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!

NVIDIA Launches 3D Vision 2

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the more-real-than-real dept.

Graphics 76

MojoKid writes "NVIDIA just announced their next generation of 3D Vision technology that claims to deliver greater realism and immersion for 3D games, movies and photos. 3D Vision 2 is very similar to NVIDIA's original 3D Vision. The technology is backwards compatible with NVIDIA's first gen 3D emitter technology. However, NVIDIA has made a number of physical and technical tweaks that enhance the technology in a few key ways. NVIDIA's active-shutter glasses have been redesigned with 20% larger lenses and the company has worked with partners to bring new, larger, full-HD 3D Vision compatible monitors to market. NVIDIA has also developed a new technology dubbed LightBoost that ultimately results in brighter on-screen imagery and better environmental lighting characteristics in 3D content as well."

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

This is great news! (3, Interesting)

TechLA (2482532) | about 3 years ago | (#37732090)

Games are one place where 3D actually makes a huge difference. The information is already there in the graphics card, fully, so it can process it much more better than in movies. I used to play Left4Dead and Left4Dead2 with the NVIDIAs tools with 3D glasses and the game was MUCH more scarier and cooler. I suggest you try it... it's really a completely different and better experience. It works extremely well for scary and FPS games, but I can see it could be strategically used in RTS games too.

Re:This is great news! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732368)

How much did NVIDIA pay you for that glowing "much more better" endorsement?

Re:This is great news! (2)

TechLA (2482532) | about 3 years ago | (#37732426)

This "omg astroturfer" thing on slashdot thing is getting really old..

Actually, if you don't want to pay upfront to test it, you can try it out with the just the regular old movie red/blue 3D glasses. I guess you could make those yourself, but a geek probably has those lying around. Most gfx (at least nvidia) cards supports them with all their cards, even if you don't own the 3D vision ones. It illustrates the effect somewhat, even though it's not as good (you get some color distraction and the quality isn't as good as with shutter glasses). But you don't need to buy the Vision ones and new monitor just to enjoy the technology.

Re:This is great news! (1)

TechLA (2482532) | about 3 years ago | (#37732438)

Of course I forgot to tell how to actually enable it.. It's in your gfx card options, as most recent (within 3-4 years) drivers actually support the feature and you can enable it just for those red/blue glasses. It's not as good, but it works.

Re:This is great news! (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 3 years ago | (#37732524)

This "omg astroturfer" thing on slashdot thing is getting really old..

Actually, if you don't want to pay upfront to test it, you can try it out with the just the regular old movie red/blue 3D glasses. I guess you could make those yourself, but a geek probably has those lying around. Most gfx (at least nvidia) cards supports them with all their cards, even if you don't own the 3D vision ones. It illustrates the effect somewhat, even though it's not as good (you get some color distraction and the quality isn't as good as with shutter glasses). But you don't need to buy the Vision ones and new monitor just to enjoy the technology.

Indeed, it's a terribly cheap way of trying it out and works on a regular old LCD screen just fine. I have a hotkey set up at alt+control+t to turn 3D on and off and so far it seems to work in all games I've tried.

And about the "omg astroturfer"... well, I agree with that too. The OP was just stating his opinion, and after having tried both active and passive glasses with various kinds of input I find it working pretty well, ESPECIALLY for games.

OMG Astroturfer! (1)

Benfea (1365845) | about 3 years ago | (#37735354)

Well, I'm sorry if it's getting old to you, but if you want to complain to anybody, complain to the corporations who engaged in this particular marketing practice. Because this marketing practice was used, we can never be certain if a positive comment about ANY corporation is legitimate or not. Pointing out this uncertainty may be tiresome to you, but the rest of us need to be reminded of it from time to time. There's no point in trying to kill the messenger; if you're going to get angry at anyone, get angry at the corporations who created this uncertainty by using this marketing tactic.

