What If: Tex Murphy.....in 3D!!!

You mean, like, with 3D glasses and the like? That would be awesome! I'd love to see what Tex's nose really looks like in perspective.

But maybe a bit too much. Not everyone has 3-D yet. After 3D-ready screens become more popular, I reckon they could release a 3D edition.

I would hope so, frankly, they've been more than halfway there for a long time, surely a conversion wouldn't be too hard.

I have 3-D capabilities on my computer, but... meh... give me a good ole' fashioned screen and a good story. That's all I need. I'm not much of a 3-D nut, makes my left eye twitch, and my right eye ache. Lol.

I like 3D stuff. Its come a long way since the 80s now that its no longer a gimmick (e.g. look out audience that pole is swinging right for us! AHH!) and just adds a nice depth of field.

Though I do find my eyes seem to try too hard and they will separate the image even on a nice screen like the IMAX cinema. I get what people refer to as "ghosting" or "crosstalk" where I can see a double image halo around some things or people, which is a bit distracting or blurs things more during action. However doesn't stop me enjoying the film overall, I still check out the 3D version if available and some films seem worse for it than others I guess depending on how it was shot (I remember seeing Legend of the Guardians at IMAX, with that awesome flying through rain bit and don't remember as much issue there).

I also think I found it might be less noticeable on a smaller screen like a TV but still there to an extent for me when demoing in store. ButI bet you can customise a TV to your own eyes etc. (or maybe will be able to do so in the future?) moreso than at a cinema. And someday glasses won't be needed either.

I think the technology is coming along leaps and bounds and when I was trying out some 3D TVs in an electrical store recently I was more impressed with one of them. It looked sharp throughout, couldnt really notice much ghosting, good contrast and really popped out. Googling it seems they're gradually bringing out new tech to reduce the double-image thing.

I do think it'd maybe give me a slight headache though too during an extended gaming session

Plus unfortunately I don't have or can afford one of those newer 3D TVs yet. But I think it'd be cool if Tex Murphy was shot with a camera that has the capability to be converted to 3D and then at least they have the option for the future to release it that way. I think it has to be first shot with a camera that can actually capture things in 3D rather than something that can be just added later. They can do what most film releases now during this interim do and have a version where if you buy the 3D disc, you get the HD disc with it. The Tex Murphy series often pushed technology to the limit so it'd be very appropriate.

I can image it giving a nice depth of field during exploring areas like Chandler Avenue and really making some of the action stand out.

What is the cost to shoot things in 3D though, is it much more expensive than just doing it in HD these days? They would have to budget for it if so I guess which may not be included in this Kickstarter.

Failing that don't some TVs have the option to make 2D pop out more in a 3D-ish way? Wonder how well that works.

I rarely use TVs anymore, I'm a big projector freak. I even bought one that should be able to show 3D but I haven't hooked it up to my laptop to try it yet.

But, anyway, if this new game works out I will be using one of my projectors to play it. My own little way to finally get Tex "on the big screen." I'm sure it will be glorious.

Sai wrote:Tex Murphy series often pushed technology to the limit so it'd be very appropriate

i would prefer some virtual camera work in the vein of "avatar", recently mentioned by CJ
in the non-interactive "movie" parts of the game, of course

As long as the video doesn't look completely pixelated when I plug my laptop into our TV I'll be happy. 3D is kind of a PIA for those if us who wear glasses, at least for me. Also, I am a bit torn as to whether I want Tex to still have a retro feel... Like what will it be like if Tex is using a "smartphone"?

and playing "angry birds" between cases...

my voice just wrote:and playing "angry birds" between cases...

Exactly!

redcat72 wrote:As long as the video doesn't look completely pixelated when I plug my laptop into our TV I'll be happy. 3D is kind of a PIA for those if us who wear glasses, at least for me.

I wear glasses as well, but I'm willing to brave the uncomfortableness.

my voice just wrote: i would prefer some virtual camera work in the vein of "avatar", recently mentioned by CJ
in the non-interactive "movie" parts of the game, of course

Yes, Avatar-style is what I was envisioning.

I wear glasses, and as a spectacle-wearer, I'm of the opinion that 3D can thoroughly bl#w me.

Considering how many people wear glasses, and how many of them are opposed or incapable of switching to lenses (especially for something as low-priority as entertainment!) - 3D is, in my opinion, in it's current iteration, a passing fad.

-Fred

Even if it were filmed with 3D in mind with the right equipment, it'd easily be able to have a non-3D release thats HD only. Its more the other way around I think thats tougher (filming in HD and then trying to later make it 3D). I got Legend of the Guardians 3D but don't have a 3D TV, I just got it because it included a Bluray non-3D HD disc and it was actually cheaper than just buying the HD-only release funnily enough. So it seems affordable to release both versions.

Avatar was cool but I admit I'm not too familiar with the tech behind it. Can a virtual camera system be something like this which looks like it could be very affordable (under £100, says they plan to release it mid 2012 on http://www.cinemotus.com/ but might be delayed):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 9ujnzMPBoc

Or can it only be achieved with other stuff like this OptiTrack for $5k?
http://www.naturalpoint.com/optitrack/p ... sight-vcs/

Though for Avatar someone said they only used OptiTrack to previzualize shots and such, and for the main production used some tech developed inhouse in their Lightstorm studio and some external tech owned by a company called Giant Studios which I guess cost a lot.
http://www.giantstudios.com/avatar.html

Giant and Lightstorm performed the real-time motion capture that allowed Cameron to see the CG version of the film at a game-quality level as the actors performed in a motion-capture volume approximately 40 feet wide by 70 feet long. Giant set up the volume using close to 120 industrial cameras from Basler Vision, and handled the re-targeting, in real time, of motion from actors onto the rendered, 10-foot-tall aliens. Lightstorm’s virtual cinematography system, developed by Glen Derry, blended the characters into the virtual set using Autodesk’s MotionBuilder for real-time rendering.

From: http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/200 ... World.aspx

But Avatar had to use much more CG rendered stuff, such as the blue 'alien' characters, whereas the Tex series would use makeup and such with live actors so maybe some of the cheaper alternatives could work for Tex Murphy.

Trilaan wrote:Avatar-style is what I was envisioning.

i mean this:

wikipedia wrote:To film the shots where CGI interacts with live action, a unique camera referred to as a "simulcam" was used, a merger of the 3-D fusion camera and the virtual camera systems. While filming live action in real time with the simulcam, the CGI images captured with the virtual camera or designed from scratch, are superimposed over the live action images as in augmented reality and shown on a small monitor, making it possible for the director to instruct the actors how to relate to the virtual material in the scene.

wikipedia wrote:During filming, Cameron made use of his virtual camera system, a new way of directing motion-capture filmmaking. The system is showing the actors' virtual counterparts in their digital surroundings in real time, allowing the director to adjust and direct scenes just as if shooting live action

not just 3d enhancement

*EDIT* Oops am I just getting mixed up between "virtual camera" and" simulcam"? I thought stuff like Optitrack, Cinemotus etc. could be used to plan filmed shots with real actors against 3D backdrops in realtime (and not just motion capture for 3D characters on 3D backdrops) but maybe not? Since the photos show people using a small monitor rig on set and talk about using it to previsualize shots I assumed.

Is there some budget alternatives for simulcam tech they can use on a budget?

Anyway its exciting to see how much technology has advanced and how it might be used in a new Tex Murphy game. Though I agree it'd seem weird if Tex would use lots of gadgets instead of the classic "Vidphones" and such. The Tex Murphy series is set in an alternate reality, where World War 3 occured, and I think that makes it valid if the technology isn't as advanced due to the impact of war. There was always that unusual mix of advanced tech (flying cars) alongside past tech ("you have a fax!").