Topics

Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?


John Rupkalvis
 


Neil S.
 

Sales had plummeted, what with the success of the Switch.


John Rupkalvis
 

Regarding the sales plummeting on the Nintendo 3DS because of the
Nintendo Switch, why would anyone prefer distorted 2D to realistic 3D?

On 9/19/20, Neil S. <pinmagic@...> wrote:
Sales had plummeted, what with the success of the Switch.





--
John A. Rupkalvis
@stereoscope3d

[image: Picture]


Depthcam
 

There is nothing "distorted" about a one angle view.  It is just that: one angle !    In fact many 3DS users said they'd rather play their games with the 3D mode switched off because they found that remaining withing the sweet spot was a hindrance while they played and moved their head around.  Adding eye-tracking on the second generation model seems to have come too late.

The second reason is probably the low resolution of the display (400x240) - far lower than the Switch - and the weak processor, too weak for many of today's games.  The third reason may be the poor quality of the built-in camera.  Not only was it very low resolution, but left and right cameras were not at all in sync.  But then the 3DS was used almost exclusively by gamers who made essentially no use of the built-in camera.

Anyway, I think 3D gaming has mostly moved on to VR headsets and in fact a VR headset is available for the Switch as here:




And maybe Nintendo has another 3D project up its sleeve.  Anyhow, if it isn't them, it will be others.  There are many 3D products coming up in 2021 !

Francois





John Rupkalvis
 

"There is nothing "distorted" about a one angle view."   Since it is one angle of view, it is the ultimate distortion.  2-D, where everything from the closest object to infinity is squashed down to a single plane, is not even a simulation of real life imaging. There is absolutely no visual information past that plane along the Z axis in a 2-D image.  ALL 2-D images are horribly distorted.  That is why the ancient Greeks coined the word "stereo", meaning "solid", and went to the extra work and skill necessary to create three dimensional statues, most of which are amazingly accurate and correctly proportioned in all three axes.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


Virus-free. www.avast.com


On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 11:13 AM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
There is nothing "distorted" about a one angle view.  It is just that: one angle !    In fact many 3DS users said they'd rather play their games with the 3D mode switched off because they found that remaining withing the sweet spot was a hindrance while they played and moved their head around.  Adding eye-tracking on the second generation model seems to have come too late.

The second reason is probably the low resolution of the display (400x240) - far lower than the Switch - and the weak processor, too weak for many of today's games.  The third reason may be the poor quality of the built-in camera.  Not only was it very low resolution, but left and right cameras were not at all in sync.  But then the 3DS was used almost exclusively by gamers who made essentially no use of the built-in camera.

Anyway, I think 3D gaming has mostly moved on to VR headsets and in fact a VR headset is available for the Switch as here:




And maybe Nintendo has another 3D project up its sleeve.  Anyhow, if it isn't them, it will be others.  There are many 3D products coming up in 2021 !

Francois





John Rupkalvis
 

"And maybe Nintendo has another 3D project up its sleeve.  Anyhow, if it isn't them, it will be others.  There are many 3D products coming up in 2021 !"  I sincerely hope that you are right on that one.  We need more undistorted imagery.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 6:06 PM John Rupkalvis via groups.io <stereoscope3d=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
"There is nothing "distorted" about a one angle view."   Since it is one angle of view, it is the ultimate distortion.  2-D, where everything from the closest object to infinity is squashed down to a single plane, is not even a simulation of real life imaging. There is absolutely no visual information past that plane along the Z axis in a 2-D image.  ALL 2-D images are horribly distorted.  That is why the ancient Greeks coined the word "stereo", meaning "solid", and went to the extra work and skill necessary to create three dimensional statues, most of which are amazingly accurate and correctly proportioned in all three axes.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 11:13 AM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
There is nothing "distorted" about a one angle view.  It is just that: one angle !    In fact many 3DS users said they'd rather play their games with the 3D mode switched off because they found that remaining withing the sweet spot was a hindrance while they played and moved their head around.  Adding eye-tracking on the second generation model seems to have come too late.

