Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Nvidia Wants To Bring 3D Glasses Back

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the so-stylish dept.

Graphics 341

notthatwillsmith writes "For the last ten years, we've heard the promise of 3D shutter glasses, which when combined with the proper video card drivers and a good display, can trick your brain into thinking that your 2D monitor is creating 3D images. Unfortunately the glasses never really took off, partly because there were rendering problems with many popular 3D games but mostly because monitors didn't support high enough refresh rates to display games without giving people crushing headaches. Nvidia thinks they've solved both problems--the software works much better, and there are a surprising number of supported 120Hz-capable TVs and monitors that ameliorate the headache factor. Maximum PC has a hands-on with Nvidia's new tech, plus details about Nvidia's planned hardware solution."

cancel ×

341 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can I have my 5 minutes back? (2, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040211)

Q: What software and hardware is needed?

Windows Vista 32-bit (64-bit support coming soon)


Couldn't this have been at the top of the article?

Re:Can I have my 5 minutes back? (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040361)

But you'll appreciate how that BSOD really pops out of the screen in 3D. Or the progress bar while waiting for file copies.

Re:Can I have my 5 minutes back? (2, Funny)

mmalove (919245) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040403)

Don't forget narrowly avoiding the swinging anamorphic appendages of a personified paperclip.

Can I have my 2D? (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040561)

"But you'll appreciate how that BSOD really pops out of the screen in 3D. Or the progress bar while waiting for file copies."

Wasn't that one of the arguments against a 3D computing environment? The displays weren't 3D? The input devices weren't 3D?

Re:Can I have my 5 minutes back? (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040383)

Yea... like the games that will support it will work in Linux...

Lets be reasonable. You are making a new device trying to get new customers, why would you make XP or Linux drivers first... XP is on its way out. Yea Vista sucks but with more and more companies no longer shipping XP means more people will get Vista Preinstalled. Linux is not a gaming platform, it is barely a desktop platform, it only has like 1% market share, most of these people are running on Linux that is not powerful enough to run the drivers. so .25% market share? Yea lets spend millions of dollars in a new product design and spend half the funds for a tiny knitch market.

Most hardware purchases are sold when they get new hardware, thus getting Vista Preinstalled. So if I were to get my Ultimate Game computer with all the hardware I would have vista anyways.

Now if the product kicks off and becomes popular then you will get more drivers Linux drivers Mac Drivers, if there is still demmand they may have XP drivers. But if you are going to release a new product you might as well develop for the latest version, no matter what you religious stance is.

Re:Can I have my 5 minutes back? (5, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040521)

Yea... like the games that will support it will work in Linux..

I'm not sure I have nerve to play Angband with this anyway -- those capital Z's will be terrifying in 3D!

My religious stance? (4, Interesting)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040583)

no matter what you religious stance is

I'm sorry, I don't think we've met. Yes, I don't like Vista. But it's not a religious stance against Microsoft. In fact, I hold 4 Microsoft certifications (MCSE, MCSD VB6, MCSD C#.Net, MCDBA) and work on Microsoft products all day every day. In fact, I did a 6 month contract programming job for Microsoft themselves as a side job.

I bought a new computer 3 months ago. Middle-of-the-road Dell system, dual core 2.4 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB disk space. It came pre-installed with Ubuntu Linux, but I installed Vista Ultimate 64 bit on it. (Did I forget to mention I'm also an MSDN Subscriber which lets me install any software I want for testing purposes?). I installed Vista because I was sick of hearing how bad it was. Long story short, after the fresh install and setting up all my drivers so I had the latest of all devices in the Device Manager, I was having applications crash about every 5 minutes. So I figured it was a 64 bit problem. I installed Vista Ultima 32-bit and got all the drivers updated. Same problem. I updated the firmware. Same problem. I installed Windows XP SP3. 3 months later and if it's had a single application crash in that time, I'd be surprised.

So, I'm just one person but I have no religious stance against Microsoft, was looking forward to installing Vista, had issues with it that 12 hours of trying to fix it did not resolve. And I have 20 years experience in professional IT using almost exclusively Microsoft products going back to MS-DOS 3.3.

If that's a religious stance to you, that's beyond silly.

