NVIDIA Stereovision on morning news(!)

[nRollo]

In conclusion, the GeForce 3D Vision is the product I've been waiting on ever since costly virtual-reality headsets made their appearance many years back. NVIDIA delivers mind-bending out-of-screen 3D experiences with the GeForce 3D Vision stereoscopic gaming kit...... I highly recommend the NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision for gamers who play for fun and entertainment, and anyone else wanting to revisit old game titles with a new experience.

So, it should be clear to you by now that not only am I thoroughly impressed with NVIDIA?s GeForce 3D Vision technology but that pretty much all of the people I showed it to were as well.

The reviews agree with me so far.

I'm honestly surprised at the framerate hit in the PCPerspective review, but haven't benched this.

I played at 16X10 0X16X, it played well. I'll look more into framerates and do some benching this weekend.

 

[nosfe]

yep, can't wait to see cryostasis with PhysX and 3D Vision enabled in all it's slideshow glory

 

[BFG10K]

So you have to use a prehistoric resolution of 1680x1050 with no AA, plus there are numerous glitches which require game settings to be lowered or disabled:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/in...8&limit=1&limitstart=4

Take for example Far Cry 2, which requires that you play in DirectX 9 mode (even though GeForce 3D Vision is a Vista-forward product) with bloom turned off and shadows set to low. Even then the overall experience was decent, with depth separating the various layers of the screen, but not quite as thrilling as I would have liked. Dialing the depth level higher made the sun (or moon) display two versions of the image.

That and performance absolutely tanks.

I think I?ll pass for now. Like I said earlier, my real interest is the fact that this might force 120 Hz LCDs to become the norm and may finally allow me to upgrade to a bigger screen.

 

[Creig]

???? So what's with all the hoopla? This is exactly the same as the old ELSA Revelator IR glasses, except much more expensive (go figure). The retail price of the Revelator IR glasses was $80, yet these are $200. I have to believe that the LCD shutter panels in these glasses are cheaper to produce than they were 10 years ago, so I fail to see how Nvidia feels justified in charging so much more.


this does give NVIDIA another way to sell super fast graphics cards like the new GeForce GTX 295. Hmmm...

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Avalon
Will this work on CRTs that can do 120hz?

I don't see why not. It shouldn't matter what method is used to obtain a 120Hz refresh rate, just as long as it can hit that high. Although you may want to run even higher on a CRT as 60Hz per eye would most likely give you a noticeable flicker. If you can run 140Hz or even 160Hz, I think you would have a much more enjoyable (and less eye fatiguing) experience.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Avalon
Will this work on CRTs that can do 120hz?

I don't see why not. It shouldn't matter what method is used to obtain a 120Hz refresh rate, just as long as it can hit that high. Although you may want to run even higher on a CRT as 60Hz per eye would most likely give you a noticeable flicker. If you can run 140Hz or even 160Hz, I think you would have a much more enjoyable (and less eye fatiguing) experience.

I am not sure that you would see flicker by splitting the image rendering as the screen itself is still refreshing at a very high rate. But you might be right on that.

After reading a few things on this, I am somewhat dissapointed. I'll comment more when I have more time.

 

[Creig]

As I mentioned earlier, I have a set of the old ELSA Revelator wired shutter glasses sitting up in my closet. If I recall, those glasses supported a max refresh rate of 140Hz. And I seem to remember running them at max because at 120Hz the flicker got to me after awhile. Even for general usage, 60Hz on a CRT gives a very noticeable flicker while 60Hz on an LCD is perfectly fine. I'd say you typically need to run a CRT at 70Hz to eliminate it. It's just a difference in the technology.

 

[AmberClad]

Yep, I think the numbers so far speak for themselves -- go expensive, or don't bother showing up.

Out of those three benchmarks from PCPer at 1680x1050/4xAA, only L4D, which uses the long-in-the-tooth Source Engine, could even be considered decently playable with a high-end single core card.

The tally so far:
* $200 for the glasses
* $400 for a 22" LCD that can do 120Hz
* At least one high-end Nvidia video card, if you don't already own one. More to SLI with if you want acceptable performance in more demanding games/higher res/higher IQ settings.
* Re:apoppin's comments - ~$100-$200 yearly for a contact lens eye exam plus supply of lens ? (Maybe not, depending on how well you can wear them on top of glasses.)

