Nvidia picks the wrong 3D glasses technology
NVIDIA IS BANGING the 3D drum with their new glasses called GeForce 3D Vision, but they are entirely missing the point. In typical fashion they are going about it not only the wrong way, but trying to counter the direction of the entire consumer electronics industry.
The technology they are using is active shutter glasses, something that went out of style when sane companies realised the costs involved. This is not to say it doesn't work, it does, but they are jacking the costs up for consumers in a way that doesn't make sense, halving the effective frame rate, and inserting a host of other problems as well.
Stepping back a little, there are several types of 3D technology that can be used. Some put the technology in the glasses, others put it in the monitor itself. Some require active components, others do not. Each has ups and downs, and depending on the situation, may or may not make sense for the specific application at hand.
You may be familiar with the old red and blue glasses, one of the first types of consumer 3D. It worked somewhere between badly and really badly, was monochrome, and had a lot of ghosting. The technical term for this is anaglyph, and it is dirt cheap to implement. Since these came out, things have gotten a lot better.
The next most common version is polarised glasses, with each eye being polarised at 45 degrees to each other or circularly in opposite directions. You have probably seen these before at Imax or other 3D cinemas. They work pretty well, but usually require two projectors in a theatre or a few additional layers in a monitor. This adds cost, sometimes a lot, but it is a one time event, and the glasses cost marginally more than anaglyph glasses.
Closely following that is the active glasses technology. These are basically glasses that have LCDs in each eye, and turn black every other frame. They also work pretty well, but you get half the frames in one eye, and half the frames in the other. This can lead to headaches as your eyes try to compensate for the on/off light, low frame rates for gamers and synch problems.
Active glasses need a transmitter that is synced to the frame rate, usually through an IR transmitter. If you are out of range, turn your head, or have any obstructions, it may stutter or simply not work. Worse yet, they are battery operated, so you have to replace batteries or charge them, and in general spend time and effort keeping them working. The cost of active glasses is many times that of passive glasses, tens of dollars vs dollars or even cents for polarised or anaglyph. The more glasses you need, the more expense climbs.
Next up, we have screens that are 3D in and of themselves. There are several technologies used to do this and they are usually lumped together, but they all have two traits in common. The first is that they use multiple screen layers like the polarised glasses, adding to cost, but you don't need glasses. The drawback is that they have a very narrow viewing angle, so the sweet spot is generally good for only one person, a handful at best. While they sound nice in theory, implementation troubles have confined it to a shrinking niche.
The last one, Dolby 3D Digital Cinema, is not applicable to PCs because current monitors don't work in a compatible way. This is a shame because it is by far the best of breed, and you will be seeing more of it in the future. The short story is that it slices up light into spectrum bands, and each eye gets half of the colours. There are about 50 bands, so you don't see anything other than a very clear and clean picture. It works amazingly well if you get a chance to see a movie using it, it is well worth the extra few dollars.
With that not-so brief overview in mind, Nvidia chose the active 3D glasses route, quite possibly the worst of the modern lot as far as the consumer is concerned, especially if the end result is gaming. Why? For several reasons, from cost to headaches.
First there is cost. To buy the setup, you need to purchase a transmitter and glasses, and sync it up to the video. This isn't terribly complex, and the drivers will likely be bundled with NV's video card drivers. Positioning the transmitter, basically a simple IR LED isn't that tough either, you put it on the monitor or near it, like a Nintendo Wii bar.
The problem here? Well, the transmitter blinks in sync to the monitor is it attached to, and since it is very simple to keep costs down, it uses a set frequency. They have to make it reasonably powerful, enough for viewing in a normal TV environment, say 10-20 feet, and with a decent broadcast angle so you can get the couch and a chair or two on either side.
Think about that at a Lan party, or with more than one PC in the same room. Twenty-five transmitters blinking on and off within the same broadcast area is not a terribly bright idea, don't you think? If gamers are not the target audience, I am not sure what kind of creature is, and the first Lan party where they try and use this will end up in hilarity. To quote the philosopher B. Bunny, what maroons.
Next up is cost. A decent 22-inch 1680 by 1050 monitor costs about $159 right now, so the panel itself is not that expensive. Adding a second one or a few coatings to the monitor won't add that much cost if volume is there. iZ3D and Zalman have been at the forefront of this technology, with iZ3D selling its 22-inch version for $349 even without huge Samsung-esque volumes. Basically, they can be had now, quite cheaply. Scaling up the size is only a matter of adding a bigger coating layer to an existing panel, not exactly rocket science. They also require no syncing, no transmitter, and are entirely passive. Currently, the only cost is a $200 or so monitor premium and extra glasses have an MSRP starting at $.60 retail.
The shutter glasses on the other hand are fairly cheap, adding an estimated $20-30 per pair to the cost. If you have a family of four, this basically evens out the cost between an inherently 3D PC monitor, and a bunch of shutter glasses plus transmitter. Batteries are probably included, but the next set won't be.
So far it is a wash, unless you step on a pair of glasses, drop them, or have a dog with a taste for LCDs. Each additional set jacks up the cost by an estimated $20-30 for the NV active glasses, $1 or less for the passive polarised ones, going up to $10 for the real fancy versions. Not a good start.
Then there are the monitors that you need for the shutter glasses. Nvidia seems to have once again taken the moronic route and required 120Hz monitors. While this does reduce flicker and headaches a bit, it is almost assuredly done because of frame rates. Remember, shutter glasses effectively halve the effective frame rate so if you have a standard 60Hz monitor, you are stuck with gaming at 30 FPS, aka chunky and barely playable. The other option is to shell out many dollars for a fast panel. Requiring 120Hz panels effectively blows out the cost of shutter glasses systems. Dumb dumb dumb.
Last up is headaches. The shutter glasses blink on and off at half your frame rate, 60Hz or 120Hz depending, and this can lead to shooting pains in the eyes and migraine headaches. Think 60Hz CRT monitor under fluorescent lighting, blink blink blink blink... I know they will say it doesn't happen, but what do you expect them to say, they won't even tell you what GPUs are faulty after six months.
This is a real problem, and after using the glasses for a bit, you will realise why no rational company has deployed the technology over the polarised or Dolby systems. Things have come a long way since I got my first pair of StereoTek glasses on the Atari ST in the early 90s, but the fundamental problems remain. You will get a headache if you use it for long periods, like say raiding in WoW. Once again, what were these people thinking, if they were at all?
So, there has to be an upside to the glasses, right? Sure, they work fairly well for short periods of time, and the price tag isn't all that crushing on the store shelf. As long as you have a 120Hz monitor, you don't need to add much at all. The best part is that Nvidia can sell it, while they don't have a monitor line. This is the real reason they picked the technology, it is the one that makes them the most money. I never said the upsides were to you, the consumer, you lose on this one if you take the Nvidia route.
If you are even marginally following the consumer electronics world, you will know that these Nvidia glasses will debut at CES in just over a week. So will 3D monitors from just about everyone under the sun. I have seen press releases from iZ3D, Samsung, and about a dozen others out there touting their new 3D monitors for CES. Basically everyone in the world that makes monitors is going to make a 3D version, and prices are going to plummet.
All of these are going to be polarised-glasses versions, incompatible with the Nvidia way. Guess which system will have the higher volume? Guess which one will crater prices faster? Guess which one will be compatible with the majority of peripherals? Guess which one will use cheap glasses that you can buy everywhere? Guess which one won't need batteries? Guess which one will have easy clip-ons for existing eyeglasses? Guess which one won't give you blinding headaches? Shall I go on?
