Meant to be Seen

Check out the latest Veritas et Visus 3rd Dimension Newsletter and share your thoughts. Was there a clear victor? Is MTBS dreaming in Technicolor, or is Jon Peddie too disconnected from stereoscopic 3D reality? A little of each or a black and white outcome? Share your thoughts!

Regards,
Neil

Where do we get it? I'd like to read what you are talking about.

Send an email to mark@veritasetvisus.com, and you will get a free copy of the entire newsletter.

Regards,
Neil

The article is up!

Read it here and post your thoughts.

Regards,
Neil

Great Discussion.

Neil you did a great job presenting the case for S3D especially with Gaming. I think Jon even agreed with you on gaming. I found his arguments against it weak (mainly small technilogical hurdles that are largely being taken care of).

However, I think Jon had good insight into television use. I believe good S3D television will come some day (hopefully soon). But I think Jon's was right in his attitude that it needs to be done correctly "make it work, without compromise or excuses, and make it affordable.
If the industry is too divided or if done poorly the initially small market share (and potential profit) won't come to light. If this happens I feel Jon is right it will scare away large players.

I don't like the name "S-3D". I prefer "S3D" because you can't search for a '-' on a web search engine. Personally, I would prefer an acronym with at least 4 letters because some forums don't allow to search for words with 3 letters.

I personally stand somewhere between Neil and Jon. Optimist but not too much. Pessimist but not too much.

I don't like the tone of Neil in the article called "The Last Word? I Don’t Think So". It's a bit too much of a direct attack on Jon Peddie. It's almost name calling and I find that a bit childish. I prefer the "Going Face to Face!" part.

You might find that counter intuitive but I find that sometimes, one weakness of Neil is that he is too much of a good talker. I have a tendency to get suspicious of people that are too convinced that their view is right and that try to convince me. An annoying example is the credit card company that phones me every few months and tries to sell me a credit card. It's just a credit card so there's not much to say but the salesman on the phone will go on and on with his speech without end if I don't cut him. I just hate it when he asks me why I don't want the credit card he's selling. Don't worry Neil, you're nowhere near as annoying as the credit card seller on the phone. I actually find it impressive to be able to come out with speeches on the fly like you do. That's a real talent.

I don't care if S3D is regarded as a gimmick or not as long as content is provided that I can watch on my S3D display. I like to watch my favorite TV shows every week. It would be great is some/all of them were available in both 2D and S3D versions some day.

Jon Peddie wrote:Synthesized stereovision has n-factorial compromises and the population of potential viewers have n-combinatorial physiological and experiential biases making the net result a set that never converges.

I like that quote.

Stereo gaming isn't cool because most games doesn't render correctly in stereo without tweaking?
Stereo gaming is stereo gaming, and it's cool by itself. How problematic is to force a game that is not designed to be played in stereo run in stereo is another different thing. It's just an absurd statement that mixes different things, like saying... "sitting isn't comfortable 'cos most chairs I've tried aren't comfortable". One thing is the act of sitting itself and other is how comfortable can a chair be. I don't know if anyone understand what I'm trying to explain. I'm trying to expose a line of argument that I've already seen in other ocassions but it's a subtle fallacy.

I don't like the name "S-3D". I prefer "S3D" because you can't search for a '-' on a web search engine. Personally, I would prefer an acronym with at least 4 letters because some forums don't allow to search for words with 3 letters.

I didn't know that. I wonder if the search engine would just drop the hyphen.

I don't like the tone of Neil in the article called "The Last Word? I Don’t Think So". It's a bit too much of a direct attack on Jon Peddie. It's almost name calling and I find that a bit childish. I prefer the "Going Face to Face!" part.

It wasn't an attack on Jon Peddie. What happened was his original piece went out in the 3rd Dimension newsletter. I responded on MTBS, and it was well received by Jon and Mark, so we decided to follow-up with the point/counter point thing. No name calling, I assure you!

You might find that counter intuitive but I find that sometimes, one weakness of Neil is that he is too much of a good talker. I have a tendency to get suspicious of people that are too convinced that their view is right and that try to convince me. An annoying example is the credit card company that phones me every few months and tries to sell me a credit card. It's just a credit card so there's not much to say but the salesman on the phone will go on and on with his speech without end if I don't cut him. I just hate it when he asks me why I don't want the credit card he's selling. Don't worry Neil, you're nowhere near as annoying as the credit card seller on the phone. I actually find it impressive to be able to come out with speeches on the fly like you do. That's a real talent.

