NVIDIA Stereovision on morning news(!)

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Yeah, that is serious. I have contacts, but I don't like to wear them. Glasses are so much easier, I just wake up and in 1 second I have perfect vision... Contacts is at least 10 minutes of bullshit and if you get one tiny particle on one of them say hellow to fakked up eyes for the next several hours.

Lasik FTW

Fixed, which brings up another cost vs. benefit dilemma.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Yes, but just to use the glasses I have to
1) buy a new monitor
2) buy glasses
3) buy new mobo because a single GTX280 tanks and my mobo is not SLI.

That might clarify.

Not necessarily, as you've already noted you'll have to drop down resolution from what you're running and turn off some of the more expensive details/settings like shadows for 3D. So you may very well be fine with just a GTX 280 although I'm sure the experience would be much better with close to 120FPS to match refresh rate.

Well, I wouldn't be happy turning things down just to have 3D. I want those shadows, I want HDR and Bloom and all the extras. Lets not even think about what turning physx on would do to the framerate with these.

That's me, I want to experience everything at highest detail. It's sorta like me rather watching a Blu-Ray movie with 1080p and lossless sound vs seeing it in 3D.

The problem is with computer gaming, even 25X16 16XQ16XAA HDR wouldn't look as realistic as 16X10 4X16X on 3D Vision. True 3d adds to the game in a way all those other features never can, you're still just looking at a 2d image, like a billboard.

And people need to stop making the comparison to 3d movies, it's not like that at all.

You need to think of it as your monitor becoming a window into a 3d world where everything has it's place within the depth of field, the game characters look like action figures battling it out in front of you or with you, and everything appears to have substance.

A single GTX280 does not tank BTW. See my single core GTX295 benches here.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Yeah, that is serious. I have contacts, but I don't like to wear them. Glasses are so much easier, I just wake up and in 1 second I have perfect vision... Contacts is at least 10 minutes of bullshit and if you get one tiny particle on one of them say hellow to fakked up eyes for the next several hours.

Lasik FTW

Fixed, which brings up another cost vs. benefit dilemma.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Yes, but just to use the glasses I have to
1) buy a new monitor
2) buy glasses
3) buy new mobo because a single GTX280 tanks and my mobo is not SLI.

That might clarify.

Not necessarily, as you've already noted you'll have to drop down resolution from what you're running and turn off some of the more expensive details/settings like shadows for 3D. So you may very well be fine with just a GTX 280 although I'm sure the experience would be much better with close to 120FPS to match refresh rate.

Well, I wouldn't be happy turning things down just to have 3D. I want those shadows, I want HDR and Bloom and all the extras. Lets not even think about what turning physx on would do to the framerate with these.

That's me, I want to experience everything at highest detail. It's sorta like me rather watching a Blu-Ray movie with 1080p and lossless sound vs seeing it in 3D.

The problem is with computer gaming, even 25X16 16XQ16XAA HDR wouldn't look as realistic as 16X10 4X16X on 3D Vision. True 3d adds to the game in a way all those other features never can, you're still just looking at a 2d image, like a billboard.

And people need to stop making the comparison to 3d movies, it's not like that at all.

You need to think of it as your monitor becoming a window into a 3d world where everything has it's place within the depth of field, the game characters look like action figures battling it out in front of you or with you, and everything appears to have substance.

A single GTX280 does not tank BTW. See my single core GTX295 benches here.

you are describing the *ideal*
- like Nvidia's demos which are designed to be viewed in 3-D .. they are pretty impressive

Some of the games i played just had "depth", at least to my eyes .. and those were also not ones i picked out for myself to try

How long do you spend adjusting 3D settings from game to game?
- it is just a few seconds?
- or do you just pick a "universal setting" that works well for all games ?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Avalon
I read this from Tom's review...

"But the GeForce 3D Vision also isn?t part of a bundle deal. And you can?t use it with your CRT that just so happens to support 100 or 120 Hz refresh rates."

I didn't see that mentioned elsewhere...Keys/Rollo...can you confirm?

100Hz + analog CRTs work

 

[kekewons]

Unfortunately for me, my Mitsubishi 2060 (20"@ 120Hz) CRT monitor has been DOA since I turned it off the last time I used 3D glasses with it two years ago (hopefully just a blown fuse, but I can't be sure without paying for a diagnosis).