Just dont screw up the drivers!!! (2)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37732644)

I use to use the Nvidia Stereo driver for Microsoft Flight Sim occassionally and they were nothing but a royal PAIN. You had to match the 3D Stereo driver version to the main graphics driver version, but they only put out the Stereo driver for a select few versions. So if there was a bug with your graphics card or a particular game on the lastest compatible main driver you were stuck with that main driver for ages (like a year or more). You could upgrade the driver but if you did you lost the 3D. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. In the end it wasn't worth it and I gave up.

Re:Just dont screw up the drivers!!! (3, Interesting)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | about 3 years ago | (#37732798)

They've very much fixed that issue. The integrated driver packs now upgrade everything properly. I haven't had driver issues in over a year with my first-gen 3d vision stuff. Very much looking forward to this new kit. The 27" monitor will also be a great improvement.

Re:Just dont screw up the drivers!!! (1)

djscoumoune (1731422) | about 3 years ago | (#37733512)

They didn't fix it they just removed support for the stereo drivers. You can't use Elsa3d anymore (active glasses, 10$ or less on ebay) with a geforce 7 and newer like you used to be able to on previous graphic cards. So now you have to buy the full price Nvidia glasses if you want 3d.

Re:Just dont screw up the drivers!!! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37733158)

I've used nVidia's shutter glasses mode, and it's not an experience I'd like to repeat. First you need to carefully calibrate it for the distance that you sit from the screen, otherwise you get a 3D image but the depth just looks weird and wrong. Then you need to make sure you don't move your head very much, or you get weird distortions. And then you're left feeling motion sick after about 5 minutes, because you're getting some of the depth cues that your brain expects, but not others.

Re:Just dont screw up the drivers!!! (1)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | about 3 years ago | (#37733792)

I've never had that experience with the nvidia hardware. "Carefully calibrate the distance"? sounds like the description of parallax filter montiors that I've read.

Re:Just dont screw up the drivers!!! (1)

strack (1051390) | about 3 years ago | (#37736534)

your talking out your ass. you can adjust the depth of the effect, but its hardly like its unplayable if its not set 'correctly', and theres certainly no need to be careful in setting it. nvidia have presets for all major games anyway. and those distortions are much less of a problem than you make out. and getting motion sick? i had no problem. but then, i dont get motion sick, most of us have no problems at all. and team fortress 2 in 3d is fucking awesome. especially if your meeleeing. ive noticed that you have a better comprehension of where other players are in close quarters combat. and it just looks spectacular.

Re:Just dont screw up the drivers!!! (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 3 years ago | (#37738996)

Was it one of their early shutter-glasses implementations, or the newer "3D Vision" stuff.

Early shutter-glasses implementations were often card-manufacturer-specific, used 60Hz monitors (reducing per-eye refresh to 30 Hz), and were driver hell.

3D Vision is, based on all I've read, majorly improved. The only reason I haven't tried it is due to the lack of 3D Vision-capable monitors - I'm NOT dropping to a 20-22" monitor for 3D! It looks like supposedly monitor selection is improved, but it bothers me that the list of compatible monitors didn't change for at least three years.

LightBoost (2)

jadin (65295) | about 3 years ago | (#37732230)

Hey movie studios! You need LightBoost on your 3D movies!

I'm tired of the dark screens, and I'm boycotting 3D until you do something about it.

Re:LightBoost (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732404)

Hey movie studios! You need LightBoost on your 3D movies!

I'm tired of the dark screens, and I'm boycotting 3D until you do something about it.

Welcome to post process 3d

moves that use 3d cameras suffer FARE less light loss as 3d post process involves then making background img darker to force the prospective.

Pro tip. Make sure the move use’s 3d camera research via rotten tomatoes or Google the movie if its post process go see the non 3d as the 3d WILL sux.

Re:LightBoost (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732504)

What? No.

It's due to the absorption of light by the 3D (polarising) glasses.
It *can* be combated by using a brighter bulb for the projector.

Or... the whole 3D film fad could just die a deserved death, again.

Re:LightBoost (2)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37732594)

The problem with 3D is that it's seen as a profit maker rather than as a means of making a better film. Post process 3D just makes it even worse by causing problems with quality. It does work with animated films in most cases, but trying to post process films usually doesn't work very well. THX 1138 would probably work well.

Personally, I won't go to a 3D film if it wasn't shot in 3D, and often even if it was I won't got because it's expensive and 3D offers very little over the natural 3D that comes from a well shot film interpreted by the mind.

Re:LightBoost (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#37732606)

Can I say a hearty "yes please!" to the whole die thing? I'm old enough to remember the last TWO times this crap went around, late 70s-mid 80s for movies and late 90s for games and you know what? It still really sucks because you get one guy, if you are lucky two, that has ANY idea what to do with it, the rest make "Dr Tongue's 3D House Of Pancakes" just like every hack has done since the first spin in the 1950s.

This of course doesn't count the fact there is a huge number of people for whom it either doesn't work or if it does it gives them a skull splitting headache. Then add in the high cost of glasses, the darker picture, and its just....its bad. We've had exactly ONE film where a director actually knew how to use it, while the others put out schlock.

So I for one hope it dies again so maybe we can come up with something better, such as 60 FPS becoming the standard or new ultra high definition cameras. Lets be honest folks, there just aren't that many places and stories where you want shit to jump out at you and that is all the fake 3D is really good at, the classic "Boo!" shit jumps out at you.

Re:LightBoost (1)

garyoa1 (2067072) | about 3 years ago | (#37732744)

Actually it first appeared in the 50's, not the 70's. Sucked then, sucks now. Nothing's changed. At all.

Re:LightBoost (1)

aix tom (902140) | about 3 years ago | (#37733162)

And it was experimented with even earlier. Anaglyph red/green was done since 1915 a few times. A "shutter glass" type system (Teleview) was done in 1922, although only one movie (The Man From M.A.R.S.) [wikipedia.org] was filmed and shown using that technology.

When one sees that all OTHER advancements (sound, colour) to the moving picture became a success quite fast, in a couple of years at last, even though they were not perfect in the beginning, 3D seems to go nowhere big even 100 years after it started.

Re:LightBoost (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about 3 years ago | (#37736452)

This is because its not 3d. Its stereo for eyes and all that it implies.

I don't go to movies that are in 3d anymore. I wait for the DVD/BluRay.

Re:LightBoost (1)

yodleboy (982200) | about 3 years ago | (#37734258)

seriously? you cannot compare modern 3d to some lame ass crap from 40+ years ago. red/blue glasses, yes it sucked and looks nothing like current 3d. jesus, it's like impossible for some people to accept there have been improvements. every time there's a post here about 3d, guys come out of the woodwork like the 3d monster ate your dog. Just because you saw a couple of movies with jabby things coming out at you doesn't mean every movie does that. I hear all the time about how Avatar did it "right" too bad it was an abysmal bore and a great example of cinematic wanking. It was the cinematic equivalent of an Yngwie Malmsteen song. A whole lot of widdly widdly widdly that goes nowhere fast.

If you don't like 3d or get a headache, great, you have the right not to go see movies in 3d. The fact that it's not for you does not invalidate the technology or reduce the appeal of 3d to a very large number of paying customers. 3d is probably more appealing and understandable to the average movie-goer than something like 60fps or ultra-mega-super hi rez. These are the same people that buy an HD tv then run it @ 480p and rave about the picture quality. They don't CARE, and they outnumber the people that do care by a large enough margin to matter.

Re:LightBoost (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#37734886)

Sure we can and here is why: while the TECH has gotten better the DIRECTORS have not. Like I said we have ONE, count 'em ONE, director that has shown so far that he has a real grasp of the medium and what does HE say about it? That its a fad and that 60 FPS is the way to go. Don't believe me, feel free to Google Cameron on 60 FPS VS 3D and read it in his own words.

The simple fact is this friend, no matter HOW good the tech is in the end the ONLY thing the fake 3D really excels at is the classic "boo!" shit jumps out at you, and how many times is that gonna be really integral or even needed in a story? So instead you get "Dr Tongue's 3D House Of Pancakes" where they write the scenes to the tech instead of the other way around and you know what? It sucks. It sucked in the old days, it sucks now. Hell you and I both know the ONLY reason they are really pushing it is they can make more at the theater and they hope 3D will be an anti-piracy protection, even Cameron admits that.

so I'm sorry friend but its not the directors asking for this tech, its the money men. And when you are talking about art having the suits dictate the direction is a BAD idea any way you slice it. don't get mad at me if you spent crazy money on some giant 3D home cinema and are now worried your investment is gonna be a fad. hey at least it ought to have a clear picture huh?

Re:LightBoost (1)

strack (1051390) | about 3 years ago | (#37736594)

you do realise you can have 60 fps and 3d at the same time right? and avatar pretty much disproved that 3d is only good at the stuff jumping out at you sort of thing. and when the best argument you have against something is that directors are stupid with it cause its new and something about corporations, your not doing too well. its here to stay, and its another tool, that when used intelligently does add to the film. imho. and anyway, it fucking rules for computer games. imho.

Re:LightBoost (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 years ago | (#37736642)

and avatar pretty much disproved that 3d is only good at the stuff

That would be the ONE, count 'em ONE director he referred to.

you do realise you can have 60 fps and 3d at the same time right?

Only if you substantially increase the bandwidth of your setup and the capacity of the media. A lot of hardware can manage one or the other, not both at once.

Re:LightBoost (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37737170)

Yep, time to go back to B & W silent films. Don't need any of that fancy "color" or "talking" in movies.

Re:LightBoost (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#37766050)

And do you see ANY directors using sound as an effect? Or color? That would be a NO. As I said we have ONE, count 'em ONE director that has ANY real grasp of the medium. How many 3D movies have come out now that were variations on the "Boo!" shit jumps out at you?

Again it takes incredible skill to use this medium for ANYTHING that isn't "boo!" and lets be honest friend: If they haven't gotten it in 50+ years? They probably won't get it ever. Even a hack director can make a beautiful scene with vivid color or rich sound, but 3D ends up being used as a gimmick because most directors don't have any use for it and again its the MONEY MEN who tell the director "your new flick? Better be 3D buddy" and NOT the director saying "I could make this better if I had 3D". and THAT is just a bad way to go friend, any way you slice it.

And when the ONE, count 'em ONE, director who has ANY real skills with the medium says its a cheap gimmick and would prefer the resources be spent on 60FPS instead? That doesn't really give one faith in the medium, now does it? But don't take MY word for it, Google it yourself and see what Cameron says on the subject.

Re:LightBoost (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37737156)

"Dr Tongue's 3D House Of Pancakes"
Now I'm hungry.

Re:LightBoost (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37733182)

Is there a new thing where you capitalise your spelling mistakes as some kind of ironic statement? I've seen this ALOT (but not that alot [blogspot.com] ) recently.

Re:LightBoost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732710)

Did you know that 3D projectors actually have a higher lumen output than 2D-only projectors specifically because they realized that only allowing approximately half does make the image darker which could be problematic?

Did you know that those same 3D projectors are still used for 2D movies?

If you answered 'yes' to both, do you perhaps now realize that all 3D movies are going to appear darker than their 2D counterpart because they can't break the laws of physics?
Perhaps they should add a filter when playing 2D movies so that they don't appear quite so bright anymore.

Compare 2D movies now to those prior to the current 3D fad and you'll find that, on average, they used to be much darker.

In essence, you should be thankful for 3D for giving you a brighter picture when enjoying 2D movies.
You can still piss on the 3D aspect if you want.

Re:LightBoost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37733308)

Hey crackhead mods!

An acerbic post offering an opinion you don't agree with doesn't equate to "troll."

I'm tired of the brain-dead mods, and I'm boycotting non-coward postings until you do something about it.

question:specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732380)

Anyone have an idea on the specs of the other 2 monitors that support this? (not the asus.. I don't want a 27 inch monitor that only does 1900 resolution width)

Acer HN274HB or
  BenQ XL2420T ?

I am most interest in their screen size/ resolution... and how fat their bezels are for a multi setup.

Re:question:specs? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37732642)

Refresh rate is going to be really important. At 30fps with normal technology you're looking at 33 milliseconds or so just for the frame to be onscreen. When you move to a system that has to display 2 images during that time frame, you have to more than halve the refresh rate as you have to potentially change from black to white and then white to black and still have time for the image to be up long enough for you to observe it before the next one comes down the pipe on the other eye.

Beyond that you're also having to worry about the fact that the receptors in the eye only retain the signal for a fixed period of time before they go back to registering the black imagine represented by a closed shutter. IIRC the projectors they use in theaters actually show the same frame twice, very quickly, before showing the next one.

In other words, the refresh rate is the main issue, but you do also have to worry a bit about the amount of light as the glasses will block some of it even when open.

Create Open3D so that all makers are in (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 3 years ago | (#37732446)

Create Open3D so that all makers are in.

Now competition is killing itself.

The 3D market is very close to a halt, for movies/gaming.

There really needs to be a larger base that nVidia plying with their own tool. HANDS ON THE BED!

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (3, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 3 years ago | (#37732480)

Create Open3D so that all makers are in.

They already have that. It is called OpenGL [opengl.org]

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37732654)

I'm pretty sure the GP doesn't mean OpenGL or DirectX, he means some sort of standard API for shutter glasses.

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (2)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about 3 years ago | (#37733180)

Actually, OpenGL was designed with that in mind. It allows you to render to separate left and right colour buffers. That's the only thing an API really needs to support stereoscopy.

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (1)

makomk (752139) | about 3 years ago | (#37733944)

I think NVidia 3D Vision uses some proprietary API instead, though.

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (2)

Xavier_OM (992680) | about 3 years ago | (#37736558)

There is no support for stereo in Direct3D, so NVidia exposes its own api to do that (ATI too).

Basically you put a double image in the main buffer, with an additional line containing some parameters, and they take care of displaying that correctly.
OpenGL has a standard mechanism to do that, named quad buffering, but ATI and NVidia enable it in their professional cards only.

So you can have standard stereo-vision in OpenGL using 3d vision glasses, if you have a Quadro card it works well (and no need to be fullscreen contrary to their direct3d solution). If you have a GeForce you cannot do it (or maybe you can if you tweak a firmware in order to pretend to be a Quadro).

Only Microsoft can decide to add stereo vision in direct3d, but if they do it I am not sure NVidia and ATI will like it...

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 years ago | (#37733014)

Why so ATI can fuck it up like they always do?

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (2)

skids (119237) | about 3 years ago | (#37732836)

It's really absurd the level to which the vendors have hosed shutter glasses scene up. I'm a veteran of many compatibility horror scenes, and this one is truly up there with some of the best. There are tens of flavors of glasses protocols, and many "universal" glasses that don't even have manual tuning options, which you will need, because even if the protocol works, the actual lens timings that result will be off from where they really need to be. Meanwhile lots of consumers are sitting around watching ghost-riddled images thinking they just bought a crummy TV, when many of the TVs are just fine if used with properly tuned glasses. Not to mention for the few guests you may have who just cannot abide 3D, I haven't even seen a pair that will allow them to watch one-eye.

Anyway I decided at the beginning of the whole thing that I was not going to give any of the TV manufactures any money for their lock-in technology, and would stick to universal offerings. Right now I'm biding my time to see how the (eventually to be released) XPAND X104s stack up against the BitCauldron -based universal IR-to-RF gear. Both of those at least you can tune. Meanwhile I've had to hack a JP-1 remote control and a phototransistor to translate from my TV's protocol to another protocol so that my cheapo universal glasses use the right duty cycle for my set, since they don't when set to the "correct" protocol. Go figure.

Color me skeptical when I see news articles about vendors cooperating to develop a standard -- my guess is they'll manufacture products that actually use it for about a year, then go back to creating more churn to suck the dollars out of our pockets.

