NVIDIA Stereovision on morning news(!)

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

Times change BFG.

Not in this case they don't. It was the case back then that screen content was more important than screen size and it?s still the case now despite your claims to the contrary.

The only thing that has changed is that nVidia has a new gadget and you?re forced to downgrade your screen size in order to use it, so you have to completely contradict your past statements.

This has re-kindled my interest in gaming, actually makes me want to play old games again to see what they should look like. The experience is very different.

Oh lordy, there?s another example right there.

For years I was telling you new video cards revitalize old games but you were running around claiming nobody cares about old games and that IHVs shouldn?t focus driver efforts to keep them running properly.

If those IHVs had followed your reasoning then you wouldn?t even be in a position to try legacy games with 3D glasses like you are now, because none of those games would work.

Again another total about-face on your part just because nVidia has a new gadget which forces you to contradict your past statements in order to support it.

As far as that side of things goes you?re right, you haven?t changed.

BFG-
I'd be happy to discuss old debates in PM if you'd like.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I am very excited about this, so nVidia better not pull a bullshit paper launch. Can't wait for tomorrow to read the reviews and potentially pick these up!!!

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: nRollo
5. Cost: I said "for what it is" entrance cost is low. I didn't say "the cost is low for everyone".
I will say you can't spend the amount of money it will cost to do this in any other way and get 1/100th of the return on your investment in terms of 3d gaming.

6. Eyestrain- there are some VAST improvements here over the old tech. (this was my main problem with the old tech, and I love this)

5 and 6 go hand in hand. Without the added cost of a 120Hz monitor, you can't use this. With the added cost, you can, and while yes it will reduce eyestrain over the old versions, it still will very much affect a lot of people out there.

I'm just telling you for me, this is a VERY big deal, and I won't be without it. I'd spend the money this costs without thinking twice to have this.

Of course it's a big deal to you, and you'd be happy to spend the money on it - simply because you don't have to. It's given to you for word of mouth advertising as pay. Hell, I'd take it too if it was for free. But it's not, and I'm not about to go spend my cash to buy a new monitor and additional accessories for something that will flare up a migraine in 30 minutes on me.

 

[CP5670]

Disclaimer: I do not care if you buy this. I get no commission. I'm telling you I would buy this if ATi made it, some things transcend brand loyalty, in this case by a lot.

Like anybody is going to buy this either.

I've always liked the idea of stereoscopic imaging though and have seen such setups in simulation labs, but I think it needs OLED or some other new type of display technology to truly shine. The LCD motion blur is apparently more prominent when one eye sees parts of an image meant for the other eye.

You can already get a stereo vision system in the form of this. It seems to have a number of shortcomings, but it does work well in certain games from what I've heard.

Have you tried one of the Samsung LED DLPs? No color wheel, no rainbow effect.

Are the three-chip DLPs finally becoming more mainstream? It would be good to have any sort of progress in the display industry, which has been lacking for a long time now.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: nRollo
5. Cost: I said "for what it is" entrance cost is low. I didn't say "the cost is low for everyone".
I will say you can't spend the amount of money it will cost to do this in any other way and get 1/100th of the return on your investment in terms of 3d gaming.

6. Eyestrain- there are some VAST improvements here over the old tech. (this was my main problem with the old tech, and I love this)

5 and 6 go hand in hand. Without the added cost of a 120Hz monitor, you can't use this. With the added cost, you can, and while yes it will reduce eyestrain over the old versions, it still will very much affect a lot of people out there.

I'm just telling you for me, this is a VERY big deal, and I won't be without it. I'd spend the money this costs without thinking twice to have this.

Of course it's a big deal to you, and you'd be happy to spend the money on it - simply because you don't have to. It's given to you for word of mouth advertising as pay. Hell, I'd take it too if it was for free. But it's not, and I'm not about to go spend my cash to buy a new monitor and additional accessories for something that will flare up a migraine in 30 minutes on me.

SunnyD:

If your eyes are very sensitive, by all means, don't buy it.

The fact that I get it free doesn't mean I wouldn't spend it willingly. What this costs is change in scope of what I spend on my hobbies annually.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
The catch to that is that you've already thrown out a lot of Z data through culling, hidden surface removal, and other optimization techniques. I'm definitely sure that you can't construct a perfect twin frame in all cases because you lack that data, but I have no idea how ugly it would be to try it anyhow. It may be a cheat that causes little to no error.