The answer to all of the questions is not Nvidia. Nvidia is using a technology that is not only inferior in several key ways, but also is bucking the prevailing consumer electronics trend. When you have almost every panel maker on the planet going one way, and Nvidia the other, one side is going to be left out. Call me crazy, but I am willing to bet that side is not going to be Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, Casio and the rest.
Why are they foisting a second-rate technology that halves a game's frame rate on consumers? Because they can make money directly from it. They are once again selling you short to line their pockets. Would you expect anything less? µ
Share this:
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Why do you guys hate NVDA so much, you shit all over them all the time with no good reason. Did one of you used to work there and have a bad time or somthing? I have never seen you print a positive thing about this company.
I have been using glasses when the time Asus V3800 Ultra (TNT 2 Ultra). That time was about year before 2000. My trick to using CRT at low res 640 x 480. By that resolution I can get 120 Hz refresh rate.
TALK ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN NVIDIA CHARLIE, YOU'RE STARTING TO SOUND LIKE AN EX GIRLFRIEND OUT TO DESTROY THE GUY THAT DUMPED HER.
Just wanted to make sure that stood out enough to read, but honestly an, its all you ever talk about. You simply go out of your way to find every single bad thing you can about the company. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like Nvidia myself, but what you've done is make the Nvidia "hate beat" your only beat. You are a fine reporter when you don't look and sound like a stalker man, so do some actual reporting about something that:
(A)isn't about Nvidia,
(B)isn't completely negative, and
(C)ISN'T ABOUT NVIDIA!!
Seriously Charlie, you've become a hitman and that's all, where are your damned journalistic ethics man. Nvidia may not be Jesus, but they don't deserved to be crucified. Yes, we all get it, Nvidia is a mean bunch of liars that has continually shut the Inq and you out of events and told lies about you guys and generally been some pricks. I've gathered that from the many emails you and I have had and all the stories I've read over the last 6 years. But in the end, enough is enough man, you have made your point, now turn over your beat to someone else before you really do destroy your credibility altogether. Really charlie, screw Nvidia and just talk about ANYTHING else for a change before I really do stop coming here because I'm truly starting to lose faith in this website's journalistic integrity when the continued one sided bashing of any company regardless of their activities or stance is not only allowed but encouraged by the Editorial staff like its some freaking beacon of awesomeness.
It just isn't.
When the geforce 1 came out, i got a set of shutter glasses bundled. I fired up half life and thought they were not very good. Also i had to run at 1024x768 to get my 120hz. These new shutter glasses need to be in a different league to be adequate else i suspect a few refund requests. P.S. what happened to elsa?
Quote - "Why do you guys hate NVDA so much, you shit all over them all the time with no good reason."
With no good reason? Did you read the article or which bit don't you understand? They are trying to rip you off with no benefit to you. As for the previous NVDA bashing on the GPU's, again it was all FACT not made up stuff.
As for me, I buy from whoever makes the best at the time, and in my price range. I am not an AMD/ATI/Apple/Intel/NVDA/Sony/MS (delete whichever) fanboy and I don't care about any of those companies because they sure as hell don't care about me, NVDA are screwing up, and i am glad Charlie and the Inq are not scared of reporting fact even if it upsets fanboys or the companies concerned. Now that, ladied and gentlemen is true reporting, thanks Inq!
Happy New Year :P
Its more than a stretch to blame nVidia for "choosing the wrong tech" here. They sell 3D cards, not monitors. They picked the only realistic option to make 3D work on just about any monitor. Dont like, fine, dont buy it, no forces you, buy one of those craptastic 3D monitors that give you equally bad, if not worse headaches. I only had to look at one for 5 minutes to get a headache. YMMV.
Besides, most of us already own a big LCD, if we are to replace that for a 3D one, "nVidia's" solution suddenly looks dirt cheap, and it works whenever I upgrade my monitor. The 120Hz requirement is also completely sensible. Anything less is just pain.
Lastly, why pick on nVidia for this? Is AMD selling 3D monitors perhaps? Intel?
Charlie, all know how much you hate nVidia, but you're simply stretching here, and its not helping your credibility, and if anything, its making nVidia look good, because if this is the worst you can come up with, then they must be doing rather well. Will your next article focus on how nVidia's PCB colors are out of fashion?
Shutter glasses work with any monitor, at any distance, for any number of viewers. No other technology can claim that. Refresh rates are the cheapest thing to increase on flat panels these days, so it's more likely that we'll hit high penetration of 240Hz+ monitors before we'll see polarized monitors at 120Hz. I like polarized 3D, and I love the multi-band 3D, but neither of those is technically feasible right now. And Nvidia isn't signing a contract in blood with the shutter glasses manufacturers. If someone wants to sell you a polarized monitor, then fine, no fancy electronics needed, and it will work. But Nvidia wanted to supply something to consumers NOW, not 2 years from now. That's fine by me.
I love Charlie's articles =) There are elements of truth sprinkled about and told in a over the top, to the point way. It is interesting that he only talks about Nvidia though. In all seriousness, Intel is the bigger enemy and they should get some of Charlie's journalism as well. I always root and support the underdog because aside from making competition more interesting, we don't want to live in a world with only top dogs. I can understand Nvidia has been dishonest and a bully and deserves what they are getting now. Perhaps it will humble them and they will clean up their image.
Intel, though, is trying to dominate the PC (OS, Chipset, CPU, Memory, Graphics, Network, Sound, etc.) Whether you believe it or not, it is working. I wouldn't be suprised if intel is trying to turn into an apple with a full system and then they can go back to their glory days where they charged $1000-$5000 for a PC. Consider this, if AMD goes away, and Intel succeeds in creating or branding an easy to use OS. They can effectively stop selling CPU's to anyone that is not them, and then they will have their glory days again. As for antitrust and monopoly, that takes many years to go through as we know... With them being the only company selling PC's and a crazy markup, they can afford whatever penalties are placed upon them while killing the rest of the market. This may be far off, but that is a capitalist world without competition.
Heh, when you've exhausted all lies about a company to do with their main technology, the gpu, the best thing to do is of course to pick some abstract 3d glasses that no one knows about, will see or even care about and start moaning about them too!!
You can do better than that lol!
It seems Charlie hates Nvidia as much as Nick hates Apple. Neither one can post without slamming their nemesis. They are both American owned, maybe thats why.
What Do You Expect Me To Do? GET DOLBY.
Excepting 3D is American Kids Game from 1950s' Atomic Bomb era. Its Takes Kid & Naivee One at That, to believe image formed on 2D surface could transform into 3D, especially by taxing ALL New Rentina receptors to Image & Idenify objects thought to from ?Real world. CHEESE BONKERS, GET DOLBY.... Drashek
this article is so wrong - it is funny for professional eyes.
A. Active 3D is the best in quality. XpanD are using active glasses in more than 600 cinemas globally and are acknowledged by all the cinema pros and the Hollywood experts as the best 3D systems (realD are the second best and Dolby 3D are the worse of the high-quality systems)
B. Panasonic, samsung, Mitsubishi are promoting active 3D displays. these displays are far better than any other 3D displays.
3. Active 3D is the only system to provide full resolution and all the frame (the article is completely wrong here) this is done by multiplying the number of frames (120 frames per second) and not my reducing the number frames like the article claims.
so way are Nvidia wrong?
because they are working with LCD.