Re:My religious stance? (1, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040803)

Wow you took that personally. It wasn't personal or directed at you it was to stop my argument from the Linux Zealots who would often post after me Touting how COOL Linux is and how great it is for gaming, etc. I just wanted people to stop and look at the facts and understand a business reason for just using Vista Drivers. Um posts on Slashdot tend to do the following.
1. Never read the username, as it is kinda pointless.
2. Assume the context is about what the general feeling are on the topic (in this case zealot Linux furver).
3. Does the message appear to support or reject this stereo type.

If you are going to go off the fact that I asked people in general. To put their views aside on Linux and Windows and actually look at the reasoning. To show that choosing Vista is actually a good decision for Nvida to use.

I've used Vista myself and I hated it. But that is besides the point. But to make a big deal that it is Vista only isn't part of the story it is about the product and how it works not what platform it currently runs on.

Re:My religious stance? (5, Funny)

excesspwr (218183) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040829)

Beyond silly? That's not beyond silly. A football helmet full of cottage cheese, now that's beyond silly.

Re:My religious stance? (2, Funny)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 6 years ago | (#25041017)

and it's just gross if you put ketchup on it. mustard's better, it really brings out that extra "flavour" from being served in a football helmet ;)

Re:My religious stance? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 6 years ago | (#25041035)

And naked pictures of Bea Arthur?

Re:My religious stance? (0, Offtopic)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040891)

I installed Vista because I was sick of hearing how bad it was. Long story short, after the fresh install and setting up all my drivers so I had the latest of all devices in the Device Manager, I was having applications crash about every 5 minutes. So I figured it was a 64 bit problem. I installed Vista Ultima 32-bit and got all the drivers updated. Same problem. I updated the firmware. Same problem. I installed Windows XP SP3. 3 months later and if it's had a single application crash in that time, I'd be surprised.

Sounds like you were running afoul of DEP to me. Which applications ?

Re:My religious stance? (4, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 6 years ago | (#25041049)

I got a new Dell a couple of months ago myself. An Inspiron 540 with a 2.4 GHz quad-core processor and 2GB of Ram. It came installed with one of the several dozen versions of Vista, the one a step above home.

I originally was intent on getting XP, but my brother recommended Vista just to give it a try. I was reluctant, given the constant onslaught of negative press and my own brief interactions with the system. I've tinkered with it in stores and have used it briefly on my coworker's laptop.

Lo and behold, I actually thought the OS was quite decent. Thus far, I haven't had a single issue. I've been quite pleased and I do generally feel it improves on XP.

It's more than I can say for OSX 10.5. I have far more issues with my iMac at the office running that OS than I've had with my iMac at home running 10.4. It seems that people just are as vocal about problems with OSX.

So I can't but wonder if I'm one of the few to not have problems or if too many people are simply jumping on the bandwagon and putting down Vista without actually having used it. It's almost like it's a fad to crap on Microsoft. And I'm sure I'll be dismissed as a Microsoft fanboy.

Re:Can I have my 5 minutes back? (2, Informative)

TechwoIf (1004763) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040877)

If you read the article, "Right now, we do not have OpenGL support but will be working to release it soon". So when it hits the shelves for purchase, opengl games, including Linux games, will work out of the box. One opengl game, Secondlife was modified for 3D by University of Michigan. http://um3d.dc.umich.edu/software/second_life/ [umich.edu] https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-2972 [secondlife.com]

Re:Can I have my 5 minutes back? (1)

chammy (1096007) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040963)

Linux is not a gaming platform

One of the primary reasons it isn't a gaming platform is lack of vendor support. If Nvidia doesn't release drivers that are in-line with the Windows ones, it will always lag behind. This is a vicious cycle that will always leave Linux users (and Mac for that matter) in the dust.

It would be really nice to have simultaneous releases on all platforms for once. I'm still waiting for the UT3 client to come out. :(

Re:Can I have my 5 minutes back? (2, Insightful)

meatplow (184288) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040525)

I'll save my mod-points since someone already got you with "-1 Flamebait". Are you suggesting that since that at this time its only working model is on Win32, that some how make this a waste of time? If I a new company, would my first goal be to satisfy a "smaller" portion of the market, or go for the largest piece of the pie. I'm sure sales/strategy/accounting had a lot to do with this. I'm fairly positive it had NOTHING to do with anything but money. BTW.. Get a grip - if you really want it: 1) MacOs / XP 2) *nix & wine

I agree with you. (0, Redundant)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040747)

If I a new company, would my first goal be to satisfy a "smaller" portion of the market, or go for the largest piece of the pie

I wholeheartedly agree. Isn't the Windows XP install base significantly larger than the Windows Vista install base?