Hmmm.... But could the software look at each object's Z-depth, decide which objects which aren't occluded and copy those rendered objects from the first to the second frame? That would result in a decrease in workload since it wouldn't have to render those particular objects twice.

 

[gorobei]

it seems a very niche application of technology. so get a new 120hz monitor(300-700$), 3d-glasses(200$), and a NV card capable of supporting it(200-300$).

assuming you would already buy a new card in the course of upgrading. it's roughly an additional 800$ for the privilege of this 3d experience. why not just make a pair of oled display glasses/headset with two dedicated screens. add in some sort of IR head tracking and you have a 3d VR setup that should be cheaper and do much more. most stereoscopic display glasses run resolutions well below 1080p, so there wouldn't be a huge need for sli/crossfire.

i'm all for new tech and anything that advances 3d gaming/graphics. But for FPS games or simulators, the ability to turn my head and look around would be worth way more than adding in some pseudo depth data. no more running around like headless chickens in FPshooters when someone gets too close and it turns in to a knife fight merry-go-round.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: nRollo
The fact that I get it free doesn't mean I wouldn't spend it willingly. What this costs is change in scope of what I spend on my hobbies annually.

Thank you for once again pointing out your excessive affluence to us poor, unwashed masses. We bow down before your bank account.


Unfortunately for most everybody else, paying $600+ simply to get 3D stereoscopic vision on our computer games is a bit harder to budget for.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: nRollo
The fact that I get it free doesn't mean I wouldn't spend it willingly. What this costs is change in scope of what I spend on my hobbies annually.

Thank you for once again pointing out your excessive affluence to us poor, unwashed masses. We bow down before your bank account.


Unfortunately for most everybody else, paying $600+ simply to get 3D stereoscopic vision on our computer games is a bit harder to budget for.

And at the same time, Creig, there are more people who can afford this stuff that you think.
Are you speaking for everyone here in these forums saying they can't afford a 600.00 upgrade? Look how many people have GTX280's in SLI. Look how many have 4870X2's. Look how many have GTX260's in SLI or 4870's in CF. Look at all the people with watercooled rigs. Do you think all this stuff is cheap? The ones with tricked out cases with crazy lighting. The ones who have like six computers in their house and live alone. hehe. And your trying to tell me that most cannot afford this? If they really want it, they'll get it. They'll save up for it if they have to have it. That is the reality of it. Most of us here in AT aren't run of the mill users with onboard graphics and Celerons. Some have that stuff, but not many who are into gaming, and gaming well.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: nRollo
The fact that I get it free doesn't mean I wouldn't spend it willingly. What this costs is change in scope of what I spend on my hobbies annually.

Thank you for once again pointing out your excessive affluence to us poor, unwashed masses. We bow down before your bank account.


Unfortunately for most everybody else, paying $600+ simply to get 3D stereoscopic vision on our computer games is a bit harder to budget for.

Creig,
I'm shocked and hurt. I would have thought you would have questioned Sunny Ds mistrust of me saying I would pay $600 for this more than my assertion I would pay $600 for this.


In any case, if it is $600 as is being speculated, it would seem a fair price to me to have real 3d gaming. There aren't any better alternatives, and the cost of one high end video card to make all your games look a LOT better seems like a good deal to me.

Check it out:

The product includes active shutter glasses, an emitter box and drivers supporting as many as 350 game titles.

And I'll tell you games that aren't on the list work as well.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: apoppin

What secrecy? The damn things were all over Nvision

I am well aware of that fact.

 

[Demoth]

Keep in mind, we are talking about the initial mass audience intended release of a new product. Almost every initial release, from the color TV set to the first blue ray players, are expensive and grabbed up by enthusiasts first. Keep in mind, compared to CRT, LCD monitors still have room to progress- probably into OLED eventually. It won't be all that long before many gamers are looking for a monitor upgrade for reasons other than Stereovision compatibility. And with an initial release price of $199 for the glasses, add some time of mass production and competition and you'd probably find them on Amazon for $50.

This type of technology does have a good chance to go mainstream. However, I think NVIDIA might be hurting themselves by making it propriatory to their cards. I can guarentee an ATI response, even if just for the benefit of their stock holders. If they are smart, ATI will make their version as widely compatible with hardware as possible. This would basically trump NVIDIA provided they can come up with work arounds to any patents.

