NVIDIA Stereovision on morning news(!)

[Qbah]

If it's something similar in "experience" to that Wii/PS3 videos floating around with you having those "custom" glasses with IR sensor and the person wearing the glasses was able to see depth on the screen (was a demo only, required additional code in games) - in most if not every game for the nV solution, new and old, I will see myself shelling 600$ for the setup (probably more ).

They put the glasses on a camera (it was about the sensor and movement detection/relation, not the glasses themselves) and were moving it around. Looked absolutely AMAZING.

 

[Tabby]

looks like something for ppl that play a lot of MMOs will like.............hmm Fallout3 with this will be awsome XD

 

[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.

 

[deerhunter716]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
This is all starting to sound quite expensive ($200 for the glasses, plus whatever a compatible LCD monitor would cost)...

So, it sounds like Thursday before we get any info of substance.

Agreed - no idea where folks are saying this is NOT expensive, lol The $ for the glasses alone can go a LONG way towards one hell of a video card and then OH YEAH that's right you have to buy a monitor as well, lol It will be a LONG time before this is even close to mainstream.

 

[AmberClad]

I also forgot to factor in the cost of Nvidia video cards into that. And to get sufficient framerates to support it, you can almost anticipate there being a heavy push to promote SLI .

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: nRollo
I agree that $600 is not tip money, but in the scope of computer gaming, not outside the realm of accessories for a high end gaming solution. If that's entry cost, I think many will pay it.

You have got to be joking. There's no way that very many people are going to rush out and spend $600 simply for 3D effects. Heck, the whole 3D glasses thing never caught on even when it was just the cost of the glasses (which were $50 for the wired version and $80 for the IR version).

Now don't get me wrong. I did like the 3D effect in some games and it's nice to see that it might possibly be making a comeback. And the more that I think about it, the more I believe that the framerate hit won't be as high as I'd earlier surmised. But please don't come in here and start making grandiose claims that "many will pay it". This is not a cheap gadget by any means.

Have you bothered looking at the state of the economy right now? "Disposable income" is practically non-existent. No, at $200 simply for the glasses, plus another $300-$400 for a new LCD that hasn't even hit the market plus possibly a new Nvidia video card for another $200-$300 there's no way this will be anything but a niche item for a long time to come.

 

[AmberClad]

I just looked at the mock up a bit more closely. Rollo (and apoppin) -- I take it that neither of you two wear [prescription] glasses. Or if you do, then how would that work in conjunction with those? Is there going to be a clip-on version of them :laugh:?

 

[nobodyknows]

I 'm skeptical about this. It just seems like more marketing hype, you know, be the first kid on the block to be playing in real 3D.

I've heard it before so before I spent any money on it I'd have to see it and try it IN PERSON.

 

[Dkcode]

I don't like the idea of the glasses. Too dorky looking in my opinion and extra weight one has to carry on their face. It looks like it could be uncomfortable over time in my opinion.

If this technology takes off, i think some kind of overlay will be included on modern supported monitors. Removing the requirement for glasses.

Its all good though, and us PC gamers get it first

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I also forgot to factor in the cost of Nvidia video cards into that. And to get sufficient framerates to support it, you can almost anticipate there being a heavy push to promote SLI .

It's one of the few cases where SLI makes sense. If you need to render the same scene twice at the same game tick, and each scene is virtually identical, then unlike regular rendering where you try (and usually fail) to stagger the two cards they can each work on their own problem set simultaneously. This creates 2 fully discrete workloads that would perfectly split and hence SLI really would double your performance (at least in all cases where stereo vision is supported).

It's the same reasoning as to why SLI-AA and CF-AA make more efficient use of multiple GPUs, and unlike AA the performance hit really is 100% if you are rendering each scene twice. It doesn't do a damn thing for the cost argument, but this is a classic method (in the CompSci sense) to adopt a task for multiple processors.

I should probably add a disclaimer here stating that this is assuming the case of where you are starting the copied frame from scratch; if you can cache certain triangle and vertex data, you may be able to cut off some of the time on rendering that second frame. This would make the performance hit less than 100%

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: Dkcode
I don't like the idea of the glasses. Too dorky looking in my opinion and extra weight one has to carry on their face. It looks like it could be uncomfortable over time in my opinion.

The dork factor is a little high (can you imagine going to a LAN party wearing those, plus the OCZ NIA headband, SteelSeries "gaming glove", 3rd Space force feedback Gaming Vest and HTX Helmet?)

But as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, whatever.

 

[Creig]

I'm thinking that once the objects are rendered, the software might simply shift each z-buffer item to its respective offset and then composite the entire scene. This would mean that the workload for stereoscopic vision isn't going to be twice as much since it actually wouldn't have to render each object twice. Irregardless, there is bound to be a framerate hit simply from the extra workload. Maybe 30-35%?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Creig
I'm thinking that once the objects are rendered, the software might simply shift each z-buffer item to its respective offset and then composite the entire scene. This would mean that the workload for stereoscopic vision isn't going to be twice as much since it actually wouldn't have to render each object twice. Irregardless, there is bound to be a framerate hit simply from the extra workload. Maybe 30-35%?

