When will ATI have 3D?

[Matrices]

Not sure that game would be worth playing even in 4D.

 

[heatlesssun]

Been enjoying 3D MUCH better than I thought I would. I know that some here are not fans but I think I've just about become one after a day, I'll have to see how it wears on me long term.

 

[Sly]

Been enjoying 3D MUCH better than I thought I would. I know that some here are not fans but I think I've just about become one after a day, I'll have to see how it wears on me long term.

What games have you tried it on? Aiming is gonna be worth sh*t in Just Cause 2, but that just means i'd rather go for machineguns and explosions more often

Imagine this in 3D

Wish they'd come out with 3D for ATI soon.

 

[bigdogchris]

Hardware Physics or 3D vision will not take off unless ATI and Nvidia adapt an open standard for it. Companies are not going to support both cards, it will be one or the other. It's like the battle between Glide and DX. Once everybody switched to DX, games improved.

 

[Sly]

Hardware Physics or 3D vision will not take off unless ATI and Nvidia adapt an open standard for it. Companies are not going to support for one card or the other. It's like the battle between Glide and DX. Once everybody switched to DX, games improved.

Wasn't MS developing a standard for DirectX (For physics anyway, hopefully they making one for 3d stereo too)? How far along are they?

 

[heatlesssun]

What games have you tried it on? Aiming is gonna be worth sh*t in Just Cause 2, but that just means i'd rather go for machineguns and explosions more often

Imagine this in 3D

Wish they'd come out with 3D for ATI soon.

So far just Batman AA and JC2 and both are a blast to play in 3D just a big performance hit.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

3d has been attempted no less than 17 time before and each time it has failed

requiring glasses is a big drawback because

a) they are expensive
b) everyone needs a pair to partake
c) if they break you gotta get a new pair
d) not 100% interchangeable (some glasses do not work with some TV/Monitors)

 

[heatlesssun]

3d has been attempted no less than 17 time before and each time it has failed

requiring glasses is a big drawback because

a) they are expensive
b) everyone needs a pair to partake
c) if they break you gotta get a new pair
d) not 100% interchangeable (some glasses do not work with some TV/Monitors)

Sure 3D has its challenges but it is something still uniuqe and fresh even its been tried before. You list of crisitms are fairly generic and apply to any emerging technology but so far I'm VERY impressed with the things I've tried, can't want to try a 3D Blu Ray movie.

 

[atrance5]

Don't got to [H] and expect to hear anything positive about 3D, a fair % of normal people don't like it (in the cinema or elsewhere) including Kyle who hates it. All Ati fan boys hate it (because nvidia does it better and 3D vision is a closed standard). That's most of the posters on [H]. A typical [H] thread on the subject normally has about 20 people arguing against it, nearly all of which have never actually used it, and about one 3D vision fan boy arguing for it - who while being a fan boy at least is talking from experience of using 3D.

Is 3D that bad - well I don't think I've seen a single review that was very negative - they pretty well all say it has issues but is surprisingly good (a bit like eye infinity).

Will Ati do 3D - going by ati's previous track record the answer is not for a long time. Almost certainly Ati will talk about it, they will say open standards are better, they will say nvidia's close standard sucks, etc .... but they won't actually do anything - it'll be all talk no action. If you actually want to game in 3D nvidia will be by far the best choice for the next few years.

Nailed it mate !

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Don't got to [H] and expect to hear anything positive about 3D, a fair % of normal people don't like it (in the cinema or elsewhere) including Kyle who hates it. All Ati fan boys hate it (because nvidia does it better and 3D vision is a closed standard). That's most of the posters on [H]. A typical [H] thread on the subject normally has about 20 people arguing against it, nearly all of which have never actually used it, and about one 3D vision fan boy arguing for it - who while being a fan boy at least is talking from experience of using 3D.

Is 3D that bad - well I don't think I've seen a single review that was very negative - they pretty well all say it has issues but is surprisingly good (a bit like eye infinity).

Will Ati do 3D - going by ati's previous track record the answer is not for a long time. Almost certainly Ati will talk about it, they will say open standards are better, they will say nvidia's close standard sucks, etc .... but they won't actually do anything - it'll be all talk no action. If you actually want to game in 3D nvidia will be by far the best choice for the next few years.

so want to explain how this time 3d will be successfull when the previous 17+ times failed?

filtered glasses and polarized glasses work to some degree but are imho never going to be prefected to the point where it will be accepted. you all let me know when they create a holodeck cuase that's what it is going to take to make it work.