Bill lives... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040221)

Some women fellate horses for money.

"Mostly" monitors? (4, Funny)

CrashPoint (564165) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040303)

Unfortunately the glasses never really took off, partly because there were rendering problems with many popular 3D games but mostly because monitors didn't support high enough refresh rates to display games without giving people crushing headaches.

OK, sure, refresh rates are an issue, but you don't think it was mostly that people don't want to wear special glasses for gaming? We haven't yet aged so much as a demographic that we can say "let me put on my gaming glasses" with a straight face.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040371)

Not only that... but anyone who has ever had to wear these glasses, they are so uncomfortable, that even the appeal of the visual 3d effects isn't enough to wear them for more than minutes.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040487)

Looking at the pics they seem rather small not much bigger then plastic frames of the 1980's. A lot less geeky then they use to be.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (2, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 6 years ago | (#25041063)

Which is fine if you don't need glasses for normal vision. One pair of glasses over another is never good.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (1, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040491)

There are stereoscopic displays, I think a panel is behind something like a lenticular sheet. I think that's the only reasonable way to do 3D.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (2, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040437)

I love the glasses. They're so bad!

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (2, Insightful)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040439)

I'd wear special glasses if it made stuff 3D. No question.

But I think that the really big market for this will be the console, so I want to know- Will this work on any of the current/planned TV technologies?

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (2, Interesting)

alyawn (694153) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040661)

There are several monitors *and* TVs already out that have built-in support for 3D. I've seen several listed [3droundup.com] and the prices even seem reasonable.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040719)

I'd wear special glasses if it made stuff 3D. No question.

You could have just posted "GIMMIE 3D PORN!" like you thought.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040781)

Have you ever tried it? We had a set in our lab and a nice haptic system. Very few people could use it for more than half an hour without feeling sea sick. The human brain uses about half a dozen queues to determine depth and the glasses only simulated the stereo separation, not (for example) the different focal lengths. This means your brain gets conflicting depth cues and processes the input discrepancies by making you feel sick.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040887)

Yup. Many current hdtvs specifically advertise a 120hz refresh and provide a connection port for synchronizing refresh times.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (3, Insightful)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040467)

You also wouldn't think the nun chuck Wii controller and boxing would have been popular considering how stupid it looks but its taking off as well.

Also One of my favorite sega genesis games had the lcd based 3d glasses. While they were crazy uncomfortable the potential seems pretty impressive, I'm sure they could work things out. We have to be better at video game ergonomics now than we were when I was a kid.

I WANT MY FREAKING 3D GAMES!!!!

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040629)

It was the Sega Master System that had the 3d glasses. I have one, and I found the 3d effect really difficult to maintain. The depth of field is very limited. anything significantly in front of or behind the object you're focusing on is a double image.

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (1)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040783)

Sorry thats correct SMS, not genesis. So it was done even earlier. It should be trivial now....

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (1)

street struttin' (1249972) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040897)

I actually had 3d glasses with Rad Racer on the original NES. There was a special game mode you could use to turn it on. Unfortunately, my little brother sat on the glasses and bent them, so I only got to use them a few times. If I remember right, the effect mostly just turned everything orange...

Re:"Mostly" monitors? (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#25041009)

It was the Sega Master System that had the 3d glasses. I have one, and I found the 3d effect really difficult to maintain. The depth of field is very limited. anything significantly in front of or behind the object you're focusing on is a double image.

It didn't help that the Master System's graphics hardware was optimized for tile-and-sprite based 2D graphics (actually, it couldn't do anything BUT that), so whatever 3D effects the console could accomplish were pretty limited.

But with games that were conceived in 3D for 3D hardware, where the 'camera positioning' has been a well-understood concept for well over a decade now, the technology could work a lot better.

Meanwhile, (1, Troll)

mmalove (919245) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040321)

The games will all still suck, because we spend a billion dollars putting lipstick on a turd.

Clarification (2, Funny)

Dareth (47614) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040685)

I believe you meant, "polishing a turd".

The correct lipstick references are "lipstick on a pig" and/or "lipstick on a pitbull".