Moreover, and as I said a few posts back, 3D viewing, even though I found it fascinating with this monitor, was still not quite "believable" to me because it was "only" a 22 screen. For me, 3D really only comes into it's own when the image approaches something close to lifesize (halfsize or better at a minimum, IMO).

I discovered just a few hours ago that ViewSonic will apparently have a stereo compatible 3D "checkerboard-type" projector on the market sometime in February which MIGHT make such lifesize viewing feasible...and available...at a reasonable price (1024x768 DLP "checkerboard" @120 Hz). ViewSonic PJD6220-3D projector, ~$1,500 MSRP US, supposedly sometime in February (originally "projected*" for release last August, but stuff happens)....

[*sorry about that--just couldn't resist ]

Emphasis on the word MIGHT. I have the idea a "checkerboard-type" projector would alternate each pixel between the two eye views (@120Hz) while the four pixels nearest to it (to the two sides and up and down) would portray the opposite eye view. This MIGHT (or might not) appear to the eye to actually be 1024x768 in practice. On the other hand, it might also appear to be something very much less...perhaps even half each of these resolution-dimensions in fact (512x384)...which would probably not be good enough in practice, at least to my eye.

Or anything in between.

As I said before, I have used glasses (I-art 3D) with a projector at 1024x768 resolution (no AA, and only 85Hz--42Hz per eye, but with great pains (and measurments) taken to ensure a true lifesize view), and even though there were color issues (due to the rotational speed of the colorwheel I think), I really found it quite immersive. If the resolution of this new projector "appears" the same, and if it solves the colorwheel/color issues, then I think it might well be worth the price. Or it might well be for me anyway.

Big IF's of course, but I'm encouraged that there is at least the near term possibility of buying this technology right off the shelf without spending and arm-and-a-leg (and WITHOUT having to go the DIY projector builder route either).

I will probably need to SEE it in a decent setup before finally deciding I think.


k

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Yeah, that is serious. I have contacts, but I don't like to wear them. Glasses are so much easier, I just wake up and in 1 second I have perfect vision... Contacts is at least 10 minutes of bullshit and if you get one tiny particle on one of them say hellow to fakked up eyes for the next several hours.

Lasik FTW

Fixed, which brings up another cost vs. benefit dilemma.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Yes, but just to use the glasses I have to
1) buy a new monitor
2) buy glasses
3) buy new mobo because a single GTX280 tanks and my mobo is not SLI.

That might clarify.

Not necessarily, as you've already noted you'll have to drop down resolution from what you're running and turn off some of the more expensive details/settings like shadows for 3D. So you may very well be fine with just a GTX 280 although I'm sure the experience would be much better with close to 120FPS to match refresh rate.

Well, I wouldn't be happy turning things down just to have 3D. I want those shadows, I want HDR and Bloom and all the extras. Lets not even think about what turning physx on would do to the framerate with these.

That's me, I want to experience everything at highest detail. It's sorta like me rather watching a Blu-Ray movie with 1080p and lossless sound vs seeing it in 3D.

The problem is with computer gaming, even 25X16 16XQ16XAA HDR wouldn't look as realistic as 16X10 4X16X on 3D Vision. True 3d adds to the game in a way all those other features never can, you're still just looking at a 2d image, like a billboard.

And people need to stop making the comparison to 3d movies, it's not like that at all.

You need to think of it as your monitor becoming a window into a 3d world where everything has it's place within the depth of field, the game characters look like action figures battling it out in front of you or with you, and everything appears to have substance.

A single GTX280 does not tank BTW. See my single core GTX295 benches here.

doesn't matter...The game loses the features of DX10 and the shadows thus actually being less realistic in my view.

This whole thing is just like Physx. "Oh look at these demos and see!" well...half the people on these forums probably can't even use physx and if they can, only a few can get respectable framerates. Now you want 3D, but the FPS suffers more than it does with physx. Does Nvidia expect everyone to turn every option off to get good fps while looking at an image that simulates 3D on the screen? Oh that's right...NV expects us to pay for SLi since AMD released a good competitor and NV can't overcharge us anymore. So they find a way to gimmick ppl into purchasing an SLI setup.

I'm being harsh and maybe sarcastic here, but that's how this is reading to me. I just honestly can't see it ever being close to worth it for most people.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I think some of you guys are just hating this tech for the sake of hating it. Don't get me wrong, this tech has draw backs, serious ones. But if those drawbacks are not worth the experience, then don't get it. I don't plan to get it until I know my rig can handle it, which may be never, or when nVidia is able to somehow create the effect without cutting performance in half. Maybe it won't work at all for me with my eyes... Maybe it will. Until I can demo them I can't really say if they would work for me or not. I'd be happy if nVidia setup demos with BB on a regular basis so I could check them out 'before' parting with hard earned cash. Maybe the focus team can foward that on. I want to experience it before I buy it. Or, maybe a trial based system? 30 days or your money back? Seems fair to me.

 

[kekewons]

Well, I'm not sure about ANY game, but I was pleased to see earlier today that my own favorite simulation "rFactor" (rfactor.net), a racing simulation, managed an "excellent" rating at Nvidias site, as regards its 3D compatibility rating.

Shouldn't be a surprise, as " rFactor" is merely a DX9 title, and I can vouch from my own experience that it is pretty damned good in stereo 3D DLP (projection) except for the colorwheel issues when using a projector.

I will not detract from that, except to opine that the overall rating should merely be "really, really good" instead of excellent.


k

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Yeah, that is serious. I have contacts, but I don't like to wear them. Glasses are so much easier, I just wake up and in 1 second I have perfect vision... Contacts is at least 10 minutes of bullshit and if you get one tiny particle on one of them say hellow to fakked up eyes for the next several hours.

Lasik FTW

Fixed, which brings up another cost vs. benefit dilemma.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Yes, but just to use the glasses I have to
1) buy a new monitor
2) buy glasses
3) buy new mobo because a single GTX280 tanks and my mobo is not SLI.

That might clarify.

Not necessarily, as you've already noted you'll have to drop down resolution from what you're running and turn off some of the more expensive details/settings like shadows for 3D. So you may very well be fine with just a GTX 280 although I'm sure the experience would be much better with close to 120FPS to match refresh rate.

Well, I wouldn't be happy turning things down just to have 3D. I want those shadows, I want HDR and Bloom and all the extras. Lets not even think about what turning physx on would do to the framerate with these.

That's me, I want to experience everything at highest detail. It's sorta like me rather watching a Blu-Ray movie with 1080p and lossless sound vs seeing it in 3D.

The problem is with computer gaming, even 25X16 16XQ16XAA HDR wouldn't look as realistic as 16X10 4X16X on 3D Vision. True 3d adds to the game in a way all those other features never can, you're still just looking at a 2d image, like a billboard.

And people need to stop making the comparison to 3d movies, it's not like that at all.

You need to think of it as your monitor becoming a window into a 3d world where everything has it's place within the depth of field, the game characters look like action figures battling it out in front of you or with you, and everything appears to have substance.

A single GTX280 does not tank BTW. See my single core GTX295 benches here.

doesn't matter...The game loses the features of DX10 and the shadows thus actually being less realistic in my view.

This whole thing is just like Physx. "Oh look at these demos and see!" well...half the people on these forums probably can't even use physx and if they can, only a few can get respectable framerates. Now you want 3D, but the FPS suffers more than it does with physx. Does Nvidia expect everyone to turn every option off to get good fps while looking at an image that simulates 3D on the screen? Oh that's right...NV expects us to pay for SLi since AMD released a good competitor and NV can't overcharge us anymore. So they find a way to gimmick ppl into purchasing an SLI setup.

I'm being harsh and maybe sarcastic here, but that's how this is reading to me. I just honestly can't see it ever being close to worth it for most people.

So far, even a single 9800GTX+ has been running any PhysX I throw at it WITHOUT turning down any quality settings. Where on earth did you get the bolded statement from?
Every hear the quote: "Thou doth protest too much?". Or waaaay too much as the case may be? I just honestly can't see you not being at least somewhat impressed with all the tech Nvidia has released in just this past year alone. 3D Vision included. I mean, WTH?

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Yeah, that is serious. I have contacts, but I don't like to wear them. Glasses are so much easier, I just wake up and in 1 second I have perfect vision... Contacts is at least 10 minutes of bullshit and if you get one tiny particle on one of them say hellow to fakked up eyes for the next several hours.

