bit-tech.net

Nvidia Talks 3D Vision

Comments 26 to 46 of 46

Reply
Scroome 24th May 2011, 18:30 Quote
You know what I find interesting? So far over all this talk of 3D technology, you have the people who are totally against the tech and then there are those who love it and say to those who don't to "just conform". What I would say, is that this is a perfect example of corporate tactics to make people buy something new and potentially expensive to keep them going to the next shiny and possibly pointless feature that they think people need.

The first time they tried to release 3D, it failed fairly well. Why? Well I'm sure there were plenty of reasons that it didn't succeed, but primarly people didn't want it. One reason for this is possibly that people weren't so easily moulded by corporations into thinking that they needed this to surive (of course limits in tech were probably a main factor also). Fast forward to 2011 and personally, I think people are far more open to suggestive influence from corporate PR. With the internet and this constant "you need to conform to everyone else" attitude it makes things so much easier for people to sell you things you don't really need.

Look at the way they're handling 3D at the moment. They know it's not exactly popular with the masses for the second time, and yes, selling it to them again is proving not as easy as they would have originally hoped, but here's the thing. This isn't the 80's anymore and corporations have spent a lot of time and money on PR. They've become patient. They know that 3D isn't the shining glory that they would want people to believe. Instead, they try a different tactic, they herd the sheep at a more digestable rate.

3D comes out firstly in movies, then T.V and games. People at first have the option of watching either the 3D version or 2D version, so the option is there. Over time 3D becomes pretty much the mainstream for new movie releases at the cinema, which then reflects on to Blu-rays and of course television sets. Entertainment reaches a stage where all new televisions released are 3D compliant and systems like SKY 3D becomes the standard set they produce. We are all being slowly but surely herded into the 3D pen. Corporations want us to buy this, so this is what we must do.

Sorry, rant over for today. I just hate being told what to buy and watching younger generations being conditioned to love whatever they're told to.
r3loaded 24th May 2011, 18:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroome
*snip*
I blame James Cameron and that nonsense film with the giant Smurfs.
pendragon 24th May 2011, 19:10 Quote
feh, with current implementation of 3D gaming I couldn't care less for it .. now if they could come out with more glasses-free holographic-style gaming.. i might well be interested.. but for now.. i'll save my ca$h and stick to 2D, thanks!
CharlO 24th May 2011, 19:56 Quote
Does Crysis 2 or Avatar have antialising? The quality bar is preety low, just look at this two different points.
OCJunkie 24th May 2011, 20:36 Quote
AMD is doing 3D right by leaving the glasses issue up to the display/manufacturer, while Nvidia is of course taking the proprietary route which is always more expensive for the end user. Seriously, I already think the glases are stupid to begin with, but on top of that they have to be synced up to USB? Come on now.
feathers 24th May 2011, 20:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroome
You know what I find interesting? So far over all this talk of 3D technology, you have the people who are totally against the tech and then there are those who love it and say to those who don't to "just conform". What I would say, is that this is a perfect example of corporate tactics to make people buy something new and potentially expensive to keep them going to the next shiny and possibly pointless feature that they think people need.

The first time they tried to release 3D, it failed fairly well. Why? Well I'm sure there were plenty of reasons that it didn't succeed, but primarly people didn't want it. One reason for this is possibly that people weren't so easily moulded by corporations into thinking that they needed this to surive (of course limits in tech were probably a main factor also). Fast forward to 2011 and personally, I think people are far more open to suggestive influence from corporate PR. With the internet and this constant "you need to conform to everyone else" attitude it makes things so much easier for people to sell you things you don't really need.

Look at the way they're handling 3D at the moment. They know it's not exactly popular with the masses for the second time, and yes, selling it to them again is proving not as easy as they would have originally hoped, but here's the thing. This isn't the 80's anymore and corporations have spent a lot of time and money on PR. They've become patient. They know that 3D isn't the shining glory that they would want people to believe. Instead, they try a different tactic, they herd the sheep at a more digestable rate.

3D comes out firstly in movies, then T.V and games. People at first have the option of watching either the 3D version or 2D version, so the option is there. Over time 3D becomes pretty much the mainstream for new movie releases at the cinema, which then reflects on to Blu-rays and of course television sets. Entertainment reaches a stage where all new televisions released are 3D compliant and systems like SKY 3D becomes the standard set they produce. We are all being slowly but surely herded into the 3D pen. Corporations want us to buy this, so this is what we must do.

Sorry, rant over for today. I just hate being told what to buy and watching younger generations being conditioned to love whatever they're told to.

One read of the comments on this forum and it's easy to understand why new tech sometimes fails. Most of us are born with stereoscopic vision and so it doesn't take a genius to work out that 3d displays are therefore inevitable in the same way 3d sound is. I am guessing there were also people who bitched endlessly when the first surround sound systems were introduced. They'd say things like "it's a fad", "it's a gimmick", "it made me vomit". Why do we have surround sound technology? Because we are born with 3d sound decoding and so 3d audio hardware is thus INEVITABLE. It is no different with stereoscopic tech, it is inevitable.

I see there are many short-sighted people who are very resistant to change especially when change may require them to spend more money. Stereoscopic hardware is not something that has been "tried before and failed", it is something that has been developed steadily over many decades and is now at a stage where it can be mass produced at relatively low cost. For the first time we are seeing HIGH DEFINITION stereoscopic consumer camcorders available. This is not tech that was tried and failed to gain acceptance, it is tech that has finally come of age.

The thing that really shocks me is the level of ignorance I see on places like this. People dismissing something and demonstrating a very poor understanding of the tech and the history of stereoscopic hardware.

I lost count of the number of times people have used the words "fad" and "gimmick" to describe the tech. It just shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge and even of logic. If we were all born with monoscopic vision then you could call stereoscopic tech a gimmick. If you want to call it a gimmick or fad then you might as well show complete stupidity and say the same about stereo and surround audio.
Eiffie 24th May 2011, 21:05 Quote
In other news, laser eye surgery now at an all time low. Got bad eye-sight from staring at a computer all day. Common down! Went blind in one or more of your eye sockets from trying new 3D tech while staring at a computer all day. Common Down! Can't locate our office because your blind? Free seeing eye dogs now come standard with all nvidia 3D tech! Buy now!
jon 24th May 2011, 21:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyd223
3D is coming whether we like it or not - and as it's still early days, it will get better and cheaper over time.

Think I posted that exact line on a dial-up bullettin board 20 years ago about DVD, wireless, (insert tech here)...

So basically, you've just been repeating yourself for 20 years ...

;)
tonyd223 24th May 2011, 21:12 Quote
:-) damn - sussed!
feathers 24th May 2011, 21:12 Quote
Tired of seeing the world in 3d? Simply remove one eye and your problems are solved. Hate pain and worried losing one eye will hurt? Buy an eye patch and you can see the world as nature intended:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/PIRATE-SATIN-BLACK-EYE-PATCH-EYEPATCH-FANCY-DRESS-/290480436859?pt=Adult_Fancy_Dress_UK&hash=item43a1fbb67b
slothy89 25th May 2011, 06:12 Quote
Only good thing I can see about developers pushing the 3D "fad" is that 120hz monitors will become affordable mainstream devices with good quality. 60hz just isn't enough..
The human eye may not be able to fully identify more than 30fps but it sure as hell can notice the difference in fluincy between 60 & 120 fps. You may not be able to see every frame for what it is in it's entirety, but the extra detail is still appreciated.
feathers 25th May 2011, 10:17 Quote
A conspiracy of stupidity. Perhaps you're all part of some secret group whose members have only one usable eye so you bitterly resent the inevitable transition to stereoscopic gaming.
azrael- 25th May 2011, 11:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by slothy89
Only good thing I can see about developers pushing the 3D "fad" is that 120hz monitors will become affordable mainstream devices with good quality. 60hz just isn't enough..
The human eye may not be able to fully identify more than 30fps but it sure as hell can notice the difference in fluincy between 60 & 120 fps. You may not be able to see every frame for what it is in it's entirety, but the extra detail is still appreciated.
My sentiments exactly, which is why I stated as much earlier in this thread. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
A conspiracy of stupidity. Perhaps you're all part of some secret group whose members have only one usable eye so you bitterly resent the inevitable transition to stereoscopic gaming.
So everyone here is stupid, but you. Interesting...

