Hardware Nvidia Talks 3D Vision

a displayport to dvi adaptor for $100?

 

Hmmm, we shall see, I'm not convinced...then again they really pinpointed me with:

I can second that, it WAS no good, but not for the reasons they state

Nope...2000 (as they state later in the article)

I've used revelator glasses, and it did cause Nausea in three out of three users sooner or later.
Of course, back then we used CRT tubes at either 120Hz or 140Hz, which both resulted lower than 75Hz per eye that I usually set as a lower limit for CRT's.
Now for TFT's

so only 60Hz per eye left from these 120Hz, and thats not a lot (though standart for many TFT's, might work.)

Setup was very simple though, high quality CRT+revelator+driver+game (Half-Life 1). Easy as pie, but a horrible experience none the less.

Guitar hero as the "it's not a Fad" arguement....right after Guitar Hero has been abandoned (because it was a fad)

 

I get the feeling a large percentage of people here will complain about any PC tech that is different from what they're used to. I know some people who spew/vomit/hurl if they play any 3d game that isn't counter-strike source. I suspect some of you spew for any old reason.

Nothing sadder than someone playing a plastic guitar. I guess those who spew at every opportunity would have spewed whilst playing guitar hero too? (too much sickness inducing motion).

 

What about if they were using WiiFit, while wearing 3D glasses and playing a plastic guitar?

 

There would be even more spewing. A big spewey mess.

 

It's something I'd have to have a demo of before considering, it costs a bit & requires double the performance so need beefy gpu or sli & my gtx 580 can struggle with the odd game on max settings, so yeah it's an even more expensive way of gaming to me, but still I'd like to experience it to see if it does make the experience far more awesome.

 

You know what I find interesting? So far over all this talk of 3D technology, you have the people who are totally against the tech and then there are those who love it and say to those who don't to "just conform". What I would say, is that this is a perfect example of corporate tactics to make people buy something new and potentially expensive to keep them going to the next shiny and possibly pointless feature that they think people need.

The first time they tried to release 3D, it failed fairly well. Why? Well I'm sure there were plenty of reasons that it didn't succeed, but primarly people didn't want it. One reason for this is possibly that people weren't so easily moulded by corporations into thinking that they needed this to surive (of course limits in tech were probably a main factor also). Fast forward to 2011 and personally, I think people are far more open to suggestive influence from corporate PR. With the internet and this constant "you need to conform to everyone else" attitude it makes things so much easier for people to sell you things you don't really need.

Look at the way they're handling 3D at the moment. They know it's not exactly popular with the masses for the second time, and yes, selling it to them again is proving not as easy as they would have originally hoped, but here's the thing. This isn't the 80's anymore and corporations have spent a lot of time and money on PR. They've become patient. They know that 3D isn't the shining glory that they would want people to believe. Instead, they try a different tactic, they herd the sheep at a more digestable rate.

3D comes out firstly in movies, then T.V and games. People at first have the option of watching either the 3D version or 2D version, so the option is there. Over time 3D becomes pretty much the mainstream for new movie releases at the cinema, which then reflects on to Blu-rays and of course television sets. Entertainment reaches a stage where all new televisions released are 3D compliant and systems like SKY 3D becomes the standard set they produce. We are all being slowly but surely herded into the 3D pen. Corporations want us to buy this, so this is what we must do.

Sorry, rant over for today. I just hate being told what to buy and watching younger generations being conditioned to love whatever they're told to.

 

I blame James Cameron and that nonsense film with the giant Smurfs.

 

feh, with current implementation of 3D gaming I couldn't care less for it .. now if they could come out with more glasses-free holographic-style gaming.. i might well be interested.. but for now.. i'll save my ca$h and stick to 2D, thanks!

 

Does Crysis 2 or Avatar have antialising? The quality bar is preety low, just look at this two different points.

 

AMD is doing 3D right by leaving the glasses issue up to the display/manufacturer, while Nvidia is of course taking the proprietary route which is always more expensive for the end user. Seriously, I already think the glases are stupid to begin with, but on top of that they have to be synced up to USB? Come on now.

 

One read of the comments on this forum and it's easy to understand why new tech sometimes fails. Most of us are born with stereoscopic vision and so it doesn't take a genius to work out that 3d displays are therefore inevitable in the same way 3d sound is. I am guessing there were also people who bitched endlessly when the first surround sound systems were introduced. They'd say things like "it's a fad", "it's a gimmick", "it made me vomit". Why do we have surround sound technology? Because we are born with 3d sound decoding and so 3d audio hardware is thus INEVITABLE. It is no different with stereoscopic tech, it is inevitable.

I see there are many short-sighted people who are very resistant to change especially when change may require them to spend more money. Stereoscopic hardware is not something that has been "tried before and failed", it is something that has been developed steadily over many decades and is now at a stage where it can be mass produced at relatively low cost. For the first time we are seeing HIGH DEFINITION stereoscopic consumer camcorders available. This is not tech that was tried and failed to gain acceptance, it is tech that has finally come of age.

The thing that really shocks me is the level of ignorance I see on places like this. People dismissing something and demonstrating a very poor understanding of the tech and the history of stereoscopic hardware.

I lost count of the number of times people have used the words "fad" and "gimmick" to describe the tech. It just shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge and even of logic. If we were all born with monoscopic vision then you could call stereoscopic tech a gimmick. If you want to call it a gimmick or fad then you might as well show complete stupidity and say the same about stereo and surround audio.

 

In other news, laser eye surgery now at an all time low. Got bad eye-sight from staring at a computer all day. Common down! Went blind in one or more of your eye sockets from trying new 3D tech while staring at a computer all day. Common Down! Can't locate our office because your blind? Free seeing eye dogs now come standard with all nvidia 3D tech! Buy now!

 

So basically, you've just been repeating yourself for 20 years ...

 

damn - sussed!

 

Tired of seeing the world in 3d? Simply remove one eye and your problems are solved. Hate pain and worried losing one eye will hurt? Buy an eye patch and you can see the world as nature intended:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/PIRATE-SATIN-...9?pt=Adult_Fancy_Dress_UK&hash=item43a1fbb67b

 

Only good thing I can see about developers pushing the 3D "fad" is that 120hz monitors will become affordable mainstream devices with good quality. 60hz just isn't enough..
The human eye may not be able to fully identify more than 30fps but it sure as hell can notice the difference in fluincy between 60 & 120 fps. You may not be able to see every frame for what it is in it's entirety, but the extra detail is still appreciated.

 

A conspiracy of stupidity. Perhaps you're all part of some secret group whose members have only one usable eye so you bitterly resent the inevitable transition to stereoscopic gaming.

 

My sentiments exactly, which is why I stated as much earlier in this thread.

So everyone here is stupid, but you. Interesting...

I'm personally convinced that people aren't against "3D" as such. They're just against the crap implementations which manufacturers are trying to push on us.

There's so much else in display technology which should be solved/improved first before pushing this gimmicky 3D effect on us. OLED monitors/tvs come to mind.

"3D" shouldn't be allowed outside the lab before it's equivalent to *exactly* the way that human vision perceives it.

 

This is precisely the problem: 3D technology at the moment is a trick. It's an optical illusion. This isn't how our eyes were supposed to view 3D objects; it's not how we evolved to view the world.

"Of course we want 3D, we have stereoscopic vision, you're talking like 2D images are more natural" - well, the current 3D tech is no more natural. This is why some people don't like watching films in 3D, or are unable to see the 3D effects at all.