Doom in 3D

[DuckReconMajor]

phi108 said:

This was pointed out before, and I think it doesn't matter much. Doom sprites have always been flat, and I've always been okay with that. But Doom scenery and architecture have always been "stereoscopic ready". I'd rather enjoy alot of well built maps in 3D than a bunch of monster models in 3D. And even with Doom sprites, you can at least tell which sprites are closer and which are farther.

Yeah sprites look like cardboard cutouts. And that's what you want. And yes, the levels are 3D.

phi108 said:

I don't think this is necessary. It matters if you think the player will be looking at one thing only, but in a real-time Doom game you have to let the player look at whatever they want to look at.

I thought about that at first but after thinking about it realized that you're just making it so that your eyes can't focus on anything. They're in a suspended state of non-focus.

[Karnizero]

Some other 3D images:
(you will probably have to zoom out to match your preferences)

Doom with the 3D models that comes with EDGE Demos:



Scythe 2 Map:


Quake Cutie Bear:



Star Trek: Elite Force 2. A chick that you can meet somewhere. This is probably the image that you all enjoy the most ;-)

phi108 said:

This was pointed out before, and I think it doesn't matter much. Doom sprites have always been flat, and I've always been okay with that. But Doom scenery and architecture have always been "stereoscopic ready". I'd rather enjoy alot of well built maps in 3D than a bunch of monster models in 3D. And even with Doom sprites, you can at least tell which sprites are closer and which are farther.

Yes, you are right. Scenery simulates 3D, but sprites are 2D, so you can't get never a "depth" illusion for sprites.
Of course, you can see what are closer and what are far.

phi108 said:

I don't think this is necessary. It matters if you think the player will be looking at one thing only, but in a real-time Doom game you have to let the player look at whatever they want to look at.

I mean that when doing the images, not when looking at them.

If you capture the both images (left & right) looking at the same absolute point, all other elements from the scenery will change their relative position (and their perspective) in relation with the "fixed point". This result on a better effect than if all elements changes their relative positions and perspectives.
You can think that you look at a person, and just turn around him/her, but still looking at the middle of his/her nose.

Super Jamie said:

I can't focus on that one at all. The "2D" Doom images are alot easier.

That's probably because the image is too big for you. Try zooming out.

Other than that, if you see the image blurred but in 3D, that probably means that you are too close to the image.

DuckReconMajor said:

His is for parallel so try offsetting it in Pshop or Gamp or whateverYour image looks great. But when doing this though, won't stuff in the distance go out of focus? Or is this the intent?

Although the first Quake Image I did was not perfect at all, you shouldn't see things in the distance blurred.

Anyway, this works better for close things, as you can probably realize in those images.
The perspective is more appreciable when you are close to a thing than for far things. Just take a look out of the window and you will realize that far objects (a car, a tree, etc..) nearly doesn't changes in comparison with things that are very close to you (for example, the window frame, a book, and so on).

Real-life perspective and viewing is very different than those images, so it cannot be applied to plain images emulating 3D scenery.

[DuckReconMajor]

Karnizero said:

Although the first Quake Image I did was not perfect at all, you shouldn't see things in the distance blurred.

Your room wasn't that big.

[Creaphis]

So why hasn't anybody hacked together a stereoscopic Doom port yet?

[Karnizero]

Creaphis said:

So why hasn't anybody hacked together a stereoscopic Doom port yet?

Unless you have Stereoscopic Glasses, to use the "cross-eyes" technique will f*ck your view.

I don't recommend it at all except sporadically.
Playing Doom with crossing eyes is totally crazy.

[Maes]

Creaphis said:

So why hasn't anybody hacked together a stereoscopic Doom port yet?

Actually, I had proposed it and it turned out that some people are/were actually working on one.

The main challenges seem to be how to efficiently implement the software renderer in order to mix two differently tinted images, but if done correctly, it would allow using standard anaglyph colorized 3D glasses and even allow the user to manually set the separation distance and preferred tints (after all, Nintendo could do it in 1987 with Rad Racer on the NES!).

[DuckReconMajor]

Karnizero said:

Unless you have Stereoscopic Glasses, to use the "cross-eyes" technique will f*ck your view.

I don't recommend it at all except sporadically.
Playing Doom with crossing eyes is totally crazy.

That's how that other one that doesn't work does it and I had no problem with it.

Also, you say with crossed eyes but yours are made for parallel :P

[Karnizero]

DuckReconMajor said:

That's how that other one that doesn't work does it and I had no problem with it.

Also, you say with crossed eyes but yours are made for parallel :P

Yes, my bad.(that happened when you slept only 4 hours in the previous night :-P ).

I wanted to say that using parallel-eyes view to achieve the orthostereographic projection can fuck anyone's view since you are forcing your "crystalline?" (is that word correct in English?) to focus into a point in the infinite, and that means that you are modifying your eyes' crystalline more than it naturally can. (sorry for my bad English. I know little about scientific terminology).

[Maes]

Actually, you strain your eyes' muscles too much, and nobody can use this "technique" for more than maybe half a minute at a time, so long-term use is out. That's why they don't project cross-eyed movies in theaters, and nobody marketed cross-eyed 3D projection systems. Devices such as the humble View Master, binoculars or the Virtual Boy use forced binocular separation.

[phi108]

I have watched Youtube videos cross-eyed, longer than 5 minute videos, and it doesn't become uncomfortable. But I keep the video player on a small size, if it was fullscreen it would be more difficult.

If two 320x240 images were side by side, on a high resolution modern screen, it would be easy to view cross-eyed for a longer time. Even two 640x480 views might be bearable, if it was windowed and if you sat far back from the screen.

EDIT: I guess if anyone would want to hack 3D viewing into an engine (Blzut3, want to resurrect your 3D ZDoom?), it might be easier to first get 2 views to display side-by-side, with an option for cross-eyed or parallel, and get the HUD and weapons displaying correctly in each view. Then work on combining both images in one view with a few different 3D glasses color combinations.

[Creaphis]

Though I suppose this puts me in the minority, I feel perfectly comfortable when viewing stereoscopic images with the cross-eyed method, and I feel I could do this for an extended length of time (long enough to play a Doom level, anyway). This doesn't force the visual system to do anything unnatural, either. With the right monitor setup, you could have your eyes individually focused on your monitor, which is quite natural, considering that's where they're focused right now; and binocularly focused at a point half way between your monitor and you, which is a typical distance for reading books.

[Maes]

Creaphis said:

I feel I could do this for an extended length of time (long enough to play a Doom level, anyway). This doesn't force the visual system to do anything unnatural, either.

...until somebody comes and pat you in the back ΧD

[Aldaraia]

I am green with envy guys. These stereoscopic pictures sure do look interesting, but 3D in anything at all doesn't work for me. Blind pretty much in my left eye since I was 3, you get used to it. Sure hope that it doesn't become mandatory in the future of entertainment though.