NVIDIA 3D Vision Poll

[dr.stevil]

$600 for some glasses and one LCD?
It better be at least 24" IPS panel.

Would IPS,TN, PVA even matter when wearing the glasses?

IPS cannot handle 120hz AFAIK, so you wont be seeing them anytime soon.

IPS, TN and/or PVA doesn't really matter in gaming IMO. For professional workstation or photography work, yes... but for gaming, faster response times and higher frequencies are king

 

[sirmonkey1985]

not a chance in hell would i wear one of these things.. i dont care how much they say its suppose to improve gaming.. its bad enough i get a headache just from wearing sun glasses.. its even worse wearing those 3D glasses they give out at movie theaters.. i dont even want to think how bad it would be with one of these over priced 3D shutter glasses..

 

[Modboxx]

This poll is worthless until any of us sit down and actually play a game in 3d surround. Then decide to go out and buy 3x24" 120hz monitors and a duel Fermi card.

Maybe seeing bfbc2 in 3d would change my mind.

 

[Bo_Fox]

This poll is worthless until any of us sit down and actually play a game in 3d surround. Then decide to go out and buy 3x24" 120hz monitors and a duel Fermi card.

Maybe seeing bfbc2 in 3d would change my mind.

Hmm, I have a hard time understanding why 3D surround is needed if a single big-screen 3D would do the job. Surround or not, 3D is 3D. I know I already said this, but it makes my 24" monitor (that is usually viewed from 2 feet away) seem like a 50" monitor when viewed in 3D because of the immersion factor.

Yeah, an analogy for this is to just cross your eyes right now as you're looking at this monitor. The total width of both images (left and right sides) almost doubles.

Sorry if this is a poor analogy that makes you feel like you have to cross your eyes to see 3D, which is not true!!!

About the 3D surround, I am wondering if the monitors on the sides have to be properly set up at right angles in order to give the viewer optimal perspective in 3D as the drivers have configured it? The head would have to be at the right distance in the middle of viewing the monitors, or else there would be distortion like trying to look at fish in a fish tank when moving your head?

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Zero interest

 

[Gorankar]

I have mentioned it b4 in other threads, but I have my doubts about 3D Surround, (nvision from now on cause it's easier), working the way many are thinking it will. For 3d effects to work on all three monitors, all three monitors must be in view of both eyes, through the special glasses.

I can't say how others will set their triple monitors up. However, in my setup, with both eyes, through my glasses, I see all of the center, but only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the side monitors when looking straight at the center monitor, unless I sit a lot further back than is reasonable for 24" monitors. This means, that for the most part, 3d effect would not be visible on the side monitors in my setup. Those of you that try a nVision setup will have to let us know how that works out.

 

[Kowan]

ChrisRay posted a shot of 3D Surround from his CES visit. The three monitors appeared to be flat against the wall in his shot. I'd want the same slightly angled view Eyefinity allows if investing in that tech.

 

[pasta4u]

I would wear them however the cost of the newe 120hz panels and the lack of options in that catagory currently stop me from trying it (along with the closed platform of nvidia's glasses)


I'm going to give the bit cauldron solution a chance

 

[Creig]

As pasta4u said, the setup cost is simply too much. $200 for the glasses is ridiculous. As has been already suggested, $99 might get people to consider picking up a set. But $200? Hardly. Add in a $400 120Hz monitor when comparable 60Hz monitors cost $200 PLUS having to have a fast Nvidia card if you don't already own one and the initial 3D Vision cost is a ridiculous $800+. Even if you already own a decently fast Nvidia card, you most likely don't have a 120Hz monitor. So you're still going to have to shell out $600. That's an awful lot of money to invest simply to see 3D effects.

 

[dr.stevil]

As pasta4u said, the setup cost is simply too much. $200 for the glasses is ridiculous. As has been already suggested, $99 might get people to consider picking up a set. But $200? Hardly. Add in a $400 120Hz monitor when comparable 60Hz monitors cost $200 PLUS having to have a fast Nvidia card if you don't already own one and the initial 3D Vision cost is a ridiculous $800+. Even if you already own a decently fast Nvidia card, you most likely don't have a 120Hz monitor. So you're still going to have to shell out $600. That's an awful lot of money to invest simply to see 3D effects.