 

[BFG10K]

According to Benchmark reviews it?ll work on a 100 Hz CRT or better:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/in...8&limit=1&limitstart=2

Now, this begs the question: given CRTs can hit up to 240 Hz, how will the glasses behave? Will you get a superior experience on CRTs because each eye will get up to 120 FPS instead of the LCDs? 60 FPS?

Wow, what a giant back-pedal this is turning out to be.

We might even see people scrambling to use their old CRTs again as the limitations of traditional LCDs suddenly become painfully apparent, limitations that CRT aficionados have pointed out for years but were claimed to be a non-factor by the LCD crowd.

That and game enhancing effects and technology like DX10, shadows, AA, high resolutions, and big screens suddenly don?t matter because it?s all about the glasses now. :roll:

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
According to Benchmark reviews it?ll work on a 100 Hz CRT or better:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/in...8&limit=1&limitstart=2

Now, this begs the question: given CRTs can hit up to 240 Hz, how will the glasses behave? Will you get a superior experience on CRTs because each eye will get up to 120 FPS instead of the LCDs? 60 FPS?

Unfortunately, we don't know what the max refresh rate for the LCD panels used in the Nvidia glasses is, but I doubt they'll hit 240 Hz.

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Wow, what a giant back-pedal this is turning out to be.

We might even see people scrambling to use their old CRTs again as the limitations of traditional LCDs suddenly become painfully apparent, limitations that CRT aficionados have pointed out for years but were claimed to be a non-factor by the LCD crowd.

That and game enhancing effects and technology like DX10, shadows, AA, high resolutions, and big screens suddenly don?t matter because it?s all about the glasses now. :roll:

Agreed. Back when the ELSA glasses were released, everybody had CRTs which meant the only other requirement was to own an Nvidia video card. Plus the IR glasses were only $80. Now, the price of the glasses has inexplicably jumped to $200, you need either an old CRT or new LCD/DLP plus a very fast Nvidia video card.

If 120Hz displays were already the norm, and the framerate hit were not so high and Nvidia had decided to debut the glasses at $99, then I would give it a nod of approval. But that's obviously not the case here. All told, the typical person looking to get into this system is going to spend a minimum of $600 if they already own a fast Nvidia card. This price will skyrocket up to around $900 if you need to purchase a GTX280 as was used in the PCPER review. This is hardly a step forward.

Oh, and Windows XP users need not apply:
Requires Windows Vista (not XP compatible)

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: 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

Good for you.

Now you can pay for a monitor and glasses too. You lucky SOB!!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Yep, I think the numbers so far speak for themselves -- go expensive, or don't bother showing up.

Out of those three benchmarks from PCPer at 1680x1050/0xAA, only L4D, which uses the long-in-the-tooth Source Engine, could even be considered decently playable with a high-end single core card.

The tally so far:
* $200 for the glasses
* $400 for a 22" LCD that can do 120Hz
* At least one high-end Nvidia video card, if you don't already own one. More to SLI with if you want acceptable performance in more demanding games/higher res/higher IQ settings.
* Re:apoppin's comments - ~$100-$200 yearly for a contact lens eye exam plus supply of lens ? (Maybe not, depending on how well you can wear them on top of glasses.)

New contact/eyeglass prescription tomorrow

well, this 3D IS in its infancy and it has a "cool" factor which is not available anywhere else

.. Nvidia is *betting* it will catch on; and they always goug .. i mean charge a lot to the early adopters.

eventually .. i am certain 3D will catch on .. and this is a nice start

will i BUY it ?
--hell no .. not yet ..

as is TYPICAL, i expect the 120 hz monitors to be about the same price as 60Hz monitors next year .. and once there is more widespread adoption, those glasses will be sub $100
- MY prediction
[i was right about BluRay prices, btw ]

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
According to Benchmark reviews it?ll work on a 100 Hz CRT or better:

Now to get Rollo to lend me his glasses.

I have an ole 21" CRT in the basement that should do 100hz

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: apoppin
well, this 3D IS in its infancy and it has a "cool" factor which is not available anywhere else

This 3D is nearly a DECADE old. FiringSquad reviewed this technology back in 1999.

http://www.firingsquad.com/har.../revelator/default.asp

What's really odd is that, according to that review, the ELSA system only saw a 30% framerate hit compared to the 50% that the "new" Nvidia method suffers.