You can also be damned sure not only the vid card makers will be pushing this technology. Everyone profitting from monitor sales, such as Dell, will be interested in opening up a whole new line of demand.

It really comes down to- can someone play World of Warcraft for 10 hours using this technology and not feel like crap for hours afterwards. The actual immesion is proven. I am sceptical that the typical gamer could use this device for prolonged periods without getting a headache, vertigo or eyestrain. If this is not a problem for at least 75% of the population, the technology can go mainstream. Hopefully, not NVIDIA's propriatory vision of it though.

 

[nRollo]

Video from CES


Tomorrow morning on the CBS News you can see Bryan Del Rizzo (NVIDIA PR Sr. Manager) discussing this.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: nRollo
Video from CES


Tomorrow morning on the CBS News you can see Bryan Del Rizzo (NVIDIA PR Sr. Manager) discussing this.

nRollo, is it a TV or monitor you're using? Would a regular 120Hz TV from say Sharp or Sony work with this?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo
Video from CES


Tomorrow morning on the CBS News you can see Bryan Del Rizzo (NVIDIA PR Sr. Manager) discussing this.

nRollo, is it a TV or monitor you're using? Would a regular 120Hz TV from say Sharp or Sony work with this?

I was wondering about that myself. I have a 46" Samsung 120Hz. 1920x1080 res.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo
Video from CES


Tomorrow morning on the CBS News you can see Bryan Del Rizzo (NVIDIA PR Sr. Manager) discussing this.

nRollo, is it a TV or monitor you're using? Would a regular 120Hz TV from say Sharp or Sony work with this?

I'm using a 120Hz monitor.

I can't say which TVs do this, that would be one of the few specifics about this I can't discuss till tomorrow. Sorry.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'll be looking forward to the posts of the early adopters and their tales of being raped by NV. Even if it's all that, I'll still wait till the entry cost hits the $300 range or less for everything.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
I'll be looking forward to the posts of the early adopters and their tales of being raped by NV. Even if it's all that, I'll still wait till the entry cost hits the $300 range or less for everything.

from what i remember at Nvision, they were also going to bring out 22" 16x10 monitors

i was also told that *some* of today's current 120hz LCDs can do it now

so .. i AM figuring IF it gets popular, we will see $250 LCDs and $150 glasses

not so bad considering the fortune some of us pay for a single videocard
- i have 3

 

[Wreckage]

It looks like World of Warcraft is supported. I would truly like to see that.

 

[MTDEW]

nRollo,
Just so i have this straight, there is absolutely no way it will work with current 60hz LCD's?

If it did, i'd be interested.
To be completely honest, im not about to ditch a 30" 60hz LCD for a 22" 120hz LCD.
And im sure not going to "re-purchase" another 30" that does 120hz for $700 + when i already own a perfectly good/great LCD that i spent alot for.

I dont completely understand why 120hz is necessary, cant a 60hz lcd do this at 30fps?
To me it would make more sense to support current LCDs since that what everyone already owns.

 

[ITPaladin]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I will gladly buy a new monitor if it allows 3D gaming with most of the issues fixed... Although I might have a hard time giving up my LG227WTG since it is the best monitor I have ever used in my wife. So, it may be tough to part with. Any 120Hz Glossy monitors?

It has another purpose eh?

 

[Avalon]

Will this work on CRTs that can do 120hz?

 

[BFG10K]

Spy shots?

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=377186

 

[AmberClad]

Review from PC Perspective, along with numbers on performance hit.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Review from PC Perspective, along with numbers on performance hit.

NVIDIA's definitely double-rendering everything, with no real optimization in place. Everything is a straight-up 50%+ performance hit (more if you're comparing it against non-vsync performance) and that's on a GTX280. The plus side is that with the limited resolution of the monitor the games aren't too taxing, but the minimums in most of the games and the average in FC2 is a bit troubling; take a look at CoD4, the minimum drops by nearly 75% (is it me or does this thing seem to clobber minimums harder?).

I'd still like to see how NVIDIA intends to integrate SLI with this, I'm getting the gut feeling that this is going to call for a GTX 295 or some other high-end SLI configuration.

And $400 for a 120hz 22" TN monitor, yeeouch.:Q