I agree. The price of the glasses is a little crazy. I was, luckly, able to get them used at a cheaper price... but even what I paid for them is a little much IMO 99.00 would be the sweet spot.

as for the monitor, I don't know which one you're looking at but I only paid 240.00 for my 22" viewsonic 120hz I'd go out on a limb and say that the samsung is a better display to buy because of the extended OSD options and such, but purely for gaming purposes, the viewsonic is still a very good option... just not as fancy

 

[Sojuuk]

the price point of using this 3dvision thing is beyond what I am willing to spend. total price is what $1.5k?

 

[IRSmurf]

the price point of using this 3dvision thing is beyond what I am willing to spend. total price is what $1.5k?

Yes, the price is very high at the moment.

$300 per Samsung 2233rz (x3 for 3D Surround)
$200 for the glasses (What the hell is NV thinking? Do they think if they make it affordable that people will see it as a gimmick? There's no way these glasses cost anywhere near $200 to make. They need to price these things to move to encourage adaptation of the technology they currently have a monopoly on!)
Probably $500 per fermi at launch (x2 for 3D Surround)

$900+$200+$1000 = $2,200 for 3D Surround
$300+$200 = $500 for 3D Vision, if you already have any NVIDIA GTX2xx video card
$900+$200 = $1,100 for 3D Surround if you already have two GTX 285's. It has not yet been confirmed that any older cards, with the exception of the GTX 285, will be able to run 3D Surround.

The current results are:
154 (Against) VS 135 (For) VS 11 (Undecided)

The majority does not approve, but the minority makes up such a large percentage that I have no doubt the gaming public has enough interest in 3D to warrant all of this 3D development. I hope ATI has their system together soon.

 

[Saturn_V]

I've got no issues with wearing glasses for gaming.

My price ceiling for a gaming peripheral is $100.00. There are exceptions- I'd drop up to $300 for a good steering wheel or flight sim rig; but $100 is the standard limit for mice, keyboards, wireless controllers, etc. If Nvidia brought the wireless glasses price down to under $100- I'd strongly consider it.

I'm due to update my LCD monitors in the next 18mos. And a 120hz model could be in my future- but not from any of the LCD vendors Nvidia is *supporting*. (I trend towards Dell and Asus)

 

[laguerre]

The current results are: 154 (Against) VS 135 (For) VS 11 (Undecided)

The majority does not approve, but the minority makes up such a large percentage that I have no doubt the gaming public has enough interest in 3D to warrant all of this 3D development. I hope ATI has their system together soon.

My Interpretation:

04.00% - I'm hitting that
07.33% - I'd hit that again
33.67% - Maybe I'll hit it
29.33% - I hit it, not again
22.00% - I wouldn't hit that with your unit
03.67% - You have limited by hitting skillz

"Considering" is a loaded answer. I do not think that is an answer in support, this is the undecided majority.

It does let nVidia know that there is some room for improvement, but their marketing has thus far been ineffective and they need to provide a better incentive considering gamers are the most likely candidates to spearhead 3D vision.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

I applaud Nvidia for putting the effort of 3d gaming for so many years, though I would prefer they went for a more open standard and tried to sell the solution instead as middleware producer.

Nvidia 3d vision with 120hz screen and shutter glasses was cool to try, but I found it too noisy in games and it gave me a headache. I do look forward to the day where 3D will become something I wouldn't be without in games.

I doubt that Nvidia's solution is what I would choose though. The solution locks me to a vendor, and though I wouldn't mind running it off a Nvidia card, I hate the idea that I have to run it off a Nvidia card.

Bit Cauldron's solution is better IMO. Their glasses allegidely fixes many of the issues that Nvidia's shutterglasses have and they follow open standards. This means they can be connected directly to a 3D tv screen without any GFX card, works with many 3d middleware producers and Nvidia is invited to support them as well if they wish. Here's a video of their solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DU4u5Z133k

It remains to be seen (no pun intended), but I have a feeling that I would find Bit Cauldrons solution in games noisy as well and not use them.
So, I voted: I would consider the possibility of wearing wireless 3D shutter glasses for playing games on my PC.
Provided that it evolves to a stage where I personally find it to be more then something cool to try, but wouldn't use in daily gaming.