I'm personally convinced that people aren't against "3D" as such. They're just against the crap implementations which manufacturers are trying to push on us.

There's so much else in display technology which should be solved/improved first before pushing this gimmicky 3D effect on us. OLED monitors/tvs come to mind.

"3D" shouldn't be allowed outside the lab before it's equivalent to *exactly* the way that human vision perceives it.
jevy_b 25th May 2011, 12:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
I'm personally convinced that people aren't against "3D" as such. They're just against the crap implementations which manufacturers are trying to push on us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
"3D" shouldn't be allowed outside the lab before it's equivalent to *exactly* the way that human vision perceives it.

This is precisely the problem: 3D technology at the moment is a trick. It's an optical illusion. This isn't how our eyes were supposed to view 3D objects; it's not how we evolved to view the world.

"Of course we want 3D, we have stereoscopic vision, you're talking like 2D images are more natural" - well, the current 3D tech is no more natural. This is why some people don't like watching films in 3D, or are unable to see the 3D effects at all.
feathers 25th May 2011, 13:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
Quote:
Originally Posted by slothy89
Only good thing I can see about developers pushing the 3D "fad" is that 120hz monitors will become affordable mainstream devices with good quality. 60hz just isn't enough..
The human eye may not be able to fully identify more than 30fps but it sure as hell can notice the difference in fluincy between 60 & 120 fps. You may not be able to see every frame for what it is in it's entirety, but the extra detail is still appreciated.
My sentiments exactly, which is why I stated as much earlier in this thread. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
A conspiracy of stupidity. Perhaps you're all part of some secret group whose members have only one usable eye so you bitterly resent the inevitable transition to stereoscopic gaming.
So everyone here is stupid, but you. Interesting...

I'm personally convinced that people aren't against "3D" as such. They're just against the crap implementations which manufacturers are trying to push on us.

There's so much else in display technology which should be solved/improved first before pushing this gimmicky 3D effect on us. OLED monitors/tvs come to mind.

"3D" shouldn't be allowed outside the lab before it's equivalent to *exactly* the way that human vision perceives it.

I see what you're saying, I just think the comments here are too harsh and in many cases misinformed. I've used active shutter 3d since approx 2004 and didn't suffer headaches as a result. Played Doom 3, CSS and many other games in 3d and liked it. It's not perfect (there is some degree of ghosting but not enough to ruin a game). Last year I saw Avatar 3d on the big screen. Again I liked the 3d, didn't cause any headaches nor did I spew on the people in the row in front of me. I think there needs to be a clear standard set for the sake of inter-compatibility. The current situation of competing technologies is confusing and off-putting.

I'm as stupid as anyone else here (it just manifests itself in different ways). We're all dumb in our own way.
Scroome 25th May 2011, 14:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
One read of the comments on this forum and it's easy to understand why new tech sometimes fails. Most of us are born with stereoscopic vision and so it doesn't take a genius to work out that 3d displays are therefore inevitable in the same way 3d sound is. I am guessing there were also people who bitched endlessly when the first surround sound systems were introduced. They'd say things like "it's a fad", "it's a gimmick", "it made me vomit". Why do we have surround sound technology? Because we are born with 3d sound decoding and so 3d audio hardware is thus INEVITABLE. It is no different with stereoscopic tech, it is inevitable.

I see there are many short-sighted people who are very resistant to change especially when change may require them to spend more money. Stereoscopic hardware is not something that has been "tried before and failed", it is something that has been developed steadily over many decades and is now at a stage where it can be mass produced at relatively low cost. For the first time we are seeing HIGH DEFINITION stereoscopic consumer camcorders available. This is not tech that was tried and failed to gain acceptance, it is tech that has finally come of age.

The thing that really shocks me is the level of ignorance I see on places like this. People dismissing something and demonstrating a very poor understanding of the tech and the history of stereoscopic hardware.

I lost count of the number of times people have used the words "fad" and "gimmick" to describe the tech. It just shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge and even of logic. If we were all born with monoscopic vision then you could call stereoscopic tech a gimmick. If you want to call it a gimmick or fad then you might as well show complete stupidity and say the same about stereo and surround audio.

