I know why lcd screens look black through the glasses. Lcd screens usually have a polarized film layer on the actual screen thing, and since the glasses are also polarized, it makes it look very dark. Also, if you can take the polarized layer off the screen, the screen will look blank white when turned on. Then if you look through the polarized film layer, you can see the screen fine.
And on that note. You can actually remove the polarized filter from the LCD. Then you will only be able to see what's on the screen while wearing polarized glasses.
Matrilwood Jesus man... pay attention. He explained multiple times how these glasses work and why thy don't work on older LCD monitors. These aren't polarized glasses, they are active shutter LCD glasses. Until fairly recently, LCD monitors didn't have a high enough refresh rate to work with active shutter 3D glasses. With regards to these 3D glasses, polarization has *nothing* to do with it.
3cc3ntr1c1ty Huh... yeah, he did say that, but he's also incorrect. The reason that the lenses on active-shutter glasses look a bit dark is because the liquid crystal matrix (*especially* LCDs from the 70s - 80s) is not perfectly transparent, even when 'off'. I have a few pairs of active-display glasses from the late 80s (including the same make as the one LGR has) up to the early 2000's and double checked them against a polarized filter. None of the active-shutter glasses that I own have polarized lenses. In fact, I just did a quick Google search of recent active 3D TVs and one of the big benefits mentioned by many of the manufacturers is that their TVs looked much brighter when viewing them in 3D because the active-shutter glasses did not have polarizing filters, which is how passive 3D TV glasses operate.
Fair enough, haha. Just out of curiosity, why is it that we don't see flickering through the active-shutter glasses when viewing the older LCD screens? Since, as you say, it is the refresh rate that is the issue, I thought that it would flicker, rather than turn pitch black like it did in the video.
I don't know what's more obnoxiously 90s: the CyberShades box art or the 3DTV logo. It's like they gave a fresh "new media" grad a Macintosh Quadra with Photoshop 3.0 and said "go nuts!"
LCD works by having 2 polarized filters and liquid crystal between them. the polarized filters are turned 90 degrees so they block ALL light, by putting electricity onto the liquid crystal you can actually "bend" the light so it changes it's polarisation, and then it does pass through both polarized filters. so basically it means an LCD TV emits polarized light, if you turn the 3d-glasses 90 degrees they WILL show the picture on the screen.
Contact usage has always ended badly for me. I have astigmatism in one eye, and the other eye sees just fine. So not only do normal contacts not fit in my one eye, my brain more often than not just shuts off the sight in that eye anyway. Not really worth the effort and money for toric lenses or whatever, so I stick to glasses for the time being.
Yes i have something similar, but its related to my Dyspraxia. I cant focus with both eyes at the same time, but i can consciously switch between the two. My brain only processes whichever eye im looking through because it is incapable of processing both as a single 3D image cos they are never in sync.
I'm "tolerant" of 3D, I'm just not particularly fond of it. I can see 3D effects with the 3DS, 3DTVs, RealD movies, etc. It's just that it gives me a headache and I can't properly focus for as long as is required to fully enjoy it. Since making this video I had a friend try these; a dude who doesn't have the same issues I do with 3D. The same ghosting/crosstalk issues were present with him, though not the eye strain. And they were set up to optimal specifications as detailed in the manual.
I assume the music is speed up because it is synched to frame and with stereoscopic you have twice the frames which means the music would be twice as fast.
Certainly used to be the case with some old 16-bit games. I remember Lemmings had a 50/60Hz refresh switch, and the music would speed up in 60Hz mode. And it was a common complaint where console games suffered lazy ports and the music routines weren't resynched... not only did the action slow down, but the music (and sometimes SFX) as well.
I always thought this would be a great alternative to split screen 2player. Instead of flicking back and forth between each eye, it could flick back and forth between each player. You'd need an insane frame rate, but you'd get the full screen and your opponent couldn't look on your screen.
@@slawor4 Wouldn't it mean you can only see "your" screen by closing/covering one eye? Unless they also provide 2D glasses with the same polariser in both lenses?
@@markpenrice6253 It blanks both your eyes at once, and switches between each player with each frame, meaning each player gets the full 2 eye view of the screen.
As mentioned in the video, there are supposedly some games made for the Nuvision 3D-SPEX glasses that are compatible. But I don't have any of those games and I think it takes some kind of special BIOS for the glasses, so I don't know for sure.
"A topic for another day" -- I con do the research, but I love the way you present it! I would love to the tech tales about that. Can't wait for the next video!
I think I know why the games looked so bad. The developers had the idea of 3D reversed. As you approach an object, the image is supposed to split into two separate images farther and farther apart from each other; conversely, as you recede away from the object, the two images merge the more distant you are away from it. Instead, the opposite happens.
The image comes together when an object appears at the same distance as your monitor. If the right eye picture is left and vice versa it appears closer and when it's the other way around it appears further away.
As mentioned in the video, it only works with a small handful of games that are programmed to work specifically with these glasses. Carmageddon is not one of them.
Always found it intriguing, and I like to test out the latest advances in the hardware. But I've never seen it as more than a temporarily entertaining gimmick. The eye strain and headaches also don't help.
4 years later..... I have a set of these and a couple of other 3d systems from the 90's. They all used diferent hardware, drivers and methods to acheive 3d. Descent natively supported many 3d systems and worked the best of any game I ever tried. It was pretty much the only way to play Descent as far as I am concerned. It helped a lot in keeping yourself properly oriented. Duke Nukem supposedly supported Cystal Eyes and could be made to work with other 3d glasses systems, but I never could get it to work.