 

[IRSmurf]

...
Bit Cauldron's solution is better IMO. Their glasses allegidely fixes many of the issues that Nvidia's shutterglasses have and they follow open standards. This means they can be connected directly to a 3D tv screen without any GFX card, works with many 3d middleware producers and Nvidia is invited to support them as well if they wish
....

Just FYI: NVIDIA's glasses also work with DLP TV's. It comes with a cable that works with DLP TVs and does not require a USB connection.

But you're right about NV's grasp being far too tight on this 3D Vision.

I really wonder if ATI won't be able to use it with their graphics cards.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Just FYI: NVIDIA's glasses also work with DLP TV's. It comes with a cable that works with DLP TVs and does not require a USB connection.

But you're right about NV's grasp being far too tight on this 3D Vision.

I really wonder if ATI won't be able to use it with their graphics cards.

I checked earlier and all the setup diagrams on DLP's required a computer connection and software. Are you sure you can connect Nvidia's glasses directly to a TV without having a computer?

3D vision is Nvidia only unfortunately and its tied to the drivers. ATI cannot use it with their graphic cards. With ATI, you would need to use middleware companies like IZ3D or Edimentional.

Bit Cauldron's glasses seems better (on paper at least since there's not a single review yet) and the best part is that they are aiming to be vendor neutral and might even be sold at least as Nvidia branded glasses. According to the video, they hoped to see their glasses under several brand names.

That ATI is getting a 3D solution might be good for those that enjoy playing their games in 3D. As mentioned, its not there yet for me. The feature won't seem so unique on Nvidia cards anymore, so much of the incentive to use it as a purchase point to sell cards might be gone. That might force Nvidia to go the middleware route in order for it to be financial sound to put developement money into this.

 

[Scottig]

It will rock when we have 240 Hz monitors at 1920x1080

 

[Bop]

I had a Voodoo 2 3d Eyescream back in the day. It wasn't worth the cut in performance and I have a feeling that will be the case here too.

 

[Elmy]

I heard that IZ3D has an eyefinity setup in 3D at their hq right now using ATI hardware. I also heard 24" and 27" 120HZ 3D monitors @ 1920 X 1080 are in development right now and should be out sometime in the middle of this year.

 

[BladeVenom]

I had shutter glasses a long time ago. It's a neat gimmick, but the novelty soon wears off.

 

[btdvox]

My Main argument is simply that 3D is in, and after this year I believe quite a few homes will own a 3D ready TV. If you look at this link just posted from engadget, 3D won the show at CES.

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/21/3d-stole-the-show-at-ces-2010/

Seeing as the PS3 is the Leading Blu ray Player and has a Nvidia Chip and is campaigning 3d Vision, whether or not PC users want it doesn't matter too much, Sony is putting more money it seems into 3D vision rather than their motion controller.

 

[InvisiBill]

Like a lot of others, I don't really see myself dropping that much cash to do this. I'm not completely writing it off, but I don't think I'll be picking it up anytime soon.

The problem is that "regular" hardware does 3D by essentially doubling the output then showing the two (slightly different) halves to the two different eyes. You need twice the refresh rate, twice the signal bandwidth, and twice the GPU to maintain the current level of performance on each eye. However, the current level isn't good enough. Gamers have been begging for higher refresh LCDs for years. We finally get 120Hz, and they want us to cut it back to 60Hz to do 3D. It requires dual-link DVI and a beefy GPU, for a not-all-that-great resolution. It seems like quite a compromise to double your graphics power to maintain the exact same thing, but with 3D added. Hopefully 120Hz is enough for the vast majority of human eyes, so that we can get 240Hz/2 3D before too long.