The second reason is probably the low resolution of the display (400x240) - far lower than the Switch - and the weak processor, too weak for many of today's games.  The third reason may be the poor quality of the built-in camera.  Not only was it very low resolution, but left and right cameras were not at all in sync.  But then the 3DS was used almost exclusively by gamers who made essentially no use of the built-in camera.

Anyway, I think 3D gaming has mostly moved on to VR headsets and in fact a VR headset is available for the Switch as here:




And maybe Nintendo has another 3D project up its sleeve.  Anyhow, if it isn't them, it will be others.  There are many 3D products coming up in 2021 !

Francois





Depthcam
 

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:06 PM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
Since it is one angle of view, it is the ultimate distortion.

No doubt Leonardo da Vinci and all the great painters since the dawb of time would agree with you on that point ! ;-)

Francois


John Rupkalvis
 

An interesting example, since Leonardo Da Vinci was well aware of the 2-D distortion, and as such, although carving a statue out of granite or other hard stone took a lot more effort and time, he and many other classical painters did so.  Classical painters frequently attempted to convey the element of the third dimension through the use of 2-D depth cues, such as perspective and shading.  Such attempts were unsuccessful, but pointed out their awareness of the 2-D distortion.  It has even been speculated that Leonardo may have created the first 3-D painting:  https://www.techtimes.com/articles/6479/20140505/leonardo-da-vinci-may-have-secretly-created-a-mona-lisa-in-3d-researchers-investigate.htm

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 7:43 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:06 PM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
Since it is one angle of view, it is the ultimate distortion.

No doubt Leonardo da Vinci and all the great painters since the dawb of time would agree with you on that point ! ;-)

Francois


Kevin Brooks
 

"Classical painters frequently attempted to convey the element of the third dimension through the use of 2-D depth cues, such as perspective and shading.  Such attempts were unsuccessful, but pointed out their awareness of the 2-D distortion."

I (and, I would wager, many art lovers through the centuries) would disagree with this. I would say that their use of monocular depth cues was, in the case of many great artists, extraordinarily successful, hence their fame and status. I do not think this points out any awareness of "distortion". Few of these artists have documented any appreciation of the importance of binocular depth cues (Leonardo, who did indeed understand some aspects of the geometry of binocular vision, being a notable exception). They simply used what depth cues they could given the medium they were working with.

Like most people likely to be reading a 3d photo forum, I am a fan of binocular depth cues (e.g. binocular disparity, or parallax if that is your preferred terminology). But the utility of monocular depth cues should not be dismissed. They are sources of information about depth just as binocular cues are, sometimes relying on the same geometry (most obviously motion parallax) or principles of physics (shadows and shading, aerial perspective, etc.). Why should disparity be considered "special" a priori?
To me, the description of 2D images as "distorted" (or worse - "the ultimate distortion"!) is at best imprecise. I accept that when they are viewed with 2 eyes, binocular depth cues specify that the surface is flat, even though the monocular depth cues that were so effectively mastered by great artists specify distance by other means. But to stereoblind observers, there is no distortion. To one-eyed observers, there is no distortion. If you close one eye, there is no distortion (this was noted by Leonardo).
On the other hand, stereoscopic images, as we often view them (e.g. in stereoscopes, or on 3D TVs/projection screens), are almost never orthostereoscopic (ie. properly calibrated for the exact viewing angle, field of view, projection screen size, interocular distance, etc.), and hence are also distorted. They also omit depth cues such as accommodation (the way that objects at different depths go in and out of focus as the lens changes shape) and motion parallax as do 2D images.




"Speculated" is exactly the correct term here. Other research has actually collected data on the stereoscopic nature of these images and found no evidence of any stereoscopic depth whatsoever.


Kevin Brooks


Ronald Schalekamp <info@...>
 

Same old, same old. Why did the 3D TV come to an end? 3D movies that started in the fifties? Stereoview cards?

It is just a commercial thing. A new gadget to sell. Now its 4K or whatever.
The large producers just want to have us buying new stuff all the time. 
Thats why Nintendo first made a DS with a tiny screen, then a larger screen, then a 3Ds with a tiny screen, then a 3DS with a large screen and on and on....

