Doom in 3D

[ReFracture]

Welp, I give up. I can't get my eyes to cooperate with this effect at all.

Stereoscopy is quite awesome. I'd get those nVidia glasses and a 120Hz display if I could afford it.

[LogicDeLuxe]

Are you aware of the iZ3D driver? It supports almost all kinds of existing 3D systems for DirectX 8 and 9 software. So would upgrading a Doom port to DirectX 9 automatically support this driver then?

[doomygecko]

DuckReconMajor said:

Haha. But the other one had demons in E1M1.

Even better, one of the others had a revenant in map01!

[Super Jamie]

The Archvile on MAP01 is more ass-kicking. Yes, HR II on UV with your not one but two Archies on MAP01, I'm looking at you!

[DuckReconMajor]

Super Jamie said:

[b]two[/url]

url tags much?

[Abyssalstudios1]

I can cross my eyes wonderfully (and they're equally strong), but all it does is mess it up...

[Lüt]

DuckReconMajor said:

url tags much?

A bit of dizziness should be expected in this thread :P

Ixnatifual, the camera positions between shots are far too distant. In the first post, it's only moved a few floor-pixels over if you measure at the bottom of the image. I can get bits and pieces of them, but it's too much of a stretch.

[Creaphis]

CODOR said:

I can see these without any problem, though.

I never realized that it's more common for stereograms to require parallel or "wall-eyed" viewing. I learned to see them that way at a fairly early age, but I guess I always thought that I was actually crossing my eyes to see them. More recently, most stereograms I've looked at have been large stereoscopic images, which usually require cross-eyed viewing, so I guess I forgot how to focus the other way. I had to retrain myself just now. It took some work before I could focus on both of Ixnatifual's latest images.

As it's easier to cross one's eyes significantly than to widen your view significantly, I still think it makes more sense for larger stereoscopic images to require cross-eyed view if only one option is going to be given. Providing both options is definitely best, though.

Lut's right, by the way. The horizontal distance between those two camera angles is way too huge.


Also, I still want to see a port or wad that actually does this properly. Is it possible to fix the wad posted in the ZDoom forum thread, or would it take more work than that to get Doom in 3D?

[Epyo]

haha, I remember doing this years back when I was really into stereograms. I did it the ixnatiful way, paralleling your eyes instead of crossing them. I always thought it painful to do cross-eyed stereograms, and I got a lot of practice paralleling my eyes at magic eyes, or sometimes just hand railings at parks.

on a side note, if anyone has the Tool album "10,000 Days", you can somewhat use the glasses on the case to view these, but you have to get exactly the right distance to get the effect and not get the blur that seems to come with those sometimes (at least on my copy). I dunno if your copy blurs if you get too far, but if it does, make the picture on your screen smaller. I zoomed out with my browser to about 80% and got perfect 3d on the second pair of images in Ixnatiful's first post on page two (assuming 50 post pages).

[Ixnatifual]

Lüt said:

A bit of dizziness should be expected in this thread :P

Ixnatifual, the camera positions between shots are far too distant. In the first post, it's only moved a few floor-pixels over if you measure at the bottom of the image. I can get bits and pieces of them, but it's too much of a stretch.

I'll do some more attempts to use the cross-eyed method and then I'll probably be able to experience the issues you guys are having with the images. I was actually under the belief I was viewing cross-eyed until phi108 suggested I might be looking at them parallel.

Epyo may also have a point with the zooming out. I run a pretty high desktop resolution so all the images are likely to be smaller on my screen than on most other peoples' screens.

[SonicIce]

parallel technique, not cross-eye. notice the image can be infinately tall vertically without making it harder to view them images.

http://jord.nm.ru/3d/doom3d.jpg
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/doom3d2.jpg
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/equin3d.jpg
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/zdoom3d.jpg
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/equinox3d.jpg

You can tell if you're doing the parallel technique by closing one eye. if you close or cover your right eye and notice your left eye is looking at the left image, thats parallel.

If your left eye is looking at the right image, thats cross-eyed.


some undoom-related ones that i think are cool
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/floaty.jpg
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/starwars.jpg
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/sim2.jpg
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/indacit.jpg
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/2d_3d.gif (comapred 2d and 3d gif)
http://jord.nm.ru/3d/3d%20ppl.gif (another gif)

[Super Jamie]

The first one and last one work really well.

As far as I know, I'm looking at them cross-eyed. I don't really get how the parallel thing is sposed to work?

[DuckReconMajor]

Super Jamie said:

As far as I know, I'm looking at them cross-eyed. I don't really get how the parallel thing is sposed to work?

I'm the opposite. I'm not sure how one would cross one's eyes without looking at one's nose.

[fraggle]

I uploaded this at the weekend to test Google's new 3D support.

[LogicDeLuxe]

fraggle said:

I uploaded this at the weekend to test Google's new 3D support.

You got the channels swapped, ie. parallel becomes cross-eye, red/cyan becomes cyan/red etc..
Another problem is the convergence. The farthest bits has about the same distance as the weapon (which is obviously wrong), while closer parts stick out quite a bit.
A correct image would have stick out the weapon and draws anything behind it, except for near objects at the sides. Objects which are supposed to be at exactly the distance of your screen should be drawn normally as in an usual 2D image.