Performance hit on framerates

Also, the 3D REVELATOR drivers will cause a slowdown which will mean less FPS. This is simply because more calculations are being made, as the 3D REVELATOR drivers run through an algorithm which is used to determine the object's positioning via their z-buffer value. How much of a slowdown can there be?

Well, you can see that in 16-bit the framerate takes a ~33% hit, going from 45.6 to 31.4 FPS. Ouch. In 32-bit, the hit is a little less (although still rather high), about a 30% hit in FPS. Once again, this is due to the extra computing that must be done to ascertain the positional depth values of objects.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/revelator/page5.asp

I'm probably one of the few people who is already equipped with the proper displays to take advantage of these glasses. My main gaming PC has an HP A7217A 24" widescreen CRT on it and my HTPC is connected to a 50" Samsung 3D ready HLT-5087S LED DLP television, although I would have to buy Vista for it as it's currently an XP Media Center PC.

If the price of the glasses drops to around $100, I might consider picking up an Nvidia card the next time I need to upgrade my video card. But I'm certainly not going to pay any more than that for them. 3D stereoscopic gaming is nice, but it's certainly not worth spending $200 on. At least not to me, and I've used it before.

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think it will matter in the end, some things sell themselves and my hunch is this will be one of them. Once you played with this, there's not much alternative left.

So why you feel the need to pimp it here so aggressively?

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: Creig
If the price of the glasses drops to around $100, I might consider picking up an Nvidia card the next time I need to upgrade my video card. But I'm certainly not going to pay any more than that for them. 3D stereoscopic gaming is nice, but it's certainly not worth spending $200 on. At least not to me, and I've used it before.

I moved to LCDs years ago, so I only vaguely remember using the Revelator. One thing that did stand out though was that anything not in 3D, like crosshairs or HUD elements, looked out of place. I imagine it's less distracting if you're using ironsights instead of crosshair overlays though.

I tried it out at a tradeshow or convention in DC before getting it. It's going to be even more the case here with these new glasses that I'd have to see it in action before I'd consider it, even with a price drop.

 

[ViRGE]

Rollo, how big are the glasses anyhow? I have a big head (yes, in all senses of the word, ) and looking at the photos I'm getting the impression that the glasses get very narrow very quickly as you follow the temples back.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Rollo, how big are the glasses anyhow? I have a big head (yes, in all senses of the word, ) and looking at the photos I'm getting the impression that the glasses get very narrow very quickly as you follow the temples back.

The old glasses were stupidly big, at least on me . I had to loop a string around the ends of the arms and basically strap them to my head.

These new glasses are a little different in that they look like they have sport-style arms that don't curve downward at the ends.

I don't know if there is a good way of doing a one-size-fits-all here, short of turning them into goofy-looking goggles with an elastic band.

 

[nRollo]

I knew this would be hard to talk about when I first started using it.

The thing is you can't really appreciate what this is until you've used it.

LCD refresh rates interact with your eyes in a different manner than CRTs. Ever look at a 60Hz CRT for long? It's literally painful. Yet you can look at a 60Hz LCD (or 120Hz halved) all day with it being comfortable. IMO more comfortable than looking at ANY strobe light CRT- not to mention how many CRTs exist in the world today that can display very high refresh rates at 16X12? And how many modern games look as good in 4:3 aspect? CRT is basically dead tech.

The other thing is you don't look at this in terms of maximum framerates and "Can I use my 8X MSAA like some say I must?".

You look at this in terms of "By definition, real 3D is just better IQ".

There aren't any reviews that say this is bad tech- they're all very positive:

Having played games like UT3, Call of Duty, GRiD, Left 4 Dead, HL2:EP2, and Spore in 3D stereo mode with the GeForce 3D Vision glasses, we can say that the effect produced by the glasses is quite realistic... And while shooters looked great in real-3D, RTS games truly change for the better in 3D stereo mode. Spore is a different animal altogether when playing with GeForce 3D Vision. ... It's literally a game-changer, in a very good way[/Lhttp://[/L]


I was and am still incredibly impressed with the gaming experiences I have had while using 3D Vision....I honestly expected the glasses to be annoying, the images eye straining and the overall effect to feel like a gimmick but it never did.

I thoroughly impressed with NVIDIA?s GeForce 3D Vision technology but that pretty much all of the people I showed it to were as well

Anyone who has used this is thrilled with it, and some of you (who have never seen it) are nay saying, using tired old criteria that just don't apply any more.