LCD technology cannot achieve 120 frames per second (technological limit that do not exist with plasma and dlp), so nvidia are flashing the left and the right for very short period of time, while most of the time both eyes are shot...do in did nvidia provides very low quality.
wants high quality 3D gaming? buy a DLP or 120hz Plasma + PC + IZ3D driver (not nvidia driver!!) + XpanD glasses...this is unbelievable gaming. you can play it for 10h and it feels great!
have I seen someone so butt-hurt by a company. Its a shame newsbots pick this garbage up as news.
First of all Nvidia is trying to come up with a whole new level of gaming and the technology in the future is going to support it. Charlie, why don't you try finding some other employment cause you are running out of ideas ;)
Charlie, whereas I usually find a lot to agree with you on, I can't on this issue. I've been involved with stereo vision since the late 70s and have struggled through all the technologies. Today, in mission critical, cost is no issue military and CAD design centers, shutter glasses have proven to be the only viable solution. I have tested Elsa's system back in the 90s and several in between and am currently testing Nvidia's and an IZ3D, and quite frankly the Nvidia solution is fine, better than fine it is great. Now I will admit I did get a headache at first, but that was because I forgot to adjust the Z-depth.
The biggest problem is not the Samsung screen (which is great in and of itself) or the Nvidia shutter glasses, the problem is in the games - everyone behaves differently. Nvidia tried to test them all (and you should see the huge list they have) but there is no consistency between games or even within a game. We'll release our review on this just after CES, as will many other sites, right now we're all NDA'ed up.
This article was so incorrect it's hard to believe that even the author believes it.
Further, this obviously has nothing to do with NVIDIA trying to make money from selling shutter glasses. Their primary motivation is to just push more advanced 3d technology. If 3d monitors actually get beyond their current craptastic state you can be sure NVIDIA will support them (more than they do now).
The response on the internet to the stereo 3d demos @ NVISION seemed to be all extremely positive. It's proven technology. People like it.
Once 3d monitor companies get their costs down and quality up, they'll get more attention from the market place.
Is Charlie just a butthurt fanboi or is he in the pay of sinister forces? Perhaps an investigative journalist should take a look?
It seems that whenever I read some technical article that twists technical reality to bash on NVIDIA, it comes from this Inquirer magazine. Too bad that a magazine destroys its name and reputation by having hate/bashing articles/writers.
3D Shutter glasses and polarized glasses have been in use for more than 15 years already, and they are both great. They are currently used in the scientific and professional community with great success.
LCD monitors have been naturally increasing in refresh frequency over the years. They were ~20 Hz, then 30 Hz, then 60 Hz, and now 120 Hz. 120 Hz is the mininum frequency for using stereo without any side effects, since it matches the normal monitors frequency and human minimum requirements. That means that anybody with a big 120 Hz LCD screen (now becoming a normal standard at the stores), will automatically be able to see in 3D using just their plain home LCD tvs.
Polarized TV's are not only more expensive but they they only come in small screen sizes, and will be so for many years until the production costs comes down. Personally, I would not recommend this polarized technology at this time, so I think NVIDIA made a good decision.
Any way, you need large screen 120 Hz tvs to enjoy high definition 3D and smooth HDTV viewing, which the polarized TV's will not offer any time soon, and when they offer it, then how to justify the extra expense, if they will then be 3D shutter ready by default.
If you have ever used 3D glasses, of any type, you will know that the size of the screen matters on how good of a 3d effect you get. You need large screens to get a great 3D effect. A small screen will easily break the 3d effect because of the peripheral distractions, so 120 Hz tvs will be the only performing solution for now.
At a professional conference, I have seen these plain 120 Hz LCD TVs, using shutter glasses, and they are just great. I am looking forward on getting a large 120 Hz LCD TV and enjoy, with my family, very sharp HDTV and enjoy some nice 3D viewing/gaming.
charlie said:"nvidia quits chipset biz","all nvidia laptop gpus are bad","all nvidia gpus are bad","nvidia losing partners",etc...,etc...
none of this was true or it was exaggerated(understatement of the year?)
pathetic is the fact quite some simpletons believe this crap and tend to forget what the inquirer has been reporting in the past...(amnesia or ignorance?)
Nice job,charlie:it's because of you I know smarter than 90% of the common people...
Another absolutely pathetic article - and typical of Charlie's bigotry against NVidia. Charlie, why don't you join "Hello" or the "Sun"? I'm sure their readers would appreciate your "journalistic" ways a lot more than us. Or go post at fanboy forums, along with the other spotty never-had-sex teen geeks.
I doubt anyone really gives a crap about what NVidia did to you to be deserving of this kind of flame. If you think that this kind of article is in some way hurting NVidia... you better realize you are damaging your own reputation. Your hatred for them is skewing all technical reasoning - which is of paramount importance for this kind of website. Other readers have already made corrections so I wont repeat them.
I find myself visiting the Inq less and less often. There are simply better choices out there. What a shame.
For gawds sake Mr C, give it a rest! You've clearly got too much time on your hands and your lfe is consumed with NV hating. Seriously, you need therapy and a break from work. I too will no longer be visiting the Inq, sad as it used to be fairly impartial and a laught to read, long gone are those days.
I once had shutter glasses years and years ago, and they had a special monitor adapter with a cable to the glasses sending the sync signal. Cheap, reliable no interference.
If anyone wants to connect a 3D screen with some extra layers, or projectors with polarized layers NVIDIA is not stopping them.
But this solution is cheap, and will perhaps drive the marked towards better implementations.
And Charlie: Please don't put me on your shitlist for calling you crazy!
Hey Charlie,
After all the positive comments you got from bashing Nvidia about faulty 65nm GPU's, with an official admission of "guilt" by Nvidia a few days ago, I thought you would let Nvidia go for a while and start talking about something else. Or, at least, I thought you would not continue bashing Nvidia like this.
Look, at least Nvidia is trying to push stereo-3D, unlike ATI. ATI has never done much regarding S3D. Shutterglasses are by far the cheapest method for S3D, and does not cause red/blue color loss like anaglyph glasses.
I've been gaming in S3D for years with my 8800GTX, 7900GTX, 6800 Ultra, etc.. and have not ever experienced a headache that you were talking about. Many of my friends who play LAN matches with me have never complained of headaches either. We recently played Left 4 Dead co-op overnight with shutterglasses on, beating the whole game. There were just so many games that played perfectly in S3D by my friends who spent the night over at my house. They would play Far Cry, Painkiller, Half Life 2 episodes, etc.. to no end.
About headaches, I tell you that it is caused by wrong convergence settings. Most inexperienced people do not even understand the convergence settings. It is not the shutter effect that causes headaches, but rather the strain on the eyes trying to focus on through an abnormal convergence setting. It cannot be stressed enough that the convergence setting has to be adjusted for each game--yes, for every different game, a different convergence setting is needed.
It's quite easy to adjust it once you understand it. It also depends on the separation setting. The trick in making the convergence just right is to find an object closest to you, like going as close as possible to a tree leaf so that it's in your face, and then making it "pop" out of the screen with a negative convergence setting. It should look normal, as close as you think it should appear to your eyes, like 18 inches away (which is not too uncomfortable making you too cross-eyed). That's pretty much it, and the rest should take care of itself.
Once again, it was good of you to bring to attention Nvidia's 65nm chip fiasco, but to try to ruin Nvidia's noble efforts in bringing Stereo 3D to the masses is not a very good thing. Shutterglasses might not be able to give perfect 3D with absolutely zero "ghosting", but it would at least encourage us to come out of the dark ages of 2D. When we start to appreciate 3D more, then we'll all be asking for a more sophisticated 3D solution. Companies will start answering with a truly amazing solution that looks as perfect as it could be. Think pr0n--perhaps half of the world's population would die with a heart attack after being blown away by this amazing 3-D goodness!
The reason a gamer would want to go with active shutter glasses is simply resolution. This is the only solution available today that provides full resolution to each eye. The passive solutions only show have of the pixels to each eye and leads to less satisfactory experience unless movie watching is the primary focus. The author simply misses this point.
Hello Charlie, you forget mentioning 3D tech using 2 small lcd color pannels in a pair glasses (a la I-Glasses). This tech is by far the best of all i know off (i've used anaglyphs, polarisation glasses, Atari ST Stereotek, Nvidia Elsa, I-Glasses) and has no problem with frequency. You simply draw the left image for the left eye and right image for the other eye at the same time.
Yes, this is expensive tech (albeit not more than special lcd monitors and now there are plenty tiny lcd displays with the phone mania), but you don't need any monitor and it's portable.
An advantage of this tech is the big apparent screen size (think of a 50' or better) because screens are near the eyes. You get a nice RV effect because you only see the digital image and nothing distracting from the real world. Shame Nvidia don't choose to follow this path...
Even though I may have to agree that the NVidia bashing was more than usual, I also have to take note of all the uneducated comments that go on here. For example, the most recent, by bz: "This is the only solution available today that provides full resolution to each eye." That is a bold statement, sir. I believe the iz3d technology provides full resolution to each eye. In fact, I'm sure of it. I've personally read the white paper.
Second, by 3d Expert, "Active 3D is the only system to provide full resolution and all the frame (the article is completely wrong here) this is done by multiplying the number of frames (120 frames per second) and not my reducing the number frames like the article claims." - Please refer to my first paragraph. That should also cover this one.
Third, posted by no one in particular "They picked the only realistic option to make 3D work on just about any monitor." - 120Hz monitors/TV's are not the standard. They are speculating this fact. Same when they thought firewire would become the standard. It's used, but not as widely as say, USB.
I could go on and on, but most of you would say I was wrong and continue to rant. But...look it up and go research a little.
My personal take on this. Nvidia is taking the road most traveled. They figure, instead of doing something completely new, why don't we make a minor improvement to an existing technology. It is debatable of whether or not they're doing this to "jump on the band wagon" and fill their pockets, or if it's a genuine push to launch the 3D industry forward. Unfortunately, I have to lean to the first only because of their current state of 3D software. If they wanted to be part of launching the industry forward, they would be offering their 3D drivers to all 3d solutions, and not just one.
I think this is a difference of experience between those of you that are disagreeing with Charlie. NVidia has been playing around in the 3d industry for quite some time and they have a side to them that most of you have never experienced. True 3d experts will tell you the complete history of NVidia and their 3D ways, and maybe then, you would understand where Charlie is coming from on this.
Inquirer is really biased.
I have seen all these 3-D technologies by myself. 3-D glasses are the only attractive one to me. Others make me dizzy. Are we live in the same world? Hello?
Why are you guys keep on making some highly biased stories to scare people away from certain company? Dirty cheap shot won't make your master look better, ok?
Shame on you guys.
I think there's a point being missed here. Unless there's some "magic" being performed here, most stereo renderings are produced by drawing a left eye image and then a right-eye image. So, when you go from mono to stereo you automatically cut your frame rate in half.
It doesn't matter if you're delivering the stereo pair via passive or active means, you still have to produce twice as many frames.
If anything, NVIDIA is interested in pushing 3D stereo because it creates demand for even faster cards.
Just my 2 cents...
I had a pair of actively polarised glasses with my Elsa Gladiac Geforce 2 Ultra. Aside from the fact the glasses broke after a week or so (one of the lenses stopped flickering at the correct rate) the "normal" flickering when it was correctly working was just really annoying and headache inducing. Nvidia are being really short sighted by going this route agian.
There's no way I will buy active glasses again, but I might give passively polarised lenses a try at some point.
Comment from JonnyO2: "If anything, NVIDIA is interested in pushing 3D stereo because it creates demand for even faster cards. Just my 2 cents..."
Exactly. This is NVIDIA's *real* motive here. NVIDIA is going to make pennies from any sale of these 3d glasses. They are just pushing the 3d technology that is best positioned in the market place.
Yet another nv bashing waste of time. No more visits from me- Too much biased bullshit, fact skewing and propaganda. You are well on your way to becoming the techblog version of the "Weekly World News". Last one out please turn off the lights, thanks.
Charlie and Waldo are Da MAN ! ! !
Keep it up!
Hey guys, are you all on Nvidia payroll?
I never seen so many uneducated comments abut 3d. This makes me believe that you all are on Nvidia payroll. Otherwise how can you really like the shutter glasses - technology that has been around for at least 15 years, and discredited the name for 3d...
Keep up good work Charlie! Someone needs to keep those guys real...
yes iz3d uses 2 lcd panels to get full resolution to each eye.
zalmans monitor is interlaced so you get half vertical resolution to each eye.
there is also a 4000+ dollar projector that uses polarized glasses.
as far as i know thats all there is.
now every major manufacturer is working on high refresh rate tv's and monitors, samsung and mitsubishi already have thier 3d ready tvs out there, you can buy them in best buy.
they are just dlp or plasma tvs with special circuitry that can decode s3d frames, and operate at 120hz
viewsonic is making a 120hz lcd monitor as well for shutter glasses.
all these work only with shutterglasses.
whats nice about shutters is that theyll work with any display that supports a high refresh rate with little or no input lag. so you can buy a new tv in 5 years and it will work with it.
anyway yea this article was horseshit.
L`inq probably has been picking on Nvidia a bit but before Ati 4800 series they quite high on themselves. Charlie's comments sure has Nvidia Shills excited.
The fact is that the Inquirer has been anti-Nvidia for over half a decade now. I remember when the Fud was doing this bit back when they had ATI ads plastered all over their front page. The issue here is that one starts to wonder who is really footing the bills since it makes little since for someone or something with out financial interest to put this much time and effort into not only trying to discredit but straight out demonize a business for doing business. I'm sure if good Ol' Charles here did the same kind of research into ATI he would find similar skeletons in the closet. Again, my issue isn't one that he is picking on Nvidia but that he is ONLY picking on Nvidia. If he is really out to "protect" us all, why isn't he putting this kind of dedication into revealing ATI or Apple or Intel? This garbage is just starting to smell of revenge or plain and simple hate, period. I recently noticed they placed these articles into a special section on the Inq entitled Friction and a special place inside that for Charlie VS Nvidia. I think that says it all about the Inq's perspective here. They hate Nvidia and encourage as much hate to be written about it as they can.
i guess charlie han't seen pics of nvidia's 3d glasses... they don't use ir, they plug into a usb port!
and for all the people wondering if we sceptics are on nvidia payroll, what if charlie is on ati's payroll? *GASP*
This is one of the most moronic statements I've heard from Charlie yet:
"Remember, shutter glasses effectively halve the effective frame rate so if you have a standard 60Hz monitor, you are stuck with gaming at 30 FPS, aka chunky and barely playable."
Excuse me? But isn't even Hollywood's biggest blockbusters filmed and shown in 30 fps? I know that's what is on my DVDs and they don't seem chunky and intolerable to me. If it's good enough for multi-hundred-million dollar Hollywood productions, why is it so bad for gaming? Personally, I've never had any problems with games being smooth until they get below 30 fps.
You dumb fanboys can't get it- Charlie will continue to poke a stick at you, because controversy brings hits to the website.