Since they've been compared, I'm really not sure why people are so excited about Eyefinity either. I've seen the YouTube videos of the Ostendo Eyefinity setup for the racing game and helicopter sim, and they're amazing. It's a perfect fit for a game where you're in a cockpit with a mostly forward view, with some peripheral vision. However, for playing WoW or other games where you're a guy out in the world, it just doesn't seem that special to me. 3x24" monitors in portrait is about the same size as a 42" screen. I haven't tried Eyefinity myself, but I have used a few HDTVs as monitors (720p and 1080p, 32"-40"). Eyefinity does provide a higher resolution, but I honestly preferred my 720p 37" TV over my 1080p 23" monitor - hence my upgrade back to a nice 1080p 32" TV. I found the extra size to be so much better than the higher resolution. With dual monitors at home and work, I absolutely hate the way the bezels "distort" anything spanning both screens. I admit that this is probably less noticed in a game where you're continually moving around and displaying the world around you, than it is with an Explorer window sitting right on the border. However, I tend to think that the lowly 1080p on a single 42" panel would be just as immersive as the 3x24" Eyefinity setup with bezels in the middle. Remember that the sweet Ostendo CRVD above is only 2880x900 (essentially a pair of 1440x900 panels). Sure, I'd prefer a higher resolution on my 40" screen, but I'm not sure it's worth the bezels (and an expensive, not-really-necessary-yet video card upgrade in my case).

I wonder if something like http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1485059 might actually do better for 3D PC gaming. You'd still need a way to track your head, either through some sort of head-mounted device or a webcam with facial recognition software (hopefully not "racist"). While there are a few people who won't wear any sort of equipment, I think more people would be willing to wear a small "sensor bar" on their headset than would be willing to wear glasses (which inherently cut into the immersion factor themselves). It may require some more processing power to alter the scene being rendered, but it should be way less than the doubling needed for showing different images to each eye. It's based on changing the perspective of the flat image, so it doesn't require any optical tricks like showing the image to only one eye. It's the same thing that makes first-person 3D games seem 3D, just centered around your actual body's location rather than your character's position flat on the screen. Just as walking your character forward changes your perspective of objects and what you are/aren't able to see, moving your head forward would do the same thing. I think it'd be a million times better to be able to lean my head over a bit to peek around a corner, rather than using stupid "lean" buttons which seem to just tilt the screen sideways a bit and provide a slightly different view. This method just changes the focus point of the rendering, so it obviously wouldn't work with multiple focus points (several people using one screen) or on prerendered content (with one fixed focus point).

 

[Flopper]

Like a lot of others, I don't really see myself dropping that much cash to do this. I'm not completely writing it off, but I don't think I'll be picking it up anytime soon.

The problem is that "regular" hardware does 3D by essentially doubling the output then showing the two (slightly different) halves to the two different eyes. You need twice the refresh rate, twice the signal bandwidth, and twice the GPU to maintain the current level of performance on each eye. However, the current level isn't good enough. Gamers have been begging for higher refresh LCDs for years. We finally get 120Hz, and they want us to cut it back to 60Hz to do 3D. It requires dual-link DVI and a beefy GPU, for a not-all-that-great resolution. It seems like quite a compromise to double your graphics power to maintain the exact same thing, but with 3D added. Hopefully 120Hz is enough for the vast majority of human eyes, so that we can get 240Hz/2 3D before too long.

yea more bandwidth and this I guess wont happen in as say 5 years.
3D isnt mature yet.
I havent even got HD channels on the TV yet and I got a plasma screen.

I find glasses to wear to play not so likely.

 

[IRSmurf]

I wonder if something like http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1485059 might actually do better for 3D PC gaming. You'd still need a way to track your head, either through some sort of head-mounted device or a webcam with facial recognition software (hopefully not "racist"). While there are a few people who won't wear any sort of equipment, I think more people would be willing to wear a small "sensor bar" on their headset than would be willing to wear glasses (which inherently cut into the immersion factor themselves).

I've seen it before, but I completely forgot about it. While that would make an awesome 2.5D, that should certainly be built in to 3D Vision. You're already wearing glasses, you've already got a sensor-bar-esque cube sitting on your desk, so why the heck not? Hey NVIDIA, after you free up a few engineers from Fermi, can we get some of this?

Mind = Blown

I wonder if Microsoft's Natal is going to implement this in some games. It certainly has the ability.

 

[Spare-Flair]

I've played with it in store and enjoyed the effect but after awhile I forgot that it was there. It's like what happens in Avatar. Eventually you get drawn into it and just forget it's 3D until something really catches your eye. Otherwise, you sort of forget about it. I'd love one at home but I'm not willing to shell out $600 including the replacement of a much loved monitor to do so.