 

[SirPauly]

The point about clarity with 3d stereo -- sometimes without tweaking the screen may appear to lack clarity --- the key is in the advanced settings there is an ability to increase convergence which offers clarity, very much so, while providing a lot of pop out.

The down-side is when one dramatically changes the site line so-to-speak -- it may lose focus again, which may be seen when there is a quick change to a cut scene.

 

[SirPauly]

so want to explain how this time 3d will be successfull when the previous 17+ times failed?.

Because the industry is behind it this time. Also the technology is there in place at many levels to offer it from televisions, projectors and monitors.

The hardest thing for me is the negative perceptions some have with the ability, this is the hardest part to over-come.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

Because the industry is behind it this time. Also the technology is there in place at many levels to offer it from televisions, projectors and monitors.

The hardest thing for me is the negative perceptions some have with the ability, this is the hardest part to over-come.

I think many would want to like 3D, but its not quite there yet.

Personally, I've tried the Nvidia solution with 120hz screen and shutterglasses, IZ3D with ATI card and anaglypic glasses, 3D TV with shutterglasses and polarized glasses.

It was interesting to try, but nothing I would want to use in regular gaming. Polarized glasses was actually most comfortable, though even then I felt strain after a short while.

3D is too noisy and distracting. Gives me a headache using it and its like I am forcing myself to "endure it" in hope that it gets better. I even checked the eyedoctor to see if I had some astigmatism or something that could explain why it sucked to use 3D for even relative short time.

Most fun experience with 3D and one of the few that I really loved, was the cat head in Alice in wonderland 3D which was coming out of screen and floating almost in front of my face in theater. I really would want 3D to be something that I "wouldn't want to be without", but its not there yet IMO.

 

[SirPauly]

Hardware Physics or 3D vision will not take off unless ATI and Nvidia adapt an open standard for it. Companies are not going to support both cards, it will be one or the other. It's like the battle between Glide and DX. Once everybody switched to DX, games improved.

I understand the point with GPU PhysX using Cuda at this time but not 3d vision. When a developer adds support for 3d stereo, it really helps all 3d stereo vendors, where GPU PhysX, using Cuda, only enhances and leverages nVidia at this time to me.

To me, nVidia understands the growth potential for 3d stereo moving forward and trying to create a software ecosystem to help make awareness for their products.

There is nothing stopping anyone to create their own software ecosystem for their customers except hard work and resources. ATI doesn't have to license anything from nVidia from my understanding.

For example nVidia is going to offer an ability called 3dTV, which is software to work with TV manufacturer's glasses.

 

[SirPauly]

I think many would want to like 3D, but its not quite there yet.

Personally, I've tried the Nvidia solution with 120hz screen and shutterglasses, IZ3D with ATI card and anaglypic glasses, 3D TV with shutterglasses and polarized glasses.

It was interesting to try, but nothing I would want to use in regular gaming. Polarized glasses was actually most comfortable, though even then I felt strain after a short while.

3D is too noisy and distracting. Gives me a headache using it and its like I am forcing myself to "endure it" in hope that it gets better. I even checked the eyedoctor to see if I had some astigmatism or something that could explain why it sucked to use 3D for even relative short time.

Most fun experience with 3D and one of the few that I really loved, was the cat head in Alice in wonderland 3D which was coming out of screen and floating almost in front of my face in theater. I really would want 3D to be something that I "wouldn't want to be without", but its not there yet IMO.

There is a lot of work to do, like improving cross-talk, getting stereo3d support in titles so gamers don't have to sacrifice anything, improved hardware and software -- in others words -- more maturity.. Personally don't get head aches as each eye is getting 60hz per eye -- it's only when I reduce it to 50hz, is where I feel a strain and can see how this may be bother-some.

Glasses don't bother me because their light weight and can't get the effect without them.

The effect when done well is convincing but it may not be for everyone. There is no forced views by me and if someone doesn't enjoy it -- well, they don't enjoy it.

This youtube video is worded wonderfully to me; as he explains what 3d stereo has done for Assassin's Creed for him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndRuWQEiews

 

[Sly]

I understand the point with GPU PhysX using Cuda at this time but not 3d vision. When a developer adds support for 3d stereo, it really helps all 3d stereo vendors, where GPU PhysX, using Cuda, only enhances and leverages nVidia at this time to me.

To me, nVidia understands the growth potential for 3d stereo moving forward and trying to create a software ecosystem to help make awareness for their products.

There is nothing stopping anyone to create their own software ecosystem for their customers except hard work and resources. ATI doesn't have to license anything from nVidia from my understanding.

For example nVidia is going to offer an ability called 3dTV, which is software to work with TV manufacturer's glasses.