I usually get more kick from the retarded comments than the article itself- do yourself a favor and read sometimes the little captions under the main "Inquerer"- one of them says "Not worth the paper it is not printed on".
As for the 3D glasses- Nvidia does what it does best - rebadge and recycle. I had the same 3D glasses with my GeForce 256 in 1999. 10 years ago. They were crap, they have half the refresh rate so IT WILL give you a headache whether you adjust the convergence or not. The fact the technology NV is using now didn't become popular for 10 years and most of haven't even tried it, is enough said. For now it's just a marketing gimmick.
Movies are not filmed and played at 30Hz. They are filmed and played at 24Hz but that is on an analog medium and filmed by a camera whose shutter is open for a finite amount of time. That time allows for effects like motion blur. Computers generate an image in one instance of time and must either explicitly render effects like motion blur or they must render fast enough that sequences of images appear to have smooth motion.
"IMAX 3D Technology
IMAX 3D technology is the most advanced 3D film technology in the world and is based on human vision. When you look at an object, each of your eyes sees a slightly different view. Through a process called "stereopsis" your brain brings the two views together into a single three dimensional image.
IMAX 3D cameras incorporate two identical lenses that are precisely spaced to match the distance between your eyes. This interocular distance allows each lens to "see" both left and right views exactly as your eyes would see them. This helps to facilitate realistic 3D images once projected.
During shooting, the images register on two separate rolls of 15/70 film that run through the camera at the same time and speed. IMAX 3D cameras weigh a hefty 240 pounds.
The IMAX 3D projector uses Rolling Loop technology to run two separate rolls of film simultaneously past twin projection lenses. To enable the 3D effect, the lenses are carefully aligned to project both left and right eye views onto the giant screen.
To see images in 3D, the audience wears either polarized glasses or a headset that includes electronic liquid-crystal shutter (E3D) glasses. While they have different technologies, both types of 3D glasses work with the IMAX 3D projector to provide stunning 3D images.
To enable the 3D effect, polarized glasses worn by the audience are precisely matched with the polarizing filters of the projector's twin lenses. While the lenses superimpose separate left and right eye views onto the screen, the glasses make sure that each eye sees the appropriate image, allowing your brain to create a single 3D image.
Instead of superimposing images, two sets of shutters within the 3D projector switch back and forth at 96 times per second, to project alternate left and right eye images on the screen. During the presentation, E3D glasses sense a signal from the projector. In response to this signal, the left and right eye shutters in the glasses alternately open and close in conjunction with the projector shutters to make sure each eye sees the appropriate image, ultimately creating the 3D effect."
Why Nvidia again? someone short the stock? Silly.
Notice that Charlie has all these gadgets (electron microscopes) to analyze chips by the nano...
Then with all these recent bashings towards nvidia...
Then being overly enthusiastic at reporting the upcoming Intel GPU! Praising Intel for putting a best set of driver!?
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/190/1050190/intel-lures-alan-cox-away-from-red-hat
I know, DAAMIT, even before with ATI, Fudo is not as worse like this in bashing nvidia when he was still at the inq.
He just ignored DAAMIT with all his reportings...
It appears that our dear Charlie is being funded and backed by Intel with all these allegations!
The Dolby 3D is a form of multi-chromic stereoscopy which has been around for at least thirty years. The difference is that dichroic thin-flim bandpass filters on plastic was not, and thus multichromes were too expensive. Like polarization, an overlay may be used to transform many LCD displays into 50% plus resolution multichromes. More info in on my site: www.s5dg.com
Active glasses permit full resolution with full chromaticity at the cost of 50% of the refresh rate. Many existing displays may be used, and the refresh rate may be increased to 240 Hz to avoid all motion blurring. The glasses cost is greater, but not the screen cost.
Both have a place in today's market.
..."gaming at 30 FPS, aka chunky and barely playable."
Seriously? That's utter crap and you know it. Come on, man, this whole article was a huge reach if not downright ludicrous. 3D display devices are still expensive and will have very limited reach, and if you're not doing that, shutter glasses are basically the only option. You really need to get that chip off your shoulder.
This article is so delusional. What will happen is NVidia will sell a few more cards by promoting (crappy) 3D. When people start buying the polarized monitors and glasses NVidia will release a driver update supporting them.
Seriously Charlie, what do you think NVidia should do? Include polarized glasses with their cards??? That would be useless seeing as nobody has compatible monitors yet!
this is at least another 6 months of paid work for him starting today. sets the inquirer up now for daily posts on nvidia glasses until at least July.
Its funny in a way, because any site that was trying to be seen as anyway objective wouldn't continually publish such passionate anti "xxx" articles.
But we all know the inquirer is a bit of a joke anyway, its entertaining over a cup of tea, thats about it.
Well my LCD monitor is refreshed at 60Hz and yet I can play HL2 at 99fps?
I wonder how.... duh.
Shuttered glasses are the only way to give multiple computer users a 3D view from the same monitor.
The author really doesn't understand the technology. So perhaps the Inq. Editor should send Charlie Demerjian off to an IT course?
If we get too many of these kind of stupid biased articles, we'll be all off to the Register...
AMD is paying this a-hole money. so AMD keeps on laying off people in their workforce just to pay the author here.
so no amount of flaming and derogatory remarks will make you change this guy.
i mean come on, theinq is just entertainment, 10% fact 80%fiction 10% BS.
dont take it too seriously
Whatcha doing here? Getting your information on the active 3D glasses from the specs for the ones Texas Instruments shipped back in the 80's for use with the 99/4A? (30fps 15per eye)
I think the tech has progressed a bit since then. Headaches are caused by low cycle rate on the glasses. Jack the rate to 30 or better per eye and you don't have that problem.
Got a weak or lazy eye? Active is the ONLY tech that's going to work correctly for the user. OK, so they cost a bit more.. Still won't cost me as much as the fancy new "3-D ready /Certified for Vista/ Works with 7/ Drinks your coffee for ya" monitor. I'd need to make use of some of the alternatives.
At least with nVidia, we know the drivers on the included disk are going to work.. (Something I read ATI STILL has problems with)
Charlie your article is a mindfuck!
This is getting boring. This seems more opinion than actual fact. I could live with the biased nonsense for a little bit but now its just turning into a one sided rant. This article just seem to be a blaitant attack on a product that everyone already knows is a waste of time. Why make a massive rant about it. give it a rest will you.
Just when I thought Charlie was actually doing detective work (the bump stuff was good work, although I suspect a little over-simplistic regarding nVidia's decision making), this comes up.
There are lots of CRTs, many in the hands of gamers, which are more than capable of 120Hz. There are many projectors which ought to be capable of it too. LCDs are moving to 120Hz as much for black frame insertion and smoothness as for anything else, so a "gamer's" LCD will cope already. So nVidia are supporting a choice of monitors, as they do already (yes, not perfect on *every* monitor, but there have been downsides to the bog standard LCD for a long time) - although to be fair support for shutter glasses has been part of professional-grade OpenGL for a very long time.
On the other hand, 3D displays based on lenticular coatings and line-based variable polarisation both universally come with their own drivers and have problems (seating position restrictions and ghosting + fixed head/glasses angle) along with resolution limitations - although they have their advantages too; still, nVidia shouldn't have to start selling monitors with every new bit of technology. The only reason there's been a move away from active glasses is that LCD technology took a while to catch up.
I really don't see any problem with nVidia's approach, other than that they already had the functionality so I'm not sure what they announced.
[Aside - whose idea, during the Inquirer redesign, was getting rid of paragraph handling in comments?]
