PlayStation 3D: Performance Analysis

By Richard Leadbetter Published 2 July, 2010

E3 Killzone demo and 3D launch titles put through their paces.

Page 1 of 3

January's CES may have been the breakout event for 3DTV technology, but E3 was a similarly impressive showcase for the new format's gaming credentials. Nintendo 3DS will do more to make 3D a mainstream proposition than anything else to emerge from the games business this year, while at the elite, premium-priced end of the spectrum, PlayStation 3's full-on glasses-based stereoscopic 3D offering can only benefit from the additional exposure.

Sony says that over 15 million 3DTVs will filter into the market this year, and similar to the emergence of 1080p displays we can expect the high-end feature-set to slowly filter down to more affordable price points within 18 months to two years. The question is, how will the current-generation consoles - never designed for 3D - work with the new format?

Digital Foundry recently reported on Sony's presentation to game developers at GDC 2010 in our Making of PlayStation 3D article, describing how existing software either required extensive engine rewrites or compromised performance in order to sustain the creation of two individual images for each eye.

We'll be looking at Sony's existing 3D wares later on in this piece, but what of E3's showcase performance featuring Killzone 3 running in full-on stereoscopic 3D? Putting Guerrilla's game front and centre as the standard bearer for the new display format was a daring move from Sony. The message from the firm was clear: 3D is a priority and our best, most cutting-edge titles will support it. But how?

"When we initially talked to the Guerrilla guys - they're already at 30Hz, they're pushing the system as much as you can push it - they said, 'You want us to do what? You want us to push another entire frame?'" SCEE's Senior Group Director Mick Hocking told us during E3. "But as is the case with engineers, you challenge them to do something like that, put some other game in front of them that's in 3D and in a few weeks they've got it working. There are always ways and means."

The question of how Guerrilla Games has been able to support stereoscopic 3D with Killzone 3 - shaping up as one of the most technologically advanced titles ever created - is perhaps more directly answered when taking a closer look at the E3 3D showing. That footage is available for everyone to see - although the encoding quality is a bit rough, it's contained within the first segment of Sony's own four-part E3 conference vid available to download in HD from the PlayStation Store.

The presentation is intriguing. Obviously it's in 2D, and it appears that Sony has simply shown the perspective from one eye only. The footage suggests heavily that Guerrilla's major compromise with 3D Killzone was in resolution: this video runs at half the horizontal resolution of the 2D game, with the whole image (including HUD) scaled up using the PS3 hardware scaler. Rough encoding quality or not, that doesn't stop our analysis tools having at it as duplicate frames stick out like a sore thumb to our software regardless of image quality.

Sony's PSN presentation of the Killzone 3D demo at E3 seems to use the view of just one eye, so half of the frame-buffer then. This is still more than enough for an impromptu performance analysis of the pre-alpha gameplay.

Assuming that the half-resolution solution is in place and that it's not just an artefact of 3D-to-2D downscaling, this suggests that the biggest challenge facing Guerrilla is pixel throughput: there simply isn't the power there to render that full 1280x1470 framebuffer, certainly not in the current pre-alpha stage of development.

According to Sony's 3D team, the human eye is fine with the lower resolution so long as anti-aliasing is good, and here it's difficult for Guerrilla to improve matters: the Sony Technology Group's MLAA, as seen in LittleBigPlanet 2 and God of War 3, has been implemented. Based on first-hand experience of Killzone 3 from E3, the resolution drop is apparent but the extra dimension offered by the 3D experience certainly adds something valuable to the overall quality of the game. Aside from a somewhat "cardboard cut-out" style of look on explosions and the main view weapon, Killzone 3D is an impressive spectacle.

It is curious to note that processing two sets of geometry doesn't appear to have been a huge concern for Killzone 3, although some E3 attendees did point out more pop-in on the 3D version, suggesting that more aggressive LODs are in place. Sony has released 2D footage of Killzone 3, making a comparison seem tempting. However, based on our direct experience of the demo code at E3, the video available doesn't accurately represent the performance of the game and indeed often seems jerkier than the 3D version: 2D vs. 3D is something we'll have to leave until more mature code is available.

