Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Discussions relating to TriDef 3D Ignition
Jesse
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:21 pm

Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby Jesse » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:42 pm

For everyone's reference I would like to explain the concepts behind Power3D and Standard 3D, many people on the forums have been expressing assumptions as facts in the forum without knowing enough about the technology we use to generate either mode.

Standard 3D:
We generate standard 3D by duplicating draw calls submitted by the games and creating a new view (essentially a second camera), and hence stereo vision. Problems occur most commonly with shadows and lighting, which need to be projected correctly onto the scene. Special techniques are required to render them correctly and these techniques must be customised for each game outside of profile changes. We usually disable them until the corresponding techniques are successfully developed. Some games have 2D text that is placed on a 3D object in the world but is intended to be displayed in the GUI, so the depth information is not written, even though it is possible for developers to write the depth information without having it disappear behind objects.

S3D can be expected to perform around half as fast as 2D, but with a large variance depending on the game. The scene can take twice as long to render on the GPU, and there are additional overheads on the CPU.

Power3D:
Power3D is not the same as 2D to 3D conversion, as many people seem to believe. We are not operating solely on the rendered image with no information about the context or depth. Depth information is extracted from the z buffer and used to build a depth map, similar to the way games like Crysis 2 or Sniper Elite v2 handle their own integrated 3D.
The advantage of this is we can ignore all aspects of the scenes underlying rendering. For example, we don’t have to worry about shadows or lighting, because they are cast on the objects and we know the depth of the object. Things like crosshairs in P3D are generally rendered at object depth, based on the depth map, so the crosshair will match the depth of what you are aiming at.
The final image is generated by combining the depth map to the original image, like many 2D to 3D conversion algorithms (note that the way the depth map is generated is the key difference). Because there is only one view of the image, sometimes there is visual distortion around the edges of an object that is at a significantly different depth than the scene behind it.

Power 3D should render almost as fast as 2D, and enables low end graphics cards (including integrated graphics!) to display good quality 3D at acceptable frame rates.

S3D vs P3D:
In terms of rendering quality, it really depends on the game. In a perfect world, if the game was made with 3D in mind, then generally you could expect perfect performance from the S3D mode, and power 3D could never exceed that in terms of quality. However, the reality is all games are made differently, with code formed to increase rendering speed or achieve a certain visual affect. These games will have problems that need to be addressed individually. However, Power3D is generally able to get a very good depth for the scene, so the 3D effect is very good on the objects that are placed in the scene. Issues with P3D can occur when text is rendered over objects, causing the text to match the depth and become distorted. We are continuing to improve the GUI detection in power 3D, and improve the ability for our developers to include GUI information in profiles. A very small number of profiles disable P3D or S3D because of incompatibility or unacceptable limitations, but in most games both options are available.

Earmack
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:25 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby Earmack » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:58 pm

Thx for info!

I think this thread must be STICKY, so everyone can see information.
MB Gigabyte Z77X-UP5TH
CPU Intel I7 3770k @3,5ghz
GPU Sapphire 7970 ghz 6gb
RAM Kingston DDR3 khx21c11t2k2/16x 4 x 8gb = 32gb
SC X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Champion
PS Cooler Master Real Power Pro 1000 M
OS Windows 8.1 64x
TV Samsung UE40D7000LS
HDMI 1.4a

phase
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:52 am
Location: Arnhem, The Netherlands

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby phase » Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:32 am

Thanks for this great informative post. I had some vague notion of how TriDef worked, but this gave me a far better insight into the inner workings.
I agree with Earmack, this should become a sticky.

Jesse
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby Jesse » Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:00 pm

I've made it sticky already :D, I had to get the correct permissions :|

whyme466
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:41 am
Location: CA

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby whyme466 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:38 am

P3D also has problems correctly rendering volumetric effects like smoke and rain in 3D scenes.

The best long term solution for obtaining artifact-free S3D with TriDef is for us (users) to continue encouraging all game developers to test their emerging/new products with Ignition - not just 3D Vision...