The succers just keep on buying....

Same thing with camera's. (i say invest in skills, not in material)

I am a bit amazed 3D cinema lasts this long. (when theres a new upgrade to a higher res or something, im sure 3D will go again form the cinema.)


John Clement
 

I understand, the person in charge of codifying the 4k standard declared there will be no 3D option in it.

 

John M. Clement

 

From: main@Photo-3d.groups.io <main@Photo-3d.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ronald Schalekamp
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:41 PM
To: main@Photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Another formerly popular 3D system discontinued. Why?

 

Same old, same old. Why did the 3D TV come to an end? 3D movies that started in the fifties? Stereoview cards?

It is just a commercial thing. A new gadget to sell. Now its 4K or whatever.
The large producers just want to have us buying new stuff all the time. 
Thats why Nintendo first made a DS with a tiny screen, then a larger screen, then a 3Ds with a tiny screen, then a 3DS with a large screen and on and on....

The succers just keep on buying....

Same thing with camera's. (i say invest in skills, not in material)

I am a bit amazed 3D cinema lasts this long. (when theres a new upgrade to a higher res or something, im sure 3D will go again form the cinema.)


Stereopix Net
 

it is the ultimate distortion.  2-D, where everything from the closest object to infinity is squashed down to a single plane

It is funny to use this controversial statement on games.
This is one domain in which there exist a lot of two dimensional worlds obviously designed to be without depth.

I am not a gamer, so I am not able to judge the proportion of such 2D games, but just with a quick search I notice that today there are 460 (video-) games tagged with the 3D keyword and 833 with 2D keyword on steam platform website: the 3D ones probably do not use stereoscopy, but the point is that a large proportion of these seem to give no importance to a third dimension in the first place. I remember even a very creative videogame that someone showed me where the projection was part of the gameplay (the player had to change the point of view to progress in various 2D projections of the same scene, and this actually made sense in the context). To be even more extreme, a few weeks ago I modified a 1D game designed some years ago so that people can play it without touching the buttons in the pandemic vigilance context, and nobody complained about any lack of dimensions... :-D

JackDesBwa


John Rupkalvis
 

There is nothing controversial about that at all, since it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted, since they are all missing the third dimension which consists of everything along the Z axis.  It has nothing to do with the purpose or application, and applies to all imaging, including gaming.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 4:29 PM Stereopix Net <contact@...> wrote:
it is the ultimate distortion.  2-D, where everything from the closest object to infinity is squashed down to a single plane

It is funny to use this controversial statement on games.
This is one domain in which there exist a lot of two dimensional worlds obviously designed to be without depth.

I am not a gamer, so I am not able to judge the proportion of such 2D games, but just with a quick search I notice that today there are 460 (video-) games tagged with the 3D keyword and 833 with 2D keyword on steam platform website: the 3D ones probably do not use stereoscopy, but the point is that a large proportion of these seem to give no importance to a third dimension in the first place. I remember even a very creative videogame that someone showed me where the projection was part of the gameplay (the player had to change the point of view to progress in various 2D projections of the same scene, and this actually made sense in the context). To be even more extreme, a few weeks ago I modified a 1D game designed some years ago so that people can play it without touching the buttons in the pandemic vigilance context, and nobody complained about any lack of dimensions... :-D

JackDesBwa


Depthcam
 

> it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted


So let me see.  If I take a "distorted" 2D picture and then another a few inches to the side, then I have two distorted pictures.  And when l put them into a viewer, suddenly they magically "undistort" themselves, correct ?

But the truth is that our beloved "stereoscopy" is actually no more than two flat images.  The true 3D world cannot be captured via a pair of flat images.  It would require thousands from every possible angle to reproduce it.  Therefore it's now clear that stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world !

As for the great painters, they were doing exactly that: two-dimensional works conveying depth through other means.  They obviously have been successful since we still admire their works centuries after their passing.  They are found in the great museums of the world.  I wonder how many 3D pictures or movies will have such staying power ?

