RoonilWazl
It was the first ever hockey game in 3D so I was just wondering how it was. Same as normal television? Or something so good that people should buy 3D TV's now?
BQ: Should hockey be in 3D at all?
Answer
I watched that game in 3D. My TV was manufactured in 2007 and is 3D ready. Before they stopped making them - I bought a Samsung 56" DLP rear projection TV in 2008, so I had a 3D ready TV for 2 years before getting any 3D content.
Eventually, I believe all newer TVs will all be 3D ready. And all 3D TVs double as great 2D sets.
The game in 3D was different than traditional 2D. In 2D your eyes never change focus. It's like looking at a painting. Your eyes move across the surface, but your focus is constant. In 3D you're focusing changes. Focusing on things close to you, focusing on things in the distant. When the puck goes in the air, you can judge where it's going to land - near or far. In 3D you really notice how the players appear vertical to the ice surface. Crowd shots were really good and they did show the crowd more than normal, which I wished they'd do in all their broadcasts. Game score graphics appeared to be on the TV screen surface, while the game itself appeared further back, inside the TV. In 3D, you're more aware of the surroundings. It's very much like being there, looking through a window, rather than staring at a moving picture. They showed more shots from ice level behind the glass and kept on them longer than what we're accustomed to in 2D broadcasts. I enjoyed it and really felt part of a live 3D experiment.
The 3D glasses the televisions use are active shutter glasses and as you may have noticed, the lenses are slightly tinted. That does effect the brightness a bit, but doesn't ruin the effect.
Should hockey be in 3D at all? 3D viewing even on a 3D ready TV will always be a choice. I've always been interested in 3D images, so I love it. Is 3D better than 2D? I really wouldn't say it's better. It's just deeper (pun intended). I'm sure other sports will look even better in 3D. The fact that hockey's ice surface is enclosed by boards and glass, limit the camera options in getting an unobstructed view. I'm not a football or basketball fan, but I can see how those sports would really shine in 3D, because the playing field is open.
Something so good that people should buy 3D TVs now? Depends on the individual. Right now, you can get more 3D content on blu ray than what is broadcast on TV (for me anyway). The majority of my viewing is 2D HD. But being 3D ready for those movies or occasional special events on TV right now is a nice option.
I watched that game in 3D. My TV was manufactured in 2007 and is 3D ready. Before they stopped making them - I bought a Samsung 56" DLP rear projection TV in 2008, so I had a 3D ready TV for 2 years before getting any 3D content.
Eventually, I believe all newer TVs will all be 3D ready. And all 3D TVs double as great 2D sets.
The game in 3D was different than traditional 2D. In 2D your eyes never change focus. It's like looking at a painting. Your eyes move across the surface, but your focus is constant. In 3D you're focusing changes. Focusing on things close to you, focusing on things in the distant. When the puck goes in the air, you can judge where it's going to land - near or far. In 3D you really notice how the players appear vertical to the ice surface. Crowd shots were really good and they did show the crowd more than normal, which I wished they'd do in all their broadcasts. Game score graphics appeared to be on the TV screen surface, while the game itself appeared further back, inside the TV. In 3D, you're more aware of the surroundings. It's very much like being there, looking through a window, rather than staring at a moving picture. They showed more shots from ice level behind the glass and kept on them longer than what we're accustomed to in 2D broadcasts. I enjoyed it and really felt part of a live 3D experiment.
The 3D glasses the televisions use are active shutter glasses and as you may have noticed, the lenses are slightly tinted. That does effect the brightness a bit, but doesn't ruin the effect.
Should hockey be in 3D at all? 3D viewing even on a 3D ready TV will always be a choice. I've always been interested in 3D images, so I love it. Is 3D better than 2D? I really wouldn't say it's better. It's just deeper (pun intended). I'm sure other sports will look even better in 3D. The fact that hockey's ice surface is enclosed by boards and glass, limit the camera options in getting an unobstructed view. I'm not a football or basketball fan, but I can see how those sports would really shine in 3D, because the playing field is open.
Something so good that people should buy 3D TVs now? Depends on the individual. Right now, you can get more 3D content on blu ray than what is broadcast on TV (for me anyway). The majority of my viewing is 2D HD. But being 3D ready for those movies or occasional special events on TV right now is a nice option.
3d games without 120hz monitor?
RobertL
Is it possible to play games in 3d with a standard 60hz hd monitor? If so, what software could I use to do this?
Answer
Games written to work with 3D Stereoscopic shutter glasses like nVidia's 3DVision will NOT work in 3D on a 60Hz monitor. Those require three things: a video card that supports 3DVision, the shutter glasses, and a monitor that can receive a 120Hz DVI or HDMI signal.
No way around it. That's how those games are written. If you don't have the right equipment, you are restricted to playing those games in regular 2D.
Games written to work with 3D Stereoscopic shutter glasses like nVidia's 3DVision will NOT work in 3D on a 60Hz monitor. Those require three things: a video card that supports 3DVision, the shutter glasses, and a monitor that can receive a 120Hz DVI or HDMI signal.
No way around it. That's how those games are written. If you don't have the right equipment, you are restricted to playing those games in regular 2D.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
0 comments:
Post a Comment