What i'd really want is for nVidia to open their stereo hardware specs so other manufacturers can make alternative (and cheaper) products that would also work with their drivers. That's how it was originally (Hence, my $10 3D stereo gear).

 

[SirPauly]

I hear ya, and the rules may of changed when nVidia offered their own brand of eye gear.

 

[Unknown-One]

What i'd really want is for nVidia to open their stereo hardware specs so other manufacturers can make alternative (and cheaper) products that would also work with their drivers. That's how it was originally (Hence, my $10 3D stereo gear).

People have actually been having fairly good luck as far as cross-compatibility goes.

The eDimensional shutter glassed work as spares for 3D Vision, and I've seen those sell for as cheap as $15

 

[Kaldskryke]

What i'd really want is for nVidia to open their stereo hardware specs so other manufacturers can make alternative (and cheaper) products that would also work with their drivers. That's how it was originally (Hence, my $10 3D stereo gear).

Or ATI could come along and do that instead.

 

[Unknown-One]

Convergence controls where the image for the left and right eye converge. Objects farther than convergence will appear to go into your screen, objects at convergence will appear to be on the plane of your screen, and objects closer than convergence will appear to be floating in space in front of your screen.

For comfortable viewing, the closest object to your screen should be the point of convergence. In most first person shooters, this would be your gun. If convergence is set properly, and you take the 3D glasses off, the gun will be one image. The farther away objects are, the more separated they will become.

Placing convergence at this location prevents objects from popping out from the screen, which is a major source of eyestrain.

 

[noquarter]

Convergence controls where the image for the left and right eye converge. Objects farther than convergence will appear to go into your screen, objects at convergence will appear to be on the plane of your screen, and objects closer than convergence will appear to be floating in space in front of your screen.

For comfortable viewing, the closest object to your screen should be the point of convergence. In most first person shooters, this would be your gun. If convergence is set properly, and you take the 3D glasses off, the gun will be one image. The farther away objects are, the more separated they will become.

Placing convergence at this location prevents objects from popping out from the screen, which is a major source of eyestrain.

The UI doesn't change depth in 3d so I set convergence so the 3d world begins just behind the UI (the UI sits just slightly closer than anything in game.) Using your gun does work well for that, in 3rd person games I wheel the camera in fairly close and use that to set convergence level. While it was cool looking to have a convergence near my face so stuff was actually popping out of the screen I found it didn't feel right when 2d elements were on screen.


Depth changes how much distance there is between the closest object and farthest. If you set depth low it's very easy to look at but feels pretty flat. If you set depth to 0 then it's in 2d. You could actually have a very low depth (so the 3d world only feels a few inches deep) but use a near convergence to pull it out of the screen into your face or a far convergence to make it look sunk into your monitor.

If you set depth high it's harder to get accustomed to it but you can make a building actually feel very distant from you. I found it best to start with a medium depth then turn it up to really get the 3d effect after you're accustomed to it.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Because the industry is behind it this time. Also the technology is there in place at many levels to offer it from televisions, projectors and monitors.

The hardest thing for me is the negative perceptions some have with the ability, this is the hardest part to over-come.

and this is different from the previous 17+ attempts, how? lol

 

[Druneau]

Too much motion, and my eyes can never focus properly on small details which is what frustrates me.

This is my only complaint about current gen 3d. It forces our eyes to see what the data can show and only that.

 

[IRSmurf]

and this is different from the previous 17+ attempts, how? lol

Screens are much more sharp, the number of frames per eye per second is much higher, and some developers work specifically on 3D to make sure it's properly integrated.

What 3D did you used to use? Movies? That has nothing to do with 3D gaming. That's like comparing watching a video of someone driving a car and actually driving one. It is interactive and immersion is a fantastic effect.

Anyhow, I hope Kyle gets a chance to toy with 3D Vision / 3DVS, again. Setting convergence will allow you to increase depth and hopefully resolve the discomfort.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Screens are much more sharp, the number of frames per eye per second is much higher, and some developers work specifically on 3D to make sure it's properly integrated.

What 3D did you used to use? Movies? That has nothing to do with 3D gaming. That's like comparing watching a video of someone driving a car and actually driving one. It is interactive and immersion is a fantastic effect.

Anyhow, I hope Kyle gets a chance to toy with 3D Vision / 3DVS, again. Setting convergence will allow you to increase depth and hopefully resolve the discomfort.

is it realistic? nope and until it gets there, it is NEVER going to take off......even the DS 3D will run into the same problem (and that requires no extra hardware on the user's part), it's just a gimmick.......

 

[Sly]

Or ATI could come along and do that instead.