Lasik FTW

Fixed, which brings up another cost vs. benefit dilemma.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Yes, but just to use the glasses I have to
1) buy a new monitor
2) buy glasses
3) buy new mobo because a single GTX280 tanks and my mobo is not SLI.

That might clarify.

Not necessarily, as you've already noted you'll have to drop down resolution from what you're running and turn off some of the more expensive details/settings like shadows for 3D. So you may very well be fine with just a GTX 280 although I'm sure the experience would be much better with close to 120FPS to match refresh rate.

Well, I wouldn't be happy turning things down just to have 3D. I want those shadows, I want HDR and Bloom and all the extras. Lets not even think about what turning physx on would do to the framerate with these.

That's me, I want to experience everything at highest detail. It's sorta like me rather watching a Blu-Ray movie with 1080p and lossless sound vs seeing it in 3D.

The problem is with computer gaming, even 25X16 16XQ16XAA HDR wouldn't look as realistic as 16X10 4X16X on 3D Vision. True 3d adds to the game in a way all those other features never can, you're still just looking at a 2d image, like a billboard.

And people need to stop making the comparison to 3d movies, it's not like that at all.

You need to think of it as your monitor becoming a window into a 3d world where everything has it's place within the depth of field, the game characters look like action figures battling it out in front of you or with you, and everything appears to have substance.

A single GTX280 does not tank BTW. See my single core GTX295 benches here.

doesn't matter...The game loses the features of DX10 and the shadows thus actually being less realistic in my view.

This whole thing is just like Physx. "Oh look at these demos and see!" well...half the people on these forums probably can't even use physx and if they can, only a few can get respectable framerates. Now you want 3D, but the FPS suffers more than it does with physx. Does Nvidia expect everyone to turn every option off to get good fps while looking at an image that simulates 3D on the screen? Oh that's right...NV expects us to pay for SLi since AMD released a good competitor and NV can't overcharge us anymore. So they find a way to gimmick ppl into purchasing an SLI setup.

I'm being harsh and maybe sarcastic here, but that's how this is reading to me. I just honestly can't see it ever being close to worth it for most people.

So far, even a single 9800GTX+ has been running any PhysX I throw at it WITHOUT turning down any quality settings. Where on earth did you get the bolded statement from?
Every hear the quote: "Thou doth protest too much?". Or waaaay too much as the case may be? I just honestly can't see you not being at least somewhat impressed with all the tech Nvidia has released in just this past year alone. 3D Vision included. I mean, WTH?

I think everyone here needs to take a chill pill. In any case, I definitely liked what I saw with the PhysX demos, in the games that support it anyway. In the end, Havok will probably lose (if they aren't gone already, I forget) and PhysX is what most game publishers will use when in game physics gets to the level where the cpu+standard vid card just aren't enough. The performance hit from the stereovision is a bit disappointing however, in my opinion anyway.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

doesn't matter...The game loses the features of DX10 and the shadows thus actually being less realistic in my view.

This whole thing is just like Physx. "Oh look at these demos and see!" well...half the people on these forums probably can't even use physx and if they can, only a few can get respectable framerates. Now you want 3D, but the FPS suffers more than it does with physx. Does Nvidia expect everyone to turn every option off to get good fps while looking at an image that simulates 3D on the screen? Oh that's right...NV expects us to pay for SLi since AMD released a good competitor and NV can't overcharge us anymore. So they find a way to gimmick ppl into purchasing an SLI setup.

I'm being harsh and maybe sarcastic here, but that's how this is reading to me. I just honestly can't see it ever being close to worth it for most people.

You're making pretty arbitrary decisions here cmdrdredd.

On one hand you say:

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Well, I wouldn't be happy turning things down just to have 3D. I want those shadows, I want HDR and Bloom and all the extras. Lets not even think about what turning physx on would do to the framerate with these.

That's me, I want to experience everything at highest detail. It's sorta like me rather watching a Blu-Ray movie with 1080p and lossless sound vs seeing it in 3D.

Yet you don't have a 25X16 monitor, so you're not seeing the "highest detail" or even close to it.

You don't use multi-GPU, so you're not using as high of AA as you could, not enjoying "all the extras".

So you're basically saying "The compromises and settings I've chosen to live with are the important ones, everyone else should choose them too".

