Ultimate programming challenge? True 3-D games

[eric_ruck]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Perry Jr:

Simek: Er, technically, with one eye, your dad isn't seeing ANYTHING in 3D

---

 

 

I have very different vision in each eye, and don't see 3d well. His dad presumably used to have two eyes, and his brain is probably translating perspective into 3d.

 

It's actually pretty neat, I don't have too much trouble determining distance on biggish, distant objects but on escalators and stairs I basically need to guess where the treads are. Also I can figure out where a frisbee is I guess on account of its shape, but I cannot follow a baseball.

 

In my experience I can't see red/green or polarized 3d well, but the Vectrex 3d seems to actually work for me.

 

Eric

[Scott Stilphen]

Moycon: Thanks for that link. Did Jaws 3-D used polarized glasses? What about that Coke commercial- I'm almost positive it didn't use the red/blue method, and that article says that polarization method won't work with TV's...

 

Since the red/blue method doesn't work with color, I'm curious as to how Amiga's system was going to work, since the screenshots of their 3D games were in full color

 

Btw, the 3D in Robot Monster is terrible (to the point of almost no 3D effect)

[Atari-Jess]

I remember that there are Television shows that in one or two episodes it was in 3d and you had to buy the glasses in a store, it was NOT red and blue/green glasses.

[mos6507]

They used to sell an LCD shutter based goggle set for the Amiga. This is probably how all the 3D games were done, alternating frames like the Sega Master System.

[ubersaurus]

Arlington Heights is a silly place. Sheraton is nice though.

[Uncle Duke]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindfield:

In any event, it's possible to do this on the 2600. Imagine, for example, doing Commando, or Friday the 13th, or Riddle of the Sphynx, to add simulated depth-of-field

---

 

 

About the Friday the 13th, I know that was just an example but did they ever make a Friday the 13th game for 2600, or are you talking about the movie, or the NES game?

[Gunstar]

Actually, the red/blue glasses do work on T.V.'s I've created graphic art on my Atari 8-bit with them before, using only the colors red/blue/white and black or, using graphic mode 8 and taking advantage of it's artifacting red/blue. The trick is to know how to do the image separation well to produce images tht look deep in the picture and images that pop out, and a full range of 3d is possible too. Movies or games that use the red/blue technique and don't look very 3D just weren't done well, it's as simple as that. There are many ways to do 3d as I did a senior-sem project on it for my Art major. You can have two totally seperate images that are slightly off in perspective,(just like the two image you see looking out at the world because your two eyes are seperated and give a deifferent perspective creating stereo vision) and then you put a dot above or below each image, having seperated them the proper distance, and instruct the viewer to cross their eyes until the dots meet, then the pictures become one 3D image. It can also be done using liquid crystal glasses which flip between opaque and clear at a high rate of speed, and have two alternating images on the screen of slightly different perspectives which are in sync with the glasses and get a good 3D image that way (just such a product and several games were released on the Atari ST line of computers years ago). Then there is the 3D "magic" image that is done with computers that you look at out of focus and the 3d image appears, then there are the systems like Disney uses as stated above, and several others ways too. You can even trick your mind into percieving better 3D with modern polygon games by blocking one eyes vision and your mind compensates, assuming it is supposed to be seeing a 3D image and the illusion of depth is greater. It should be totally possible to do a game in 3d on the 2600 with the old-fashioned red/blue shades.

[slapdash]

Scott: I remember that Coke commercial -- it was during the Superbowl in 1987, 1988 or 1989. It required no glasses, but required movement in one direction, which it did fairly well. Most of the commercial wasn't in 3D (or it wasn't noticeable) but a couple bits were spectacular.

 

Ubersaurus: Arlington Heights is a silly place? How so?

[Scott Stilphen]

Are you sure about it not using glasses? I'd swear that I remember 12-packs having glasses...

[slapdash]

I'm not positive about it not using glasses, but I think that's right -- that's why it was shocking.

 

I know at least that they weren't red/blue or red/green. But I remember reading about the technology, and it wasn't via polarization either.

[Scott Stilphen]

Just saw this on the Atari HQ site. I knew there was another company working on 3D games, and Spectravision was it - with Vortex

 

Spectravision also was working on a game that had voice (pretty ambitious company plans)

[Kenshi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thomas Jentzsch:

I always thought you need complementary colors (like red and green) to get a nice B/W picture.

---

 

Well complimentary colors would give a broader sprectrum range, except that red and green aren't complimentary. They're primary colors, along with blue. The complimentary of red is cyan, green is magenta, and blue is yellow. Any combinations of these will yield a full color spectrum. It's to different eyes though, so I doubt it would look very normal still.