One thing at a time ATI doesn't have anything close to 3D stereo support AFAIK while nVidia has been using them since the TNT Sure, ATI can do it too, but whether or not they actually will is debatable.

 

[FragMagnet]

Also, 3D gives far, far greater eye candy. What's all the fuss about resolution size (1920x1200 is better than 1680x1050, or eyefinity 5760x1200 iz teh best!), when 3d adds a third dimension of resolution to the display (1920x1200x10000)? Multiply the numbers and let the numbers do the talking! It also makes the monitor feel much bigger (at least twice as big) as your eyes are drawn into the depth of it. Things just look bigger, like in the binoculars.

To each their own ! I'd rather play a game at hi res, so I can see the entire scene being rendered rather than zoomed in on a small portion of the action, which is what low res forces you to do. I've always preferred hi res as a way of controlling the "jaggies" as well, vrs AA where they fuzz up the image to try to hide them. But if it works for you, then enjoy !

Personaly I'll wait for the entire screen to be rendered in 3d, using a system that doesn't require the glasses.

 

[SirPauly]

and this is different from the previous 17+ attempts, how? lol

It's a lot different.

Game developers are adding 3d stereo support in their engines and games.

Powerful IHV's like nVidia and ATI are talking about 3d stereo

Microsoft is taking 3d stereo seriously through Silverlight

3D Blu-Ray

PC software like Cyberlink

Powerful entertainment companies are offering 3d movies and content, which will make it home from cable to Satellite companies.

Like DirectTV:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/conte...4,1278423409,Direct+TV+3d,23819338,6123060669

Television, monitor providers and retailers like Walmart:

http://www.walmart.com/cp/3D-Experience/1068728

3d stereo web streaming like the Masters, World Cup and NasCar.

So much so -

Here is a Sony 3d commercial and they're laughing like you are:

http://www.youtube.com/user/sonyelectronics?v=qEIj-wsUinc&feature=pyv&ad=5997924695&kw=sony 3d

 

[SirPauly]

To each their own ! I'd rather play a game at hi res, so I can see the entire scene being rendered rather than zoomed in on a small portion of the action, which is what low res forces you to do. I've always preferred hi res as a way of controlling the "jaggies" as well, vrs AA where they fuzz up the image to try to hide them. But if it works for you, then enjoy !

Personaly I'll wait for the entire screen to be rendered in 3d, using a system that doesn't require the glasses.

Imho,

With 3d stereo your games have another dimension as there is depth and pop out which offers the illusion the screen is bigger than it truly is. Another aspect that is rarely discussed is 1920 x 1080 per eye and the need to use a lot of anti- aliasing is curbed as well.

With the introduction of 3d vision surround -- the resolution limitation of past offerings is gone and an end-user may enjoy more resolution if they desire to.

 

[Unknown-One]

One thing at a time ATI doesn't have anything close to 3D stereo support AFAIK while nVidia has been using them since the TNT Sure, ATI can do it too, but whether or not they actually will is debatable.

3D monitors and glasses have worked with ATi hardware for a long, long time. Where have you been?

Hop on over to eDimensional's website and pick up a wired ($99) or wireless ($150) 3D glasses kit. They work just fine with ATi cards: http://www.edimensional.com/index.php?cPath=21

 

[Kaldskryke]

is it realistic? nope and until it gets there, it is NEVER going to take off......even the DS 3D will run into the same problem (and that requires no extra hardware on the user's part), it's just a gimmick.......

Video gaming took off quite a long time before anyone could call it "realistic". Both video games and cinema exist for entertainment and as long as there are consumers who are entertained by stereoscopic 3D - even if it isn't "realistic" - there is a market for it.

Stereoscopy isn't all that unnatural anyway.

Human vision uses several cues to determine relative depths in a perceived scene[1]. Some of these cues are:

* Stereopsis
* Accommodation of the eyeball (eyeball focus)
* Occlusion of one object by another
* Subtended visual angle of an object of known size
* Linear perspective (convergence of parallel edges)
* Vertical position (objects higher in the scene generally tend to be perceived as further away)
* Haze, desaturation, and a shift to bluishness
* Change in size of textured pattern detail

All the above cues, with the exception of the first two, are present in traditional two-dimensional images such as paintings, photographs, and television. Stereoscopy is the enhancement of the illusion of depth in a photograph, movie, or other two-dimensional image by presenting a slightly different image to each eye, and thereby adding the first of these cues (stereopsis) as well. It is important to note that the second cue is still not satisfied and therefore the illusion of depth is incomplete.

Aside from eye accommodation, stereoscopic images are pretty close to realism. The other obvious difference is the inability to move within the scene, which inevitably leads to discussions about Holodecks.

