Is 3D really that great?

T

Tooterfish

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
148
I have never used 3D in games. I've seen displays in Frys and best buy but they're always broken or turned off (kids). I am debating three 30 inch monitors or three 24 inch 3d monitors. Is it possible to get anything bigger than 24 inches for 3D gaming? I have heard rumors that AMD's cards will run on a TV pretty well, does that include 3D? Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
 
3d itself is great
but the currently-used methods to display 3d are all pretty much shit

monitors: 60hz flicker, dark dull colors, poor viewing angles, ghosting
hdtvs: 60hz flicker, high input lag, very low res (1280x720), ghosting

maybe buy some cheap setup to try it out first
i already knew i'd never use it again after some hours
just causes eyestrain like some cheap 60hz crt

oh and you can use both ati/nvidia for the hdmi 3d thing (just remember its limited to 720p)
 
I used a 3D monitor with glasses for almost a year and I decided to get a large high resolution IPS monitor instead for these reasons that turned me off "PERSONALLY." Although I love 3D vision, seeing them in stores is somewhat of a gimmick because it's like "OMG this is so cool I've never experienced this before" but then once you buy it and get home, it gets old pretty fast.

-You have to use a less quality TN panel monitor instead of using an IPS monitor which has higher resolutions, better viewing angles, brighter, and better colors (but of course, TN 120HZ panels are faster but IMO it's just blowing smoke and hardly noticeable)

-It's like you’re wearing sunglasses indoors. You lose all the vibrant colors and brightness of the screen. Games just look more dark and dull.

-If you're using a laptop to the side, light-up keyboard, or your wife/hubby is trying to talk to you to the side, good luck trying to see anything.

-Unless you plan on using the 3D glasses for a long predetermined time, you cannot take them off because your eyes will adjust back to normal. When you put the glasses back on, you usually have to adjust the 3D depthless overtime multiple times to get the best 3D effect possible (which gets annoying doing dozens of times a day)

-Massive ghosting in game (I guess this is supposed to get better soon)

-Lots of "rainbow effects" I noticed in games with the colors which were not supposed to be there.

-A good handful of games don't support the 3D vision to its max. If they do, MANY games make you turn down certain cool graphic settings like shadows or whatnot because that specific part of the game is incompatible with the 3D (although it seems like a lot of the new games these days are 3D vision ready out of the box and getting better)

-Obviously headaches like what most people say. If you plan on playing video games for more than 2 hours a day, I wouldn't recommend 3D for you (if you play MMO's or something, it'll be extremely uncomfortable after a while)

-Stupid large glasses you have to wear and recharge every so often.

Things I liked:

-3D effect is cool. I love turning the depthness up more and more as my eyes start focusing to the 3D effect. It's definitely a different experience. I plan on going back to 3D in the future once they start making some better monitors and possibly glass-free 3D monitors (which are on the horizon, at least in the TV department)
 
www.iz3d.com download 1.13 beta, use the anaglyph mode, get some Red/Cyan glasses. It's not as good as a 3D monitor but it only costs what you pay for the glasses from free to few dollars. IMO It's good enough for the experience.
 
Seyumi, thanks for the post. Sounds like what I feared, think I will send back the 27in acer I ordered unopened.... 120hz is not worth it alone compared to my 3007wfp hc. I would lose half my resolution and a lot of color clarity and image pop.
 
You know, just recently I ran into the decision of either building a system around the idea of 3D or around Eyefinity. In the end I chose Eyefinity. I mean honestly, having 5760x1080 resolution is flippin sweet. And support for triple monitor gaming is on the rise (a lot faster it seems than support for 3D).

To me, 3D is more or less a "fad" that'll die down soon enough like every other fad. Other fads include: physx, netbooks, tablets, ordering pizza in-game by typing /pizza, brain-wave sensing handless controllers, etc. It's kind of an expensive luxury you really don't need.
 
As a very casual gamer mostly into the eye candy, I think 3D is one of the coolest things ever. Was pleased to see it return with nVidia's kit.

That said, now as with the earlier incarnation, I do use the kit with a high end CRT and I'm not familiar with the 120Hz LCD panels...that they are TN panels is certainly a big negative to many....
 
I haven't played games on a 3D monitor. But I remember after watching Avatar in 3D at Sony I-Max for 15 minutes, the 3D effect lost it's charm on me.
 
Been using 3D Surround for 11 months, never going back. No it's not perfect but it does add immersion to games that implement it well. You have to try it for yourself, if I had gone on the advice of others I would have missed out on something that I truly enjoy.
 
heatlesssun said:
Been using 3D Surround for 11 months, never going back. No it's not perfect but it does add immersion to games that implement it well. You have to try it for yourself, if I had gone on the advice of others I would have missed out on something that I truly enjoy.
Click to expand...

I am mainly looking at it for the 120hz aspect... with that in mind, is it worth the drops? I hear 3d isn't good for using online, as well, ie it makes competitive play harder. is that the case? 90% of my play is online.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I am mainly looking at it for the 120hz aspect... with that in mind, is it worth the drops? I hear 3d isn't good for using online, as well, ie it makes competitive play harder. is that the case? 90% of my play is online.
Click to expand...

I'm mainly into single player and in most cases wouldn't recommend S3D for online play. But I also wouldn't recommend multi-monitor necessarily for online play for the same reasons. However with 3 580s it's easy to lock into close 60 FPS in a number of games with low or no AA. But of course with 120 Hz monitors many would want to take advantage of that over S3D. And 120 Hz monitors is a compelling reason to get a 3D setup. Sure I would love IPS panels but 120 Hz monitors do make a difference especially with fast action gaming. No tearing no bluing and locking v-sync in at a rock steady 120 FPS is awesome.

There's just a lot of things to consider when going 3D, so far the biggest hindrance is the complexity. If you're the type that thinks drivers suck and think PC gaming is too difficult, don't even think about 3D Surround, it's very temperamental. The biggest problem I experience are things breaking between driver releases. System Restore is my friend. The new 27x drviers have been a pain in the arse for 3D Blu Ray, I can get Total Media Theater 5 to work at all. Power DVD 11 does work with 3D BD with the 270.61 drivers but not with the 275.xxs though Cryberlink says they are aware of the problem and should have it patch in a week.
 
3D is crap. When watching a 3D movie you basically ignore the effect after about 15 minutes. Then you only notice the crappy contrast and colors and uncomfortable glasses.

The 120 Hz thing is the only good aspect and even then it's not all that great because of the inherent deficiencies of display technologies currently used.
 
3d is a gimmick all around.

But if you like wearing annoying 3d glasses to watch movies, then you may like doing the same with your computer.

I am going to watch Thor 2D tomorrow. Luckily my friends think 3d is a pointless gimmick as well, and we still have 2D screenings at my favorite theater.
 
Thanks for the input guys... I think for me refusing the package is the way to go.
 
I don't think it's a gimmick. The problem is when it's done poorly. The only 3D movie I've seen is Avatar, but I've heard that many other movies have just tacked on mediocre 3D to try and sell more expensive movie tickets...

A further complaint is that it's been introduced to market televisions, when those manufacturers should still be concentrating on basic picture quality...
 
S3D itself isn't a gimmick, it does add depth to 2D images that most people can percieve. It is however as you point out employed as a gimmick. Of note, the bulk of action movies coming out this summer have 3D versions. We'll see how it plays out from here but the amount of 3D hardware and content seems to be increasing at an almost exponential rate currently. This trend may not continue but I simply don't see 3D hardware and content going away in my lifetime and there's a great deal of investment in improving the technology.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Thanks for the input guys... I think for me refusing the package is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you wouldn't try it out if it's coming your way based on a few posts on the internet.

I detailed my experiences in the Nvidia subforum (http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1606315), but the brief version is that I got 3D on a lark because I was buying a new laptop and getting a 3D screen for it cost me almost nothing. Playing a few games on it, I was blown away by the effect. A week later, I got the 27" 3D Acer and a GTX 580 to replace the setup that's still in my sig.

Yes, you're seeing that right, I replaced one of the best monitors money can buy with this "gimmick" technology. Why? Because it's amazing. Forget everything you know about 3D from 1950 or movie theaters or whatever. I find that stuff to be a waste of time way more often than not. 3DVision, however, is a different beast. You can configure it to get some pop-in, but the main draw is depth. Seeing scenes rendered with depth just completely changes the gaming experience; it removes a layer of implausibility that's always been caked onto the gaming experience.

A minority of people's eyes can't handle the way 3DVision is implemented for whatever reason, but I have no problems with flickering or dizziness. Ghosting exists, but it's not distracting on the better and newer displays. Ghosting is actually the wrong term, since there's no smudging, just faint double-imaging in high contrast scenes.

I've played with Surround, 54" Plasma, and 30" 1600p monitor, and none of them come close to 3D in terms of immersion, in my opinion. Of course, you need to spend a few minutes with each game configuring convergence and depth correctly (balancing pop-in and depth), but that's not rocket science.

L4D2, BC2, Trine, Starcraft 2, Metro 2033 - I started replaying *all* these games because they're just unbelievable in 3D when properly configured. Witcher 2 needs a patch to fix some issues, but I briefly tried 3D for one particular scene in that game, and all I can say is that the emotional impact of that scene was MUCH more strongly conveyed when I saw it with depth. It was honestly sort of disturbing and sad.

Is the 30" monitor nice? Hell yes. But at the end of the day, it's the same flat image, just made bigger.

Another note: I think there is too much IPS faux-snobbery around these sorts of things. IPS doesn't do shit for you unless you're (a) a web designer or in some other niche field that requires 100% accurate colors or (b) in need of portrait mode. The most recent *good* TN LCDs I've bought blow away the two 22" IPS I own in terms of usable brightness levels and thus PQ in games. The VE278Q's PQ was so good that it compared with the HP 30" for my purposes (games and media). And none of that IPS glow shit, either - the VE278Q, in fact, had zero, and I do mean zero, backlight bleeding.

I still use the two IPS monitors in portrait mode because 27" 1080p provides too low DPI to look at text cleanly, but that's about it.
 
Last edited:
Matrices said:
Another note: I think there is too much IPS faux-snobbery around these sorts of things.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. The bottom line is that currently IPS are capped at a 60 Hz refresh rate. For action gaming 120Hz panels can more than offset color accuracy and viewing angles if you can drive a game at a locked 120 FPS. There simply isn't one current LCD technology that does it all. You have to choose between color accuracy and viewing angles and speed, that's just where we are at with the technology unfortunately. When 120Hz IPS become commercially available for less than a kidney I'll be no doubt
 
GoldenTiger said:
I am mainly looking at it for the 120hz aspect... with that in mind, is it worth the drops? I hear 3d isn't good for using online, as well, ie it makes competitive play harder. is that the case? 90% of my play is online.
Click to expand...

3D isn't good for any competitive play where you have to rely on response time. Eyes needs to adjust to the depth in another way and in competitive play, its often: "it moves, do I shoot it or not?" decitions. Being synced, it might also add lag. Personally, I wouldn't even recommend it to casual online FPS gaming. It removes more from the gaming experience then it adds, since much of the experience comes from acomplishments in the game.

Its worth trying out 3D though. 3D really works. Though it has many bad sideeffects and isn't good in many games, it also adds to the immersion in several other games I've tried.

Take Titans Quest. A Diablo clone which is pretty decent. I look on it from top down in a "god view" with a possibility to zoom in and also alter camera angle. Graphics is also decent and I see some sort of 3D.
Then I turn on 3D:
Suddenly, the characters, buildings, tree's etc. gets more depth and I really feel I am looking down on miniature people and enviroments. I can zoom in and things pops out of the screen. When birds fly, they seems like they are flying in the air, due to a sense of distanse between the birds and the ground appears with stereoscopic 3d. In Titans Quest, I feel that the stereoscopic 3D really brings out the game world and adds to the immersion, despite drawbacks of 3D Vision technology. In my opinion, Titans quest is best played in 3D.

Stereoscopic 3D, when done right, adds a possibility to experience a distance between objects and sizes of objects in relation to the game world that you don't get without it. In other words, its not only the depth "into the screen" and the popout "out of the screen", but its also about the objects and distances within the game world giving it more a feel of realism.

Stereoscopic 3D can "bring a game to life" so to speak.

In some games, like Heroes of might and magic V (which I preferred the graphics of HOMM III) 3D made the "improved graphics" actually mean something. Trust me, I really hated the upgraded graphics of HOMM V until I tried it with Nvidia's 3D vision.

There are however many drawbacks with current implementation of 3D:

Glasses:
The glasses is not more uncomfortable then using sunglasses. Infact, its like gaming with sunglasses. I can't speak for the new Bitcauldron, but Nvidia's 3D vision glasses are like sunglasses. Try to put on some sunglasses and play a couple of games. Thats how you feel using the glasses (except no 3D effects though). The shutter glasses are not clear glass and they have a polarizing effect. So, no matter how cool the game is in 3D, you will constantly have to fight the feeling of taking the glasses off, the same way you fought the feeling when you tried regular sunglasses and gaming. I have some Polaroid sunglasses which actually muds the colors and light less then Nvidia's 3d vision glasses. Without 3D, I'd prefer those sunglasses. A tip is to increase color temp if the shutter glasses makes your white yellow.

Software:
There is different software on the market. However, its tied up to hardware unfortunately when it comes to shutterglasses. With anaglyph you can use alll software solutions. I prefer IZ3D out of the 3 I tried (3D vision discover, IZ3D and Tridef), since IZ3D lets you have more control with profiles and settings, while also having a very active forum who shares settings. I'll focus on 3D vision with shutterglasses, since thats what I am using.

Nvidia's 3D vision software is lacking a lot.
1. You can adjust convergence, but you need to adjust it blindly, since there is no indication of how much convergence you have.
2. You can adjust depth, but there is only bars showing amount and no numbers, making it harder to share depth adjustment with others.
3. You can save your adjustment with convergence per game, but there is no way to save the depth adjustment per game.
4. There is no profile system.
5. There is no option to swap eyes (there is one with 3rd party Nvidia inspector I haven't tried yet though).
6. Its very driver dependent and since they break something, fixes it, and breaks it sometimes, I would prefer it not to be so tied up to driver.

They have a rep in Nvidia's forum which does a good job and gets fixes implemented relatively quick it seems. Since software is lacking, there isn't much settings and fixes to share, but one has tried at least with his own website, which deserves rep for it:
http://solutiongaming.co.uk/index.html

IZ3D's community is so much more developed, so I hope Nvidia will fix these things so its possible to share settings for us with 3D vision making a better 3d vision community. In addition IZ3D don't have those problems listed above. As it is, people are considering using their 3D vision kit with IZ3D:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=198856&st=0
I'm going to try these myself when I get the time.

Games:
A lot of games doesn't work with 3D and a lot of games work with 3D. Some games you need to reduce graphics a lot to make it work in 3D. Take Crysis (from Nvidia drivers):
"Water reflections and clouds are not correct. Set Shadows to minimum/shaders and Post Processing to mainstream or lower. Turn Motion Blur off. Turn off in game laser sight (in mouse and keyboard setup) Use Nvidia Laser sight. Gunsight or Pointer is 2d object, "

The shutterglasses' sunglass effect muds colors, contrast etc. in ALL games. Since its like gaming with sunglasses, you get the same eyestrain as if you were using sunglasses. Depth also takes some getting used to. FPS games where you have to use reflexes and skills gets harder in 3D.

Not to mention framerate hit etc.

Conclution:
For many and also for me, 3D is fun in the beginning, since you focus on what it adds to the game. When you get used to the 3D effects, you get more concius about what it removes from the game as well. In the end, its a decition if the sacrifices are worth the 3D effects even in games where 3D works well.

While stereoscopic 3d adds depth, it also makes other things worse.

I think the average gaming experience is better on a higher quality non-3D screen, then using a 3D screen. For competitive (not casual) FPS gaming, a 120hz TN screen IS better. For casual gaming, I'd prefer a 60hz IPS vs. a 120hz TN.

If you are going 120hz anyway, I would recommend you actually get a 3D kit with it. Its really worth trying out, despite the above. The reason I have a 120hz TN now, is because I needed a new second monitor for friends coming over and I just as well got one with 3D vision package for the fun of it. I don't regret that. Now I have the option for 3D when I want. :)
 
Last edited:
Tamlin_WSGF said:
Glasses:
The glasses is not more uncomfortable then using sunglasses. Infact, its like gaming with sunglasses. I can't speak for the new Bitcauldron, but Nvidia's 3D vision glasses are like sunglasses. Try to put on some sunglasses and play a couple of games. Thats how you feel using the glasses (except no 3D effects though). The shutter glasses are not clear glass and they have a polarizing effect. So, no matter how cool the game is in 3D, you will constantly have to fight the feeling of taking the glasses off, the same way you fought the feeling when you tried regular sunglasses and gaming. I have some Polaroid sunglasses which actually muds the colors and light less then Nvidia's 3d vision glasses. Without 3D, I'd prefer those sunglasses.
Click to expand...

If you already wear glasses, 3d glasses are even more of a PITA, when you have to wear two pair of glasses stacked I do find that quite uncomfortable.

Conclution:
For many and also for me, 3D is fun in the beginning, since you focus on what it adds to the game. When you get used to the 3D effects, you get more concius about what it removes from the game as well. In the end, its a decition if the sacrifices are worth the 3D effects even in games where 3D works well.

While stereoscopic 3d adds depth, it also makes other things worse.

I think the average gaming experience is better on a higher quality non-3D screen, then using a 3D screen. For competitive (not casual) FPS gaming, a 120hz TN screen IS better. For casual gaming, I'd prefer a 60hz IPS vs. a 120hz TN.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much how I felt when I saw Avatar. Except the fun in the beginning part lasted about 5 or 10 minutes and it was merely annoyance after that. I do think the whole current 3d craze is novelty driven.

Anytime I look at this stuff, it is like seeing some kind of nerd demo. "look it has depth, isn't that awesome!". Yeah whatever, can we just watch a movie/play a game.

But some people love it and want to go back for more, that is why I mentioned movies. If you keep wanting to see 3D movies, then chances are you might get more use out of a 3D gaming screen. But if like me, seeing one 3D movie was more than enough, then a 3d gaming rig is probably a waste of money.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
3D isn't good for any competitive play where you have to rely on response time. Eyes needs to adjust to the depth in another way and in competitive play, its often: "it moves, do I shoot it or not?" decitions. Being synced, it might also add lag. Personally, I wouldn't even recommend it to casual online FPS gaming. It removes more from the gaming experience then it adds, since much of the experience comes from acomplishments in the game.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is necessarily true. My K : D ratio in Bad Company 2 improves 25-50% playing in 3D, because the perception of depth increases my spatial awareness. However, since there is reduced contrast, it becomes a little harder to make out uniforms, but that's not an issue in normal mode because you can "spot" people.
 
Matrices said:
I don't think this is necessarily true. My K : D ratio in Bad Company 2 improves 25-50% playing in 3D, because the perception of depth increases my spatial awareness. However, since there is reduced contrast, it becomes a little harder to make out uniforms, but that's not an issue in normal mode because you can "spot" people.
Click to expand...
How is 3D for longer gaming sessions?
 
CuE0083 said:
How is 3D for longer gaming sessions?
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me 3D for hours at time watching movies or gaming but different people react differently, nausea and headaches and what not. I've not experienced anything other than plain old eyestrain that I get even without S3D,
 
Doesn't bother me. The only slightly odd thing is that I begin to see a tiny bit of depth in 2D for a little while. Nothing dizzying or distracting.

Of course, if you are playing using the wrong convergence and depth settings (and it's very obvious when they're wrong), you're going to feel it pretty quickly.
 
Isn't it all about choices?

Do some guys prefer blondes and others brunettes? How about Chevy's over Ford's? How do you measure whether 3D is great or terrible on a universal scale? One thing I have noticed is that those who are down playing 3D have, in general, systems that are of a lower grade in their sig when it come to those that are OK with it and see it as a path to the future.( I have looked at other threads, not just this one to come to this conclusion. This leads me to believe that it is a matter of "not being able to afford it so I will degrade the technology to make myself feel better" syndrome. 3D this year is better than it was 2 years ago on both the HDTV and gaming platforms. Why does anyone think any technology is static? If you have the income TRY IT OUT YOURSELF and do not rely on the naysayers because a true picture of what it really is will not be presented by those that can not afford it. This is true across the board. I am sure many people denounced the "motor car" as a fad. Those that could afford it got one, and the rest is history. I would rather be a part of history than be knocked over by it and being left in the dust. 3D is here to stay and I personally think that for a young technology, it is GREAT!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top