 

[Bo_Fox]

I've played with it in store and enjoyed the effect but after awhile I forgot that it was there. It's like what happens in Avatar. Eventually you get drawn into it and just forget it's 3D until something really catches your eye. Otherwise, you sort of forget about it. I'd love one at home but I'm not willing to shell out $600 including the replacement of a much loved monitor to do so.

Yeah, that's true how you "sort of forget about it". Real life is in 3D and it's boring! 2D is exciting!

Well, at first, 3D is amazing after playing some games in 2D. Then after a while, I take 3D for granted because hey, we've been living in 3D everyday for many years.

It's our imagination that makes 2D look like 3D, which is why 2D is still quite enjoyable.

I mean, if I use only one eye (while closing my other eye) to look at my finger a few inches away from my head, and then look at the monitor 2 feet away, my eye still has to re-focus when looking at an object further away. So many people have been telling me that I need 2 eyes to be able to determine the perceptual distance of things, but a single eye is a focusing mechanism just like a camera lens.

Going from 2D to 3D is probably the next biggest thing, after going from black-and-white to color, I think.

3DTV Is Here - Guide- 3DTV 2010 - Tom's Guide

 

[vjcsmoke]

I doubt I will ever use 3dvision unless the implementation gets a lot better and isn't so expensive. That being said, ATI will come out with their own support for 3d vision with its next set of drivers. So this feature will no longer be an Nvidia exclusive.

 

[Murry]

One of the main drawbacks of this evolving technology is that games aren't built from the ground up with 3dvision in mind so you get varying amounts of glitches and ghosting in games, depening on what effects you turn off. Also the technology isn't full utilized. Perfect example was RE5. That game should have been the poster child for 3dvision but Konami removed the pop out in-game monster animations because it didn't look good with the cut scenes. Adjusting convergence didn't do a damn thing.

The other concern is your mental health and this is huge. I found myself very tired after playing say 30 minutes because your optic nerve/brain is being tricked into a viewing a 3d display especially when it's close to your eyes. This is why I think 3d feels more confortable viewing it at a greater distance from a larger display say a projector or dlp than a monitor. I also felt a bit of nausea, especially on games that had more ghosting.

high cost, especially 3dvision surround, massive gpu horsepower if you like 60fps.
graphic glitches (post processing effects not in 3d) + ghosting + uncentered 2d crosshairs + hud, etc.
tired eyes and some may experience nausea and/or migraines.
crappy TN panels that are 120hz.

 

[Bo_Fox]

1) As long as the response time isn't quick enough (and I mean, FAST enough, like under 2ms), there will be ghosting as the page-flipping instantly switches from left eye to right eye to left eye. The monitor will have to completely transition from the left-eye oriented frame to the right-eye oriented frame fast enough so that your right eye does not notice the "fading refresh" of the older frame at all. Although CRT monitors have virtually no response time when it comes to firing phosphors (b2w) or going from a shade of grey to a similar shade of grey (g2g), there is some amount of time it takes for a phosphor to cool off from white to completely black. For LCD monitors.. the response time simply needs to be less than 2ms as the maximum. (Also, I wonder if there is any "response time" with the LCD shutter glasses themselves.)

We also need 1920x1200 120Hz LCD monitors, not just the 1680x1050 ones we have today. At least 1920x1080 should be possible @ 120Hz using dual-link DVI connectors.

Hey guys, right after making these above points, I just stumbled across great news on Nvidia's site. They announced support for two new 120Hz panels:

New 120Hz panel support
Adds support for Alienware™ OptX™ AW2310 120Hz LCD. 
Adds support for Acer GD245HQ/GD235HZ 120Hz LCDs.

Finally, bigger 23.6" 1920x1080 panels that can do 120Hz!! No more being stuck with 1680x1050 as the only choice for 120Hz LCD's.

The Alienware one has a response time of 3ms, while the Acer one has an even more ideal response time of 2ms! In my above quote, I said that it needs 2ms or less for minimal ghosting with the shutterglasses. Whoa, my prayers were instantly answered!