I’m just reviewing this video... and I’ve just noticed the STUNT cover (?) tune at the end of the video !!! Stunt !!! My favorite PC DOS game of all time !!!
Actually got it a couple weeks ago on sale and have been loving it. Very enjoyable game, a bit like SimCity meets Civilization meets humorous communism.
Or in other words ... it's a lazy patch and they didn't think to halve the sync for 3D mode. I wonder if that also means it has the deliberate Doom-style 35fps cap in 2D mode, and only runs up to effective 70fps (rendering each actual frame twice) in 3D?
I had a pair of these glasses a few years back and thought "Maybe I should send them to LGR". Never got around to it and they broke about 3-4 years ago, and now randomly I stumble across this video. :D
Gut feeling: 1. Those shades can be made compatible to modern platforms and probably also operate at modern environments, just ditch the parallel port adapter and design a new host adapter, probably based on USB, that uses some modern interface protocol like nVidia 3D-vision. This can be achieved by using a single USB-capable microcontroller like Arduino Leonardo (ATmega32U4) or PIC18F4550. 2. If the old protocol can be reverse engineered and plugged into modern environments, a USB to Parallel adapter can be used to interface the old host adapter hardware to a new computer, and the USB to Parallel adapter can be hacked to also power the host adapter from the USB bus power.
陈北宗 Problem no. 1 with USB: timing is bad. The messages come out at most at millisecond precision, and usually a lot worse. This problem is exacerbated with USB to Parallel adapters. There is exactly one USB to parallel adapter which can be bit banged (slowly), which this almost quite definitely needs - the rest only understand printers. OK, i have some idea how to get the input timing better, by enhancing USB input with a VGA/DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort pass-through adapter which will use the precise timing of the video signal, but that's neither cheap nor simple, and you'll have plenty of other issues to contend with. I have a few more ideas to use USB for control and timing, but they are all kind of probably cheaper, but less robust, not to say probably very bad ideas, or possibly even impossible. Problem no. 2 applies to any modern monitor: the timing is wrong. On a CRT, you have nanoseconds of delay between voltage going out of the VGA port and the dot appearing on the screen, instantly going from black to brightly lit. An LCD will usually buffer the whole image and then apply some calculations to counter drive the brightness transformation, usually with slow morph going into an overswing and then back into the intended colour. At different speeds depending on the contrast between before and after colour, soooo... you're gonna be off by milliseconds, and besides, because the colours morph slowly in both directions, there is going to be residue of opposite eye's image also known as ghosting. Some of the ghosting can be suppressed by gating, but then you're losing a lot of brightness. I don't think you'll be able to see anything. A proper solution to this issue is not to gate the shutter glasses, it's too slow anyway, but to gate the LCD backlight in sync with shutter glasses, and do so with an extreme brightness boost, at which point you're modifying the monitor to match the glasses. Problem no. 3, H/V linear polarization filter, like in all early computer shutter glasses, will do weird things on an LCD monitor. TN type LCDs have a high chance of being blacked out completely by polarizing filter, and IPS will likely be visible when you look straight on, but do weird things under even the smallest roll angle. LCD polarizing glasses such as these were perfect for CRTs. So the solution is complex and requires adjustments to all component. OverDrive style algorithm needs to be adjusted, backlight needs to be gated at very specific time, the display technology must be TN because the rest are just too slow, but the glasses need a different direction of polarization, something like 45°, making old polarized glasses useless. Why not do something more trivial - simply rearrange the structure of LCD monitor to have alternating output polarization for different pixels or different lines, and then use passive glasses with polarization rotated by 90°? I believe there were at least 2 companies that did this, iZ3D and somebody else, and it was pretty good and very affordable.
I heard the music in the beginning of the video and was thrown back 25 years to a time when I played the heck out of "Stunts" with my cousin. Thanks for the trip :D
Mate, Awesome videos. I really enjoy your videos for the history of various tech companies.! The reason the glasses go pitch black is because the LCD screens have a polarized film and together with the polarized film the glasses use to isolate Left from Right they block each other out.! Keep on the good work!
When I heard the music in the intro, I was like "Yay! Stunts!" but then I see those 3D glasses so I was like "Yay! 3D Stunts!?" And then you got to the end, and there was no Stunts! So I had a sad. Then I remembered I have Stunts! on my laptop, so I fired it up, jumped into an Acura NSX on my favorite cousin track, and turned my sad into a rad! Thanks, LGR!
The issue is that the depth is set WAY too hard. If they narrowed the space between the two images.down a lot, you would have had a more enjoyable time. That's the eye separation Depth Dwellers referred to.
Back then, PowerVR was a competing video standard for 3D acceleration, alongside Direct3D, Glide, OpenGL, NV1, Glint, etc. I have a PowerVR card around here somewhere, but I've never actually put it to use. I've always been more of a Glide/3DFX guy.
Why is all the 3d backwards? As you approach an object, it should split into two separate images increasingly farther apart the closer you get. They have it the other way around. Closer objects are one image and farther objects are separated. That is just wild, I've never seen anything like that before.
You know what, I think he had to change something in the settings. When he fiddled with the convergence while playing Wolf 3D, he somehow changed it to be correct...that is, the image separation increased as objects became closer.