 

As for the 2600 displaying these graphics, I just don't see it happening. The resolution is far too low. You can't split the different colors a small enough distance. I would say you'd need about 640x480 or better to get a clean 3-D feel. Also, I don't think the Atari has the power to render depthamong its objects. You say just make the background 3-D. Well that might work although most games don't even have a background, and if they do, it's just stars or something simple.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenshi:

Well complimentary colors would give a broader sprectrum range, except that red and green aren't complimentary. They're primary colors, along with blue. The complimentary of red is cyan, green is magenta, and blue is yellow.

---

Oops, you're right. You never stop learning...

 

So red/blue and red/green are both not complimentary by the same amount and should work identical well, right?

[Kenshi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thomas Jentzsch:

Oops, you're right. You never stop learning...

 

So red/blue and red/green are both not complimentary by the same amount and should work identical well, right?

---

 

As far as I know, yes. Either combination would omit certain colors. I think any difference would be psychological.

[Scott Stilphen]

Update!

This info comes from Mr. Miller via Al Backiel, who recently interviewed him for DP. I asked Al to ask him about his 3D demo, and here's what he had to say:

 

“The (3-D demo) game was Checkers, my first Activision game, which was published in early 1980 without the 3D display. It just didn't work well enough on the 2600. As I recall, there were two main problems with using the red/blue glasses (anaglyph) on the 2600. The first is that the 2600 is only capable of 160 pixels of horizontal resolution. This didn't allow much precision in the horizontal offsets between left and right eye needed to position objects in 3D space. Secondly, television sets of that era didn't consistently render the colors. So the blues and reds in the display wouldn't exactly match the blue and red eye filters. On many sets, this caused a serious ghosting problem, in which each eye would still see a ghost of the other eye's image. I'm still extremely interested in the use of 3D display for interactive and passive entertainment. With today's computer and CRT technology, it is now possible for that to happen, if the user can accept wearing "shutter" glasses that momentarily alternatively block each eye. This needs to occur at a minimum rate of 70 or 80 times per second for the effect to be acceptable (in my opinion), which precludes it from happening on NTSC televisions.”

 

 

Makes me wonder what companies like Amiga and Spectravision did differently (if anything) to get around this problem....or if they were truly advertising vaporware.

[joeybastard]

Funny, as I'm reading this forum there is a commercial on TV for a PC add on called x3D world that makes 3D games, movies, etc. Here's the website if anybody is interested:

 

http://www.x3dworld.com

[Nukey Shay]

The colors of filtered 3D is not as important as the placement of objects. The point is, that you have a static image in black in the center. There is a blue outline for the eye that is filtered by the RED lens, and a red outline for the eye that is filtered by the BLUE lens. Therefore, you could just use lens colors that match colors produced by the screen. Since the image and the lens of the same color would cancel eachother out...the only thing to worry about would be image placement...to give them proper spacing to make the depth illusion work. This is where the 2600 would fail...since the spacing would need to be in the proper proportion to the static black image in the center.

 

With LCD shutter lenses, this spacing is not as critical...since there is NO static image. The screen is unique for each eye. It would still be difficult to create, since the hardware would have to pageflip between the two images (you would almost need 2 kernals)...as well as being timed in tune with the shutter lenses.

[Robert M]

They used to sell an LCD shutter based goggle set for the Amiga. This is probably how all the 3D games were done, alternating frames like the Sega Master System.

 

This is probably the best route for possible 3D games on the 2600. Someone needs to figure out how to connect the Sega 3D goggles or the Haitex 3D goggles for Amiga to the 2600.

 

Possibly through the second Joystick port since the Joystick ports can be programmed as outputs as well as inputs.

 

Man, this sounds fun. I need to locate a pair of 3D glasses.

[gulag picture radio]

The discussion of 3D gaming is very interesting to me. 3D has always been a hobby of mine, I've got the Sega 3D system along with the Amiga one (even an adaptor to use the amiga glasses on a PC). I think that the only feasible method on the 2600 would be the red and blue anaglyph, and I question how well it would work.

 

Polarized techniques only work with projected images on a polarized (lenticular) screen. Normally, one needs to use two cameras and two projectors for this method, but I actually have a 16mm film camera with a special lens and corresponding projector lens that let you do it all with one camera. Needless to say, this isn't something that can work in a video format.

 

There is the dark lens over one eye technique which has some small chance of working, but I really doubt it. That's a fake technique that emphasizes the separation of the foreground and background in a moving image. This has been used in several places on regular TV - Third Rock From the Sun did some elaborate dream sequences using this technique, and in Britain there was a Doctor Who 15min. special (called Dimensions in TIme I think) that also used this technique. Basically, you keep on-screen foreground motion going from left to right, and putting a dark lens over one eye makes it seem more "dimensional". You can actually try this with any TV show, especially travel programs - or you can just stick your camcorder out the window of your car to get suitable footage.