I'm saying: I can play at the highest settings known to man, and I've been choosing to only game at these settings for over 3 weeks, because this is better.

BTW- I was playing UT3 with PhysX in 3d last night, and we should all hope that is the direction gaming is moving toward, no matter who makes it.

 

[apoppin]

I just honestly can't see you not being at least somewhat impressed with all the tech Nvidia has released in just this past year alone. 3D Vision included. I mean, WTH?

Well .. *none* of it is really New Tech

PhysX is warmed over Aegea ported to CUDA and 3D has not progressed much further than it was with the last 3D glasses
- we are complaining here about the *cost* of entry to try 3D

 

[Keysplayr]

Semantics again. ::sigh::

By your logic, there is no new technology. Just improved old tech. Whatever you wish to call it, it's "new" as in improved technology.

Now I'm sure you'll give us, "No, not all tech is old tech. There are (insert example here) and (insert example here) which *I* feel is new technology.".

Whatever.

About cost. For some it will be prohibitive. For others, they will be on the fence. And finally for others, a piece of cake.

The ones who generally complain are the ones who can't afford it. And thus, say the costs are unjustified. This is normal and has been this way forever. I wan't an i7 system, but I can't afford it right at this moment. But I should be able to after tax returns. It's just a matter of planning ones budget. Not a hard thing to do.

PS: Sorry, I hit edit instead of quote. Nothing was altered in your postage.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Semantics again. ::sigh::

By your logic, there is no new technology. Just improved old tech. Whatever you wish to call it, it's "new" as in improved technology.

Now I'm sure you'll give us, "No, not all tech is old tech. There are (insert example here) and (insert example here) which *I* feel is new technology.".

Whatever.

About cost. For some it will be prohibitive. For others, they will be on the fence. And finally for others, a piece of cake.

The ones who generally complain are the ones who can't afford it. And thus, say the costs are unjustified. This is normal and has been this way forever. I wan't an i7 system, but I can't afford it right at this moment. But I should be able to after tax returns. It's just a matter of planning ones budget. Not a hard thing to do.

PS: Sorry, I hit edit instead of quote. Nothing was altered in your postage.

The hardware is not new technology, period.

The driver approach may be new, I don't have enough experience to say.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Semantics again. ::sigh::

By your logic, there is no new technology. Just improved old tech. Whatever you wish to call it, it's "new" as in improved technology.

Now I'm sure you'll give us, "No, not all tech is old tech. There are (insert example here) and (insert example here) which *I* feel is new technology.".

Whatever.

About cost. For some it will be prohibitive. For others, they will be on the fence. And finally for others, a piece of cake.

The ones who generally complain are the ones who can't afford it. And thus, say the costs are unjustified. This is normal and has been this way forever. I wan't an i7 system, but I can't afford it right at this moment. But I should be able to after tax returns. It's just a matter of planning ones budget. Not a hard thing to do.

PS: Sorry, I hit edit instead of quote. Nothing was altered in your postage.

The hardware is not new technology, period.

The driver approach may be new, I don't have enough experience to say.

Like I said. Whatever you say.

 

[v8envy]

Having used what sounds like identical tech in the past I am positive this gimmick doesn't have legs.

Yes, the effect is striking when you first experience it. Then the lack of realism more than overshadows the initial 'wow' factor. The depth of field is just subtly wrong no mater what you do, and various minor annoying glitches (like crosshair rendering or lane dividers in a racing sim 'floating' above the road) eventually become unbearable.

I know I won't be stepping down in resolution for this. I use my PC for more than just games. 16x10 is simply not enough real estate for everyday use -- which means a second, expensive low res monitor just for fullscreen 3d gaming. Add to that cranking graphical glitz down until the games all look like Diablo 2 (but in 3d!) and well... No thank you, not this year. Probably not next year either. In the next decade? Who knows.

Add to that vanity. Yes, I won't be going out in public in these glasses, but I don't want to have my kids see me decked out in nerd paraphernalia (glasses, headphones, power glove, etc) either.

 

[Demoth]

Really, this comes down to personal taste and I am pretty sure, at least the first gen from all competitors, will be a small niche market. Fine with me, I like this type of technology as it adds some immersion to grind type games like MMOs.