Yes, a "holodeck" could reproduce a volume of light, but then you need to cope with the physical boundaries of that volume also defining the boundaries of the virtual image. At least with stereoscopy we can simulate as much depth as we want, which generally works a heck of a lot better for games that aren't corridor-shooters. Consider a holodeck to be much like the stage at the theatre. The sets can add a bit of an illusion of depth but the actors and props are still bound by a finite volume.

 

[Sly]

3D monitors and glasses have worked with ATi hardware for a long, long time. Where have you been?

Hop on over to eDimensional's website and pick up a wired ($99) or wireless ($150) 3D glasses kit. They work just fine with ATi cards: http://www.edimensional.com/index.php?cPath=21

That's not an ATI solution. Compare that to the nVidia solution where 3D stereo is natively supported right on the video drivers.

 

[Unknown-One]

That's not an ATI solution. Compare that to the nVidia solution where 3D stereo is natively supported right on the video drivers.

I fail to see how that matters in the slightest.

Lots of companies make 3D glasses, Nvidia has just joined the fray. The only difference here is that Nvidia has once again restricted consumers, by making their glasses work only with their graphics cards. Other manufacturers (like eDimensional) aren't so stingy, and allow their glasses to work with any graphics card.

 

[FragMagnet]

Imho,

With 3d stereo your games have another dimension as there is depth and pop out which offers the illusion the screen is bigger than it truly is. Another aspect that is rarely discussed is 1920 x 1080 per eye and the need to use a lot of anti- aliasing is curbed as well.

With the introduction of 3d vision surround -- the resolution limitation of past offerings is gone and an end-user may enjoy more resolution if they desire to.

There were a few people in here saying they have to drop back to 1024x768 to make it smooth, that's what I was referring to. I've had a 3007 in the past, but even in SLI it was hard to drive games with the current hardware of the day. So I went back to a 24", and feel 1920x1080 (or 1200) is the minimum I could live with.

I've seen 3d gaming in action, using Nvidia hardware on a 120hz screen. It's not for me, not yet ! If others see value in it, that's their opinion, and they're welcome to it. I won't tell them not to buy something they want,,,,,

 

[Sly]

I fail to see how that matters in the slightest.

Lots of companies make 3D glasses, Nvidia has just joined the fray. The only difference here is that Nvidia has once again restricted consumers, by making their glasses work only with their graphics cards. Other manufacturers (like eDimensional) aren't so stingy, and allow their glasses to work with any graphics card.

The whole point is ATI's support for stereo 3D (Hence the thread title). Which is none.

 

[Unknown-One]

The whole point is ATI's support for stereo 3D (Hence the thread title). Which is none.

ATi cards work just fine with 3D stereo...

Just buy some glasses and hook them up. This isn't a tough concept.

 

[FrgMstr]

No, they are not the same thing. Depth you can control from either the keyboard or the dial on the IR sensor but convergence is an advanced setting you can only control with the keyboard. If you give too much depth then you will need to also adjust convergence. Quite often there is no way to get it right if you give too much depth and you must back off the depth in order for it to be comfortable for your eyes.

Well, considering NVIDIA never informed me of this and does not show it in the reviewers guide, I guess we will not be worrying about it. I was instructed by NVIDIA to use only the adjustment on back of the IR Emitter.

Brent has the panels now and will be testing. I will link him to this post.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

It's a lot different.

Game developers are adding 3d stereo support in their engines and games.

Powerful IHV's like nVidia and ATI are talking about 3d stereo

Microsoft is taking 3d stereo seriously through Silverlight

3D Blu-Ray

PC software like Cyberlink

Powerful entertainment companies are offering 3d movies and content, which will make it home from cable to Satellite companies.

Like DirectTV:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/conte...4,1278423409,Direct+TV+3d,23819338,6123060669

Television, monitor providers and retailers like Walmart:

http://www.walmart.com/cp/3D-Experience/1068728

3d stereo web streaming like the Masters, World Cup and NasCar.

So much so -

Here is a Sony 3d commercial and they're laughing like you are:

http://www.youtube.com/user/sonyelectronics?v=qEIj-wsUinc&feature=pyv&ad=5997924695&kw=sony 3d

it's a gimmick still no matter how many people try to push it

 

[SirPauly]

The hardest thing to over-come is individual's perception and will take a complete effort by the industry to me. The key is what part of the industry isn't behind it?

 

[DeathPrincess]

The hardest thing to over-come is individual's perception and will take a complete effort by the industry to me. The key is what part of the industry isn't behind it?

ATI