EVO 3D VS Nintendo 3DS

[thelonewizard]

Thanks for the info. One note for you. I know AP courses aren't accepted by many colleges (at least in California where I got my bachelor's) as anything other than elective credits. Also for med school, they aren't accepted as anything at all (not that this matters, since they coul care less about electives, but just noting). If you are doing it to get ahead, I'd look into it first.

I had never heard of IB classes, but didn't consider my school to be "poor" as you say it (lol!), so it may be something fairly new (or maybe the school really does need to be quite wealthy). I graduated in '03 if that makes a difference.

We are now going off on a bit of a tangenet, but I will say that I don't necessarily blame schools for American youth being dumb and/or fat, at least not in the curriculum they teach. I will say it is damn near impossible for a kid to not get their diploma in four years time.

Well shoot. I was actually hoping to attend Stanford in the Fall of 2013. Good to know I'll be going in with little to nothing.

Also, my school used to be fairly reputable, but in recent times, with the economy and people scrimping every last dollar they could, they decided they couldn't afford an extra $5 per month to help keep us going. But that's beside the point: we're not wealthy, and we're fairly traditional.

Also, I'm considering going into either a free-lance architecture sort of thing, or the business side of the mobile industry, where I still have a bit of my job dedicated to hardware/software. I'm not very great with programming, but I guarantee you I can take apart your desktop and put it back together. Anyway, would Stanford be a decent school for either one of these majors?

Trying to route this back on track, how exactly did you calculate the pixel density using the pythagorean theorem? I'm curious as to what information you used.

 

[lordofthereef]

Well shoot. I was actually hoping to attend Stanford in the Fall of 2013. Good to know I'll be going in with little to nothing.

I did leave out an important factor... and that is being accepted. I am sure that a bunch of AP classes along with a high GPA will do better for you than just the high GPA and no AP classes in terms of being accepted to Standford (or wherever else). Outside of that, you are just burning elective credits (which are literally the easiest credits to fill - you can take a bowling class three times and earn elective credits for it, as an example). I'm not the person to ask about Stanford. That school is too rich for my blood. I was always an acceptional student, but no valedictorian, so a full ride scholarship was also certainly out of the question.

 

[jdsingle]

Well shoot. I was actually hoping to attend Stanford in the Fall of 2013. Good to know I'll be going in with little to nothing.

Also, my school used to be fairly reputable, but in recent times, with the economy and people scrimping every last dollar they could, they decided they couldn't afford an extra $5 per month to help keep us going. But that's beside the point: we're not wealthy, and we're fairly traditional.

Also, I'm considering going into either a free-lance architecture sort of thing, or the business side of the mobile industry, where I still have a bit of my job dedicated to hardware/software. I'm not very great with programming, but I guarantee you I can take apart your desktop and put it back together. Anyway, would Stanford be a decent school for either one of these majors?

Trying to route this back on track, how exactly did you calculate the pixel density using the pythagorean theorem? I'm curious as to what information you used.

I came from a very wealthy suburb of Ventura County and even then Stanford was a bit of a joke. Quite frankly, a "named" school degree will only get you so far. People will figure out quickly if you know your shit or not. Despite getting into Dartmouth and feeling all high and mighty with my ballooned up head, I decided to try myself out. Take a look at some of the most successful people in the world, they didn't rely on the name of a big school to get them there. They did it themselves. If there is one thing I wish I would have learned many years ago, motivation is a hell of a lot more useful than piggy-backing my way through life.

 

[thelonewizard]

I came from a very wealthy suburb of Ventura County and even then Stanford was a bit of a joke. Quite frankly, a "named" school degree will only get you so far. People will figure out quickly if you know your shit or not. Despite getting into Dartmouth and feeling all high and mighty with my ballooned up head, I decided to try myself out. Take a look at some of the most successful people in the world, they didn't rely on the name of a big school to get them there. They did it themselves. If there is one thing I wish I would have learned many years ago, motivation is a hell of a lot more useful than piggy-backing my way through life.

Aww, you guys are killing my motivation. I do understand that going to a big name school like that really isn't for much more than bragging rights, but I've always tried to challenge myself. I've got a decent GPA (3.7-3.8), intentions of taking difficult AP classes, and little to no social life which I can use for schoolwork. I guess if this is the case, and I decide to pursue architecture, I should probably look into Purdue University. I mean, at that's IN my state, versus California, across the country. I guess once I get myself a bachelor's-master's in either architecture something business related, I'll head out to the West Coast and see what I can find. It'll probably be easier that way, anyway, what with travel expenses and such. Thanks for the help!