 

There is one more method that could work on the Atari. A couple years back, a company came out with paperboard glasses (much like the disposable polarized glasses you get at the movies), but the lenses were clear. They had an intersting effect. Objects that were red looked like they were behind objects that were green, and blue objects looked closest. It was all an optical illusion, but was surprisingly effective. I did an Amiga animation to experiment with the technique and strong primary colors worked well... something that the Atari could theoretically provide.

 

Now I just have to remember the name of company. It was called Cybershot or something similar.

[Godzilla]

I too am a big fan of 3d in the video game realm, and have a sms 3d set, and all the us and brazil sms 3d games, the vectrex 3d imager, the famicom 3d glasses, the fm towns marty 3d glasses, the amiga 3d glasses (with space spuds, awesome 3d game,) of course the virtual boy :-)

 

There are some other interesting things of note: saturn/psx contra:legacy of war came w/ red/blue glasses, and a 3d mode. There were color magazines (even an issue of egm,) that used certain color combinations that somehow became 3d with its special glasses even though there were no dual images.

 

Also, Elsa's Relevator (old tnt 2 card,) had it's own proprietary 3d glasses for the pc, very nice quality.

 

The amiga also drives the 'virtuality' arcade systems which have a 3d display.

 

By far the coolest to me, is the glasses that came with super nintendo 'jim power.' The game itself is normal, but it never stops scrolling. And these glasses somehow translate movement and color depth into actual 3d (brighter/faster moving is close to the screen, darker, slower moving goes deep into the screen,) snes jim power has lots of layers of parrallax and the 3d effect is quite amazing, even though it is only drawing one screen. Any well lit/well drawn 3d fps also looks amazing as long as you are moving. once you stop moving your character the effect lessens greatly. It looks amazing with Halo and Jaguar AVP for example.

 

I saw every 3d movie I've seen mentioned here in the theatres (excapt comin at ya,) and one I didnt see mentioned, my favorite 3D movie of all time, 'Star Chaser: The Legend of Orin' Still have a poster from the video release on my ceiling at home :-)

[ZylonBane]

Another interesting pseudo-3D technology is Chromatek. The glasses (which are, I'm guessing, a form of diffraction grating) cause reds to appear closer to you, and blues to appear farther away (with a smooth transition on the intermediate colors). A few years ago they were printed into the backs of boxes of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese as part of some promotion... Rug Rats movie, I think. You can also request free ones from the manufacturer.[/url]

[Trey]

I just don't see how this works with red/blue because they aren't complementary.

 

the concept is simple. your eyes see the same image at different viewpoints and your brain creates a single image with depth. so, if red is on the left eye, draw the left eye image in blue. now draw the red image for right eye. you don't see red with a red filter and blue with blue filter. your brain fuses the image and there you go.

 

i image you can use any 2 colors you want as long as you can see the other color through the one filter and not the same color through the same color filter. that made sense when i wrote it.

 

so, yes, you could do a 3d 2600 game by drawing red/blue images.

 

there are displays out now where you don't need and glasses at all to see a 3d image. they are called autoscopic displays and dti (http://www.dti3d.com) makes them (we have one a work).

 

the coolest is the volumetric 3d display (like the princess leia scene with R2D2) by acuality systems( http://www.actuality-systems.com/).

[Trey]

They used to sell an LCD shutter based goggle set for the Amiga. This is probably how all the 3D games were done, alternating frames like the Sega Master System.

 

This is probably the best route for possible 3D games on the 2600. Someone needs to figure out how to connect the Sega 3D goggles or the Haitex 3D goggles for Amiga to the 2600.

 

Possibly through the second Joystick port since the Joystick ports can be programmed as outputs as well as inputs.

 

Man, this sounds fun. I need to locate a pair of 3D glasses.

 

the problem with the lcd shutters is that you'll either need to double your refresh or half it. i think ntsc is 60Hz, so your talking 120Hz or 30Hz. and you also reduce vertical resolution by half. and since ntsc already sucks, half of suck is really suck. all of the lcd shutter stuff i've seen with ntsc look really bad.

[Godzilla]

The cromatix glasses are the ones I was referring to in that EGM mention. Has anyone else seen Star Chaser: The Legend of Orin, back when it was in 3D?

 

Anyone else had/used the Jim Power 3d glasses?

[ZylonBane]

the problem with the lcd shutters is that you'll either need to double your refresh or half it.  i think ntsc is 60Hz, so your talking 120Hz or 30Hz.  and you also reduce vertical resolution by half.

 

Good grief. It's impossible for a console to change the refresh rate of a TV set. What you can change is your frame rate. With shutter glasses, the left and right images are sent on alternate frames, so with NTSC you'd get a full scene every 30th of a second. This is the same frame rate interlaced NTSC runs at anyway, so it's obviously not an unacceptable drop. And what's this about halving the vertical rez? Each left/right image gets a frame all to itself, so why would you need to do that?