So are the compromises worth it? Based on what we've seen so far, there's no doubt whatsoever that in terms of basic image quality and frame-rates 2D is the way to go. But the difficulty Sony will have in marketing and that we will have in communicating the essence of the game is that 3D offers advantages that go way beyond image quality and do present a tangible advantage to gameplay: depth perception is something we take for granted in everyday life, but offers an extraordinary new dimension to video games and how we play them. In short, yes, it's worth it.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (51) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Zappa #1 2 years ago

    crysis 3d will be inferior to KZ3D :)

  • davisorle #2 2 years ago

    @Zappa

    If you say so then thats how it should be. Great point indeed.

    Richard, loved your article as mostly always. Always enjoy your DF articles and comparisons. Cant wait for the follow up you teased with in last sentence. Thank you and have a great weekend.

  • berelain #3 2 years ago

    @ Zappa

    thats the sort of insightful, thoughtful comments we need on here! Well done!

  • JeffGerstmann #4 2 years ago

    how about Samsungs 2d to 3d conversion?

  • fknetwork #5 2 years ago

    Good article which shows perfectly just how pointless 3D gaming really is, seriously, what is the point?

  • Dizzy #6 2 years ago

    >seriously, what is the point?

    To sell more junk/stuff/gizmos.
    Edited by 1 at 03/07/10 @ 09:03

  • Vasot #7 2 years ago

    3D + Stereoscopic glasses = FAIL

  • des #8 2 years ago

    1280x1470 ?????

  • fizzyfish #9 2 years ago

    Click on 'View these videos in HD' (or find them through Eurogamer Videos), then enable the 'Related Videos' panel, with the '+' button in the bottom right-hand corner of the viewer, to shrink/push the video over to the left. Now, the image is small enough for the two images to be closer together than your eyes, allowing you to relax your eyes, look 'through'/'behind' your screen, and see the stereoscopic effect for yourself.

    I'd like more videos/screenshots like these, please, for games that support 3D, but don't use them in articles: just keep them separate in Eurogamer Videos and the screenshot galleries, should people be curious and want to see them. If you will have any control over it, EG, swap the images around so the effect can be seen with the easier 'cross-eyes' method. kthx!

    *Edited because it sounded a bit like I wanted all screenshots to be stereoscopic. Nononono :)
    Edited by 2 at 03/07/10 @ 10:44

  • SilentNinja92 #10 2 years ago

    looking forward to 3D personally. If you read the other article linked it seems that 3D really adds a lot tpo the experience. Especially with raciing games.

    Its obvious that 3D will become a major part of gaming. 3D tvs are being introduced and when they come down to acceptable prices we'll see many more people adopting them.

  • Raznilof #11 2 years ago

    [link url=http:/ /science.slashdot.org/story/10/06/26/2059205/3D-Displays-May -Be-Hazardous-To-Young-Children?from=rss
    ]http://sc ience.slashdot.org/story/10/06/...[/link]
    If any of that is true, I think I might skip on 3d for a while. My eyes are bad enough as they are : )

    Then again, I watched Avatar completely mesmerized, didn't need a story at all, though Cameron is and always has been a fantastic film-storyteller.

    Personally, I would have preferred a focus on full 1080p rather than worse performing (sub)720p with less detail and/or more jaggies. This generation simply doesn't seem fast enough to do 3d properly.

    Having said that...Rage runs at 60fps, Crysis 2 looks gorgeous, especially if those movies indeed where running on a 360 console (ps3 is sure to look as mouthwatering).

    It's really fantastic how this generation is being pushed to such extremes. I really became so tired having to essentially buy a new PC every two or three years (or pay four times what a console costs every four years) just to keep up with screen shots.

    Happy I converted to console, awesome to see it's still developing.

    And thanks again Mr. Leadbetter, I love these articles of yours.

  • ianegg #12 2 years ago

    Speaking as someone who has been into stereoscopic photography for years and has been pining for proper "3D" gaming since long before it was announced, all I have to say is that if you genuinely don't get it then you're thick. Severe lack of imagination or just pure stupidity.

    Yes, having to wear glasses is a pain - especially when all but the best (lcd shutters) impact the image quality pretty badly - and yes, it's all being pushed out prematurely just to sell more shit (which could potentially put people off in the long term...) but COME ON! The potential for immersion, new gameplay elements, increased accuracy (judging distance more naturally) and just pure fun is enormous.

    Unfortunately it's probably going to take several years for the technology to mature enough for my vindication.


    Richard - could you please please please switch the left- and right-eye images around so we can view the videos with cross-eye technique? (Or, since that kind of conflicts with the framerate graph, just post some clean stereoscopic videos.)