That is a wrong use of 3D. When you have things separating the closer you get, that means they pop out of the screen. Good for "Wow it is 3D!!!" factor but terrible for gameplay and causes all sorts of issues because you have to go crosseyed and if the object is partially out of the screen edges the effect is ruined. When things get together close up and further apart far away, that means the screen itself is like a window where you are looking through into another 3D world. Easier for the eyes and more immersive gameplay. I have fond memories of playing Morrowind through Gainward 3d shutter glasses, it was glorious despite the double images.
The only reason I can think of is that it's countering the small inherent separation you have from the monitor sitting relatively close to you - if you wink your eyes alternately, you can see the monitor itself shift. So to have something look more distant, you have to apply an opposite divergence, with an object at infinity having a net zero shift between each eye. However, they've hugely overdone it. The only way that such a counter-shift would look at all natural and not give you a headache from viewing "impossible" images, or subconsciously rationalising them as two separate objects, would be if you were playing the game on a very small monitor (maybe 9 or 10 inches), sitting way too close, had uncannily widely spaced eyes, or maybe all three. The description of the effect in Depth Dwellers makes me think the convergence (infinity position) and the eye separation (strength of effect scaled from zero-separation) are both really badly calibrated by default. The ideal would to have it set so the most distant things in game look more or less like they're at infinity, and the nearest things popping a good way out of the screen, closer to your face... which would need adjustment of both settings.
back when I was a kid in the 90s, working in a local computer shop.... they had these for sale. one was returned because it didn't run on the customer's system. We all tried it out in the shop, and I really liked them. they worked pretty well!
I'm sure this has probably been said plenty of times already in the comments, but I think the reason the music increases in speed is because in order to show "3D", it has to use 120 FPS instead of, what I'm guessing is native, 60 FPS. While the gameplay isn't tied to the FPS, I think the music is, leading to a 2x faster music track when "3D" is enabled.
I've watched this video twice now but TH-cam still lists it as Recommended, it's been 11-ish months and this video has appeared in my recommended every month this year. Nothing against you Clint I love the video, keep doing what you do, my issue is with TH-cam. You ever had a younger cousin, like they're 8-9 years old and they want to show you their favorite toy? And every time you come over they want to show you the same toy? And not just every day they do it every-other-hour and you've already seen it 286 times? That toy is this video and that little cousin is TH-cam.
There was an IMAX that had active shutter LCD tech in the early 2000's. It received IR signals for controlling the LCD, and supplemental speakers in the headset, and it was awesome. Best, most comfortable, 3D experience I ever had. I wonder why they canned it at the IMAX at the Chicago Navy Pier theater?
Oh em gee, I had one of these back in the day! I had totally forgotten the name of 'em until I saw your video. I picked them up on clearance from Tiger Direct after Chinon stopped selling them. Except my copy had Descent, which was easily the only reason to use them. It was awesome in 3D... for about half an hour, until the splitting headaches set in. They quickly went into a junk box.
Love the Back to the Future references! :D You should just change your channel name to "Well Informed Game Reviews" ! Please do a video about 3D technology!!
Yes, rotating them around reveals the LCD image. Not all of it at once, but some of it. More is revealed as I continue to turn them, but then the previously visible part of the screen is no longer visible.
I used to own a pair of shutter 3D glasses, for use with CRT monitors. Played games like Battlefield 1942 and Freelancer with them. To be honest, the 3D was quite amazing! For example, it looked like tank turrets were sticking right into the screen!
I have heard from many people and biographies that true 3D is impossible unless the device that is outputting the 3D and the LCD screen receiving the 3D are 1 and the Same.
If you get two cameras and put them on both of the lens of the glasses and make each view %50 transparent and combine both views, you can see it in 3d with cameras.
I remember being in Computer City one day as a kid, with some money saved up, and my told me to pick out what I wanted. I found these glasses. I thought it was so cool! Had many headaches and eventually got bummed out nothing was ever going to support them. I think they are still in a closet or box somewhere.
you make the most painful and boring things in existence fun and interesting to watch being reviewed. good job. I'd kill myself trying to play these games let alone with horrid 3D glasses
I don’t like when people say “3D is a gimmick.” because it’s actually pretty immersive. I saw a bunch of Real D 3D and IMAX 3D movies over the years and I can tell you they are pretty immersive. I also think VR is quite immersive too. One time when I was gonna quit a VR game I accidentally tried to put the controllers on a virtual table.
3d will be a gimmick until they find a way to sense where the eye is focusing, make that part clear, and make everything else blurry. I've only ever seen a 3d movie, and I hated it. In real life, only what you are focusing on is in focus. In the movies, things in front of or in back of what you are focusing on are in focus.
Well maybe if you stop being a mechanical genius and thinking about the details and how it works and start watching the film like a 2D film, MAYBE then you will enjoy it.
+Tim Ramich when the first televisions ever came out, he was ranting about how the movies were better if you just listened to them without watching the screen to get that authentic 0D experience.
Check out foveated rendering and eye-tracking - www.roadtovr.com/nvidia-perceptually-based-foveated-rendering-research/ This could in theory be combined with a depth of field centred on the thing you're looking at. Obviously this wouldn't work for a 3d film where everyone is looking at the same physical screen..
It would only work for 3d-animated things, rendered live, and would only work with a single viewer. If you wanted it not rendered live, there would have to be some standard put out there where everything in a scene is broken down into objects and given some kind of depth information. With real-life footage, all shots would have to be 100% in focus, which, from I learned my boring photography class, isn't really possible. How would this all be accomplished with real-life footage? We're decades away from that kind of technology.