True, if you doing the first few runs of the latest and greatest FPS, your not going to want to use the glasses because, as far as detail and viewing the game as the developers intended, any 3D system will be poor for the forseeable future. This system would also likely throw off accuracy for competitive type games like Unreal Tournament.

I think the niche market will be a lot of RPG and MMO players. I could see mining in Eve online for hours in 3D or running instances in wow using this for the extra immersion.

However, if the tech is better then I think, it could very well explode beyond just niche.

Also, I think this tech will be a dead end and a stepping stone to a high quality virtual reality system. Rendering high detail graphics directly to the eyes would require a whole generation of graphical and CPU power to strive for.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Demoth
Really, this comes down to personal taste and I am pretty sure, at least the first gen from all competitors, will be a small niche market. Fine with me, I like this type of technology as it adds some immersion to grind type games like MMOs.

True, if you doing the first few runs of the latest and greatest FPS, your not going to want to use the glasses because, as far as detail and viewing the game as the developers intended, any 3D system will be poor for the forseeable future. This system would also likely throw off accuracy for competitive type games like Unreal Tournament.

I think the niche market will be a lot of RPG and MMO players. I could see mining in Eve online for hours in 3D or running instances in wow using this for the extra immersion.

However, if the tech is better then I think, it could very well explode beyond just niche.

Also, I think this tech will be a dead end and a stepping stone to a high quality virtual reality system. Rendering high detail graphics directly to the eyes would require a whole generation of graphical and CPU power to strive for.

Horror games are what this tech is "made for" imo
.. and the old top down RPG games looked surprisingly good to me

Semantics again. ::sigh::

By your logic, there is no new technology. Just improved old tech. Whatever you wish to call it, it's "new" as in improved technology.

Now I'm sure you'll give us, "No, not all tech is old tech. There are (insert example here) and (insert example here) which *I* feel is new technology.".

Whatever.

About cost. For some it will be prohibitive. For others, they will be on the fence. And finally for others, a piece of cake.

The ones who generally complain are the ones who can't afford it. And thus, say the costs are unjustified. This is normal and has been this way forever. I wan't an i7 system, but I can't afford it right at this moment. But I should be able to after tax returns. It's just a matter of planning ones budget. Not a hard thing to do

Not semantics .. i just see Nvidia as only one competitor in a sea of 3D offerings
-- they are not necessarily the best and the cost of entry is high

i DO see 3D as the future although not necessarily this tech. Personally, i like the overlays a lot better - and to be able to watch 3D withOUT those silly glasses - which DO tired many people out. He is some "old tech" that could not be done until recently .. so that kinda makes it "new tech"

http://www.dti3d.com/
http://www.reviewspring.com/3d-lcd-monitors-a80.php
http://www.amstore.co.uk/multi...d-digital-signage.html


OK, back to glasses . . . there are competitors to Nvidia's glasses, evidently .. if i am reading this right:

here's a $400 22" 16x10 display with THREE pairs of glasses:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...-hits-the-bandm-scene/

Here's 26"

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...pe-3d-lcd-to-ces-2009/

there is a lot of this new HW showcased at CES .. you be an early adopter. Good luck with your choice!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
OK, back to glasses . . . there are competitors to Nvidia's glasses, evidently .. if i am reading this right:

here's a $400 22" 16x10 display with THREE pairs of glasses:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...-hits-the-bandm-scene/

Here's 26"

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...pe-3d-lcd-to-ces-2009/

there is a lot of this new HW showcased at CES .. you be an early adopter. Good luck with your choice!

Sweet, I'll have to check that out at MC. Apparently those iZ3D monitors are ATI branded! "Ready for the Ultimate Gaming Experience!" Too bad that CES link for the 26" doesn't say what resolution it is. I also like how this solution uses passive polarized glasses.

 

[imported_Shaq]

Looks like you need Vista for it to work. Will they ever make an XP driver for this? Will it work in Windows 7 beta?

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
OK, back to glasses . . . there are competitors to Nvidia's glasses, evidently .. if i am reading this right:

here's a $400 22" 16x10 display with THREE pairs of glasses:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...-hits-the-bandm-scene/

Here's 26"

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...pe-3d-lcd-to-ces-2009/

there is a lot of this new HW showcased at CES .. you be an early adopter. Good luck with your choice!