  • NeoKenzi #13 2 years ago

    It will be interesting to see this... Personally, I'm looking forward to Gran Turismo 5 in both normal and 3D. I just need to find at least £1500 for a 3D TV...

  • MeBrains #14 2 years ago

    @fknetwork: i have the impression you have not understood anything from the article.

    Richard says on page one: "In short, yes, it's (3D and its implications, ed) worth it."

    so again: keep on pushing, developing, fine-tuning 3D. I'll buy a set in a few years time. We need to have companies with innovative approaches and the money to develop it.

  • fknetwork #15 2 years ago

    @MeBrains
    I understand it perfectly thanks and have also seen it in full action (games and movies) and i'm still not impressed at all, until glasses are no longer needed 3D in the home will not be the success Sony want it to be, have you seen the recent poll from Japan where over 70% are not planning to get 3D TV's any time soon?

    Give me nice looking smooth running 2D games over 3D anyday, and who on earth is going to buy a 3D tv when there are no 3D tv channels even out yet lol, your buying a 1st gen 3d tv for a few 3d games and a few 3d movies? wow.....


    One thing I am looking forward to though, when 3D TV prices start falling later this year I will be able to get a superb non 3D set for a very good price, I know i'm not alone in this (I know loads of people planning to do the same), get a superb non 3d tv for a very good price instead of a first generation "guinea pig" 3D tv.

    I already have a nice non 3d HDTV but would like a better spec one which will last me a good 5 years. i'm not getting sucked into all this 3D sh*t, not a chance.....
    Edited by 2 at 03/07/10 @ 11:04

  • Nebula #16 2 years ago

    Raznilof wrote: **Personally, I would have preferred a focus on full 1080p rather than worse performing (sub)720p with less detail and/or more jaggies. This generation simply doesn't seem fast enough to do 3d properly.

    Having said that...Rage runs at 60fps, Crysis 2 looks gorgeous, especially if those movies indeed where running on a 360 console (ps3 is sure to look as mouthwatering).

    It's really fantastic how this generation is being pushed to such extremes. I really became so tired having to essentially buy a new PC every two or three years (or pay four times what a console costs every four years) just to keep up with screen shots.**


    You uppgrade PCs to up visual settings and resolution etc which ends up far beyond console versions. As you said " I would have preferred a focus on full 1080p rather than worse performing (sub)720p with less detail and/or more jaggies" you wouldn't have to say on PC platform.

    Anyway since mid 2006 the 8800GTX and E6600 dual-core has been out. System parts that runs games at higher and far more detail than consoles could ever do since 2006 to this date and will for the rest of this gen simply becouse it is several times faster than any of the consoles!

    Today that would be a 4 year old system.

    Edited by 1 at 03/07/10 @ 11:03

  • TRUTH #17 2 years ago

    Experienced Wipeout in 3D in a demo pod in a store. I wasn't overly impressed as I thought I be. The reason it has tint to it when the glasses are on. Also it felt a little slower...But the 3D effect was more as if you where looking into the screen deeper, rather then it coming out from the sceen. It felt a bit wierd and artificial for some reason. Also I noticed if people are around watching the screen, they will have to watch a blurred screen - not good if having a gaming party!

  • Arwin #18 2 years ago

    @trebell: 3D TV has no negative impact on strabismus. First of all, most strabismus is in fact a physical condition that indeed needs to be corrected either with glasses/lenses or surgery. The subsection of strabismus that exists because of lack of training or some other slowing factor sooner benefits from 3D games than the reverse - because the 3D requires both eyes to give input to be able to see it, and you actually see something different with both eyes (depth) as well as more information (frames) your brain is stimulated to read information from both of your eyes.

    This is the exact opposite from reading from 2D surfaces or a small screen like your iPhone. Often you'll start using just one eye and particularly if one eye is weaker your brain will start favoring the stronger eye, and you'll put the book/small screen into the view of the better eye only. On the other hand, following cars even over a larger 2D widescreen helps train your eyes for the better, because both your eyes will be attracted to following the objects over a larger surface (only in very rare cases will you start moving your head rather than just taking in the full view using both eyes).

    The slashdot article is a scandal. If you read some of the articles in the links it contains even, you'll see that almost everything in the links contradicts the article, which is journalism of the worst kind.

  • MeBrains #19 2 years ago

    @fknetwork: I do understand your points. I will not buy the tech anytime soon, like I mentioned in other threads, but I do heavily support innovation and Sony is good at that unlike certain other companies.

    I initially reacted to "this article demonstrates just how pointless 3D is". If anything, this article demonstrates that 3D gives a lot of addage to the gaming experience, making your initial reply to the article one which shows incomprehensive reading skills.

    Look, I am not at all trying to support the idea that 3D will be a guaranteed success. The thought of having to wear glasses "frightens" me as well. I do support the technology and its baby steps into consumer appliances. We would still be watching VHS tapes, listening to music on magnetics and watching telly on B&W CRT tv's if all of us would STOP supporting innovation.

    Strange how posts like mine get negative karma, while posts like yours get positive ones. I do not understand some of you... ... ... lol

  • GooseUK #20 2 years ago

    A few new concerns: Does this mean that Killzone 2 has been visually (and in gameplay terms) compromised to ensure that the 3D will be good? And secondly, "Tearing is localised to the left eye", does this mean my left eye is gonna be going through a lot of pain while i play these 3D games, surely tearing in one eye but not the other is going to be very obvious?

  • IneptPercy #21 2 years ago

    I just read that as 'current consoles not powerful enough to do 3D' but on the flip side this needs to happen so it does work properly next gen.

  • riceNpea #22 2 years ago

    3D? pah! i want smell-o-vision! i want to smell the cordite as i fire my weapon and the stench of iron rich blood as i sink my knife into someone kidneys in COD.

  • Scrumhalf #23 2 years ago

    Having played all the current 3D titles available to download on PS3 I am actually very impressed with what is there - I would admit that it will always be quite niche (at least for a while) and will not replace all gaming it certainly has its place. I wear glasses normally and have the Panasonic VT20 (admittedly more for the THX 1080p panel than 3D but never harms to future proof) which uses Active Shutter glasses.

    Super Stardust is the cream of the crop and looks fantastic - I now prefer to play in 720p 3D than 1080p HD it just has a better feeling. Wipeout HD is very impressive - I think the comment of it having a tint is more to do with the TV setup than the game. Motorstorm in 3D is really quite fun and does add something different.

    I was not completely convinced before playing them for myself and in my own living room but I am now a convert - although I see it as another option rather than the default for playing all games.

  • fknetwork #24 2 years ago

    "MeBrains - Strange how posts like mine get negative karma, while posts like yours get positive ones. I do not understand some of you... ... ... lol"


    Maybe because you come across as a right twat in your posts, just a guess.....

  • MeBrains #25 2 years ago

    @fk: Maybe because you come across as a right twat in your posts, just a guess.....

    a what twat?

    as far as I understand your sentence, you'd be correct indeed!

    ...

    I suppose.

  • fknetwork #26 2 years ago

    @ MeBrains
    I rest my case....

  • knightmt #27 2 years ago

    I really do not understand the glasses antithesis unless it is about price. It is not like they are putting a wetsuit on, or people are really concerned how they look when watching tv or maybe they are?

    I am a bit worried that it is a fad, but in that case I am still going to wait for a 32 inch 3d tv.

  • GamesConnoisseur #28 2 years ago

    Swimsuits is a different thing, as you are often committed to do a watersport activity not just a short burst but as a big part of your day/hobby. I went Scuba Diving training and did a dive in the Carribean some years ago.

    3D glasses is something you have to put up with and may not require a big adjustment for some people, ie putting on a reading glasses to read a book.

    Still, if you pause TV to answer the door, you will take it off or looks a plonker. There will be more often occasions of you taking off/putting on ie changing channels. So its could become a nusiance in that way.

    I would respect more the opinions of those who actuallys uses 3DTV and they knows what its really like, rather than what I or other non 3DTV owners imagine the situation to be.

  • Arwin #29 2 years ago

    @trebell: current 3D TVs with active shutter glasses display the image for each eye one after the other. The glasses basically are LCD tvs that switch a single pixel on or off alternatively for each eye. This means that the TV shows an image for the left eye first, and the glasses block the right eye from seeing this image. Then the TV shows the image for the right eye, and the glasses prevent the left eye from seeing it.

    To see a proper 3D image, your eyes each see the same thing from a slightly different angle at the same time. Your brain takes information from both eyes to determine the distance from your eyes to whatever you are looking at (if available it also takes parallax movement information). As this is only possible using information from both eyes, your weaker eye becomes more important than when you are looking at a 2D image.