Re:Clarification (0)

mmalove (919245) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040797)

Nope, I'm familiar with all three, and none fit the bill. Lipstick on a turd stands.

Re:Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25041091)

The correct lipstick references are "lipstick on a pig" and/or "lipstick on a pitbull".

Nope, the "lipstick on a pitbull" line was coined by a polished turd, so I won't accept it as a proper euphemism.

spirituality making big comeback (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040343)

no gadgets required. fewer headaches etc...

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

other 'options' include;

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040395)

what this needs is an eye-distance adjustment for us types with "slightly low inter-ocular distance" (eyes too close together).

the old vr boxes and imax 3d doesn't work for me if the stuff is close to the screen, splits into 2 images.

i wrote some red-blue 3d stuff as a test back in ooo 94 (direct renering to a DOS ModeX display) and the 1st thing i found out is that the eye-distance needs configuring. bring an object to very "close" to you, increase distance till it breaks into 2 images (in your head), back it off a bit.. shazam works perfectly.

if hollywood is gonna start doing 3d films they better us unlucky people into account or i can see a lawsuit coming...

Re:excellent (2, Informative)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040839)

It states in the article that they are planning on having that, including possibly a scroll wheel to adjust it on the fly. They also stated that the defaults will have a low depth to allow people time to get accustomed to the effect.

Re:excellent (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040925)

if hollywood is gonna start doing 3d films they better us unlucky people into account or i can see a lawsuit coming...

Wait a moment, I thought you had trouble with 3d vision, yet you can see a lawsuit coming. How could you possibly know that it was coming if... !!!

-Legally Blonde 3

Effective refresh rate (1, Insightful)

JustKidding (591117) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040411)

a refresh rate of 120Hz still means you have an effective refresh rate of 60Hz for each eye.

Personally, I'm a little sensitive to low refresh rates; anything below 75Hz will give me a headache, and I prefer 85Hz or more. Some monitors can show 170 frames per second, but those are very rare.

Also, this won't work with LCD displays, because they are just to slow.

Re:Effective refresh rate (1)

LearningHard (612455) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040533)

Guess you can't watch TV then eh?

Re:Effective refresh rate (1)

JustKidding (591117) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040809)

Actually, I can watch TV without getting a headache, but I do see the screen refresh on some models. It might have something to do with the viewing distance.

Watching TV without getting a headache is getting more difficult though, but I suspect that has something to do with the brainlessness level of the content.

I can see a single fluorescent tube flash as well, and I can assure you it will give me a headache.

Re:Effective refresh rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040937)

With the interlacing performed on a standard CRT television combined with longer phosphor persistence, a 60-hz refresh on a TV is not nearly as bad as a 60-hz refresh rate on a fast-phosphor monitor.

I can watch TV with no problem, but a CRT monitor at anything below 80 hz gives me headaches.

Flourescent tubes can also be a problem for me. with the two-tube half-wave rectified units (one tube gets the +swing, the other gets the -swing), the combined 120-hz flicker is non-problematic, but when one tube fails, it annoys me to no end.

also, some newer tubes use a phosphor coating which continues to flouresce during more of the off-time, thereby reducing the overall flicker. I'm always careful to select these bulbs for use in my own home.

Re:Effective refresh rate (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040559)

I find that 60Hz comfort depending on the environment I am in. Florescent lights seem to make it worse, while normal lighting it is more comfortable. Also being that games are rather fast moving and a lot of flashing it may lesson the effect then staring at a white screen as everything is moving not just a tiny section so you can really focus and see the flashing.

Re:Effective refresh rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040815)

Cathode tube refresh rates were pretty awful all around, but I think LCD's will be OK. If you look at a cathode tube through a decent video camera, you can see that only a band only 1/3rd screen tall is actually glowing at any instant. An LCD flickers too, but only in a "rainbow"-y way. It doesn't go all the way between black and light, just uses averaging to turn low color resolution into "32 bit color" (remember the fiasco with Apple?). You can see this by peering through a fan at your LCD, and holding the hub to brake it to just the right speed.

Also, LCD's are fast enough now to watch "The Fast and the Furious" without streaking, I don't think they'd be any problem flipping between two totally different scenes at 60 Hz, and 3D images won't be that different, anyway. I wonder how a refresh delay would actually look. Would objects get 1 or two ghosts; would the ghosts get more pronounced as the object gets closer? How would high contrast textures (like a garish plaid) look compared to low contrast objects?