Charlie must have a pretty low self-esteem these days, and the Inq must really be hurting for readership to allow this tripe on its pages.
Charlie takes every opportunity to bash NVIDIA like a jilted lover, and more often than not he exaggerates his claims. I suppose that this is all in format with a tabloid-like website, but the result is damaging to us all.
So how about this Charlie: if NVIDIA were to go away (like you want them to so badly), what would you do for a living? Even worse is, what would we do for gaming? Most of the games we play are made better by their involvement, and most all of the products they produce are of the highest quality.
Instead of crying like a spoiled baby, try taking up a real cause.
Too bad, each and every 3D expert agree on this : this article is pure BS.
is amd paying you?
i guess we're going to find out in a couple of days.
Happy new year Charlie!
Speaking as a person ACTUALLY USING this tech, I can say Charlie got some things wrong. (as usual)
Speaking as a NVIDIA Focus Group member, I say I love it when people quote The Inquirer because a. most people on the forums pretty much disregard Charlie anyway b. it's usually easy to dispute arguments based on Inquirer articles c. it's always amusing when they're proven wrong and Charlie looks like a street corner preacher shouting "The end is near!". (e.g. "NVIDIA leaving the chipset business!" or "8800GTX will come with a power brick!")
Speaking as John Q. Public, it's refreshing to see the number of people who don't agree with this type of yellow journalism.
Would be nice if Charlie didn't wear his bias on his sleeve. That's not all that uncommon on the forums, but as a person who claims to be a member of the "press", the concepts of "journalistic integrity", "bias", and "verifying your sources" should mean something to Charlie.
My guess would be his unprofressionalism is what caused NVIDIA to exclude him from press privileges in the first place.
The "dumped girlfriend" analogy mentioned earlier in the comments seems appropriate.
NVidia suck.
When using 3d active glasses, or any non-holographic 3d display, the brain has to reconcile the depth information it deduces from the slightly different images seen by each eye, with the contradictory information that the eyes are focused at a constant distance (the distance to the monitor.)
This can be initially disorientating, leading to reports of headaches and nausea. Essentially this occurs while the brain 'relearns' how to handle depth information.
It can be reduced by gradually increasing the 3d effect (straightforward using the nvidia driver) and it does not persist once you have become acclimatised to the goggles.
Man, I hope your grasp of semiconductors is better than your grasp of stereo, seriously.. you have to be good at something other than just trolling, surely?
We're used to you jumping to whacking conclusions and going off half-cocked, but this takes the biscuit. Seen better background research in a BBC News science story.
High, like a lot of people here I have been a fan of 3D tech since I was a kid. I have been using 3D shutter glasses on Nvidia cards since 2000.
I have not had the headache problem and have really enjoyed them--That is, until last year when Nvidia sold us out to make its new drivers only work with analglyph or its Zalman partners--and only in Vista. I can't begin to tell you how much that pissed me off when I "upgraded" to the Nvidia 9800gt.
Now Nvida has gone back to the shutter glasses (great!) BUT only with its own proprietary glasses that only it sells.
As far as I know there still will be no support for my old shutter glasses.
Nvidia's getting to be worse than Apple or Radio Shack's--proprietary & totally incompatible with anything but themselves (and sometimes NOT compatible with themselves-- TRS-80 computer line.
My only consolation here is that Nvidia seems to be trying to kill itself off so that I won't have to. GRRRRR!!!
(Sorry, but like I said, this really pisses me off. I can only imagine how those poor saps that bought the Zalman monitors must feel now.)
The polarized lenses use 90 (||=) degree offsets. 45 (||//) degrees would allow 70% of the light though and would be blurry & disorienting.
The popular 'no glasses' methods are restricted to 'sweet spot' viewing locations which is usable for single user workstations but worthless for multi user TVs, etc.
Well I must point out that its not charlies fault that Nvidians/Apple fan boys are the same. If you want to read NVIDIA approved articles please copy and paste the following link in your browsers URL bar. http://www.nvidia.com/page/newsandevents.html
For Apple approved articles please copy and paste the following link in your browsers URL bar.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
if you are a fan boy of any company you will not be disappointed with any of the companies web page news. Its easy go to company of choice website and look for the news section.
Noobs, I've been playing for years in S-3D (using shutter glasses most of the time, and anaglyph only when the red/blue color loss does not bother me too much, like in Condemned: Criminal Origins game).
-------------
One time, I played Far Cry for more than 20 hours straight with shutter glasses on, with 100% separation settings, without ever getting a headache. The KEY is the convergence settings--it has to be adjusted just right so that it does not place too much of a strain on your eyes. That's why 120Hz is the minimum recommended, so that each eye will be getting a shuttered rate of 60Hz. With my 24" Sony GDM-FW900 widescreen CRT monitor (yes, it's the best-of-the-best-of-the-best CRT monitor ever made), I usually game @ 1440x900 at 120Hz. If I want a higher refresh, I drop down to 1280x800 so that it's even more fluid at 140Hz (70Hz per eye). It's also useful for a newer game that is very GPU-intensive, like Bioshock, so that I could still enjoy high enough fps @ 1280x800, which is still better than 720p anyways. In S3D, the 3D depth it gives makes it look better than a 2-D resolution of 2560x1600 or even 4000x3000. When my friends come over to look at my Far Cry game in 3-D, they truly think that they're in paradise. It makes my 24" monitor feel more like 50-100", with DEPTH (with close-up stuff popping out of the screen).
Those negative-minded sissies like some of you guys commenting here saying that oh, it gives me headaches, sounds just like that pussycat whining around next door that I just want to put it out of its misery. It's just sad, unfortunate, and almost deserving of my mercy that you are not man enough to figure out the refresh rates and the convergence settings needed to enjoy proper 3-D viewing that you do not even know what you are missing. Once you experience it well, you would never want to go back, like experiencing a good one and then going back to your fat wife that can only lay on the bed for you.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shonn, did you know that there's a hack to play S-3D with G80 cards (8800GTX/Ultra, or GTS 640MB) with shutterglasses using the latest forceware drivers? All you need is a CRT monitor (or a 120+ Hz monitor) and WinXP (wont work on Vista, since Vista only supports Zalman or anaglyph glasses), and nHancer program to force 1x2 antialiasing mode in Oblivion AA compatibility mode. Just make sure AA is turned off from the in-game menu settings. There's a forum link: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1072
I personally do not like how Nvidia tried to disable support for shutter glasses altogether. It's still not do-able for Vista at all. If Nvidia thinks it will get us to buy Zalman monitors, Nvidia is only mistaken because we're not that dumb. Ooooh, Nvidia lost so much money last year.. that makes it right for Nvidia. That's great, since it encourages Nvidia to be more humble in making better business practices.
As a full-time researcher in computer graphics, I can only say that there are a few things wrong in this article.
They have been mentioned several times by readers, so I won't go into details here. Two things are woth mentioning though:
-NVidia has to take care of its graphics stereo drivers. This part of the 3D technology is common to all 3D systems, and probably where effort has been put on by NVidia.
-Shutter glasses have been around for ages. Nothing really new here, and nothing new on market, so no cost at all for NVidia. This is a well proven technology. What about if it does not work for public? Well just pick another 3D technology that will be anyway supported by NVidia drivers. You cannot say the same with other manufacturer drivers...
Overall, the articl is just wrong
Not much more to say that people have said.
Shocking article both on a technical level and an editorial level.
I blame the editor of this site for not bringing in the reigns a bit. Its like a personal pissing ground for charlie now.