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.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Does this require 120FPS output on behalf of the GPU?

If it does, that's nuts IMO.

I'm a skeptic when it comes to 3D glasses and such. I find the effect weird personally. I saw "The Deep" in an IMAX theatre recently and was not really impressed by the effect.

evidently it is not really 120 hz but more like 2 x60 hz with the 2 signals out of step to produce the 3d- effect
not expensive to produce and i saw 19x20 120hz Viewsonics las Summer at Nvision

Kyle is a complete idiot and will kick himself in the arse for not taking them up on their offer. I have outside sources that told me these very things that Rollo is saying now 3 weeks ago but I was sworn to secrecy. Supposedly these glasses are like a watershed event in the gaming industry.

What secrecy? The damn things were all over Nvision

I just looked at the mock up a bit more closely. Rollo (and apoppin) -- I take it that neither of you two wear [prescription] glasses. Or if you do, then how would that work in conjunction with those? Is there going to be a clip-on version of them ?

Yes i do. Have you never heard of contact lenses ?
[and i asked them that same question; clip-ons or wear-overs are evidently being considered]

:Q


and evidently the performance hit is minimal. ALL PC games have 3D "built-in" to them. Nvidia's drivers just 'unlock' it

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: apoppin

I just looked at the mock up a bit more closely. Rollo (and apoppin) -- I take it that neither of you two wear [prescription] glasses. Or if you do, then how would that work in conjunction with those? Is there going to be a clip-on version of them ?

Yes i do. Have you never heard of contact lenses ?
[and i asked them that same question; clip-ons or wear-overs are evidently being considered]

:Q

Of course I have, I wear contacts. But I hope you're not suggesting that someone who's more comfortable with or only uses glasses switch to contacts just for this. Nice to hear that they're at least thinking of accommodating those people.

 

[apoppin]

of course, i am suggesting that eyeglass users switch to contacts to *try* it

i would get very anti-aliased images without 'em
- no jaggies anywhere .. nicely blurred like STALKER'S AA

 

[chizow]

I'm certainly in the skeptical category as well, there's just too many unanswered questions with regards to the technology and too much reliance on high-end/unreleased hardware to make it work:

1) 120Hz monitors as other's suggested. I don't plan on returning to 4:3 or my bulky G400 and losing resolution and overall real estate for 3D.

2) Low frame rates in 3D. I'm assuming lower frame rates are going to look even choppier due to the alternating stereoscopic frames, which again would necessitate higher FPS on a 120Hz monitor in order to look smooth, as others hinted at. Having to drop screen real estate and drop resolution in order to maintain frame rates just seems too costly a sacrifice imo for 3D.

3) Quality of the glasses. I don't wear glasses and I'm very sensitive to crappy lenses even with sunglasses. Are these glasses cheap plastic lenses or actual quality glass optics? I'm guessing former to keep costs down but the latter would imply high prices, both of which carry negatives. Also is there any flashing/shimmering in 3D or discoloration with the glasses?

Without actually commenting on the quality of the 3D effect I just think there's too many barriers to entry right now for mainstream adoption. Maybe once 120Hz LCDs become more common this'll have a better shot at taking off. 3D can look very good though, I clearly remember watching a demonstration at Disney for a company retreat back before Pixar got big where they demo'd 3D with A Bug's Life. Those glasses weren't anything fancy though, just polarized I believe.

 

[Qbah]

I'm just wondering, how the hell should anything be moved forward if so much new stuff being served is immediately dismissed "cause you gotta spend some cash". Now, this thing is something completely different from PhysX, cause it does not require any additional coding or changes or what so ever, just BETTER hardware. Sure, the cost jump is significant... I'm pretty sure if we would be given a holographic TV set with 3D going for 10k that would magically make all the old shows go 3D, all you people in denial would just dismiss it cause it costs a lot and you like what you see on your flat panel anyway... Jeez.

As for the glasses comments, how many people have such a bad eyesight that they can't go to lenses? You just can't please everybody. I mean let's take the new cars, handicapped people can't drive the new Dodge, I mean who would buy it? MAKE A CAR THAT EVERYBODY CAN DRIVE OR DON'T BOTHER AT ALL!

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: apoppin
of course, i am suggesting that eyeglass users switch to contacts to *try* it

i would get very anti-aliased images without 'em
- no jaggies anywhere .. nicely blurred like STALKER'S AA

A lot of people just are not able to wear contacts. They're not suitable for everyone due to allergies or whatever.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Reading through this thread I get the feeling that I'm being marketed to and nothing more. Maybe the 3D glasses will be as good as their being hyped to be. But I just get the feeling that this is just another Nvidia sales job... talking up how game changing and revolutionary these are while downplaying the very real negitives that exist.