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (2)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | about 3 years ago | (#37733738)

True enough.
I have to give Nvidia credit, though - They and they alone brought us 120hz LCDs.
Before that, if you wanted *anything* over 60hz, you had to go with a smallish screen. Now? 1920x1080 monitors with 120hz!
I have one, and I really like it. It makes lots of stuff feel smoother, including the mouse cursor.

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | about 3 years ago | (#37733742)

Note about my previous post:
I *do not* have 3d glasses for it. Just the monitor. I won't get 3d glasses until Nvidia decides to support them on Linux with GeForce cards.

Re:Create Open3D so that all makers are in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37744152)

does nvidia have ANYTHING todo with LCDs at +120Hz?!

Sounds like Samsung et al.

Any link?

give me clips. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732454)

I don't want to get contacts just to watch 3d shit.

NVIDIA to publish press releases directly on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732674)

Is this just a copy-paste from an NVIDIA ad or press release? It certainly sounds like one. Does the ./ digest need so many buzzwords and insipid details (I am so enthralled to know that the lenses are 20%, not 19%, larger)

Does anyone own the original glasses? (1)

MindPhlux (304416) | about 3 years ago | (#37732732)

I've sort of been thinking about giving them a try - I already have a 120hz monitor (Samsung 2233rz, which is awesome. 120hz is so nice) so it wouldn't require that much effort. But, I don't know, when I saw this press release I didn't really understand how it was that much better. Is brightness a huge problem with the original glasses?

Also, how is the 3d effect in general? Even worth it? Last 3d thing I owned was the (lol) iglasses in like 1996, with an amazing resolution of like 320x200 or something ridiculous. it was fucking horrible. =/

Re:Does anyone own the original glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732814)

I have an acer h5360 (projector) w/ some nvidia glasses and have played Metro 2033, Portal 2/TF2, and Just Cause 2. I think its best point is adding depth to character models (over immersing you in the environment). I wouldn't say it revolutionizes gaming, but if you like the 3d effect in movies and have some extra cash to blow it's not a bad purchase.

Re:Does anyone own the original glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37733244)

I just got an Acer hn274h - basically a 27 without the new 3dvision 2 setup.. but so far, 3d vision is pretty awesome. The monitor itself is nice. Since you already have a 120hz monitor Its likely worth it to grab the glasses. If your into gaming at all, most of the AA titles are pretty awesome. Even going back to some older games is fun, since its almost like a new experience. 1920x1080 using 3d vision is great as long as your video card can do it. I've played around with a few flight sim games, but the arcade flight sim game hawx2 is just stunning using 3d vision.

Re:Does anyone own the original glasses? (1)

Z8 (1602647) | about 3 years ago | (#37734866)

Also, how is the 3d effect in general? Even worth it? Last 3d thing I owned was the (lol) iglasses in like 1996, with an amazing resolution of like 320x200 or something ridiculous. it was fucking horrible. =/

My current computer has version 1 of the Nvidia 3D vision. I only used it a few days for novelty's sake and have no intention of using it again. Here are my reasons:

  • 1. Most importantly, bad eyestrain. I can handle 3D movies, but 3D on a monitor is much "worse" because it is only 2 feet away from your head. I think I get a headache because my eyes are trying to focus on something far away (e.g. binocular angle) and close up (lens focusing) simultaneously. I don't see any way of fixing this; it's just the nature of the technology.
  • 2. I already wear glasses, so wearing the Nvidia 3D glasses over my current glasses isn't very comfortable. These new glasses are supposed to be lighter so that might help.
  • 3. Finally, I had no problems getting immersed in traditional non-stereoscopic 3D games. Sure, if you go back and forth, then for the first 3 minutes the 3D games will seem awesome and traditional displays will seem lacking, but your brain quickly compensates. Once someone has been playing a game 15 minutes, I think the 3D and non-3D experience is basically identical, and the gamer is thinking about the art design, gameplay, etc. For the same reason better graphics haven't made games for fun in the last 3 years (for me), neither did the 3D glasses.

Anyway, above are my experiences with 3D gaming, and why I won't be doing any more of it. However, all my reasons are pretty specific to me. The stuff does work pretty much as advertised and it's probably a good product for some people.