Had a 3D television once in 2013. The glasses were simply two filters of polarized film, one vertically & one horizontally. Via settings on the TV you had to fine tune it to your distance. The effect with native 3D content was quite impressive, not so much with emulated ones (worked best with football matches). But the problems are the same, eye strain and if others watching weren't at the same distance as you, they'd see crap.
Love the beard haha man the difference between these videos and your new ones is amazing you haven't changed much love the old retro vids keep them coming mate
I recognized it immediately, even though I haven't played the game or heard the song in over 20 years. It's amazing how some things are burned into one's memory. A job well done for the song's composer, I guess!
It's so weird that both Wolf and DD do the same thing: things converge as they get closer to you and diverge in the distance... It should be the exact opposite. So i guess there's sort of a sweet spot near the camera where it'sabout right but yeah, as things get further away you are just going to see double. They had a 50/50 shot of getting it right...
....what was the point of games including _fleshing_ text that says "Please don't copy this game"? That only seems to attract attention to the concept of copying, not dissuade anyone from doing that if they intended to do that in the first place. Wouldn't it have been better to include a Nintendo-style anti-copying message of "It is a serious crime to copy games" or something? Just saying "Please don't copy this game" just doesn't make sense to me.
Shareware existed at the time. The purpose of shareware was to act as a demo of sorts that you were encoraged to copy and give out to your friends and family. Therefore, companies that did not put copy protection on their games had to inform the player that the full version is not shareware so that they would not assume that it would be okay to make copies. Copying a game on flopy disks was so easy they had to worry about children who didn't know they were supposed to pay for the game copying it.
Oh. My. God, LGR! Those black Logitech speakers you have sitting next to that LCD Moniter are the SAME ones sitting on my desk RIGHT NOW! AWESOME!!! ^_^
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
Jesus, that packaging. "Cybershades. So intense they'll blast your retinas right out of your skull."
+Zen Punk I thought it looked like her eyes were imploding
Is that what that is? I thought it was a clown XD
Retina is not connected to the skull in any way tho
Game Master please go away you hyper-critical troll
@@gamemaster8488 they don't need to be connected to be INSIDE the skull to be in turn blasted out of it
In depth dwellers thats not the music sped up, thats 3D music!
" _Depth_ Dwellers "
I feel like this game got included just because of namesake alone.
Ha! Never thought about that, but it works.
Music was speeding up likely because of some tie in with frame rate which was likely changed by the 3d setting.
@Michael Persico Yeah. That is a very common issue in old games on more modern hardware or simply better speeds.
I know why lcd screens look black through the glasses. Lcd screens usually have a polarized film layer on the actual screen thing, and since the glasses are also polarized, it makes it look very dark. Also, if you can take the polarized layer off the screen, the screen will look blank white when turned on. Then if you look through the polarized film layer, you can see the screen fine.
no that’s not it
The reason why they don't see modern screens is because you're looking at a polarized filter through a polarized filter.
And on that note. You can actually remove the polarized filter from the LCD. Then you will only be able to see what's on the screen while wearing polarized glasses.
Matrilwood Jesus man... pay attention. He explained multiple times how these glasses work and why thy don't work on older LCD monitors. These aren't polarized glasses, they are active shutter LCD glasses. Until fairly recently, LCD monitors didn't have a high enough refresh rate to work with active shutter 3D glasses. With regards to these 3D glasses, polarization has *nothing* to do with it.
Zhaleh Farrokhzād Not quite -> 1:47 "Yes, the lenses are polarised, so they're a little bit darker." =)
3cc3ntr1c1ty Huh... yeah, he did say that, but he's also incorrect. The reason that the lenses on active-shutter glasses look a bit dark is because the liquid crystal matrix (*especially* LCDs from the 70s - 80s) is not perfectly transparent, even when 'off'. I have a few pairs of active-display glasses from the late 80s (including the same make as the one LGR has) up to the early 2000's and double checked them against a polarized filter. None of the active-shutter glasses that I own have polarized lenses. In fact, I just did a quick Google search of recent active 3D TVs and one of the big benefits mentioned by many of the manufacturers is that their TVs looked much brighter when viewing them in 3D because the active-shutter glasses did not have polarizing filters, which is how passive 3D TV glasses operate.
Fair enough, haha. Just out of curiosity, why is it that we don't see flickering through the active-shutter glasses when viewing the older LCD screens? Since, as you say, it is the refresh rate that is the issue, I thought that it would flicker, rather than turn pitch black like it did in the video.
"Chinon, apply directly to the chin."
Please don’t make me laugh so hard
Headaches, eye-strain, light wallet? You sure this isn't a Virtuaboy?
Geronimo -JohnMo- the virtual boy ruined my childhood
oh boy
I don't know what's more obnoxiously 90s: the CyberShades box art or the 3DTV logo. It's like they gave a fresh "new media" grad a Macintosh Quadra with Photoshop 3.0 and said "go nuts!"
LCD works by having 2 polarized filters and liquid crystal between them. the polarized filters are turned 90 degrees so they block ALL light, by putting electricity onto the liquid crystal you can actually "bend" the light so it changes it's polarisation, and then it does pass through both polarized filters. so basically it means an LCD TV emits polarized light, if you turn the 3d-glasses 90 degrees they WILL show the picture on the screen.
Thats some heavy shit
Wolfenstein 3D:drunk edition
Contact usage has always ended badly for me. I have astigmatism in one eye, and the other eye sees just fine. So not only do normal contacts not fit in my one eye, my brain more often than not just shuts off the sight in that eye anyway. Not really worth the effort and money for toric lenses or whatever, so I stick to glasses for the time being.
