but it's a surreal and unnatural cool effect. I still don't think I'd want it applying to everything I watched and played, and I think when it comes to drawing you in to a virtual world, doing things to enhance your natural perception of depth and 3D would be more effective than applying an unnatural effect.

    Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. My money's still on stereoscopic 3D never becoming much more than a gimmick. It might become a gimmick in peoples' homes instead of just in the cinemas, but I can't see it becoming a standard format for home entertainment. I say this because I can't see it becoming the standard format for cinema entertainment either, where the technology is already in place and has been for years, but has never been much more than a gimmick.

    Head tracking parallax I can see becoming a video game staple. We'll meet up in 10 years and compare notes.

  • ZuluHero #57 3 years ago

    I'm looking at a flat plane that has things popping out of it..."

    That’s not right, all of the 3D films I’ve seen had stuff disappearing into the screen as well. It’s like the screen is in the mid-ground or the mid-point. In fact it usually creates the illusion that you are looking into a box.

    If that doesn't create depth then I don't know what does.

  • PlugMonkey #58 3 years ago

    Oh well, I know what I mean even if I have completely failed to convey it to anybody else.