Sweet, I'll have to check that out at MC. Apparently those iZ3D monitors are ATI branded! "Ready for the Ultimate Gaming Experience!" Too bad that CES link for the 26" doesn't say what resolution it is. I also like how this solution uses passive polarized glasses.

There's also a $50 rebate for ATi owners.
http://www.iz3d.com/3drulez/ati_radeon_rebate.html

So if you buy it at amazon.com for $318 - 50 = $268 for a 22" monitor with 3 glasses
http://www.amazon.com/IZ3D-pan...&qid=1231912133&sr=8-1

That's a lot cheaper than what Nvidia is offering.

 

[IlllI]

i wonder if NVIDIA Focus Group members get a kickback for every positive pr post they make


-------------------------------------------
That attitude comes in under a personal attack

Take a couple of days to review our guidelines and learn simple politeness

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: clandren
i wonder if NVIDIA Focus Group members get a kickback for every positive pr post they make

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
OK, back to glasses . . . there are competitors to Nvidia's glasses, evidently .. if i am reading this right:

here's a $400 22" 16x10 display with THREE pairs of glasses:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...-hits-the-bandm-scene/

Here's 26"

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...pe-3d-lcd-to-ces-2009/

there is a lot of this new HW showcased at CES .. you be an early adopter. Good luck with your choice!

Sweet, I'll have to check that out at MC. Apparently those iZ3D monitors are ATI branded! "Ready for the Ultimate Gaming Experience!" Too bad that CES link for the 26" doesn't say what resolution it is. I also like how this solution uses passive polarized glasses.

There's also a $50 rebate for ATi owners.
http://www.iz3d.com/3drulez/ati_radeon_rebate.html

So if you buy it at amazon.com for $318 - 50 = $268 for a 22" monitor with 3 glasses
http://www.amazon.com/IZ3D-pan...&qid=1231912133&sr=8-1

That's a lot cheaper than what Nvidia is offering.

It's apparently worth a lot less too:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...play/iz3d_7.html#sect0

Unfortunately, these advantages are all negated by one defect. The left and right pictures are not separated fully, which leads to conspicuous and eye-straining artifacts in every game I have tried.

The dual plane displays are inferior in quality so far, according to the reviews I've read. (I actually thought about IZ3D until I researched)

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
OK, back to glasses . . . there are competitors to Nvidia's glasses, evidently .. if i am reading this right:

here's a $400 22" 16x10 display with THREE pairs of glasses:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...-hits-the-bandm-scene/

Here's 26"

http://www.engadget.com/2008/1...pe-3d-lcd-to-ces-2009/

there is a lot of this new HW showcased at CES .. you be an early adopter. Good luck with your choice!

Sweet, I'll have to check that out at MC. Apparently those iZ3D monitors are ATI branded! "Ready for the Ultimate Gaming Experience!" Too bad that CES link for the 26" doesn't say what resolution it is. I also like how this solution uses passive polarized glasses.

There's also a $50 rebate for ATi owners.
http://www.iz3d.com/3drulez/ati_radeon_rebate.html

So if you buy it at amazon.com for $318 - 50 = $268 for a 22" monitor with 3 glasses
http://www.amazon.com/IZ3D-pan...&qid=1231912133&sr=8-1

That's a lot cheaper than what Nvidia is offering.

I saw another article about the IZ3d tonight, people should probably think twice about going down that road:

http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...6783.html#xtor=RSS-181

But on the iZ3Ds display, we had to tweak separation (depth, just like Nvidia?s 3D Vision) and convergence. And depending on what we were looking at, those settings needed to be constantly tweaked. The latest technology built into the display, called Auto Focus, attempts to correct for differences in separation and convergence. But both myself and Tom?s Guide managing editor Rachel Rosmarin saw double of everything with the feature turned on.

and

Nevertheless, we?d have to conclude that after spending hours upon hours with GeForce 3D Vision and several minutes with iZ3D?s demo of choice at CES 2009, we?d have to stick with the well-integrated Nvidia package until iZ3D is able to iron out some of the rough edges still apparent in its existing design.

 

[imported_Shaq]

I have a 21" CRT I may want to try it on. It can do 1600x1200 @ 85hz. I will have to lower it a bit to get 100hz. I think it does 120hz @ only 1280 res. I imagine it will work in Windows 7? I don't have Vista. Hopefully they will be available next week so I can try it out.