Thought this discussion in Gamespot article http://www.gamespot.com/features/the-fu ... ;ReadItNow was interesting:

“But if you try to pinpoint what made Watch Dogs and Star Wars 1313 look so impressive, a quick visual analysis will reveal that lighting and particles are key factors contributing to the perceived fidelity on display. Truthfully, a properly lit environment with 750K polygons looks more authentic than a poorly illuminated environment at twice the polygon count, especially in motion. These elements are only now becoming a reality in the realm of real-time rendering, and it's changing the balance of power in the gaming arms race. Where polygons were once king, they've been usurped by techniques that, in essence, require a different type of artistic prowess. This new direction is going to have a major impact on our expectations for AAA titles.”

Unfortunately, this could be another opportunity to create MORE 3D game artifacts, if 3D rendering (Ignition) is not considered.

jim218
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:41 pm

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby jim218 » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:45 am

thks a lot for this post.
it realy open my mind.

Jesse
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby Jesse » Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:26 am

whyme466 wrote:P3D also has problems correctly rendering volumetric effects like smoke and rain in 3D scenes.

The best long term solution for obtaining artifact-free S3D with TriDef is for us (users) to continue encouraging all game developers to test their emerging/new products with Ignition - not just 3D Vision...

Thought this discussion in Gamespot article http://www.gamespot.com/features/the-fu ... ;ReadItNow was interesting:

“But if you try to pinpoint what made Watch Dogs and Star Wars 1313 look so impressive, a quick visual analysis will reveal that lighting and particles are key factors contributing to the perceived fidelity on display. Truthfully, a properly lit environment with 750K polygons looks more authentic than a poorly illuminated environment at twice the polygon count, especially in motion. These elements are only now becoming a reality in the realm of real-time rendering, and it's changing the balance of power in the gaming arms race. Where polygons were once king, they've been usurped by techniques that, in essence, require a different type of artistic prowess. This new direction is going to have a major impact on our expectations for AAA titles.”

Unfortunately, this could be another opportunity to create MORE 3D game artifacts, if 3D rendering (Ignition) is not considered.


Yep, take a step back in time to a game like psychonauts, tomb raider anniversary or GTA games before GTAIV where it was all geometry and very little shaders, and you will find a great 3D experience, even with our generic driver if we dont have a profile! if we get a request for profiles for these types of games, if they have problems, ill be more than happy to make the profiles for you guys :D

We have to see a demand!

Earmack
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:25 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby Earmack » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:44 am

Power 3D need more DEPTH number, because it's this moment it's around MAX 34-38....after this number scene not changes. Why you not increase depth number more?
MB Gigabyte Z77X-UP5TH
CPU Intel I7 3770k @3,5ghz
GPU Sapphire 7970 ghz 6gb
RAM Kingston DDR3 khx21c11t2k2/16x 4 x 8gb = 32gb
SC X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Champion
PS Cooler Master Real Power Pro 1000 M
OS Windows 8.1 64x
TV Samsung UE40D7000LS
HDMI 1.4a

Lachi
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby Lachi » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:35 am

I think the Standard 3D has no pop-out effect. Why is this?

whyme466
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:41 am
Location: CA

Re: Power 3D vs Standard 3D

Postby whyme466 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:24 am

We (users) can control how much 3D "pops out" in games through the in-game 3D menu screen. Based upon my display capabilities and my own eye comfort, I routinely change DDD's default values for Scene Depth from 30 to 45 (to provide more sensation of depth) and Percent In Front from 25 to 30 (to create a little more out-of-screen rendering).

Custom Focus can also be used to control how much rendering appears to pop out, by changing the Near Plane value to be closer to the Far Plane. However, I find Ignition's Autofocus to be great at automatically shifting these planes in almost all games, accommodating rapidly shifting scene FOVs. DDD has continued to improve Autofocus operation in its many (appreciated) update releases.


Return to “TriDef 3D Ignition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests