Having a debate with a buddy at the moment about Nvidia's 3D Vision stuff. Have looked on their site and cannot really find details of the finer points. Are 3D monitors purely Hz based i.e. 120Hz - or do they contain circuitry to enable them to display the 3D picture? I'm of the opinion they contain circuitry, he thinks all you need is a 120Hz capable monitor. Please settle this debate for us! Our debate stretched to Sky3D as well. Sky says that an HD box will receive the signal no problems, but you do need a 3D TV ... do they mean a 120Hz TV screen or a dedicated 3D (with circuitry) screen?
No, all you need is a 120Hz monitor. They will also work with DLPs, and old CRTs that predate the 3D Vision technology and obviously couldn't have special circuitry in them. 3D TVs are a different matter because they don't necessarily work on NVIDIA's 3D vision system; they might be autostereoscopic, for example. That's up to the TV manufacturer and their design decisions; I think there's a few ways of doing it with and without glasses, and Sky will just have to adapt to the main ones on sale.
I'm surprised this tech hasn't surfaced before tbh - there've been monitors that can do 100Hz for years now, that's all you need to be able to make something feel 3D. That and a bit of image separation.
It has. Shutter glasses have been around since graphics cards could push them; look at things like CrystalEyes, indeed IIRC NVIDIA themselves might actually have done it before now. The limitations tend to be with the screens; at 60Hz, an LCD looks just fine, whereas a CRT can look flickery all the way up to 85Hz, and of course shutter glasses cut the viewable frame rate in half (one half to each eye). So whilst 120Hz would be just find for an LCD shutter glasses system (i.e., 3D Vision), you really need more like 140-160Hz for a CRT and it's difficult to find a CRT that will push a reasonable resolution at that sort of frequency. In addition to this, CRTs are old, bulky, environmentally unfriendly and expensive to get first hand, if anyone still makes them that is. Until about 2005, though, you could push a CRT all the way to 200Hz (at like 640x480, admittedly) but you couldn't find an LCD that would do 100Hz. That's why shutter-glass technology took a break - nobody used CRTs but nobody made 120Hz LCDs until recently. I do sometimes hope to find a free-if-you'll-take-it-away CRT that can handle 3D Vision; it seems like a good way to try the tech without committing to the new Full HD Acer 3D screen. Unfortunately, the only CRTs that would be capable of 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (minimum gaming resolution) at 130Hz+ are the really good ones released right at the end of the CRT era. Specifically, those are the Iiyama Vision Master Pro 514 (HM204DT) and the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro (2070SB-BK), both of which use the same DiamondTron 22" tube and can push those resolutions at 177Hz and 133Hz respectively, which should do the trick. If someone's got one and wants to lend it to me...
Ah, this reply was being written as you posted yours Pure, I'll read it now ... --- Thanks guys. I think I'm getting the iPad and he's getting the 3D stuff from Nvidia, will pop up and see him during Summer so we can swap toys for a day or two. The both of us have still got our eDimensional stereoscopic 3D glasses that date back to when we had high Hz CRT screens. The effect did work but the games' cursor/target would always be split into two images and if you looked at it it'd make you cross-eyed. When firing it was hard to judge where the bullets would be landing - somewhere between the two images if I remember right. We've both become huge fans of Dirt 2 and general racing games so we're wondering how the 3D effect performs in a less demanding situation like that. Are you guys getting 3D or waiting for it to be perfected properly? I keep seeing reviews about monitors that say the colour and detail gets drained ... maybe still lots of room to improve? When is the time to jump in?
nVidia tried to push the exact same technology back in the late 90s. The difference was they ran it off analog monitors. Now, with digital monitors sync problems are pretty much eliminated, but since they're still using shutter glasses you'll probably still end up with huge headaches...
I'm dying to give it a try, but I don't have the cash (and Bit-Tech don't rate the technology; they prefer IPS panels to high-Hz TNs, which isn't pushing me to buy it). I dunno about headaches, though. I would never buy a screen these days that cannot handle Full HD; now that they do 24" 1920x1080 screens you really have no excuse not to be able to play HD content. I also don't want a screen smaller than my current 22". So my imaginary 120Hz screen would have to be 23" minimum, and 1920x1080. There's only one like that on the market at the moment - the Acer GD235HZ (a.k.a. the GD245HQ) - and I've yet to see it reviewed anywhere. Plus, though the tech has improved a lot since the days of your eDimensional stuff (NVIDIA involvement means no jumping crosshairs) it's still a long way from mature. I wouldn't jump in just yet - wait for 3D TV to hit sometime later this year and hope that kicks the industry into more 3D-native games first.
I hear Sky are using 3D projectors or screens in some pubs during the World Cup ... my bud and I agree that Sky must be confident the 3D effect is good. If it wasn't then it would be the worst PR stunt to gain interest in Sky3D. Damn I want a ticket!