Francois


Stereopix Net
 

There is nothing controversial about that at all

Several people took time to express their disagreement at several times, which shows that the statement is strongly controverted.

it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted, since they are all missing the third dimension which consists of everything along the Z axis.

It is true that 2D does not have a third dimension, but if there is no depth in the first place, the 2D representation is not distorted.
A text on a paper for example does not change if you read it with one or two eyes (there is obviously inherently no third dimension); and there are many other examples.
In a lot of games especially, the notion of depth does not exist.

To come back to the Nintendo 3DS, I played only one game on it and the stereoscopy was useful (in the gameplay) only once or two when the camera was fixed, purposely set to remove any monocular depth cue. The situations when it is true are not that common, and thus stereoscopy does not add much in the games: monoscopic projection is generally enough to have the joy to play, without the inconvenience of the narrow sweet spot.

stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world

I agree. By the way, the distortions are opportunities for artistic expression.

JackDesBwa


Bill G
 

Some very valid points made here regarding 2d images being distorted views. 
While I love John R's 3d enthusiasm, I too don't subscribe to his description of 2d images.
I think it can also confuse many newcomers reading this position.
In addition to many of the arguments made in previous posts...
I will add the obvious one... a Cityscape or Landscape image, where all subjects are at infinity has no depth to human vision... so a 2d print and a 3d capture seen in a viewer would yield the same retinal images.  I can't imagine anyone suggesting the 2d capture is distorted.  ??
A 3d capture and 3d viewing adds stereoscopic deviation vs a 2d image.   All else remains equal.


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:02 AM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
> it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted


So let me see.  If I take a "distorted" 2D picture and then another a few inches to the side, then I have two distorted pictures.  And when l put them into a viewer, suddenly they magically "undistort" themselves, correct ?

But the truth is that our beloved "stereoscopy" is actually no more than two flat images.  The true 3D world cannot be captured via a pair of flat images.  It would require thousands from every possible angle to reproduce it.  Therefore it's now clear that stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world !

As for the great painters, they were doing exactly that: two-dimensional works conveying depth through other means.  They obviously have been successful since we still admire their works centuries after their passing.  They are found in the great museums of the world.  I wonder how many 3D pictures or movies will have such staying power ?

Francois


John Rupkalvis
 

The application is irrelevant.  Stereoscopic 3-D is better than distorted 2-D in gaming just as in other applications.  This is obvious.  

People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D.  Removing one of the two images results in distorted 2-D because both eye-views, correctly displayed and viewed, are necessary for stereopsis.  

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


Virus-free. www.avast.com


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:09 AM Stereopix Net <contact@...> wrote:
There is nothing controversial about that at all

Several people took time to express their disagreement at several times, which shows that the statement is strongly controverted.

it is a true fact that all 2-D images are distorted, since they are all missing the third dimension which consists of everything along the Z axis.

It is true that 2D does not have a third dimension, but if there is no depth in the first place, the 2D representation is not distorted.
A text on a paper for example does not change if you read it with one or two eyes (there is obviously inherently no third dimension); and there are many other examples.
In a lot of games especially, the notion of depth does not exist.

To come back to the Nintendo 3DS, I played only one game on it and the stereoscopy was useful (in the gameplay) only once or two when the camera was fixed, purposely set to remove any monocular depth cue. The situations when it is true are not that common, and thus stereoscopy does not add much in the games: monoscopic projection is generally enough to have the joy to play, without the inconvenience of the narrow sweet spot.

stereoscopy is a distorted view of the true three dimensional world

I agree. By the way, the distortions are opportunities for artistic expression.

JackDesBwa


Depthcam
 

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:46 AM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D

Are you actually saying that nature provided humans with two eyes because it knew that one day humans would be creating stereoscopic images ?

Even though it's true that stereoscopic vision aids in depth perception, most humans go about their day totally unaware that they see in 3D.  That's why most people that view stereo images for the first time need a crash course on stereoscopic vision.  My own sister who lost sight in one eye a few years ago went on with life as if nothing had happened. She called me up shortly after the accident and asked me "What is this things about stereo vision ?"  She explained that the doctor had told her she would no longer see depth stereoscopically.  She had no idea what the doctor was talking about.  She explained to me that everything about her sight was "just the same" as it had always been.  She never at any time in her life was aware that her eyes perceived depth and she had totally forgotten the 3D images I had shown her years earlier.