 

[novox77]

it never hurts to have a diploma from a big name school. It's like an insurance policy, and it works. I would never discourage anyone from the importance of education just because it's POSSIBLE to be successful without it.

But bottom line: if you're smart AND you're motivated, you'll be all set.

 

[EarlyMon]

It wasn't too long ago where someone around here asked about the pixel density of the Evo 3D, and I had to pull out good ol pythagorean theorem to calculate it for them. Good to know my education didn't all go to waste, even though sometimes it feels that way. I majored in Chemical Engineering and went straight into software. Hey it was 2000. There was a gold rush in dotcoms!

Reminds me of that scene from Red Planet where Val Kilmer said - "This is it -- that moment they told us about in high school where one day algebra would save our lives."

I think we were comparing the 3D tech between 3DS and E3G. The 3D tech and experience is known for the 3DS, and people are wondering if the E3D offers equal tech/experience, or if it's better. Based on the feedback so far, it seems like if the E3D's experience is comparable, it's going to be a disappointment. I'm hoping it's much better than the 3DS.

Agreed - this is a 3DS/E3D thread.

You other guys are having an interesting conversation on education, but - please take it to the Lounge or PM (if you'd like this moved to the Lounge, PM me, I'll export).

Cheers, thanks!

 

[thelonewizard]

You other guys are having an interesting conversation on education, but - please take it to the Lounge or PM (if you'd like this moved to the Lounge, PM me, I'll export).

Cheers, thanks!

Sorry about that. I get pretty focused on stuff sometimes. Let's see.....

So, how about that April 15th date, eh guys? What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Cobravision]

I played around with the 3DS at a Gamestop today. Gotta say I was pleasantly surprised by how solid the 3d effect was and how easily I locked onto it. I'm looking forward to the 3D feature a lot more now.

 

[novox77]

I played around with the 3DS at a Gamestop today. Gotta say I was pleasantly surprised by how solid the 3d effect was and how easily I locked onto it. I'm looking forward to the 3D feature a lot more now.

Time to go visit my local gamestop. Just haven't had time lately for shopping.

 

[Bnice]

Well I stop by Bestbuy the other day and played with the 3DS and for me, the 3D effect I can do with out.

 

[jbernste03]

post on a different forum for education

 

[jdsingle]

post on a different forum for education

Thanks! You're only about a week and a half late on that.

 

[novox77]

I finally had a chance to go to Best Buy, and sure enough, there was a demo unit of the Nintendo 3DS. I spent a good 30 minutes there checking out the screen. My thoughts:

When you're in the sweet spot, the 3D looks good! Now, I thought I was going to see things pop out of the screen. Actually the 3D is designed so that the background is set to appear deep behind the surface of the screen, and items in the foreground are closer to the surface, but based on the demo program running, nothing ever jumps out at you. It's like looking at a diorama in a museum. Everything is set behind the glass. Still looks 3D though.

In terms of eye fatigue, I had absolutely none when in the sweet spot. But if I were playing a game and tilting the handheld through my button mashing or whatever, I can see how eye strain can be a problem because it is very EASY to fall out of the sweet spot when you pan left and right. I'd say if you held the phone about 1ft away, you can move your head 1-2 inches in either direction before you're out of the sweet spot. If you fall out of the sweet spot, you start seeing double, and that's just hard on the eyes. So it's not the 3D that strains the eye, it's falling in and out of the double-images that might trigger a headache.

Slider adjusted the depth of the 3D. It essentially brings the background closer to the surface. Because I felt no eyestrain when locked in 3D, I would keep this setting at its max.

Sweet spot is very accommodating if you're moving the screen toward and away from your face. It's easiest to lock on when the screen is close to your face. At full arm's distance, I had to push my eyes a bit to hold on to the 3D.

Pixel density is not that great on the 3DS. Maybe a tad better than my wife's iPhone 3G, but it's not something you notice in 3D. Also, when I use the slider to reduce/disable the 3D, the observed pixel density doesn't change. It's not possible to observe that each stereo image contains half the potential data of the screen. Probably thanks to our brain merging the images together. I would think the qHD of the Evo 3D is going to look awesome.

Banding does occur when you pan left/right. I found one other sweet spot on both left and right of center where the 3D effect works with a little effort. But realistically, dead-center viewing is the only way to enjoy the 3D experience.

If you look close enough, you can kinda see the parallax barrier LCD layer. Wish I brought my loupe.