Yes i have something similar, but its related to my Dyspraxia. I cant focus with both eyes at the same time, but i can consciously switch between the two. My brain only processes whichever eye im looking through because it is incapable of processing both as a single 3D image cos they are never in sync.
Even without the glasses, watching this video my face now hurts.
I rarely see ghosting on my 3DS but when you do see it, it's hard to stop.
The 3D on mine just gives me a headache
I'm "tolerant" of 3D, I'm just not particularly fond of it. I can see 3D effects with the 3DS, 3DTVs, RealD movies, etc. It's just that it gives me a headache and I can't properly focus for as long as is required to fully enjoy it.
Since making this video I had a friend try these; a dude who doesn't have the same issues I do with 3D. The same ghosting/crosstalk issues were present with him, though not the eye strain. And they were set up to optimal specifications as detailed in the manual.
I would love to see an LGR Tech Tales on the history of 3D sometime, that would be amazing! Love your videos
I assume the music is speed up because it is synched to frame and with stereoscopic you have twice the frames which means the music would be twice as fast.
Certainly used to be the case with some old 16-bit games. I remember Lemmings had a 50/60Hz refresh switch, and the music would speed up in 60Hz mode. And it was a common complaint where console games suffered lazy ports and the music routines weren't resynched... not only did the action slow down, but the music (and sometimes SFX) as well.
The sped up music tune in 3D mode is better than the slow music tune in 2D mode (14:53, 15:06)
I always thought this would be a great alternative to split screen 2player. Instead of flicking back and forth between each eye, it could flick back and forth between each player. You'd need an insane frame rate, but you'd get the full screen and your opponent couldn't look on your screen.
asherael That exists on some 3d TVs
Sony habe This Feature , called SimulView Just google it
@@slawor4 Wouldn't it mean you can only see "your" screen by closing/covering one eye? Unless they also provide 2D glasses with the same polariser in both lenses?
@@markpenrice6253 It blanks both your eyes at once, and switches between each player with each frame, meaning each player gets the full 2 eye view of the screen.
As mentioned in the video, there are supposedly some games made for the Nuvision 3D-SPEX glasses that are compatible. But I don't have any of those games and I think it takes some kind of special BIOS for the glasses, so I don't know for sure.
I got a glasses free 3d phone the other week and I love it can watch anything in 3d without glasses
"A topic for another day" -- I con do the research, but I love the way you present it! I would love to the tech tales about that. Can't wait for the next video!
I think I know why the games looked so bad. The developers had the idea of 3D reversed. As you approach an object, the image is supposed to split into two separate images farther and farther apart from each other; conversely, as you recede away from the object, the two images merge the more distant you are away from it. Instead, the opposite happens.
s c i e n c e
The image comes together when an object appears at the same distance as your monitor. If the right eye picture is left and vice versa it appears closer and when it's the other way around it appears further away.
100% correct you are! It's amazing how the dev team didn't even understand that?!
@@IRMacGuyver no sir double check the video. They incorporated the 3d element completely wrong in these games.
if you plug the glasses into an ipod can you watch music?
yes you can s e e t h e s o u n d w a v e s
Smokin weed
@@queenbiscuit311 S U N D A Y S C H O O L
Can you listen to the graphics?
Hmm I was thinking the same
Yes, it is. It's a freaking ancient version, but I've had it ever since upgrading from CoolEdit Pro and it still works.
it doesn't see LCD screen because LCD screens use a polariser
Wanted those so badly after trying them at a mall in the 90s. Now I have NVIDIA 3D vision that works with my projector along with picking up VR.
I love how in depth these reviews are. Oddware is definitely my favourite series.
As mentioned in the video, it only works with a small handful of games that are programmed to work specifically with these glasses. Carmageddon is not one of them.
Always found it intriguing, and I like to test out the latest advances in the hardware. But I've never seen it as more than a temporarily entertaining gimmick. The eye strain and headaches also don't help.
4 years later..... I have a set of these and a couple of other 3d systems from the 90's. They all used diferent hardware, drivers and methods to acheive 3d. Descent natively supported many 3d systems and worked the best of any game I ever tried. It was pretty much the only way to play Descent as far as I am concerned. It helped a lot in keeping yourself properly oriented. Duke Nukem supposedly supported Cystal Eyes and could be made to work with other 3d glasses systems, but I never could get it to work.
you should do a video on the history of 3D and the backstabbing involved..
It involves backstabbing, hell yeah, that's PERFECT for an LGR Tech Tales, C'mon Clint, do it!!
Yes, that undoubtedly is some part of it. Really looking forward to giving the Oculus a look!
Of course a guy with the surname Stark is in R&D.
I’m just reviewing this video... and I’ve just noticed the STUNT cover (?) tune at the end of the video !!! Stunt !!! My favorite PC DOS game of all time !!!
Whoa! I've been watching your vids for about a year or so and this is the first vid I've seen of you with a giant beard! Great scott ;)
Actually got it a couple weeks ago on sale and have been loving it. Very enjoyable game, a bit like SimCity meets Civilization meets humorous communism.
I think it speeds up the music cuz the midi is tied to the frame rate, and probably it doubles the frames for the 3d effect
Or in other words ... it's a lazy patch and they didn't think to halve the sync for 3D mode. I wonder if that also means it has the deliberate Doom-style 35fps cap in 2D mode, and only runs up to effective 70fps (rendering each actual frame twice) in 3D?