  • ChocNut #30 2 years ago

    Like VR this tech is being pushed out too soon and will fail.

    Don't come crying to me later Sony. Warned you I did! They should have focused on new games or psp2.
    Edited by 1 at 03/07/10 @ 19:33

  • filreed #31 2 years ago

    @fizzyfish, was just doing the same. It's great to see what the 3D looks like without glasses.

    Digitalfoundry please do more split videos like this. Gives us a chance to experience 3D at the computer.

  • whoslotte #32 2 years ago

    Problem here is that we've had shutter 3d tech for over a decade and it's never seriously taken off. I remember playing Quake2 with shutters in 3D and it made the aiming much harder. I fail to see how this 'new' 3d push is going to be any better. It's expensive, has possible health implications, and for most games reduces visual fidelity. Sure, used in the right place and in e right context 3D is awesome, but for mainstream gaming I fail to see how it's going to be anything other than a sideshow. The cynical part of me thinks this is just Sony pushing consumers to upgrade again... Now that everyone has finally bought a flatscreen TV they are being encouraged to think it's not good enough and to buy another new TV.

    Maybe next generation the quality sacrifice will be small enough to make 3D serious, for for current hardware it feels like a step too far. Expensive TVs and silly glasses don't make the non-enthusiast happy. I just don't see this tech going anywhere interesting outside of the niche AV nerd gamer community.

  • Miths #33 2 years ago

    @filreed

    Buy a cheap pair of red/cyan 3D glasses and head over to YouTube and Flickr. There's a ton of anaglyph videos and photos out there, quite a few of them with impressive 3D depth - although of course also with the severe flaws that come with anaglyph 3D, most notably horribly inaccurate color reproduction and (something many of the better 3D photos and videos do manage to avoid) heavy crosstalk (or "retinal rivalry" as I've seen it called in most slightly older articles about anaglyph 3D).

    YouTube actually has a 3D video player that allows you to choose from a bunch of different 3D methods. If you're using red/cyan glasses I recommended picking the "optimized" version, which eliminates crosstalk almost entirely for most videos, albeit at the cost of eliminating red from the displayed color spectrum, but as mentioned, no matter what you do color reproduction is always going to be horrible with anaglyph 3D.

    Here's my favourite YouTube 3D movie. It's a eight minute HD animation film with really impressive depth in many scenes.
    http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjJeYfAw...

  • DrDamn #34 2 years ago

    @GamesConnoisseur
    It's not exactly a huge leap from a headset for comms online or a pair of headphones when you need to keep the noise down is it? It's not something I'd want to use all the time, but not all game will or even should support it.
    Edited by 1 at 03/07/10 @ 21:58

  • freakzilla #35 2 years ago

    Imagine all th optimising that could be done in the time it takes to implement 3D.

  • Arwin #36 2 years ago

    @freakzilla: you mean the optimisation in Super Stardust HD for 3D that resulted in the 2D game being optimised as well to run in full 1920x1080 at 60fps even in split screen mode? ;) You're making this an either/or proposition, whereas in reality a lot of the optimisation is actually benefitting both.

    What I also find interesting is that when games target 3D, they are now generally better off targeting 60fps for 2D ... this makes supporting 3D (30fps per eye) a lot easier. I wonder if this will mean we're getting more 60fps titles in 2D. Infamous 2 for instance is apparently now targeting 60fps as well.
    Edited by 1 at 04/07/10 @ 09:21

  • lockload #37 2 years ago

    Killzone 2 barely ran at 720p 30fps so it will never be stellar in 3d simple

    The currrent consoles are are not powerful enough

    Its funny how originally sonys message was 1080p gaming now its sub HD 3D

  • DrDamn #38 2 years ago

    @lockload
    Not powerful enough for the current tv standard sure, but you will always sacrifice something for 3D in any generation. Maybe it will get less notable as generations progress. So next gen the 2D will get better and the 3D will still be a cut down version of that. The question is more about worth, and that will depend on preference. The conclusion of the article is that in the authors opinion it is, even this generation.

  • Arwin #39 2 years ago

    The point is 3D is only visible if your eyes work together. But with shutter-glasses your brain has even more to gain from your eyes working together because each eye basically gets half of the normal information every other frame and sees nothing the other half. Note that 'your eyes working together' is nothing inherent to each individual eye, but instead on how your brain controls them and combines information from them. That this develops out of sync can happen when one of the two eyes gives worse information is typically because of a physical defect which makes the information harder for the brain to integrate. However, once that defect is fixed your brain still needs to retrain. Racing games are apparently the most suitable for such retraining.

