Hey bit-tech Opinions ? Personal experience's, is it worth the money? Does it give you a real 3d effect? Thanks in advance, jake
Personally I would say no, if only because of the costs involved and the fact that the glasses alone are quite expensive. That said, it is pretty awesome. Although the cost and the finickyness of it makes it hardly worth paying for.
Nvidia have supported stereo 3d for many years. I still have my old Elsa Revelator 3d glasses. The 3d is very good, you have depth and objects can also pop out of the screen. Make sure you avoid the new 60hz "3d" monitors from LG and other companies. They are sold with passive 3d glasses and the 3d is created by halving the vertical screen resolution. If you want 3d it has to be 120hz screen and Nvidia shutter glasses. I was lucky when I bought my monitor earlier this year, LG 2363D was only 176 pounds. LG have now replaced it with a piece of garbage 60hz screen with halved vertical res and passive 3d glasses. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-021-AS&groupid=17&catid=1851&subcat= http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-061-AC&tool=3 You will probably see a lot of hostility from forum members at bit tech towards 3d. Brits overall tend to resent this technology and make up all kinds of ******** about it. I began using it back in 2003. I will be buying the Nvidia shutter glasses soon to go with my LG 3d monitor.
Cheers bro, so get a 120 hz monitor and the nvidia glasses cool what graphics card would support and execute it the best ? Sorry about all the questions, my local pc store are just a bunch of wogs and have no clue
Depends what u want to do in 3d. 3d Bluray? If you want to play something like Battlefield 3 in stereo 3d then you won't be running ultra setting. Stereo 3d drops the frame rate so you need a more powerful graphics card. Technically you can run 3d on any mid to high end GPU but it depends on the games you want to play. If I wanted to run BF3 in 3d I'd need to reduce some of the graphic settings even with SLI setup I run. You can run stereo 3d on a 560Ti or anything above that. If you're aiming for Battlefield 3 then you will need something powerful. If you went for Nvidia 580 you'd still need to reduce the graphic settings to High and disable AA. If you went for 2 x 570 or 580 in SLI then you'd have better rendering power for 3d. If BF3 isn't important... if you play something like Skyrim then you can use a 570. You can always reduce the screen resolution to push the frame rate up if necessary. I would go with Nvidia for stereo 3d because they've been doing it for 10 years. ATI only decided to support it recently.
I can still run 3d on high with ultra on textures on BF3 quite happily, get avg. 35-45fps when using 3d and its quite stunning. I cant play as well with them on though as depth of field is a whol;e new element of gaming you will have to get used to. I also have the 120hz LG 3d monitor and managed to get mine at £156 before then discontinued, I agree with feathers though avoid the new LG passive screens, also got a lot of bleeding and a lil bit of ghosting around edges. I have a asus 560ti 1gb and it runs everything (even Skyrim) very well in 3d, I had a 550ti before that and it still ran 3d well but avg. frames were about 20-30. It comes down to how much money will you spend on it, how often you will use it, coping with random headaches due to eyestrain, pressting ctrl+T everytime a game starts or you alt tabbing. I still think the way to go is passive and then eventually no glasses but thats a while off yet, if you have the money look into the new lightboost monitors from asus, also the new glasses from Nvidia arent much different to the old ones.
I must echo what others have said. If you're going to do it, then do it right. You need some really good hardware to opwer the screen. The shop where I work has a display computer running 3D stuff. i5 2400, GTX560Ti, 8GB 1600 RAM on a 1080p screen. However, even in X3 Terran Conflict and DiRT3 which aren't the most demanding of games, the frame rate drops to a playable 30fps, but the glasses are shuttering per eye at half that speed. This gives a very annoying, and sometimes headache inducing flicker. I really enjoy the 3D effect and I wish I could swap my LG IPS231P montor for a 3D setup and a second graphics card to help
Don't worry, it's not just the Brits here. The best advice for 3D I think anyone can get is to and try it for yourself first. A lot of movies are coming in 3D now and many shops have 3D setups on display, try it out at one of these places first and get your own experience of it, Nvidia's 3D Vision is pretty much the same in quality as any active 3D film setup. Next look at the costs of setting up your own 3D display and consider whether you think it's worth the cost. Even if you like it in the shop you're looking at upwards of two hundred pounds to get it at home.
Having recently purchased new mobo, cpu and ram, then 120gb SSD, that just leaves the 3d glasses to purchase. I still have 2 pairs of my old Elsar Revelators. I used to play quite a few games in 3d back in the day. Doom 3, Painkiller, CSS. Some games have a problem in that the programmers are somewhat lazy and they don't code 3d crosshair. The crosshair is a 2d sprite which for a FPS is a big problem. Nvidia have a game rating system to indicate how well a game supports 3d. Serious Sam HD is pretty amazing. Old but impressive. I'm more interested in the 3d movies now to be honest. I have a Chinese HD Bluray porn DVD, Avatar 3d and a few others. I will be buying TT3d bike video on amazon too. I don't know how the 3d is with 120hz monitors. When I was using it some years ago it was with CRT and I was running 120hz CRT monitor back then. There were no issues for me, no headaches that some people are complaining of. Unless for some reason it's different with a modern flat panel 120hz then I don't see any issue myself. I hope to be buying some glasses over the next week or so. Still waiting for the day when we have HMD capable of HD gaming and porn viewing. I used to own a PC3d HMD with 800 x600. It was pretty awful and only just about playable with serious same. Image quality was bad. I wonder how the sony HMD is?