Re:Effective refresh rate (1)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040861)

I'm the same way. When I'm sitting close to the monitor, 60Hz gives me a headache pretty fast. Sitting farther away, such as with a TV, it doesn't seem to bother me as much. Not really sure why.

Re:Effective refresh rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040959)

As another poster points out, this isn't so much a problem with television, and I believe this is because there is a natural motion blur occurring in the recording process. If you have enough horsepower you can simulate this blurring and then it shouldn't be as much of an issue.

Dont forget shitty monitors on shutter glasses (0)

La Gris (531858) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040415)

My roommate baught a pair of Vusix VR920 3 months ago and, realy these are crap.
Screen quality is realy poor. Bad contrast, inaccurate color rendering, ridiculous small view angle 90Â; (need at least 120Â to provide immertion), poor nose handler design (can't stay on mine because it is too small and wrong angle).
Should I add the poor ridiculous 640x480 resolution and no support for wide angle or anything like 16:10 or 16:9 formats.

Realy, 3D glasses manufacturers fucked the market with crap products for years.
Who care to bring drivers for crap products?

Have a look at eBay for the load of used shutter glasses for sale.

Great monitors and Great Glasses (2, Informative)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040833)

Crystal Eyes and Monochrome monitors. The monochrome monitors were capable of putting out 200+ fL of light (about 4x brighter than your typical out-of-the-box LCD) and the crystal eye shuttered glasses were capable of extinguishing 99+ of the light. The result was a realistic, if slowly refreshed, 3D image.

I've also looked at a number of displays- my favorite so far is the Stereo Planar- still requires polarized glasses but the display is sharp and fast and, when integrated with the 24" NEC IPS panels gives decent motion performance.

There is McNaughtten (Sp?) rear projection LCD displays- I only used the prototype- I wasn't a fan but others have liked it. I believe the fan noise bothered me quite a bit, not to mention some of the speckle. That's being fixed with some new diffuser materials.

Lastly Kodak actually had a 3D display- used two LCDs aligned in a box- you looked through a lense element (no glasses on the face) and saw the projected 3D image. Very high resolution, very bright- but it got canned.

There are good 3D solutions out there (or at least it's getting better). You're probably just not willing to pay the price to get it.

Re:Dont forget shitty monitors on shutter glasses (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040949)

Shutter glasses and glasses with internal displays are completely different. The idea with these shuttered glasses is that you watch your regular tv or monitor, and its 120hz frequency is sufficient to provide 60fps per eye.

It's only a matter of time (5, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040431)

Someone is going to create a way to convert standard porn to 3D and then these things will really take off.

Bigger glasses (0, Redundant)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040435)

Why don't they just make the glasses so big that you put them over the monitor isntead? That way people don't need to wear them to get the 3D effect? My guess is because this way they can trap you into licensing a pair for every person in your house. 3D EULAs. Great!

Re:Bigger glasses (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040537)

are you kidding?
The glasses block one eye at a time to trick you into seeing two slightly different pictures (the monitor switches pictures at the same rate the glasses switch which eye it blocks).
If you put the glasses on the monitor, both eyes would see the same thing at the same time.

Re:Bigger glasses (1)

Flying Scotsman (1255778) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040581)

From what I know of stereoscopic imaging on computers, the "trick" is to send different images to the left and right eye of the viewer. That's why glasses are used; one image on the screen is picked up the right lens (and perceived by the right eye) and another by the left lens (and perceived by the left eye). It would be rather difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the same effect if the lenses were over the screen, since there would be no way to enforce the left-eye/right-eye separation.

Re:Bigger glasses (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040625)

Because the technology requires them to isolate the individual eyes so that one eye can't see the lense the other eye is supposed to see. This is true for, virtually, all traditional 3d display techologies (shutter glasses, red/green glasses, polarized glasses, VR goggles, etc.) Please put the tinfoil hat down on the ground and step away slowly...

Re:Bigger glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040633)

That's not how 3D glasses work...otherwise they'd just make 3D screens. The glasses take advantage of how your brain puts together 2 visual signals that are from slightly different vantage points, and tricks you into seeing one image. So, a big pair of glasses in front of the screen would just look like a big pair of glasses, not a 3D image.