This tech has been around for years and when I last had an nVidia card (a 7800GT) nVidia were still producing a seperate driver release for stereoscopic glasses, I remember playing a few games on them. Some are wired so you don't need batteries. Gives you a blinding headache though.
Right, you morons that keep posting about Charlie hating nVidia... no duh.
And then nick hating apple.. again, no duh. I don't hear people screaming about how all the BBC and whatnot only feed us negative news about the government and the war in a Iraq...
get a life you sad pathetic losers that want Charlie to change his record. He's doing a good job keep it up Charlie, I for one want to hear the worst about ALL the companies out there that want to screw us out our hard earned cash... they don't deserve to be left alone to screw us again when everyone forgets.
They should have to bend to us, not vice versa. No positive stories required... they provide all of their spin at any rate.
Also, fanboys get a life... if you've got nVidia in your rig don't try an be special and say its not crap... it is. I am on nVidia based machine that works fine but i wont defend them as they are clearly prats based off the information that has come to light... this is another case of them wanting to stiff the consumer... not really shocking in itself but it has to be brought to light.
Virual Boy was sort on color, but provided a good 3D experience. Two small screens, one directly in front of each eye.
Good times.
90% of this article is farfetched nonsense 'you dog will eat the glasses', now really, talk about reaching..
From the article, regarding red-blue "3D" glasses: "Since these came out, things have gotten a lot better." Really, Charlie? Really? I would love to read your explanation of what has improved.
Also, if you walk into BestBuy, you'll have a hard time finding TVs over $1000 that don't do 120Hz. 120MHz is getting adopted by TVs because it's the lowest frequency that's divisible by both 30 and 24Hz, the two frequencies for TV and film, both of which is allowed by BluRay.
What in your opinion should Nvidea have done Charlie? Your own article has shot down any other alternatives other than exactly the approach Nvidea has elected to follow.
Blue/Red is too crappy colour wise, and every other approach dosn't run on a standard display.
The shutter glasses were originally developed when all displays were CRT based, and so long as you still have a high frequency CRT monitor around they work great. However, using them with LCD displays is hit or miss, mostly miss. The worst problem I have encountered involved the polarization angles. Both the LCD display and the shutter glasses use a PAIR of polarizers with LCD material in between to rotate the light. It turned out that the ViewSonic LCD monitor on my desk has those polarizers rotated 90 from those in my Stereographics goggles. The net result is that when stereo is on NOTHING comes through either eye of the shutter glasses! The light from CRT displays is not polarized so there it didn't matter which direction the shutter glasses polarizers were oriented, but it definitely matters now with LCD displays. Unfortunately, AFAIK there is no standard orientation for LCD display polarizers.
Dear Mr. Charlie
the headache that your article could cause is much more serious than any headache I've ever experienced with shutter glasses the last 15 years, enjoying S3D games for hours and hours.
About "your dog that eats shutter glasses" - I don't have this problem. My cats get enough food daily. Try it out, it works :-)
The only point I agree with your funny article are the high costs involved for new batteries for WIRELESS glasses. But Nvidia improved this point with the implementation of USB charching.
I'm quite sure that the main reason for NVIDIA to come out with such a product is a) selling more GPU's (shorter upgrade cycles) and b) separating their GPU-brand from ATI.
I look forward to test the glasses with a new LCD-monitor ASAP.
I really hope that NVIDIA will NOT let its S3D customers down again like they did before:
Otherwise I would be happy to read another NVIDIA-hate-article from your fingertips.
They didn't pick the wrong 3D Glasses Technology...but...The only chance they have left to get back on my "ok" side at this point is to provide NON-PROPRIETARY frame sequential driver support (works with all lcd shutter glasses and some Head Mounted Displays like the eMagin Z800). Otherwise they can just go to H3LL as far as I'm concerned. The main reason they are going the active lcd shutter glasses route is that they can sell more of the newer cards that have the horsepower to support 120 fps for games like Crysis. You are high if you think they will ever do anything good for any of their customers...they ONLY want your money, then they want you to shut up and buy the next card when it comes out, and they will lie without any accountability every chance they get. They are just as arrogant, lazy, and marketing (d**chebag) driven as Microsoft. NVidia has earned the DISrespect of the stereoscopic 3D community and they'll pretty much have to beg to get any of it back. YOU HEAR THAT ANDY FEAR???
But Charlie, I still think active stereo is the way to go for monitor displays(for now at least), and it's the only way to go if anyone will ever get to experience immersive virtual reality. ATI??? Got any NUTS yet? Losers...all losers. We need some new competition in the graphics card industry.
You have to look at the comparitive technologies. There are pro's and con's to all of the 3d solutions.
Most of the companies that are displaying 3d screens are using a method that halves the resolution of the screen, by polarising alternate lines opposite to each other. Page flipped 3d (such as that promoted by nvidia) doesnt hit the resolution.
The RealD and Dolby 3d cinema solutions, whilst requiring the user to wear "passive" glasses, still requires a single high refresh DLP projector (they both run at 144hz) and displays alternate Left and Right eye images, the image sequence is the same as the nvidia solution. They put the active part in the light path of the projector (RealD have a Z Screen that is an LCD panel that can change its polarisation at 144hz, Dolby 3d uses a colour filter wheel that syncs with the 144hz projector).
The most important thing in all of this is making the 3d drivers easy to use. nVidia have had 3d drivers for years, and they've supported practically every 3d display type known to man (from page flipped 3d to dual screen output - although that needed a registry hack). Badly set up 3d is an instant turn off for users, and its only really the hobbyists whove taken this technology to heart.
120hz page flipped 3d is a great full resolution solution that has been around for ages. For comparison, check out CrystalEyes 5 from RealD, thatll set you back around £500 for the glasses.
There isnt really anything new being shown at CES in 3d, its existing technology in a nice looking package that should be a little more user friendly than the previous generation.
First review of 3DVision, and it's definitely not written by Charlie LOL.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/09/nvidia-geforce-3dvision-review/8
Reading through the article, it's true that most of the things mentioned are either exaggerated, or not 100% true. And the style used for reviewing the product is so aggressive, that I didn't bother reading it up to the end. I admit that I spent more time reading the comments!
BUT, the article is correct in one important fact: the technology picked up is not good; most people buying this product are not going to use it more than 3 or 4 times, and then put it on the shelf.
If you want absolute 3D quality, there is just one solution. Believe me, I have tried all of them, while coding the 3D functionality/support of a VR reality engine. This solution is to buy a Quadro card (or any other competive model supporting stereo buffers), and a helmet display that will support 2 different input signals. This way, the 2 images required for stereo are produced in full resolution on separate buffers in the graphic card, and sent to the head mounted display (e.g. VR helmet/glasses) using the two signal outputs from the graphic card (which is there to support two monitors). It will cost you less than 800$ in total (I am not up-to-date with the prices, might be less), and for a small extra cost, you can add an orientation tracker which will add much more realism in the game supporting it. The cost is not that bad at all, given the quality and comfortableness you get, compared to the rest of available solutions.
as a market maker and Share Holder of NVIDIA this is an interesting article.
While I do not subscribe to the Hate Charlie aspect of it, I am interested in what the community says of the company. For me this is bread and butter research and, if NVIDIA have choosen the wrong technology I, and many other pension fund managers, need to know. Where do you people think your pensions are invested? Mars?
While it does seem that Charlie has been concentrating on NVIDIA that is because he does what he does - research - I am sure when an interesting article about ATI pops up he will follow suit...
Love him, or hate him, he does his job...