Summary:
Overall, I was impressed at the depth of the 3D effect. Was hoping to see some things appear in front of the screen, but that causes more eye strain for sure. And something's starting to tell me that pop-out 3D is not possible with this tech. Autostereograms are the same way; I've never seen one that pops out - only dive behind the picture. Would also liked to have more freedom moving my head left and right before losing the sweet spot. Hoping that Evo 3D has a wider field of view...

 

[EarlyMon]

In our previous discussions on outie vs innie, weren't we clear that that was a function of the apparent image width w.r.t. viewing distance?

Somebuddy asked the innie/outie question a few weeks ago or so as I recall - if this one is truly going to look innie only we both owe them a retraction.

Also - do we know if 3D on the 3dEvo is landscape only or both orientations. As it's a second, program-controlled LCD providing the barrier, seems it could be set up for either.

 

[dan330]

I finally had a chance to go to Best Buy, and sure enough, there was a demo unit of the Nintendo 3DS. I spent a good 30 minutes there checking out the screen. My thoughts:

When you're in the sweet spot, the 3D looks good! Now, I thought I was going to see things pop out of the screen. Actually the 3D is designed so that the background is set to appear deep behind the surface of the screen, and items in the foreground are closer to the surface, but based on the demo program running, nothing ever jumps out at you. It's like looking at a diorama in a museum. Everything is set behind the glass. Still looks 3D though.

In terms of eye fatigue, I had absolutely none when in the sweet spot. But if I were playing a game and tilting the handheld through my button mashing or whatever, I can see how eye strain can be a problem because it is very EASY to fall out of the sweet spot when you pan left and right. I'd say if you held the phone about 1ft away, you can move your head 1-2 inches in either direction before you're out of the sweet spot. If you fall out of the sweet spot, you start seeing double, and that's just hard on the eyes. So it's not the 3D that strains the eye, it's falling in and out of the double-images that might trigger a headache.

Slider adjusted the depth of the 3D. It essentially brings the background closer to the surface. Because I felt no eyestrain when locked in 3D, I would keep this setting at its max.

Sweet spot is very accommodating if you're moving the screen toward and away from your face. It's easiest to lock on when the screen is close to your face. At full arm's distance, I had to push my eyes a bit to hold on to the 3D.

Pixel density is not that great on the 3DS. Maybe a tad better than my wife's iPhone 3G, but it's not something you notice in 3D. Also, when I use the slider to reduce/disable the 3D, the observed pixel density doesn't change. It's not possible to observe that each stereo image contains half the potential data of the screen. Probably thanks to our brain merging the images together. I would think the qHD of the Evo 3D is going to look awesome.

Banding does occur when you pan left/right. I found one other sweet spot on both left and right of center where the 3D effect works with a little effort. But realistically, dead-center viewing is the only way to enjoy the 3D experience.

If you look close enough, you can kinda see the parallax barrier LCD layer. Wish I brought my loupe.

Summary:
Overall, I was impressed at the depth of the 3D effect. Was hoping to see some things appear in front of the screen, but that causes more eye strain for sure. And something's starting to tell me that pop-out 3D is not possible with this tech. Autostereograms are the same way; I've never seen one that pops out - only dive behind the picture. Would also liked to have more freedom moving my head left and right before losing the sweet spot. Hoping that Evo 3D has a wider field of view...

thanks for the info... i ve been planning to go out and see it too.

i would think .. pop-out 3D would require glasses...

 

[CanDMan]

Not sure if I have the correct idea on how this works, but when one of those autostereograms was posted on here ...it was suggested you had to focus beyond the screen. Being the curious type, I wondered what happens to my eyes when i try to focus on something near, vs something far.

It's simple enough to see that something very near (like the tip of your finger) causes your eyes to cross. I wonder if this would be necessary to see that effect from an autostereogram or if it would just be impossible. That said, I'm not sure how much the eyes spread apart when focusing on something distant! Might have to research that a little.

 

[novox77]

I don't recall having an innie vs outie discussion. Here's what I know:

Some stereo images are designed to be viewed by focusing in front of the images (cross-eye). Some are designed to be viewed by focusing behind the image (like the autostereograms).

If innie vs outie were simply a function of image width : viewing distance, the autostereograms would surely be capable of showing an outie. But they don't.

Now what I witnessed with the 3DS was that I didn't have to actively focus in front of or behind the screen. This is obvious because both images originate from the same window of space. I don't need to bring the images together; that's only necessary when the stereo images are butted up against each other.