Re:Does anyone own the original glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37739738)

I have it and love it. Your Samsung is 3D ready, you'd just need to be sure you have a proper Nvidia graphics card. Make sure you go high end because your FPS gets reduced by half. I'm using a pair of GTX560ti cards in SLI and can run most games at high settings in 3D

Battlefield Bad Company 2 is awesome in 3D, and I love playing WoW in 3D. For Metro 2033 I have to pull back on the AA in order to get 60FPS consistently, but the 3D is great in that game, too.

wow (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37732750)

20% larger glasses, pushing vaporware monitors, and boosting gama, dont hurt yourself nvidia

Re:wow (1)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | about 3 years ago | (#37732806)

what do you mean by "Vaporware"? 3d LCDs for shutter glasses have been around for a while. Just because this isn't on shelves today (near as I can find) doesn't make it "vaporware".

Don't strain your shift key finger there, genius.

Re:wow (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37732914)

"Just because this isn't on shelves today (near as I can find) doesn't make it "vaporware"."

um yea it does

"Don't strain your shift key finger there, genius."

my hand is a little tired from flipping off all the english majors who think random comments on slashdot are graded, and anything below an a+ is grounds for execution.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37733288)

um yea it does

No, it doesn't. 3D Vision 2 was just announced. Vaporware is something that you don't expect to ever actually materialize. 3D Vision 1 monitors do exist, aren't hard at all at find, and if that's any indication then 3D Vision 2 is certainly not vaporware.

ney sayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732792)

all the arguments against sound like the arguments against sound on movies and color on movies.
Where many find no advantage on 3D I like to watch 2D movies as much as I like to watch black and white movies.
I have no headaches.

Rainbow Dash approves (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37732824)

If the 80's taught us anything about glasses, it's that 20% larger is 20% COOLER.

No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37733462)

Spending allot of money for headaches, blurriness, technical nuisances and annoyances is not something i like to spend considerable amounts of cash on.

Image quality secondary to the experience (1)

khraz (979373) | about 3 years ago | (#37733936)

Eh, all 120HZ monitors are TN displays, and by now I'm kinda spoiled by MVA and IPS...

Re:Image quality secondary to the experience (1)

strack (1051390) | about 3 years ago | (#37736898)

the better blacks of a ips display dont matter so much in this case cause the darkness of the shutter glasses pulls the tn black levels down. at least when you have them on. and i hear that since ips displays have a longer pixel switching time they cant really be used for 120hz. can someone confirm that?

Re:Image quality secondary to the experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37743998)

An IPS display doesn't necessarily have better blacks. It has far wider and more stable viewing angles as well as better color reproduction overall. TNs have come a long way in that regard, but IPS is still better.

As far as refresh rates, that's why all 120hz LCD displays. IPS, with the new 6-bit displays is probably only good out to around 75hz.

I don't understand the inflated prices (1)

thephilcontinuum (1005841) | about 3 years ago | (#37734376)

7 or 8 years ago, flicker glases went for under $25, all you needed was a relatively high refresh CRT and current gfx card like the geforce fx 5500. The glasses haven't really changed as far as I can work out, except in that the prices have been hyper inflated and there are claims that something is new. I'm not sure that an infrared strobe, a suitable sensor, a rechargeable battery and a couple of transistors warrant the extra $100+ .... oh right, fools and their money....of course... nevermind, nothing to read here, move along...

Re:I don't understand the inflated prices (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 3 years ago | (#37739042)

They reduced the on/off transition times significantly - not an easy thing to do.

Re:I don't understand the inflated prices (1)

thephilcontinuum (1005841) | about 3 years ago | (#37804778)

the recommended monitor refresh was 100hz or above even back then, so I really don't know for certain that any significant improvement has been made to the glasses in that respect, as we are only at 120hz for most flicker systems. Sure monitors have improved, but the glasses, really? I'm not convinced.

http://www.3dmovies.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37734566)

3dmovies rock!

Compatible with OpenGL for Nvidia GTX cards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37734812)

The most annoying thing about 3D visions is that it basically doesn't work with OpenGL on the latest Nvidia GTX cards. I just got an expensive 3D laptop for the sole purpose of displaying OpenGL simulations with 3D vision, and was very disappointed to find out that OpenGL does not support 3D vision. For some reason it works great with Directx, but OpenGL doesn't recognize the pixel format for stereo 3D with 3D vision. I hope OpenGL and Nvidia can get together and fix this problem for 3D vision 2.

That's Just Great (1)

John Sokol (109591) | about 3 years ago | (#37735420)

You know how it rains after you wash your car.

Well yesterday me and a friend went on a 3D shopping spree at Fry's yesterday. Were going to set serious about 3D.

I bought an LG W2363D 3D monitor, a GeForce GTS450 Graphics Card and the 3D Vision Glasses Kit.
Now 24 hours later, it's obsolete!! NVidia come out with the Next Generation.

I also a second 3DS for my youngest, at least that's not obsolete yet...

My friend Will also bought the ASUS Laptop with the NVidia 3D built in yesterday as well.

You have two weeks (1)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | about 3 years ago | (#37735926)

Fry's Electronics Retail Store Return/Exchange Privileges

1. For a refund or exchange, most products may be returned within 30 days of original purchase date. Some other products, such as notebook computers, netbooks, tablets and iPads, desktop computers, monitors, MP3 players and iPods, memory, microprocessors, motherboards, network-attached storage, CD and DVD recorders, camcorders, digital cameras, projectors, and air conditioners (IF UNUSED) may be returned within 15 days of original purchase date.

Re:That's Just Great (1)

ledow (319597) | about 3 years ago | (#37736844)

I think you need to look up the word "obsolete".

Your kit is still in use, still being sold, still works, still generally available. It just isn't the latest-greatest thing. It's like saying that last week's NVidia drivers are "obsolete". No, they're not. They're just not the latest version. They are obsolete when you start having problems obtaining or using them.

Also - so what? You bought it knowing what it was, what it could do and what games it runs on etc. That hasn't changed one single iota since you bought it. You still have what you bought.

Re:That's Just Great (1)

cbope (130292) | about 3 years ago | (#37737256)

Please, take your logical replies elsewhere, you're distracting all the ADD/ADHD types here.

Re:That's Just Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37744406)

Of course it's not "obsolete" just because a new version came out! That would be silly.

No, it's obsolescent, is what it is.

Nvidia 3d glasses used to be worse than others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37736434)

Compared with Sony, Samsung and Panasonic active shutters, Nvidia 3D vision is over-priced, heavier, not comfortable, with poor light through-put (very dark), and they also use very complicated control protocol which makes it very difficult for other TV manufacturers to adopt 3D Vision in 3D TV products. In stead, most TV 3D manufacturers work with a much better technology provider - RealD, or they simply develop their own.

Nvidia needs to get out of the box and understands that their active shutter is way behind other active shutters provided by the early 3D TV adopters. Hopefully this version 2 is something comparable to those top brand 3D TV glasses.

one more thing (1)

strack (1051390) | about 3 years ago | (#37736626)

one thing i would like to see on nvidia shutter glasses are some ir leds, or visible light leds, so you could use a webcam to track your head in space, and adjust the image on the screen so it seems like the object is floating behind the screen and you can move your head around to look at it from different angles, like that demo from johnny chung lee, but in stereoscopic 3d.

Lack of monitors (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | about 3 years ago | (#37736916)

So where are the 120hz, 27" or greater, glossy monitors?

Re:Lack of monitors (2)

cbope (130292) | about 3 years ago | (#37737244)

Well, if they are glossy, hopefully at the bottom of a landfill somewhere. Piled right in with 3D glasses...

Why does it only work under Windows 7 then? (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about 3 years ago | (#37743270)

I was using Nvidia's 3d technology in the year 2000 with my Riva TNT 2 card on Windows 95/98.

Suddenly, you have to have Windows 7 to use this fancy new tech, and it has an extremely limited hardware list as well.

Very boring, Nvidia.  Very boring, indeed.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?