I think you should change your name to Sterioscopic. Six times! ;)

Your response is interesting to read, and I respect to a degree your comments, although I do find some flawed.

Whilst I agree that 3D displays are inevitable, I do not agree with the way they are being introduced to the masses. I'm not arguing with the tech, simply stating on how it's distribution is handled.

There are many examples of technology distribution that I have agreed with without quabble. Your Sound Surround comment for example. Yes we do have the ability to have sound surround in our homes, and have done for some time. The difference being is that after all these years, people still have the option to purchase sound surround or not. Mobile phones are another example. If you choose not to have the latest 8MP camera on your phone or don't really want to make the use of 3/4G, again the option is there.

I don't think the specific reason for developing sound surround was because we were born with as you put it "3D sound decoding". It was a new way of making money from entertainment. I couldn't imagine the R&D section of sony back in the 80's saying "yes, we must make sound surround technology, because human evolution demands it"

To say a number of people on these forums are short sighted and ignorant, is to say the least a little patronising. This is my sole opinion, but I'm guessing that the people who visit this site and forums are in some part, like myself a little geeky when it comes to keeping up with the latest tech. They are people who embrace and review new tech long before it reaches the masses. If on the small chance the majority does end up saying that they really don't want 3D technology and companies listen, would you call them all ignorant because we have to have it due to "being born that way"

Yes, change can be hard to accept, because these days people are trying to get to grips with the last thing that came out. I'm guessing that most T.V's around these days are some way or another HD compliant. Now I'd like to know how many homes are actually watching HD television, and if it is the majority, how long from HD TV's release did it take to get those levels. I'm just saying that people were just getting used to HD and now bam, forget HD....3D is the future. Also, requiring people to "spend more money" for change, might make them feel a little gutted that they may have to so soon, and especially when money is tighter for the majority of people.

I'm not slating or writing off 3D, I was complaining about how it is being handled.
feathers 25th May 2011, 16:24 Quote
I won't argue with your criticism of the way 3d is being implemented now. I bought a couple of flat screen TV's last year and both are HD. Although 3d TV's are now available and the cost is falling, I have no intention of upgrading for a few years. I may purchase a new 3d monitor sometime but have no immediate plans for that.

I disagree with many of the comments here that seem to regard 3d as some sort of scam to make more money. There have been companies experimenting and developing stereoscopic 3d for many decades as well as amateurs who'd sit 2 cameras side by side on a twinning bar and take pictures in 3d. More ambitious were the amateur film makers who mounted 2 video cameras together and then had to synchronise the video. Finally the technology has advanced to the point where we can buy off the shelf HD 3d camcorders. Sony and JVC make them and certainly in the case of the JVC - it is no gimmick or ploy to make money. It's a high quality stereoscopic camcorder with good low light performance. So although pc gamers and console players may regard current 3d as just a gimmick, there have been for many years people who saw it as much more than that.

I don't think 3d should be made compulsory, nor do I think largely misinformed and somewhat resentful people should try to stop the development of 3d tech. Looking at the largely negative and dismissive comments from people here, it appears they have a resentment of anything that might require upgrading of hardware.

Having used 3d for a number of years on and off (at the moment off), I don't identify with the hostility directed at 3d tech. Even when I used it some years ago it was very compelling. If a game didn't work fully in 3d then I simply played it in 2d.

I agree though that a standard needs to be agreed because at the moment everything is rather chaotic. I will wait until things settle down before making any upgrades. I certainly see no reason for the banal hatred of 3d shown by many people here.
Scroome 25th May 2011, 17:17 Quote
Quote:
I disagree with many of the comments here that seem to regard 3d as some sort of scam to make more money.

Agreed. I think to say that 3D is a scam would be a little over dramatic, but I would say (and I think you're probably in agreement) that companies have lauched this ship a little on the early side, probably thinking that HD took off quite well so this is an obvious sales winner. When they realised people,

A) Didn't find it as interesting as HD media
B) Thought, damn it, I've just forked out £500-£1000 for a T.V that isn't compatible

They should have given people a little more time to accept HD as the mainstream form of visual media, and then slowly introduced 3D to people which would would keep their appetites just wet enough to want more in the future.