They do make 3D screens... (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040909)

But they're incredibly expensive, and don't handle fingerprints well. (at least, the ones using holographic projectors -- we were told not to even dare getting within 3 feet of the screen, or to go near the projectors that took days to align properly)

Here's a couple of manufacturers of displays, but I can't find the holographic projector one (not sure who made it, just that it exists):

Re:Bigger glasses (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040997)

Because the 3D effect is caused by each eye seeing a slightly different image. Doing as you suggest would result in both eyes seeing the same image, therefore no 3D effect.

Did they deliberately disable OpenGL? (4, Interesting)

MrMr (219533) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040449)

tfa: Right now, we do not have OpenGL support but will be working to release it soon
I've been using Nuvison and Crystaleyes glasses for about 8 years with the Linux NVidia drivers; How did they manage to not have that in their new product?

Re:Did they deliberately disable OpenGL? (1)

PainKilleR-CE (597083) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040889)

Maybe because neither of those are nVidia products...

Ignore the monitor! (3, Insightful)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040461)

Instead of hoping that your monitor is good enough, lets get LCD glasses that display something better then 800x600. Most eye glasses are around 2" in diameter, if you could cram enough pixels into that space to give a minimum of ~1024x768 resolution then you will have a market.

Portable gaming anyone? portable and PRIVATE browsing? Sign me up.

Re:Ignore the monitor! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040513)

portable and PRIVATE browsing?

Sorry dude, people can still see your hard-on.

Re:Ignore the monitor! (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040641)

Sorry, the lawyers will shut that down. With the "monitor-centric" technologies, your immersion is limited and you still are aware of your position in the room (most likely your seat). If you make perfect LCD-goggles, people will start to fall over because they lose their spacial orientation, with the "unsafe product" lawsuits to follow.

Re:Ignore the monitor! (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040693)

The obvious lawyer solution would be a simple, brightly colored, warning label on the outside of the glasses saying to remain seated at all times while using them followed by a similar warning at the beginning of all games.

Better hope those aren't LCD shutterglasses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040469)

Or they will ONLY work with either LCD *xor* CRT monitors (either without, or with the polarization filters in front of the LCDs). :-(

Bet they're LCD only, too. And in that case, you have a 50/50 chance of the depth being reversed. Boooo!

Re:Better hope those aren't LCD shutterglasses... (1)

DeathCarrot (1133225) | more than 6 years ago | (#25041069)

They require a 120hz LCD/DLP screen, so you're unlikely to be able to use the glasses with your current monitor.

I'm certainly looking forward to these things. Although I won't be able to try them for a few years as I'm not exactly in need of new monitors just yet.

Bad Idea (1)

mathx314 (1365325) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040479)

Admittedly, I don't entirely understand how this technology is supposed to work, but if it's anything like the polarized or red/green 3D glasses of yesteryear, I hate it. Thanks to a genetic disorder, the males in my family are incapable of using them (I see two flat images instead of one 3D one). If games require these to play, I'll lose my favorite hobby.

Re:Bad Idea (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 6 years ago | (#25041021)

How does that work? Polarized glasses separate light polarized in two different directions, providing a different image to each eye, simulating regular binocular vision. Are you saying that you see two images in daily life if you have both eyes open? What's the name of this genetic disorder? I'm not trying to be skeptical, you've just tripped my curiosity trigger!

Bucking the peripherals trend? (3, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040489)

A long time ago, there was a big market for perifrials in games: joysticks, etc. I think at that point a substantial portion of the gaming market were playing flight sims. Latching on to that were more arcade-style games that benefited from joysticks: Wing Commander, X-Wing, etc.

Since then, there's be a decrease in the number of peripherals. If the game doesn't play well with mouse and keyboard, it usually isn't played. Even on consoles, it's rough to convince people to play games with something other than the standard controller.

Now nvidia wants us to but special nerd glasses and special nerd monitors for a 3D effect (windows Vista only). I'm not sure it'll fly.

Also, reading that interview, Andrew FEAR sounds like a toolburger. Yeah, 3D could be fOMG amazing one eleventy exclamation point, but I'd rather have a better game.

Re:Bucking the peripherals trend? (5, Insightful)

luke2063 (1137533) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040555)

Even on consoles, it's rough to convince people to play games with something other than the standard controller.

Like Guitar Hero/Rock Band/Singstar? Or Buzz? Or Wii Fit?