I had a pair of these glasses a few years back and thought "Maybe I should send them to LGR". Never got around to it and they broke about 3-4 years ago, and now randomly I stumble across this video. :D
Gut feeling:
1. Those shades can be made compatible to modern platforms and probably also operate at modern environments, just ditch the parallel port adapter and design a new host adapter, probably based on USB, that uses some modern interface protocol like nVidia 3D-vision. This can be achieved by using a single USB-capable microcontroller like Arduino Leonardo (ATmega32U4) or PIC18F4550.
2. If the old protocol can be reverse engineered and plugged into modern environments, a USB to Parallel adapter can be used to interface the old host adapter hardware to a new computer, and the USB to Parallel adapter can be hacked to also power the host adapter from the USB bus power.
陈北宗 Problem no. 1 with USB: timing is bad. The messages come out at most at millisecond precision, and usually a lot worse. This problem is exacerbated with USB to Parallel adapters. There is exactly one USB to parallel adapter which can be bit banged (slowly), which this almost quite definitely needs - the rest only understand printers. OK, i have some idea how to get the input timing better, by enhancing USB input with a VGA/DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort pass-through adapter which will use the precise timing of the video signal, but that's neither cheap nor simple, and you'll have plenty of other issues to contend with. I have a few more ideas to use USB for control and timing, but they are all kind of probably cheaper, but less robust, not to say probably very bad ideas, or possibly even impossible.
Problem no. 2 applies to any modern monitor: the timing is wrong. On a CRT, you have nanoseconds of delay between voltage going out of the VGA port and the dot appearing on the screen, instantly going from black to brightly lit. An LCD will usually buffer the whole image and then apply some calculations to counter drive the brightness transformation, usually with slow morph going into an overswing and then back into the intended colour. At different speeds depending on the contrast between before and after colour, soooo... you're gonna be off by milliseconds, and besides, because the colours morph slowly in both directions, there is going to be residue of opposite eye's image also known as ghosting. Some of the ghosting can be suppressed by gating, but then you're losing a lot of brightness. I don't think you'll be able to see anything. A proper solution to this issue is not to gate the shutter glasses, it's too slow anyway, but to gate the LCD backlight in sync with shutter glasses, and do so with an extreme brightness boost, at which point you're modifying the monitor to match the glasses.
Problem no. 3, H/V linear polarization filter, like in all early computer shutter glasses, will do weird things on an LCD monitor. TN type LCDs have a high chance of being blacked out completely by polarizing filter, and IPS will likely be visible when you look straight on, but do weird things under even the smallest roll angle. LCD polarizing glasses such as these were perfect for CRTs.
So the solution is complex and requires adjustments to all component. OverDrive style algorithm needs to be adjusted, backlight needs to be gated at very specific time, the display technology must be TN because the rest are just too slow, but the glasses need a different direction of polarization, something like 45°, making old polarized glasses useless.
Why not do something more trivial - simply rearrange the structure of LCD monitor to have alternating output polarization for different pixels or different lines, and then use passive glasses with polarization rotated by 90°? I believe there were at least 2 companies that did this, iZ3D and somebody else, and it was pretty good and very affordable.
I heard the music in the beginning of the video and was thrown back 25 years to a time when I played the heck out of "Stunts" with my cousin. Thanks for the trip :D
It doesn't see the LCD because the screen is polarized and so are the glasses.
...would it work if he played with his head bent sideways?
no
yes
yes it would!
just bend the screen sideways lol
THAT BEARD!!!!
Yeah what he said
It's 3D!!!
You need to make a tech tales for 3d
Mate, Awesome videos. I really enjoy your videos for the history of various tech companies.!
The reason the glasses go pitch black is because the LCD screens have a polarized film and together with the polarized film the glasses use to isolate Left from Right they block each other out.!
Keep on the good work!
I love the oddware series, most of the technology is as old if not older than me and I'm 23 XD
When I heard the music in the intro, I was like "Yay! Stunts!" but then I see those 3D glasses so I was like "Yay! 3D Stunts!?" And then you got to the end, and there was no Stunts! So I had a sad. Then I remembered I have Stunts! on my laptop, so I fired it up, jumped into an Acura NSX on my favorite cousin track, and turned my sad into a rad! Thanks, LGR!
The issue is that the depth is set WAY too hard. If they narrowed the space between the two images.down a lot, you would have had a more enjoyable time. That's the eye separation Depth Dwellers referred to.
Back then, PowerVR was a competing video standard for 3D acceleration, alongside Direct3D, Glide, OpenGL, NV1, Glint, etc. I have a PowerVR card around here somewhere, but I've never actually put it to use. I've always been more of a Glide/3DFX guy.
Why is all the 3d backwards? As you approach an object, it should split into two separate images increasingly farther apart the closer you get. They have it the other way around. Closer objects are one image and farther objects are separated. That is just wild, I've never seen anything like that before.
Anthony McDevitt I knew something was off and you nailed it.
I've seen a couple comments like this and I've still yet to see anyone try to explain why that is.
You know what, I think he had to change something in the settings. When he fiddled with the convergence while playing Wolf 3D, he somehow changed it to be correct...that is, the image separation increased as objects became closer.
That is a wrong use of 3D. When you have things separating the closer you get, that means they pop out of the screen. Good for "Wow it is 3D!!!" factor but terrible for gameplay and causes all sorts of issues because you have to go crosseyed and if the object is partially out of the screen edges the effect is ruined. When things get together close up and further apart far away, that means the screen itself is like a window where you are looking through into another 3D world. Easier for the eyes and more immersive gameplay. I have fond memories of playing Morrowind through Gainward 3d shutter glasses, it was glorious despite the double images.
The only reason I can think of is that it's countering the small inherent separation you have from the monitor sitting relatively close to you - if you wink your eyes alternately, you can see the monitor itself shift. So to have something look more distant, you have to apply an opposite divergence, with an object at infinity having a net zero shift between each eye.
However, they've hugely overdone it. The only way that such a counter-shift would look at all natural and not give you a headache from viewing "impossible" images, or subconsciously rationalising them as two separate objects, would be if you were playing the game on a very small monitor (maybe 9 or 10 inches), sitting way too close, had uncannily widely spaced eyes, or maybe all three.
The description of the effect in Depth Dwellers makes me think the convergence (infinity position) and the eye separation (strength of effect scaled from zero-separation) are both really badly calibrated by default. The ideal would to have it set so the most distant things in game look more or less like they're at infinity, and the nearest things popping a good way out of the screen, closer to your face... which would need adjustment of both settings.
back when I was a kid in the 90s, working in a local computer shop.... they had these for sale. one was returned because it didn't run on the customer's system. We all tried it out in the shop, and I really liked them. they worked pretty well!
I'm sure this has probably been said plenty of times already in the comments, but I think the reason the music increases in speed is because in order to show "3D", it has to use 120 FPS instead of, what I'm guessing is native, 60 FPS. While the gameplay isn't tied to the FPS, I think the music is, leading to a 2x faster music track when "3D" is enabled.
Well, it's just an Acer monitor, but yeah.
"If I put it right in the middle, it's not bad"
Lol with the stereos separation off
I've watched this video twice now but TH-cam still lists it as Recommended, it's been 11-ish months and this video has appeared in my recommended every month this year.
Nothing against you Clint I love the video, keep doing what you do, my issue is with TH-cam.
You ever had a younger cousin, like they're 8-9 years old and they want to show you their favorite toy? And every time you come over they want to show you the same toy? And not just every day they do it every-other-hour and you've already seen it 286 times?
That toy is this video and that little cousin is TH-cam.
ikr
Tell me a techtales of 3d is coming
yes, do a 3d techtales please!
I'm here from the future.
There was an IMAX that had active shutter LCD tech in the early 2000's. It received IR signals for controlling the LCD, and supplemental speakers in the headset, and it was awesome. Best, most comfortable, 3D experience I ever had. I wonder why they canned it at the IMAX at the Chicago Navy Pier theater?
DO A TECH TALES ABOUT THE HISTORY OF 3D! PLEASE!
I have just found the game of my child hood, thanks LGR!
Back then you looked like an Amish addicted in technology
Flaahback to the first LGR video I ever watched... been a huge fan ever since!
The history of 3D?
Sounds like a job for lgr tech tales ;)
Oh em gee, I had one of these back in the day! I had totally forgotten the name of 'em until I saw your video. I picked them up on clearance from Tiger Direct after Chinon stopped selling them. Except my copy had Descent, which was easily the only reason to use them. It was awesome in 3D... for about half an hour, until the splitting headaches set in. They quickly went into a junk box.
Freaking hilarious that they put Depth Dwellers on there :)
Extreme Rock Climbing. It's the longest-running gag in my videos :)
Sounds like you should do a 'Tech Tales' on 3D technology.
Ohh depth dwellers, a classic from LGR, always go back to watch it every other year XD
Could you ever consider doing a Tech Tales on 3D?
For sure, it's a fascinating story!
+Lazy Game Reviews I'd love for this to happen.
Duck Tales Tech Tales pls
I thought the same, would LOVE to see that!!
Its really fun to go back and see old tech. Now days its junk pretty much but in its day it was high tech. Great stuff.
Love the Back to the Future references! :D You should just change your channel name to "Well Informed Game Reviews" !
Please do a video about 3D technology!!
Yes, rotating them around reveals the LCD image. Not all of it at once, but some of it. More is revealed as I continue to turn them, but then the previously visible part of the screen is no longer visible.
Watching this video is hurting my eyes lol
I used to own a pair of shutter 3D glasses, for use with CRT monitors. Played games like Battlefield 1942 and Freelancer with them. To be honest, the 3D was quite amazing! For example, it looked like tank turrets were sticking right into the screen!
In some videos you have no beard and in others you do. It's amazing how fast you can grow it.
Soy boys can grow beards quite quick tbf
@@williamlinley1402 lol what?
You can never get enough of Depth Dwellers!
Such I shame I missed out on this quality game when I had my first PC ....!
I have heard from many people and biographies that true 3D is impossible unless the device that is outputting the 3D and the LCD screen receiving the 3D are 1 and the Same.
BUT PROTO!!! I used anaglyph glasses on my random TV and got it to be 3d....
Greetings! this is my most watched channel and is bloody amazing :) Cheers LGR
5:36 “why would balls be that long?”
You’d be surprised what age could do to the human body..
OH NOOO
Here he comes, Johnny Long-balls...
@@markpenrice6253 No it's Larry who has long balls. He has some long ass balls. (Curb Your Enthusiasm)
This was 11 years ago. He's probably aware by now.
Omg that stunts music.......love that game and would definitely love to see a review of it its one of my favorite childhood PC games
Damn. Going and buying 50.1% of a opposing compqnys stock then basicaly just shutting them should be illegal.