I haven't seen these in person, who knows I might fall in love with them. I might brush them off as another hyped up technology that fails to deliver in my opinion. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[MTDEW]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Yeah I am with others on this - POSSIBLY a great concept and all; but no way I see it fitting in many people's budgets for a few years. Hell it's taken a good few years just for HDTV's to come down into a decent price range.

ABCnews.com article from yesterday

Says the glasses are $199..

For what it is, IMO the entrance cost is low for this.

I'm sorry , the tech sounds great and all, but it hardly seems like a "low entrance cost" as stated.

I'll tell you what, if Nvidia could offer a bundle with the glassses , a 120hz lcd and a pair of sli cards able to run current games at playable framerates using these glasses at a reasonable price, then you could claim it as a "low entrance cost". :laugh:
Now we all know thats not realistic, so please dont quote the cost of just the glasses and claim its "Low cost".

The effect may be great, but the cost to put together a playable setup will most likely keep this from becoming main stream any time in the near future.

And if anyone thinks it becoming main stream doesnt matter, just ask anyone who owns /owned the Elsa glasses.

I think the timing of this release is way off base.

1st it shouldnt have been released until 120hz LCDs are mainstream.
2nd , if these end up on store shelves, i feel for the poor "average consumers" who will buy them only to find out it doesnt work with their brand new LCD.

Like i said, if Nvidia thinks its "low cost" , then prove it to me and put together a bundle that includes the glasses, 120hz lcd and the video card/cards needed to run at a reasonable price.
It just simply cannot be done!!
The TOTAL cost should have been considered before trying to bring this to market, the timing is horrible.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: MTDEW
[Like i said, if Nvidia thinks its "low cost" , then prove it to me and put together a bundle that includes the glasses, 120hz lcd and the video card/cards needed to run at a reasonable price.
It just simply cannot be done!!
The TOTAL cost should have been considered before trying to bring this to market, the timing is horrible.

+1

Agreed. Timing is worse than horrible considering the recession, massive job losses and lack of discretionary income among many people.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The TOTAL cost should have been considered before trying to bring this to market, the timing is horrible.

The best time to launch new technology tends to be as soon as you can for many different reasons. I would like to point out what Rollo said was that for what it is the cost of entrance is quite low- remember Rollor runs a high end 30" monitor and high end SLI setups as the norm- his typical gaming hardware budget wouldn't see much of an impact purchasing this.

Aside from that, however. What would be better to do- launch the product now where it will only be picked up by those with a decent amount of disposable income and let economies of scale work the price down so when the economy is doing better the cost will already be more in line with economic norms, or wait until the economy recovers and try to increase the costs to the typical gamer at that point?

This is the type of technology that gives LCD makers incentive to push their 120Hz panels out a bit more quickly then they have been. Why is it we are at the point where TVs are outpacing monitors on the technology front? TVs have been using the reasoning(rightly so) that the 120Hz panels handle fast motion in movies better then 60Hz displays. Given that the framerate on movies is locked @24FPS and they already have 120Hz displays it is a bit out of whack that PC users don't have easy access to comparable technology when they regularly deal with situations in which that level of refresh would be highly beneficial.

I'm not sure how much this will appeal to me or not, I am thinking there is a high probability that it will just give me a headache, my eyes are hypersensitive to imperfections- still can't watch even the best DLP TVs due to the rainbow artifacts, but it does sound like a very interesting technology at the very least. Would love to see this tech paired with an OLED display in a couple years to see how well the pair works together.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
I'm not sure how much this will appeal to me or not, I am thinking there is a high probability that it will just give me a headache, my eyes are hypersensitive to imperfections- still can't watch even the best DLP TVs due to the rainbow artifacts

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

 

[nRollo]

Wow- a lot of stuff to adress here.

1. The glasses fit over prescription eyeglasses. I've worn the glasses over glasses a lot more than wearing contacts.

2. SLi necessity- I have been using this with a GTX260 Core 216 and it plays GREAT.

3. The Economic Times: The best time to introduce tech is as soon as it works- the economy has nothing to do with it. The people who can't afford it shouldn't buy it, those who can will if they like it.

4. Marketing: I can't put it any plainer- I don't care if you buy this or not. I reported on this because it's cool tech I think all 3d gamers would like. If ATi puts out a similar set of glasses tomorrow, I'll change my recommendation to "You should pick a brand and get this- changes everything". Ditto for the dual pane monitors if they fix the issues.

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)

Most of all- I'm not expecting anyone to take my word for this, or even have my preferences. If you're interested at all, read the reviews and go see it at a store or friend's house.

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.

I won't be writing an article about this like ChrisRay will be posting at B3d, but I'd be happy to answer questions about my experiences with it starting tomorrow. (and will be more specific in my answers, as NDA will be expired)

I hope some of you get a chance to try this as well, it's a lot of fun