Re:Bucking the peripherals trend? (2, Insightful)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040703)

Even on consoles, it's rough to convince people to play games with something other than the standard controller.

Like Guitar Hero/Rock Band/Singstar? Or Buzz? Or Wii Fit?

Or the Wii remote even.

.

Low tech ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040499)

From the article...

Q: How does the current generation of stereoscopic 3D tech differ from what gamers saw 5 years ago?
AF: You no longer have to crank that little handle on the glasses. Just kidding.

Nice to see Nvidia being innovative and trying a simple, low tech solution for a change.

How does this impact SLI? (2, Interesting)

Tsaot (859424) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040503)

They state that you need some pretty robust hardware for this as it is essentially rendering two frames at once. Did they leave SLI doing the same thing (each card rendering a portion of a frame) or are they splitting each frame onto each card?

Visuals, Smisuals (3, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040523)

If I can't poke it in the eye or shove a sword through its guts, I don't consider it true 3D. Give me a holodeck with the safety features disabled, a BFG, and a flask of whiskey -- then we'll talk about licensing your technology.

Re:Visuals, Smisuals (2, Informative)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040649)

Give me a flask of whiskey and I can talk for some time about anything! But it won't be very impressive.

Re:Visuals, Smisuals (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040863)

a BFG, and a flask of whiskey

You must be from the south.

Matte Backgrounds and Effects (1)

tezza (539307) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040539)

I had 3d glasses several years ago, with a wire. No headaches for me.

But designers specifically create certain scenes with the 2D look in mind. So when you actually view the scene, it does not look as intended.

These are normally the important thematic bits, and so the overall effect can be ruined.

So 2D bullet spray effects, made to look 3d in Photoshop, look like planes of sand in true 3d.

Availability (1)

DirtySouthAfrican (984664) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040553)

A quick search revealed that these glasses are already available for sale [cgi.ebay.ca]

I can't wait to use this for [win] + [tab]! (1)

Tsaot (859424) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040575)

Win+Tab will be even more fantastic!

Seriously though. What kind of desktop improvements can we see with this? Move windows forward and back, angle so they appear in a semi-circle in front of you? I'm getting tired of this rectangle on a 2D plane that we're forced to work with all day.

Wiimote hack (1)

Tsaot (859424) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040619)

Can we get this combined with the Wiimote head tracking hack as well? It's just a small addition of an IR camera and IR lights.

The mystery backer to the initiative... (1)

ittybad (896498) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040679)

...the pr0n industry!

I used 3D technology (1)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040691)

When I worked at the SAIC Virtual Reality Systems Group, I had the opportunity to buy and try several 3D video products and a couple of 3d audio (head related transfer function stuff).

3D video and audio helps "suspend disbelief", making it easier to draw people into virtual environments.

I just use a MacBook now, but if Nvidia sells 3D viewing glasses compatible with the Mac, they have a customer :-)

BTW, a little off topic, but inexpensive 3D glasses with drivers compatible with the Squeak Croquet system would be great!

Big Words (0, Troll)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040721)

and there are a surprising number of supported 120Hz-capable TVs and monitors that ameliorate the headache factor

Now, I'm all for the use of good words, but you couldn't have used words like, ya know, improve or help or advance?

I know, I know. I'll probably be modded as a troll, but I'm just saying - why use words like this when more accessible words more than say what you're trying to say. Why use "big" words for the sake of using those words?

Re:Big Words (1)

ittybad (896498) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040895)

According to dictionary.com: ameliorate: to make or become better, more bearable, or more satisfactory; improve; meliorate. improve: has over six accepted definitions; most would work in this situation, unless it is used as a synonym to "increase." help: has over 20 definitions; most relate to giving aid to...in this case, it could allude to the concept that the headache factor is increased (or improved) advance: over 30 definitions; most relate to "moving forward." Again, this could be linked to increasing. So, it would look like using a "big" word could help to add clarity to a sentence, and thus, avoid ambiguity.

Re:Big Words (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040973)

Aah, less is more is it ?. Or did you actually have to, ya know, think ?

Still not fast enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040745)

Even a 120 Hz refresh rate is going to have that flicker similar to what you get from a 60 Hz monitor. Some people can tolerate it but for most people it's headache city.

You need a refresh rate of probably 150 to 200 before it would look OK. Even then it's going to be more eye strain than a LCD.