The level of realism this creates transcend that tired old standards like "Let's average samples to make the edges of low res objects blurry" by light years. When you combine that with the comfort of the 120HZ LCDs, there's not really any other way to game once you've done this.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Rollo, how big are the glasses anyhow? I have a big head (yes, in all senses of the word, ) and looking at the photos I'm getting the impression that the glasses get very narrow very quickly as you follow the temples back.

The glasses fit me Virge, and as a 6'4" 290lb guy I have a decent sized melon myself.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Creig
If the price of the glasses drops to around $100, I might consider picking up an Nvidia card the next time I need to upgrade my video card. But I'm certainly not going to pay any more than that for them. 3D stereoscopic gaming is nice, but it's certainly not worth spending $200 on. At least not to me, and I've used it before.

Which is the whole goal here, after all...

Gimmick to push card sales.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: Creig
If the price of the glasses drops to around $100, I might consider picking up an Nvidia card the next time I need to upgrade my video card. But I'm certainly not going to pay any more than that for them. 3D stereoscopic gaming is nice, but it's certainly not worth spending $200 on. At least not to me, and I've used it before.

Which is the whole goal here, after all...

Gimmick to push card sales.

Like I said, I'm probably one of the few people who already has a compatible display. If I had to buy a new 120Hz LCD in order to use them, I wouldn't give them a second glance. I'm not about to run out and buy a new video card either, just so I can run 3D glasses.

I currently have a 4850 which isn't the most powerful thing out there, but it's not exactly obsolete either. So I'm not really in the market to upgrade it right now. I have awhile yet see if the price on these glasses drops. If they don't, then 3D stereoscopic gets crossed off my list as one of the reasons to go Nvidia instead of AMD.

 

[PingSpike]

The effect sounds pretty cool, but the glasses do seem expensive AND the performance hit is pretty awful from the sounds of it.

Honestly, it doesn't seem like ATI (or any third party player actually) would have to hard of a time of copying this since the important bits (120hz LCD) aren't an nvidia product. And the glasses are old hat technology really, I doubt there's any patent issues to get around. Worse, from performance numbers it doesn't look like nvidia is using an clever driver optimizations to speed up the process on their boards so there isn't really anything there thats new and exciting from them. With the exception of the glasses having a faster shutter rate, its just an old (albeit probably good) idea revisited.

Wireless seems like a big who cares to me. I'm tethered to the monitor anyway...its not like I'm going to go make a sandwich with the glasses on. Sounds like a waste of money to have that, unless you wanted to play games on your TV or something maybe.

It'd be cool if you could see it in the stores or something though, there's no fucking way I'd even consider dropping that kind of change unless I could see it myself and make sure it doesn't give me skull splitting headaches after playing for 10 minutes.

Still pretty neat though.

 

[SunnyD]

This thread definitely went the way I expected it to, purely a free PR/Marketing thread for nvidia.

Rollo:
- "This is the best thing since sliced bread!"
- "It's not expensive... it's an immersive gaming experience!"
- "What? Oh god no, I never ever *cough* said performance was #1 in video... it's all about IQ!"
- "I'd buy this no matter the cost! (But since I don't have to...)"

Everybody else:
- "Oh gee, those really are kindof expensive."
- "Wow, not many current setups out there can support this..."
- "Wow... the performance ... it sucks..."

Shutter glasses went out when Elsa tanked. The newer 3D technologies that don't require 13,000 additional dongles and are cheaper than what nvidia wants us to pay are far... FAR more attractive options to date.

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
This thread definitely went the way I expected it to, purely a free PR/Marketing thread for nvidia.

Rollo:
- "This is the best thing since sliced bread!"
- "It's not expensive... it's an immersive gaming experience!"
- "What? Oh god no, I never ever *cough* said performance was #1 in video... it's all about IQ!"
- "I'd buy this no matter the cost! (But since I don't have to...)"

Everybody else:
- "Oh gee, those really are kindof expensive."
- "Wow, not many current setups out there can support this..."
- "Wow... the performance ... it sucks..."

Shutter glasses went out when Elsa tanked. The newer 3D technologies that don't require 13,000 additional dongles and are cheaper than what nvidia wants us to pay are far... FAR more attractive options to date.

Here's another...

Going from a 30" screen to a 22" is the best thing one could do...lol

I'm having a good laugh reading this garbage...