Two problems arise in 3d videos: Neither distance nor screen size is a constant, which may cause distortions and also hard to focus images. Luckily, these issues can be easily fixed in video games. That's why you can adjust these with the iZ3D driver.

[Super Jamie]

fraggle said:

I uploaded this at the weekend to test Google's new 3D support.

I've ordered red/blue 3D glasses off eBay just to watch this :P

[fraggle]

LogicDeLuxe said:

You got the channels swapped, ie. parallel becomes cross-eye, red/cyan becomes cyan/red etc..

Ah, damn! You're right. I must have screwed up my calculations :-)

Another problem is the convergence. The farthest bits has about the same distance as the weapon (which is obviously wrong), while closer parts stick out quite a bit.
A correct image would have stick out the weapon and draws anything behind it, except for near objects at the sides. Objects which are supposed to be at exactly the distance of your screen should be drawn normally as in an usual 2D image.

Yeah, you're right, I didn't think of that. Weapons in Doom are drawn separately from the rest of the screen, so it just appears in a fixed position. I guess really, the weapon should be offset to the right for the left eye and offset to the left for the right eye, to match the rendered scene.

The actual changes I made to get the side-by-side two eye rendering only took me about 15 minutes, so I didn't put a lot of thought into it.

If I have the time I'll see if I can develop an improved version and record an updated video!

[LogicDeLuxe]

Super Jamie said:

I've ordered red/blue 3D glasses off eBay just to watch this :P

You should use such with complementary colors. You won't see full color with others. There are red/cyan, yellow/blue and green/magenta glasses. Other combinations are pretty much obsolete. Red/cyan is also compatible to monochrome red/green and red/blue anaglyphs.

fraggle said:

If I have the time I'll see if I can develop an improved version and record an updated video!

A DirectX 9 version would be great. With that, various 3d modes and adjustments are available by just using the iZ3D driver. The downside of this would be no portability, of course.

[fraggle]

LogicDeLuxe said:

You should use such with complementary colors. You won't see full color with others. There are red/cyan, yellow/blue and green/magenta glasses. Other combinations are pretty much obsolete. Red/cyan is also compatible to monochrome red/green and red/blue anaglyphs.A DirectX 9 version would be great. With that, various 3d modes and adjustments are available by just using the iZ3D driver. The downside of this would be no portability, of course.

Yeah, well that will only work if you're using hardware rendering. This was a hack to Chocolate Doom, which is software rendered.

[phi108]

The first post of this thread has the gun sprites offset to simulate the gun directly in front of you.

For the gun to appear at the distance as the closest wall that you can touch in doom, the gun sprites should be 50 pixels apart on a 320x200 screen.

The image seen by the left eye should have the gun offset ~25 pixels to the right, and vice versa.

EDIT: And in a Chocolate Doom 3D source port(drooolllllll...), a few option should be settable:

3D viewing mode
Eye separation distance
Gun sprite offset distance

EDIT: And for the gun offset amount of 50 pixels, that's when the eyes are separated by 6 units (when the doomguy is 32 units wide)

[LogicDeLuxe]

phi108 said:

And in a Chocolate Doom 3D source port

I think, this should have a different name, as this clearly is against Chocolate Doom's goals. And for serious 3D, a source port with 3D model support would be a better base, obviously. Sprites would appear even more flat than they already do.

[Gendo]

i had an opportunity to play doom using a VR helmet, was rather immersive, but i must say all these older games are too low-res to get fully immersed by such 3d tricks ;) at least imo.

[phi108]

LogicDeLuxe said:

I think, this should have a different name, as this clearly is against Chocolate Doom's goals. And for serious 3D, a source port with 3D model support would be a better base, obviously. Sprites would appear even more flat than they already do.

I got over the flatness of sprites a LOONG time ago. I don't care if they appear flat, the draw is that they would actually appear to be at different distances from the player.

See first post; those images show how sprites are flat, but they are no less amazing.

[DuckReconMajor]

LogicDeLuxe said:

Sprites would appear even more flat than they already do.

I see nothing wrong with this. To be honest, it seems in just about every '3D' thing you see, everything looks like a cardboard cut-out anyway.

[peterPROSTHETICS]

Super Jamie said:

That's really cool!

I love stereoscopic images like this. I've even seen them in art galleries before. Big long goggles with sets of two pictures were considered a novelty item in the early days of photography.

If you hang around on /s/ enough, you see 3D stereoscopic porn too.

ummm, no thanks.... ***chans fucked my head enough

[Reevys]

I can't do it. I just can't...... :(

[r_rr]

Cool effect.

/me gets headache

Although I can't do it for too long.

[eargosedown]

I just can never get these to work =(

[Devalaous]

Cant focus without my eyes going to one of the pictures

Besides, I saw Avatar in 3D at IMAX today, so my 3D perception is a little different now :p

[printz]

I don't understand how these can become 3d. What I see at first is two identical screenshots, and if I cross my sight to overlap them, what I see is two overlapped images. There's no red-blue trickery used, it's just two identical images that I overlap hoping to see something and fooling myself that they're 3d.

EDIT: delete. There might be the trick that those are slightly different, so I have to move the image a bit so the nearby walls are synced, the far walls not. Still, I don't like it, because with this, my view is not in a natural stance.