What I did find interesting, is your mention of 3D camcorders. Now that's an interesting piece of tech.

What I'm waiting for though, is the old news stories to appear about someone in their 80's going to a 3D movie and keeling over thinking the monster was coming for them. Daily Mail or the Sun written all over it!
feathers 25th May 2011, 20:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroome
Quote:
I disagree with many of the comments here that seem to regard 3d as some sort of scam to make more money.

Agreed. I think to say that 3D is a scam would be a little over dramatic, but I would say (and I think you're probably in agreement) that companies have lauched this ship a little on the early side, probably thinking that HD took off quite well so this is an obvious sales winner. When they realised people,

A) Didn't find it as interesting as HD media
B) Thought, damn it, I've just forked out £500-£1000 for a T.V that isn't compatible

They should have given people a little more time to accept HD as the mainstream form of visual media, and then slowly introduced 3D to people which would would keep their appetites just wet enough to want more in the future.

What I did find interesting, is your mention of 3D camcorders. Now that's an interesting piece of tech.

What I'm waiting for though, is the old news stories to appear about someone in their 80's going to a 3D movie and keeling over thinking the monster was coming for them. Daily Mail or the Sun written all over it!

:)

I will be buying a 3d HD camcorder next year probably. I use Sony Vegas for HD video editing and the latest version supports stereoscopic video editing.

It is annoying many people (including myself) invested in big flat screen TV's that are no good for 3d. Ultimately though I'm not too worried because I can setup 3d on PC first and think about TV later. Probably won't be doing it this year though as I want to spend more on guitars.

80 year old man dies at screening of 3d porn flick.
maverik-sg1 27th May 2011, 12:10 Quote
Always an interesting debate this 3d voodoo magic is.

Right now, the technology is in its infancy and it shows, at it's very basic level on the Nintendo DS3D it's ruddy aweful, hurts your eyes, very sensitive to the viewing angle to work properly and sacrifices screen image quality to work.

As others have already said, TV's and monitors are too expensive, the fact that you really need to render two screens of the same thing means that the GPU hardware has to be sufficiently powerful to do this at a min frame rate of 30fps (per eye) and for games that we would like to play in this scenario in HD (BF2, Crysis, 25man raiding in world of warcraft of starcraft pvp) it's a really big ask and the hardware to achieve this is riduculously expensive (SLI graphics card 120hz IPS monitors 3d glasses).

Add to this that in the majority of cases the current implementation of real 3d is nothing short of a novelty value both in films and in games, means you get very little value for such a huge investment..... not to mention the additional power requirements increasing the running costs of the product and long term compatability/driver support of SLI/crossfire products.

So I never say never, but we're seriously a good 4years away (spookily in line with next generation consoles from Sony and Microsoft) from 3d being meaningful in games and probably just as long for films to 'feel' better in 3d when watching films at home.

Right now, the only place where 3d kinda works, is in the cinema and to me thats great, it means I get great value and an immersive experience that makes me want to go to the movies and enjoy a film again.
feathers 28th May 2011, 11:17 Quote
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-049-AC&groupid=17&catid=1851&subcat=

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-091-LG&tool=3

I used to run Nvidia 3d shutter and play doom 3 back when doom 3 wasn't an old game using a single GPU. There are many GPU's now that can run 3d. It's always possible to drop the res a bit since in stereoscopic 3d you can get away with lower resolution to some extent.

I have no experience of nintendo nor do I have any interest. Can't stand those little game devices with children's cartoon character games, so for me the quality of 3d there is meaningless.

Avatar shows that 3d when done right can be very good. I even watched Avatar HD 3d on my computer in the awful anaglyph and the 3d was very impressive. So I conclude there's a lot of bollocks spoken about 3d by people.

3d is not in it's infancy either. It's approaching teenage years hence the slightly confused and chaotic nature of the industry with systems competing and no clear standards set.

Your experience of 3d may be limited to nintendo and a few movies but in actual fact 3d has been researched and developed over many decades. It will continue to develop and improve but even now it is far from being the lame duck many kiddies here at bit tech forum would have us believe.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums