3D in games? - The Bear and Badger

LtPidgeon

I'm considering purchasing a new tv, and was just wondering what the current state of 3D in current gen games is like. I know the PS3 can do 3D, does the 360? This will set me up nicely for the next gen at Christmas. I'm looking at the Sony KDL-40W905A, does anyone have one of these, and if so, how is it?

Woodimari

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/ is where I checked up on a lot of TV's before I bought mine. Great site.

As for games I haven't tried any out properly yet but my tv can add a 3D effect to anything, not as good as a game with 3D available though.

LtPidgeon

The 55" model gets an excellent review on that site, which is good.

Are there many games that run in 3D?

Mod74

Not afaik.

See also
http://gizmodo.com/3dtv-is-officially-never-going-to-happen-512905205

Verecocha

Few of us on here have 3DTV, there's a thread somewhere. Some good games on both consoles. PS3 has Uncharted 3, Wipeout and GT7 that Ive played and enjoyed in 3D, the 360 Ive played Crysis 1,2 and 3, Gears 3, Halo Anniversary, and Barman Arkham City, they all looked and played pretty good in 3D, CoD: Black Ops also played and was quite good in 3D.

LtPidgeon

Mod74 wrote:

Not afaik. See also http://gizmodo.com/3dtv-is-officially-never-going-to-happen-512905205

I'm not fussed about normal tv or sports in 3D. Movies and games will do me fine.

LtPidgeon

Verecocha wrote:

Few of us on here have 3DTV, there's a thread somewhere. Some good games on both consoles. PS3 has Uncharted 3, Wipeout and GT7 that Ive played and enjoyed in 3D, the 360 Ive played Crysis 1,2 and 3, Gears 3, Halo Anniversary, and Barman Arkham City, they all looked and played pretty good in 3D, CoD: Black Ops also played and was quite good in 3D.

I had a search for the original thread but couldn't find it.

[Deleted User]

@Moto70 Is your man for this iirc

JMW

What's that, the new W9? I've got the W8, great TV and for a fair bit less than the 9 (about £700 on the 55") you get passive instead of active 3D, which although on paper is the budget option in practice is actually preferable imo.

You also don't get some new colour system, but the W8's is very good anyway.

Moto70

I'd go passive everyday of the week, the glasses are cheap enough that you can lend them to friends and they are 'always on' unlike active.

Gaming wise there isn't much, the PS3 seems to be sharper than the 360. Some of the games really benefit from the 3D (GT5, Uncharted 3, Wipeout HD is absolutely mind-blowingly good but I'm not a fan of the game), where it does come into it's own though is in some films (generally all the animated ones) with Despicable Me and Wreck It Ralph being the proper standout (no pun intended) titles, obviously Avatar still looks amazing and by all accounts the latest Star Trek is stunning though the release date keeps changing.

I wouldn't buy a TV just for 3D but I'd almost certainly get it if you are planning on getting a new TV and you watch a lot of BluRays (Sky 3D is OK but not a patch on a BluRay)...

LtPidgeon

JMW wrote:

What's that, the new W9? I've got the W8, great TV and for a fair bit less than the 9 (about £700 on the 55") you get passive instead of active 3D, which although on paper is the budget option in practice is actually preferable imo. You also don't get some new colour system, but the W8's is very good anyway.

Don't you only get full 1080p with active? It is the W9, but I'll have a look at the 8 if it is still available.

I paid £1500 for my V3200 a few years ago and never thought I would pay anything close to that again for another tv.

JMW

I'm not sure whether the actual resolution is different on those models, certainly wasn't clear from the specs. I prefer the lighter, non-powered, cheaper glasses and had a feeling I might have noticed the rapid on/off of the active. Considering 3D is very much the 'nice to have but not often on' part of the TV, the £700 saving was well worth it.

I think the W9 might be twice the refresh rate too, but coming from a 100hz it was a significant step up anyway. If you can, try them in a Sony Centre.

[Deleted User]

Good thing about 3D TVs is they have super high refresh rates too, so sport will look great even without actually using the 3D.

Moto70

JMW wrote:

I'm not sure whether the actual resolution is different on those models, certainly wasn't clear from the specs. I prefer the lighter, non-powered, cheaper glasses and had a feeling I might have noticed the rapid on/off of the active. Considering 3D is very much the 'nice to have but not often on' part of the TV, the £700 saving was well worth it. I think the W9 might be twice the refresh rate too, but coming from a 100hz it was a significant step up anyway. If you can, try them in a Sony Centre.

I have definitely noticed these things, I have seen flicker on both a Sony and a Samsung and I too noticed (or thought) that the passive image seemed brighter.

JMW

Yeah, my W8 is 400, which coming from 100 is a decent step up. The W9 is 800 ffs.

JMW

@moto - oddly, I was always under the impression that passive was less bright, I think through having noticed it at the cinema, but turns out active is less bright because its off half the time.

[Deleted User]

At worst passive can be more blurred and active can flicker.

Whether you notice it will be down to the screen quality, your eyes but most likely external light sources. Lights, especially tube lights used in shop fittings, flicker, depending on the frequency they flicker they can disrupt the 3D effect. Which ends up with passive being a much better option for home use.

In cinemas I have always found it to be the other way round, likely because the only active ones are specialist screens and calibrated properly with the correct type of lighting etc etc.

Moto70

JMW wrote:

@moto - oddly, I was always under the impression that passive was less bright, I think through having noticed it at the cinema, but turns out active is less bright because its off half the time.

Honestly the difference between Avatar at the cinema and at home (passive) has convinced me that this is the main reason for people thinking it isn't worth it. It's like a different film at home, at the cinema it was nowhere near as a bright and the glasses were 'restrictive' whereas at home it seemed much brighter, much sharper and because the glasses have a bigger lens you don't notice them half as much.

[Deleted User]

Passive can seem darker is the glasses are semi tinted.

That's interesting Moto. Thinking about it when I have enjoyed 3D it has been with bigger glasses.

Promethius- Large Glasses -Active -iMax screen -Enjoyed
Tron 2- Large Glasses -Active -iMax screen -Enjoyed
Star Trek: Into Darkness -Large Glasses -Active -Sony 4D screen -Enjoyed

Verecocha

My glasses are active and I never have a problem noticing the flicker unless there's an abundance of light in the room. But to be honest I never have any light on when Im playing games and certainly not if I'm watching a BR. A little natural light isn't a problem either, it never has to be pitch black.

[Deleted User]

Natural light won't be cos it doesn't flicker.

Like I say it can depend on the screen and your eyes too. I pick up the flicker on plasma screens for some reason so have always had LCD/LED.

Moto70

Motorstorm Apocalypse!

Just tried it for the first time, cracking 3D game.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories