Will Someone Please Get S-3D Right?

So, I'm excited about 3D gaming. I really am, I just wish someone could get it right. With three little kids the wife and I don't get out much, but last Christmas we finally made it out to see our first 3D movie (we saw two in fact). I was hooked. The effects in Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader were subtle and well done, and I felt the 3D effects in Tron Legacy really added to the experience.

In March, AMD came to visit and brought with them a PC set up for 3D gaming, based on their HD3D initiative and the Tri-Def DDD software. I had already played around with Stereoscopic 3D (S-3D) gaming a bit on my HDTV with my PS3 and a trial version of the Tri-Def software on my PC. In general I liked S-3D, but found it inconsistent and not on par with my movie going experience. The best titles were those on the PS3, which had been designed or updated by the original devs to support S-3D. I also found myself getting eye fatigue (and on occasion, bad headaches) from my play sessions. This was something I hadn't experienced in the movie theatre.

In subsequent testing I found that the eye fatigue lessened, but that headaches were a possibility - particularly if I played on the PC at 1080p @ 24Hz. The flickering was quite noticeable, and I got a massive headache in testing out the HD3D in Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

In parallel to my playing with S-3D on my HDTV, I picked up a Nintendo 3DS. I figured that it would be pretty cool (and provide a better experience over the active glasses), and it would give me a point of reference when talking about S-3D on the site. I figured far more people would own a 3DS than a 3D TV, or would have played with one at a GameStop or Best Buy. So, if I made a comparison to the 3D quality of a PC title, and used the 3DS as a reference, it would be relevant to a fairly broad audience.

However, my time with the 3DS was less than satisfactory. While Nintendo put out a warning regarding the usage of the 3D feature in kids under age six, the focal length for the 3D feature seems to have been set for a six year old's arm length. My biggest problem was that at my adult male arm length, I couldn't easily hit the "sweet spot" for the glasses-free 3D. My issue wasn't with a left-right title, but with a forward-backward pitch. To perceive the S-3D effect I had to pull my hands in and hold the unit closer to my face. No resting my hands on my knees or on a table. I found myself choosing comfort over 3D and rarely used the 3D effect. So, the 3DS made it's way to eBay...

And, I have another issue with both the 3DS and my Samsung 3D HDTV. Why in the world do they make the screens glossy? If my brain is trying to process two distinct images and create a stereoscopic 3D image, why would you implement a high-gloss screen that throws a third image (the reflection of the room lights and objects) into that process. I often found myself adjusting position to remove the glare from my field of vision. This was often impossible with the 3DS which I played while out in public. It's simply impossible to avoid glare in a brightly lit department store or doctor's office.

So, I now feel cheated by the 3D experience I've been "sold" for home use, compared to what I've experienced in the theatres. I recently saw this article comparing Active and Passive TVs from DisplayMate. Looks like the hype around active 3D being superior is just that - a bunch of hype. While Googling a picture of the red/blue 3D glasses, I also stumbled across this article from PC World. They too pick passive S-3D as the winner.

Seeing these two opinions really makes me happy that I never bought into the NVIDIA 3D ecosystem, which is hinged on particular 120Hz monitors and active glasses. Now, I have no doubt that those viewing experiences at 1080p @ 60Hz are much better than 720 @ 60Hz or 1080p @ 24Hz, but the consensus seems to be leaning towards passive S-3D. I wonder why most TV manufacturers pushed so hard with active glasses? Was it so they could try and sell glasses (that no one wanted, or bought) at a high mark-up? Many industry analysts have talked about the slow adoption of 3D in the HDTV space. Sure, basically every TV sold now has 3D built-in, but people aren't buying the glasses or 3D Blu-Ray in corresponding numbers. Maybe had they decided to go with the "open source" passive glasses, and not the expensive and proprietary active glasses, the market as a whole would have grown and everyone would have benefited. This is another instance where lack of consumer-oriented standards balkanized the industry and drove slower growth.

I am hopeful about my future S-3D gaming experience, and I'm hopeful that the upcoming Vizio 21:9 Cinemawide display will fix most of the issues with my experience. The Vizio display uses passive 3D glasses, so that should eliminate the biggest issues (eye fatigue and headaches), which actually prevent me from partaking in the S-3D experience. PC-oriented connections like DL-DVI or DisplayPort are required to view S-3D at 60Hz (at the native res), so some viewing options will still be limited. However, even if the 3D gaming doesn't pan out, there is still gaming at a 21:9 aspect ratio and a 2560x1080 resolution.

And this is where I see the strength of the AMD HD3D and passive 3D ecosystems. Both features are available at no additional cost, if you want to use them. And, if you don't want to use them, they don't cost you anything extra. Current AMD Radeon cards support HD3D. If you have a compatible TV (i.e., any HDTV or display with HDMI 1.4a), then the feature is open to you. On a TV such as the Vizio, you can take home a few extra pairs of 3D glasses from your local movie theatre, and give it a whirl. If you don't like it, you're not out the extra money for a family pack of active glasses.

At this point, with so many variables (some of which impact the basic usability of S-3D), I can't see investing in a specific technology for Stereoscopic-3D gaming. Once the market matures and the technology improves, investing in a unique and specific ecosystem may make sense. However, today I'll stick with the solutions (AMD HD3D and passive glasses) that provide S-3D as an additional feature/benefit, not their core selling point.