    And yeah, definitely talk to your surgeon. (Make sure he knows the details of shutter glass tech)

  • Arwin #40 2 years ago

    By the way didn't DF state that Killzone 3D is even only 360p per eye at this point, though with good AA?

  • DVR #41 2 years ago

    My wife is a paediatrician and I asked her about the the effects of 3D glasses technology on strabismus. If the glasses are showing the images for each eye independently she says this is exacerbating the problem, in fact she tells me that the technique used in the glasses, is exactly comparable to one of the tests, (the alternate cover test) used to identify the condition in kids.

    *edit changed wording*
    Edited by 2 at 04/07/10 @ 16:36

  • Ryze #42 2 years ago

    Standard '3D TV' thread cut/paste comment:

    Most people aren't taking into account that the next consoles will need to have monster GPUs to render 1080p/60 3D. If Sony / Microsoft aim for this, then there'll be little chance of them taking a 'Wii-like' technology sidestep to save costs.

    3D works best when V-sync'd, so this BODES VERY WELL for 2D framerates and elimination / minimising of tearing in the next gen, for those who DON'T upgrade their TV sets.

    It'll be near impossible to create a game that simply doesn't work for those without 3D displays, so calm the nonsensical hate, children. Even larger 2D panels will get cheaper, so it's a win/win.

    We'll all benefit from the push to 3D.

  • Widge #43 2 years ago

    Quite. I mean look at the SuperStardust 2D performance boost from 3D optimising.

  • Widge #44 2 years ago

    Oh and interesting point, I'd assume the PS3 would be compatible with any range of glasses free 3DTV that comes on the market? All bases covered and putting in the effort to get games tech up to scratch?

  • Arwin #45 2 years ago

    @DVR: really? I mean, that the test shows the existing problem, doesn't that mean that the end goal of therapy is being able to combine those two images? Because then I don't understand how this can make the problem worse. But maybe I'm wrong, I'm very interested to know. I have this condition to small extent by the way because of a misdiagnosis by a paediatrician from when I was a toddler (they thought my eye was damaged when it just needed cylindrical and focal correction), and wearing lenses (more than glasses) restored my left eye's vision from something around 60% to 90% in about half a year. I also always have to force eye-testers at shops for glasses to prescribe me the exact same strength, because they either don't know or don't care that if you over-prescribe, your eyesight gets worse much faster than when you slightly under-prescribe. Unfortunately my eyes have started to reject lenses so that my left eye is getting worse again, in particular because I've been looking at my iPhone's tiny screen too much.

  • Widge #46 2 years ago

    Nasty : (

  • DVR #47 2 years ago

    @Arwin: The test used to identify the condition is designed to make the condition worse in order to see it more clearly. The point is that the test is an antagoniser of the condition, hence making it easier to diagnose. The treatment is, as Trebell says, to try to get both eyes to work to the same level. Obviously once identified the paediatrician then refers the patient to the opthamologist and orthoptist.

    Ultimately any technique, (including 3d effects using the technology found in the current glasses/tv sets) which uncouples binocular vision, is going to make strabismus worse.

  • Arwin #48 2 years ago

    @DVR: I still don't understand how it decouples binocular vision. Your eyes still need to look at the same point in space, you still need the same muscle control and so forth, and you need the same brain processing to combine the information from both eyes ...

  • DVR #49 2 years ago

    Arwin, if that were the case then the condition would fix itself just by looking at things in everyday life. In reality the brain will naturally favour the stronger eye, even in people without strab. When someone does have strab, the tendency for the brain to favour the good eye can become so pronounced that it will stop taking any input at all from the weak eye, rendering the person blind in that eye. What the glasses do by rapidly flicking between images, is to purposely fool the brain by decoupling binocular vision, into thinking that a 2 dimensional surface has 3 dimensions. It doesn't matter that you are asking the person to look at the same spot in space, the decoupling is achieved by the two images being presented in rapid succession. In someone who doesn't suffer from strab, they will see a pseudo-three dimensional image, in someone who does suffer, they will not see the effect, but it will make the condition worse instead.

  • Arwin #50 2 years ago

    @DVR: I've only recently looked into this condition, but that's not a complete picture as far as I understand it, and it still doesn't make sense either. First of all, the kind of strabismus you're describing is only one type. For instance, the one trebell is suffering from doesn't favor one eye - he sees two disparate images, so both his eyes work, but he can't get them to focus on the same object. If one of his eyes would become dominant, he would see only the one image.