Re:Still not fast enough (1)

Rythie (972757) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040907)

Actually I thought this would be a problem, since I hate 60hz and sometimes notice 75hz, but I have found 110hz-120hz CRTs not to bad in stereo and 105hz on DLP projectors is actually quite good.

Short-sighted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040763)

What about people who need to use actual glasses?

Re:Short-sighted? (1)

Rythie (972757) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040857)

Some of the glasses on the market already, fit quite easily over your existing glasses, and that seems to work quite well. http://reald-corporate.com/scientific/crystaleyes.asp [reald-corporate.com]

Dump the Monitors and It'll Catch On (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040769)

If 3D glasses just dumped the monitors and went wireless, they'd catch on. They need to be transparent, so the display is projected into the real field of view, and maybe have a black LCD layer to actually shut out the outside light.

But if they worked like that, the first iPod to use them for video would push them over the edge into the mainstream once and for all.

Unfortunately, we'll need a breakthru in batteries to power high framerate hirez good color wireless glasses with fast radio bandwidth to the device putting out the frames. Maybe the breakthru glasses will be hollow for fuelcell juice.

Give it a chance! We need it to work! (2, Interesting)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040779)

If you haven't heard yet, Dreamworks and Pixar are both heading to 3D only movies. In another year, neither studio will be producing movies that don't require 3D. If this technology catches on and becomes popular (driven by movies), we might be able to avoid traditional, annoying 3D glasses. I would only hope that the studios could release DVD with either encoding. If not, you'll still be stuck at home watching 3D movies the old way.

Riiiiight... (2, Informative)

tambo (310170) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040791)

"Unfortunately the glasses never really took off, partly because there were rendering problems with many popular 3D games but mostly because monitors didn't support high enough refresh rates to display games without giving people crushing headaches."

Um, no. The glasses never took off because no one wanted to wear clunky, heavy glasses with a HUGE battery pack or cable attachment. (Or even better, two cables: sync and power.) Not to mention the hardware integrated into the frame for manipulating the shutter or polarization of each lens...

And then there's the fact that a fair amount of gaming is not done in the solitude of a dorm room or mom's basement, but in public. And how would you look wearing a pair of shuttering glasses in Starbucks? True 3D is cool, but even nerds have their - our - limits.

But, hey, this is Nvidia trying to find a raison d'etre after its sole niche becomes commoditized. I get that, but that doesn't make it not stupid. Next I suppose Nvidia will start touting other good-only-at-first-glance peripherals: the Nvidia gyroscopic mouse, the Nvidia true-3D-audio speaker set, and the Nvidia dvorak keyboard...

- David Stein

Chose your own oblig. (2, Funny)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040823)

Please select one of the following:

  1. My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
  2. Nothing could ameliorate the ineptitude of Principal Skinner
  3. Well, it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology, n'gee, that Homer Simpson has stumbled into...the third dimension.
  4. Jebediah Neil

diopter adjustment, please? (2, Interesting)

crescente (1334029) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040831)

It's nice that the glasses were "designed from day one to be easily worn over most types of glasses frames" but it just sounds like an excuse not to include diopter adjustment. Should have option for diopter adjustment, just like in good binoculars. It just doesn't feel right to be wearing more layers of headgear than of clothing.

The goggles! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25040871)

They do nothing!

TF Classic (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 6 years ago | (#25040927)

I used to play TFC in my shutter glasses, it's fking great.
Only problem is the HUD overlay because that's not in 3d

Is this new? (1)

Rythie (972757) | more than 6 years ago | (#25041081)

It seems they are pushing this as new. Though Nvidia's own Quadro cards have had this for years even ones which were based on GeForce 4 chips (look at ones with 3pin stereo connector on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Quadro [wikipedia.org] ).

Nvidia have always made it so that only expensive Quadro cards can do Quad Buffered stereo which is what is needed to do the rendering properly (a double buffer for each eye). IR-glasses have been around for several years (http://reald-corporate.com/scientific/crystaleyes.asp) and operate by pluging a transmitter into the 3pin port onto a quadro card (or their are other methods such as blue-line stereo). Shutter glasses in the past have been too expensive ($500-1000) though mass-adoption should bring that down.

Stereo also works under OpenGL on Linux so I don't see the problem with that.

The only thing that seems new is that Nvidia are pushing it, it may end up on consumer cards and the stereo conversion of existing games.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?