I would think that innie vs outie can be controlled by simply flipping the stereo images. But what you'd end up having is a background that was in your face, and foreground stuff behind the background. Paradoxical but definitely possible. This is the same effect as if you use a cross-eye technique to view a stereo set designed to be focused from behind. You get a depth mirror image.

In the theater using the circularly polarized lenses, you can get both innie and outie... I'm just having a hard time visualizing why a parallax barrier autostereoscopic image couldn't do both. Perhaps it's the lack of focusing required by the eyes. Maybe eye-strain is the key. After all, focusing your eyes, by definition is eye-strain. I get zero eye strain from autostereograms and from the 3DS. That has to be significant.

 

[EarlyMon]

I don't recall having an innie vs outie discussion.

Allow me - http://androidforums.com/htc-evo-3d...ogression-display-technology.html#post2593508

 

[novox77]

interesting, I totally misread the question in that post. I interpreted near/far to mean how close the object appeared to your face, not distance from screen in both directions.

And now thinking about it, I understand how it works, but I still can't decide if the parallax barrier prevents this from working.

Ok, we need to talk about focal lines. Draw a line from your left eye to your focal point. Now draw a line from your right eye to your focal point. The two lines converge at the focal point and then criss cross beyond that.

So... an object that is neutral in depth (right on the silver screen) is on that point where the lines cross. An object that appears on the viewer's side of the screen (near) will appear as a double image: left image is on left line, and right image is on right line. The closer the object, the farther apart, as dictated by the lines.

An object that is behind the screen means that the left image is now on the right side (because the left and right lines crisscrossed) and the right image is on the left.

So... is the 3DS/Evo3D screen capable of showing both near and far? As I typed this, the answer came to me. It's NOT possible. This is because near objects appear big and the two double images cover up a large amount of display space. Those pixels are dedicated to be left-only and right-only. So what happens to the distant object that happens to be behind one of these near ghost images? There's no way to now split those pixels into left/right if the overlapping near image is all left, for example.

Polarized light doesn't have this problem because if the foreground object isn't truly a left image, it gets completely blocked out by the polarizer. There really isn't a concept of overlap. In a given area on the screen, you can have two oppositely polarized light occupying the same space. You can't have that with a single pixel.

Does that make sense? I'm convinced, but I don't know if I described that in enough detail.

 

[EarlyMon]

Yes, I'm ok with that, already got there.

When we first discussed that, I was expecting a lenticular display in my heart of hearts.

CanDMan wins for asking the right question.

 

[novox77]

so now I'm confusing myself. I just saw that Netflix thread, and was thinking... If the 3D on TV sets that requires glasses can show near and far, how will they have to change the source images so they show properly on the Evo screen? Something is telling me that maybe my previous analysis is incorrect, and Evo (and 3DS) may be capable of displaying near/outie 3D.

I'm at the point where I'm just going to throw up my hands and "wait and see" how the Evo does it.

 

[EarlyMon]

Yeap - I'm still questioning the whole adjustable 3D on the 3DS.

No way that feature can exist without sacrifice.

I prefer to wait and see.

It's a matter of scaling (apparent angles and binocular focusing).

If a movie has content designed to come out of the TV, it ought play properly on this phone without any ghosting - or it's a design fail. I can't believe that they'd have any viable image processing to re-project to the only screen surface and on inwards.

Occam's Razor.

I'm not betting on a design fail here. HTC has been working this for some time, as has Sharp.

 

[novox77]

I'm going to second the Occam's razor argument. And might as well throw in a wider sweet spot as well.

 

[coolio86]

In terms of raw power, which one is more powerful?

And for those who have Experienced both the 3DS and the Evo 3D, which 3D experience do you believe is superior? Do both have the same 3D display capabilities? Does the Evo's bigger screen make a difference?

 

[Android 17]

The 3DS is an impressive gaming device, however, if you compare the raw specs of it to any current or upcoming smartphone, it's downright laughable.

CPU: 2 x 266MHz ARM11
GPU: PICA200 133MHz GPU by DMP
RAM: 64MB
Video RAM: 4MB
Storage: 1.5GB Flash-based

Nintendo 3DS Specs Leaked

The screen is also significantly lower-res.

However, one thing to note is that the 3DS, for the most part, is a dedicated gaming device, the same cannot be said for smartphones, so despite it's specs, for the most part, it will likely have better games than the EVO3D would receive, not to mention physical controls still being superior.