PS - I have a Nvidia MOBO, and old 8800 GTX, just waiting for the new tripSLI board to arrive and then add 2x295s...
keep on rockin' in the free world.
Charlie, could you take a look at US interest rates and monetary policy over the past 5 years, especially the role played by Alan Greenspan's 15 interest rate rises in a row. And the effect the rapid increase in cost of borrowing had on mortgages, business loans, development, share prices, housing market, construction industry, retail and the car industry.
I am an 80 year old retired photographer who has been shooting stereo slides since 1952 with the same Stereo Realist camera. I would like to make a few comments on the current 3D controversy.
When will people reporting items concerning the renewed interest in 3D going to get their facts straight. If someone feels that a subject is worth writing about they should at least do some basic research. An article called, "NVIDIA Takes Video Games Into 3D" states: "This approach is called stereoscopic because the computer sends separate images to each eye. Objects in the two images are slightly offset from each other—a gap the brain interprets as depth, resulting in a compelling 3D illusion." The 3D image is NOT an illusion. An illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. A misleading visual image. When you observe something, the parallax difference between the left eye image and the right eye image enables the brain to construct the stereoscopic image. When you observe a 3D image through some kind of visual aid you are experiencing that same difference in parallax, which means it is a real image and not an illusion.
The same question applies to most reporter's erroneous belief that the 3D movies of the fifties were anaglyphic and presented through red and blue pieces of cellophane. I cannot think of one first run 3D feature film of the fifties that was presented that way. They were all presented with a two projector system through polarizing filters shown on a silverized screen so as not to depolarize the images. The glasses were also polarizing filters that separated the left and right image. And, when the projectionist did his job properly (which seldom was the case) the 3D image was superb. Cardboard red and blue cellophane filters were usually reserved for cheap 3D ads and comic books. And, it saddens my heart that there are greedy fools around now, ready to present that anaglyphic garbage to young people today who are not familiar with 3D, and suggest that this is what 3D on television is all about. This kind of greedy stupidity will set 3D back several years in the minds of those who are unfamiliar with sterescopic principles. This is what happened in the fifties. Email me and I'll tell you that story.
Lastly I would like to correct the following quote: "In recent years several companies have developed 3D computer displays, with results ranging from disappointing to, literally, nauseating. Graphics specialist Nvidia (NVDA) has a new approach that promises to take computing into the third dimension." This is certainly NOT a new approach. The field-sequential system that utilizes shutter glasses has been around for years. It is probably true that NVIDIA has a quality system that I am sure is state of the art. But then, so is the price. Not only for the system, but the cost of a brand new extra expensive TV set. I have a system I spent less that $100.00 on and the only drawback is that it can only be used on a CRT (cathode ray tube) TV set. But right now, that's what most poor people have anyway.
Speaking of people. In today's world most people wear glasses. If for nothing else, to shut out the sun's glare. Is it so inconceivable that they would wear glasses to view a film in the way most of them actually see the world. If one is fortunate enough to have binocular vision, isn't viewing still and moving pictures on a flat surface that mushes everything together rather antiquated? When we view a regular image, the only way we can get any feeling of depth is through perspective and relative size. Can this truly be enough?
Christopher R. Mohr Sr.
Hi Guys and Charlie i totally agreed with ur statement what a waste of old monitors money and reason... thks for open industry greedy eyes ...we dont want to be overcharged Nvidia Capish...
So thats why today a post this link to get 3D effects in games and movies ...
But you need some hack in the nvidia drivers first...
http://gamerslastwill.com/2009/02/02/3d-left-4-dead-for-free-oh-yeah-heres-how/
Works nice and you also need this player
http://www.3dtv.at/Downloads/Index_en.aspx
Be advice this 3D movie player is shareware...you need a key ...
What do you think Charlie did i have more reasoning capabilities then nvidia?
This hack works with the old anaglyph red /blue glasses , red/gree, yellow / blue glasses...
Did i help =)...
The only movie i already test was Fly Me to the Moon and looks very well... but Journey to the Center of the Earth not... currently im testing other movies...u need more help post ur request here ..i strongly recomend DeadSpace looks super impressive...
Bye
How about you just stop complaining and deal with it?
You basically just said there are only 4 options for 3d gaming, 1 of which isn't compatible with PC monitors today. So NVidia picks the best out of the other 3 and you still have a hissy-fit.
Yes, the point of the 120hz monitor is to have a 60fps frame-rate, which I'd gladly take to have a 3d game. Most games don't run over 60 fps anyway, especially online.
This is a new technology. It's going to cost money. So shut up about it.
If I'm willing to spend 2 grand on a gaming pc and pay for a 52 inch 120hz monitor, then I can afford the $200 or whatever for the glasses. Some gamers spend over 5k just on their computer. If you cant afford it, don't whine about it. The price shouldn't affect the fact that you're playing a game in 3D for Christ-sake. I wouldn't care if the system made me bleed out the ears, i'd still use it for 3d gaming.
You can't expect to get by with new technology on low-end hardware anyway. You're like one of those people who complain about Crysis because your pc sucks. If you're going to push the boundaries of gaming, you need to push hardware boundaries as well.
I used to find this site entertaining and informative, but it really is starting to become an opinionated soap-box.
Surely sites like this are meant to show NON-bias towards any hardware company, and rate the hardware on it's REAL WORLD merits. All of which are tarred over in this article to further the bitchy tone of it.
Price wise it's cheap considering what it is.
Look at the Matrox triple head and review it in the same tone as these glasses please... Yet it has it's benefits sung from the rooftops.
Non 3d glasses for viewing DVD's were dearer than this just a small handful of years ago. Are you really telling me that this should be a £50 or $50 product? Yeah, maybe it should, and a brand new Mercedes SLK should be $5,000. Get a grip...
And oh yeah, the eyestrain - it doesn't actually happen, the headaches aren't an issue WHEN YOU USE THE RIGHT KIT!
Check the pc perspective review for an honest unbaised opinion, from someone who wore glass contacts (and understands what eyestrain actually is, and hasn't just read about it...).
I'm glad to see not every review site is ripping the setup for it's faults and then giving it RAVE reviews. My guess is most of those positive reviewers are given the hardware based on their positive feedback.
I've used the glasses, and they are neat no doubt about it. But egad! the cost is outrageous! They should give them away to people that buy their flagship video card instead. The technology is old! Asus did it many years ago, why charge $200.00 for old (updated) technology? Assuming your monitor will work (+$400.00 if not), will your video card? Oh yea you need a high end Nvidia card, pony up another $300.00 (market share is about 50/50). Oh yea, good luck if you wear glasses! (1 in 3 people wear glasses) there goes another 33%. I know you can't make everyone happy but the faults this has for it's price tag scream of price gouging to me.
Do you call yourself a journalist? I mean... Come on, you just list a bunch of letters to make your point, which by the way is not objetive.
You talk about different 3D technologies and how good they are and, after blaming Nvidia for using shutter glasses, we can understand between lines that Nvidia did the right choice based on what's available right now and not within the next 5 years.
¿A family of 4? Come on, you can lend the glasses to your daughter or son. This is pointless.
Credibility? I hope you still have some of this, or The Inquirer is going to lose it too because of you Charly.
You fuckin dumbass. Any game in 3D stereo, NO MATTER WHAT THE TECH, is going to have to render 2 scenes and the framerate will always be halved. And iz3d more than halves the framerate cause thier drivers suck. Only nVidia has the best 3D drivers out there for games. I used iz3d and nvidia and can tell you that iz3d sucks ass.