It's alarming how many things companies can do that should be illegal
If you get two cameras and put them on both of the lens of the glasses and make each view %50 transparent and combine both views, you can see it in 3d with cameras.
Dude, that beard was magnificent.
I remember being in Computer City one day as a kid, with some money saved up, and my told me to pick out what I wanted. I found these glasses. I thought it was so cool! Had many headaches and eventually got bummed out nothing was ever going to support them. I think they are still in a closet or box somewhere.
I watch all your videos. They are interesting. Well presented. And I love to hear your voice *no homo* ! Keep on shooting, LGR-San!
Thank you!
"no homo" he says! har dee har har!
+Lazy Game Reviews your welcome
+Lazy Game Reviews you sound the same as you did back in 2012
+Lazy Game Reviews ye hert meh bran
you make the most painful and boring things in existence fun and interesting to watch being reviewed. good job. I'd kill myself trying to play these games let alone with horrid 3D glasses
I miss his magnificent fucking glorious ass beard.
get your own ass beard.
Mary42877 I can't grow an official beard. My family never had real good facial hair genes so I look odd with it.
Amy UNTOLD Yeah, I know. *:(*
Wow, 8 year old video and even then clint was making the same high quality content... way to go man
It's your glasses. I deal with that too.
OMG! I remember these! I saw them in a catalog once and haven't been able to find them!
The new 3DS supports 3D youtube videos.
I just love 3d technology, i've got a 3d tv and a nintendo 3ds, my eyes don't strain nor my head hurts. Really fun
Can you cover 3D on Tech Tales?
You know... if you read this?
I don’t like when people say “3D is a gimmick.” because it’s actually pretty immersive. I saw a bunch of Real D 3D and IMAX 3D movies over the years and I can tell you they are pretty immersive. I also think VR is quite immersive too. One time when I was gonna quit a VR game I accidentally tried to put the controllers on a virtual table.
3d will be a gimmick until they find a way to sense where the eye is focusing, make that part clear, and make everything else blurry. I've only ever seen a 3d movie, and I hated it. In real life, only what you are focusing on is in focus. In the movies, things in front of or in back of what you are focusing on are in focus.
Well maybe if you stop being a mechanical genius and thinking about the details and how it works and start watching the film like a 2D film, MAYBE then you will enjoy it.
NikProBG 123 Watch a 3D film like a 2d film? Makes perfect sense there, genius.
+Tim Ramich when the first televisions ever came out, he was ranting about how the movies were better if you just listened to them without watching the screen to get that authentic 0D experience.
Check out foveated rendering and eye-tracking - www.roadtovr.com/nvidia-perceptually-based-foveated-rendering-research/
This could in theory be combined with a depth of field centred on the thing you're looking at.
Obviously this wouldn't work for a 3d film where everyone is looking at the same physical screen..
It would only work for 3d-animated things, rendered live, and would only work with a single viewer. If you wanted it not rendered live, there would have to be some standard put out there where everything in a scene is broken down into objects and given some kind of depth information. With real-life footage, all shots would have to be 100% in focus, which, from I learned my boring photography class, isn't really possible. How would this all be accomplished with real-life footage? We're decades away from that kind of technology.
I had the 3D revelator glasses and they worked with every game that used direct x. Racing games were the ones I liked best
3D4Ureel me too.....came free with a gladiac graphics card....was cool
5:33 "Long as balls!" ~LGR
Had a 3D television once in 2013. The glasses were simply two filters of polarized film, one vertically & one horizontally. Via settings on the TV you had to fine tune it to your distance. The effect with native 3D content was quite impressive, not so much with emulated ones (worked best with football matches).
But the problems are the same, eye strain and if others watching weren't at the same distance as you, they'd see crap.
DUDE! Why did you get rid of that awesome beard? :(
Love the beard haha man the difference between these videos and your new ones is amazing you haven't changed much love the old retro vids keep them coming mate
the bg is the theme from the game stunts right?
Correct
+Lazy Game Reviews dude i feel old now kkk i remenber playing it a lot in my dx4 100 and later in a pentium
I was trying to remember what it was, sounded very familiar. Played it on an IBM PS/2 P70 for ages. Was crazy when I first saw it in colour.
I recognized it immediately, even though I haven't played the game or heard the song in over 20 years. It's amazing how some things are burned into one's memory. A job well done for the song's composer, I guess!
It's so weird that both Wolf and DD do the same thing: things converge as they get closer to you and diverge in the distance... It should be the exact opposite. So i guess there's sort of a sweet spot near the camera where it'sabout right but yeah, as things get further away you are just going to see double. They had a 50/50 shot of getting it right...
....what was the point of games including _fleshing_ text that says "Please don't copy this game"? That only seems to attract attention to the concept of copying, not dissuade anyone from doing that if they intended to do that in the first place. Wouldn't it have been better to include a Nintendo-style anti-copying message of "It is a serious crime to copy games" or something? Just saying "Please don't copy this game" just doesn't make sense to me.
Shareware existed at the time. The purpose of shareware was to act as a demo of sorts that you were encoraged to copy and give out to your friends and family. Therefore, companies that did not put copy protection on their games had to inform the player that the full version is not shareware so that they would not assume that it would be okay to make copies. Copying a game on flopy disks was so easy they had to worry about children who didn't know they were supposed to pay for the game copying it.
Oh. My. God, LGR! Those black Logitech speakers you have sitting next to that LCD Moniter are the SAME ones sitting on my desk RIGHT NOW! AWESOME!!! ^_^