Alienware is claiming low input lag with their new panel: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-8846

The only serious caveat is that both are likely TN panels. At least the Acer one is for sure, according to this review: http://www.smart-blogs.com/acer-gd245hq-monitor.html TN panels have horrible viewing angles, less color fidelity and more back-light bleeding than S-IPS panels.

Perhaps I should just stop playing Batman: Arkham Asylum and wait until I get one of those babies for playing with the game's built-in menu support for Nvidia 3D Vision?

$200 wireless shutterglasses.... ugh... Fruck you Nvidia for not letting me use my $10 wired shutterglasses with any of the recent drivers!

 

[UrielDagda]

Hmmm.. Completely useless to me, since the technology requires vision in both eyes.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Definitely won't be using 3d shutter glasses, not interested in the tech and it would be a pain over my normal glasses anyway .

 

[Mr. Miyagi]

I have the Samsung 2233RZ LCD but do not own the glasses. I played around with it at Quakecon and thought some games were pretty cool with it. However, I currently own an ATi video card and am not looking to switch over.

 

[Bo_Fox]

Hmmm.. Completely useless to me, since the technology requires vision in both eyes.

Probably the only thing that would work for one eye is a truly 3D holographic display, right? Many years ago, I saw one of the holographic 3D fighting games at the arcades somewhere.. it was on a base that was a few feet wide, with a round glass hemisphere covering the whole thing. I was only a teen when I saw it, and then never ever saw anything else like it since.. Anybody got links to it or something?

 

[Murry]

This is what 3dvision needs more of. Full game support, meaning no glitches during post processing effects.

Bioshock 2 to have in game option for 3dvision!!!! http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/article/bioshock2pcmegafeature

I'm hoping higher quality 1080p 120hz 3d projectors come to market later this year, like from Panasonic, instead of the current 720p offerings from Acer and Optoma single chip dlp based ones. Playing Bioshock 2 in perfect 3d on a 100" or larger projection screen at 1920x1080 would be awesome.

 

[Bo_Fox]

This is what 3dvision needs more of. Full game support, meaning no glitches during post processing effects.

Bioshock 2 to have in game option for 3dvision!!!! http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/article/bioshock2pcmegafeature

I'm hoping higher quality 1080p 120hz 3d projectors come to market later this year, like from Panasonic, instead of the current 720p offerings from Acer and Optoma single chip dlp based ones. Playing Bioshock 2 in perfect 3d on a 100" or larger projection screen at 1920x1080 would be awesome.

Oh, frucking shit! That would be awesome! I tried playing Bioshock1 in 3D but there were a few glitches with the water in DX10. I'm sure this was fixed with newer drivers, tho..

 

[flyinpolak]

i think the biggest problem is the price of these things.

 

[kermit101]

I just wouldn't be comfortable with glasses on me, I tend to get headaches from the 3d vision.

 

[HisDivineShadow]

I think in two years more people will be used to wearing the glasses than are now. We're on the cusp of growing very used to a device that (atm) we're not used to.

This is like the days before the headphones came along and you go and you ask them, "Hey, would you wear headphones to listen to music (or a movie)?"

And they'd say, "Never! Music is not meant to be contained at ear level, it's supposed to float over the wind and alight our eardrums with rappa-tappa-rappa! I will never support these new fangled headphones!"

And now we all use them, everywhere.

Admittedly, headphones don't cause earstrain anywhere near as easily as 3d shutter (or even polarized) glasse, but I suspect over the next 2 years people will be fine with the glasses and gaming.

I say this because I think that the PS3 (and to a lesser extent the 360) will do the same as the CE manufacturers and use 3d as the next big thing. That is, the next big thing after Natal/Sony Probe fizzles out.

Because it will fizzle. Peripherals will never do well enough unless they're being given away.

So when suped up webcam's fail, then 3d will be the next awesome new technology to drag people in. Even if it gives us all migraines!

 

[Elios]

again great idea id use it but price is the issue
if some one was to give me a setup id use it but i cant see buying it my self at lest until you can get good 24"120hz monitors for ~300 and even then i wouldnt until this monitor dies
if kyle wants to give me a setup ill be glad to test it though