If Jon and I were both talking about 3D cinema, we would be more alike than not. It's important to remember that when the answers were written, neither of us saw what the other had written. We were given the introductory comment, and away we went. When we saw each other's work, the only addition I made was talking about the gaming expectations when I had to respond to Jon.

In retrospect, it would have been good to talk about the challenges S-3D faces by not having direct game developer involvement. That would have been a good vice to discuss.

Thank you for complimenting my writing ability. I'm very grateful for a job that lets me use it from time to time.

Regards,
Neil

Neil wrote:In retrospect, it would have been good to talk about the challenges S-3D faces by not having direct game developer involvement. That would have been a good vice to discuss.

That will change. We already know of Blitz getting involved. In time, others will follow. Eventually, I see S3D as being another graphics option in games, like you can choose to use antialiasing or not.

Not having direct game developer involvement does worsen the end result in some cases (problems with blur, shadows, wrong depth).

Tril wrote:Eventually, I see S3D as being another graphics option in games

you mean like native support? that would be tricky since the list of outputs is just so immense- hmm if there was a standard list and "standard" that determined this, however what if a game excludes your solution? I kinda don't see the point unless we are talking about the olskool devices. What would be good though is if in the future games were tested in 3d using the latest IZ3d, Nvidia and DDD drivers to make sure everything is correct.

yuriythebest wrote:

Tril wrote:Eventually, I see S3D as being another graphics option in games

you mean like native support? that would be tricky since the list of outputs is just so immense- hmm if there was a standard list and "standard" that determined this, however what if a game excludes your solution? I kinda don't see the point unless we are talking about the olskool devices. What would be good though is if in the future games were tested in 3d using the latest IZ3d, Nvidia and DDD drivers to make sure everything is correct.

If the 3d outputs were defined in the actual graphic driver, then the game only needs to send two different views to the displaydriver. In that case the only need for support for different stereosolutions is on the displaydriver. Just a thought.

I have just read this exchange for the first time - what an interesting debate. And how wonderful how it now seems Neil and Peddie have become great friends. This technology is so plagued with misconceptions though. I also could not understand why s3d did not make it in the 50's. I thought there was only anaglyph glasses back then and that was the failure. It took andrew woods explaining to me how the films would often break, and the projectionists were lazy or not properly lining things up because of inexperience or lack of training perhaps - so audiences would get headaches quite frequently or the s3d quality would just be terrible after the third or 4th showing of the films and the stereo3d would no longer be in sync and the s3d effect would be gone. Basically the distribution channel for s3d 1950's movies was not idiot proof - and all the humans in between the studios and the theaters from the projectionists to the editors were breaking stuff - this goes to peddies points somewhat perhaps - there were was too much human interventions monkeywrenches messing up the machine back then. Today is so different according to andrew woods because we live in the digital world and a barney FIFE projectionist can't screw things up. From the stereo3d movie side I think andrew woods has nailed it and his discussions on that topic here in other threads on mtbs3d are a true credit to andrew wood's knowledge and experience with s3d movie history. House of Wax with vincent price in 1950s may have been great the first night, but by night 3 possibly the film had broke a couple times and the barney fife projectionist couldn't or wouldn't repair it properly - this understanding could help a lot of people understand why 1950's stereo3d was destined to failure. Today I can watch Bolt in 3D and the first showing and the last showing should be 100% identical. I think Neil gives him a good beating and sets him straight on many things and Neil is absolutely right, but one thing I will have to give Peddie credit for and why they both realize S3DGA is so important and shows Peddies great predictive powers at the time of this article. It seems many users over at the nvidia threads are very upset they have 200 dollar NVIDIA shutter glasses, a console, a dlp tv, and have just been told by andrew fear they cannot use thier nvidia glasses to play Han Tao. It does not make sense to have to own 2 sets of shutter glasses, one for your pc and another for your tv. Ideally - personally - I would just like to wear one set of glasses all day long - so I can watch my tv, my pc, my augmented reality s3d iphone, the s3d billboards that I expect to come, etc etc. May we all live in exciting times