    Also, the process that you describe where the brain starts favoring just the one eye and starts ignoring the other. This is done by the brain to 'solve' double-vision. The double-vision however always has a physical cause, as in trebells case very likely a heriditary muscle-eye problem, and I'm assuming that his surgery has been to attempt to fix the muscles (which is very hard, I understand, considering the kind of precision involved). This can cause a 'lazy eye' (which is something separate from strabismus, but is a potential side effect)

    The thing is, every paper I read on what the best way to correct a lazy eye is by retraining the brain and to some extent the eye muscles, once physical issues have been corrected with surgery, glasses or whatever, is to present the eyes with situations where both eyes get information. One way to do this is to follow moving objects in the distance across the full field of view of both eyes combined, and apparently doing so mostly in the field of view of the weaker eye works even better.

    Watching a 3D image with a sufficient framerate (remember we're talking 60 frames per eye per second! this is not identical to the actual framerate of the game, which in this case is almost irrelevant even if we assume it's much lower because in this case for all we care the camera or anithing it's looking at could not move at all for an hour, but it'd still be a 3D image) presents a 3D image to the brain, because the brain doesn't see an image swtich on/off 60 times per second: it retains the information of what it has seen when it suddenly sees nothing, and 60fps per eye basically means a continuous image. There is nothing 'pseudo' about this 3D image either.

    So in a sense, yes, the condition can fix itself by looking at things in every day life. The most important vision therapy for this condition (again, once physical problems have been sufficiently dealt with) involves almost always tracking exercises, which can have a remarkable effect within weeks.

    @trebell: your condition is even more special, because apart from potential eye-muscle problems, in your case your brain doesn't seem to want to favor one eye, despite having plenty of cause to do so. Have you had any kind of treatment involving an eyepatch on one of your two eyes? Your condition seems at least in part neurological and heriditary - if so, you may be better off finding people who do research in this area. Certainly in your case the rise of 3D is helpful at the very least in that it will surely quickly increase knowledge (and research funding) on how the human visual perception system works, how it can be fooled, trained, etc.

  • m0thr4 #51 2 years ago

    @Arwin The slashdot article is a scandal. If you read some of the articles in the links it contains even, you'll see that almost everything in the links contradicts the article, which is journalism of the worst kind.

    Except, perhaps, the main link, which is what the Slashdot article is really referring to, of which I quote:


    What happened to 3D Virtual Reality?
    Do you remember in the mid-90s when virtual reality headsets were going to be the next big thing? Do you wonder why the whole technology just sort of… went away?

    VR pioneer Mark Pesce has spilled the goods. Audioholics was able to contact Mr. Pesce via Twitter where he answered a few questions for us regarding his work with Sega and the mysterious disappearance of its VR project.

    Over 15 years ago, Mark Pesce worked with Sega on its VR Headset, which was intended to plug into the Sega set-top-box. The headset was going to provide gamers with a virtual reality 3D environment. Of course Sega wasn’t the only one developing a VR headset at the time, and we all expected to be running around in 3D environments when graphics evolved beyond chunky wireframes of the early VR visuals. We thought the technology was just around the corner.

    With a working VR Headset almost ready for market, Sega had the product tested by a third party lab, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) at Palo Alto California - the results weren’t pretty.

    The lab at Stanford came back to Sega with dire warnings about the hazards of prolonged use of this technology. SRI warned Sega: “You Cannot Give This To Kids!”

    Pesce says that Sega took the test results and buried them. Fearing lawsuits and consumer backlash over health risks, the VR Headset never made it to market and neither did the truth about the dangers of prolonged exposure to 3D virtual environments - until now.

    The results of SRI’s research have been published and there is an unclassified document from the defense department of Australia that says there are a variety of “…unintended psychophysiological side effects of participation in (3D) virtual environments.”

    VR Headsets disappeared amid vague rumors of headaches and poor implementation of a technology just wasn’t ready. The Consumer Electronics industry was content to leave it at that and wait for a new implementation of the same visual effects. Now, virtual reality is back but instead of a headset, the same visual effect is being sold through LCD monitors and glasses.

    [[link url=http://www.audioholics.com/ news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health/]]http://ww w.audioholics.com/news/editoria...[/link]