Even though most people that see 3D images are amazed, they continue being completely happy viewing 2D pictures and movies.  That's why 3D has never succeeded in supplanting 2D.  People simply are either not aware of or don't care about 3D vision.  That's also why the 3DS was discontinued.  Most gamers put the 3D mode to "off".

Francois


Bill G
 

Cinema was a good example...
even though I am 3d crazed...
when I go to a nice cinema theater, and get a healthy 55-60 deg FOV
I am impressed with the imagery... I don't struggle with... hey, there is no depth, everything is distorted.  My brain fills in the missing binocular disparity as best it can... no feeling of distortion.
Is the depth as pronounced as if it was 3d?  No, it's not.
But I can honestly say, it's good enough, which is Francois point...
and prob. best explains why 3d died in the theaters.
But if 3d is an option in the theater, I gladly pay the upcharge and always view in 3d, but I (probably most of us on this forum) represent 1/100 of the gen. population, sadly. 



On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:46 AM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D

Are you actually saying that nature provided humans with two eyes because it knew that one day humans would be creating stereoscopic images ?

Even though it's true that stereoscopic vision aids in depth perception, most humans go about their day totally unaware that they see in 3D.  That's why most people that view stereo images for the first time need a crash course on stereoscopic vision.  My own sister who lost sight in one eye a few years ago went on with life as if nothing had happened. She called me up shortly after the accident and asked me "What is this things about stereo vision ?"  She explained that the doctor had told her she would no longer see depth stereoscopically.  She had no idea what the doctor was talking about.  She explained to me that everything about her sight was "just the same" as it had always been.  She never at any time in her life was aware that her eyes perceived depth and she had totally forgotten the 3D images I had shown her years earlier.

Even though most people that see 3D images are amazed, they continue being completely happy viewing 2D pictures and movies.  That's why 3D has never succeeded in supplanting 2D.  People simply are either not aware of or don't care about 3D vision.  That's also why the 3DS was discontinued.  Most gamers put the 3D mode to "off".

Francois


John Rupkalvis
 

Certainly it is possible to find exceptions to any common situation, but these do not invalidate the premise.  Anytime you see a landscape or cityscape you also have things that are closer, including yourself.  A 2-D representation is still a distortion.  3-D is normal and far superior to 2-D.   2-D is distorted and inferior to 3-D.

As far as people turning off 3-D when it is available, this is ridiculous.  Some people are idiots.

If 2-D were better than 3-D, everyone would be wearing eye patches.    What is needed is education and stereoscopic appreciation through observation so that people learn what is better and why it is better. 

We need people supporting 3-D, not looking for ways to denigrate it.

John A. Rupkalvis
stereoscope3d@...

Picture


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:46 AM, John Rupkalvis wrote:
People have two eyes because stereoscopic 3-D images are better than monoscopic 2-D

Are you actually saying that nature provided humans with two eyes because it knew that one day humans would be creating stereoscopic images ?

Even though it's true that stereoscopic vision aids in depth perception, most humans go about their day totally unaware that they see in 3D.  That's why most people that view stereo images for the first time need a crash course on stereoscopic vision.  My own sister who lost sight in one eye a few years ago went on with life as if nothing had happened. She called me up shortly after the accident and asked me "What is this things about stereo vision ?"  She explained that the doctor had told her she would no longer see depth stereoscopically.  She had no idea what the doctor was talking about.  She explained to me that everything about her sight was "just the same" as it had always been.  She never at any time in her life was aware that her eyes perceived depth and she had totally forgotten the 3D images I had shown her years earlier.

Even though most people that see 3D images are amazed, they continue being completely happy viewing 2D pictures and movies.  That's why 3D has never succeeded in supplanting 2D.  People simply are either not aware of or don't care about 3D vision.  That's also why the 3DS was discontinued.  Most gamers put the 3D mode to "off".

Francois