Will The Suits Ruin 3D?

[jamezrp]

With Nvidia's hardware, you have to keep in mind that on the PC the depth can be adjusted. Demos you have tried publicly probably aren't suited for you...they're suited for the last person who complained when a store employee was around to change the depth.

However, if you're watching video, then depth is preset and generally it isn't a problem. For games, yes, I've had problems even at the lowest depth setting. But that's a personal matter, because everyone's eyes are different. You may be able to see more depth than I can without irritation, or perhaps less. It really depends on the person.

 

[skit75]

[citation][nom]trooth[/nom]3D is the new bluray, which was the new DVD etc.It'll be mainstream eventually. As for eyestrian, that is a concern, but I suspect it has more to do with synced lens focusing on the projectors.[/citation]

Ohh man do I hope you are wrong! I don't think your comparison is valid either. Blu-ray brought Hi-Resolution video + multi-channel digital audio which I don't think 1 single person could complain about. 3D just makes me want to vomit and leave the room to be honest. Ask any given person about thier 3D experience and you would get results similar to flipping a coin in the good vs. bad department.

 

[Guest]

You say theatres in the UK all use shutter glasses? I have been to several 3D films in the UK and have only ever used polarised glasses and I'm pretty sure this is the same country wide

 

[gfg]

this is the future, we must only wait

 

[cracklint]

[citation][nom]virtualban[/nom]I am waiting for Virtual Reality helmets or glasses with screens in those and head positioning/angle/etc adjustment for games. That is where I see the future, cost effective and addresses most of the issues. Resolution will slowly reach up.[/citation]

definately; since 3d requires dorky looking glasses at 200 bucks and a 400 dollar 120hz monitor, why not make a complete enclosed display into goggles or a helmet that has the screen, polarized lenses, with accelerometers to use head positions to mimic mouse look. Less materials less cost and overall better experience.

 

[timobkg]

I've tried an IZ3D compatible monitor, with polarized glasses, made by Zalman. On the plus side, I noticed no eye strain in the 5 minutes or so that I used them. On the down side, it was nothing that made me want to go out and buy it. Higher resolution is always better than lower resolution, more AA/AF is always better than less AA/AF. I can see how 3 monitors with Eyefinity are better than 1 monitor. I have yet to see anything to convince me that 3D is better than 2D.

 

[matt314]

[citation][nom]ksampanna[/nom]Watching Avatar in 3D gave me a headache, not because the movie was bad or anything (on the contrary, it was spectacular), but because of the glasses. And that was only for 3 hrs. Gamers play a lot more than that in one stretch. So atleast until a technology comes which allows us to play in 3D for long hours without giving migranes, I'l pass ...[/citation]

Dunno why someone down ranked you. I agree completely, those glasses gave me a terrible headache too during Avatar; I can't imagine playing an FPS with those on :s.

On another subject, I came across a 3D tv in a sony store the other day, and I couldn't actually discern anything in 3D with the glasses on...Maybe I just didn't do something right...Are these tvs supposed to be as good as 3D movies?

 

[Guest]

I think that the raging glasses war thats currently in effect is going to be immaterial in a few years, with toshiba touting their new glasses-less display for use in conjunction with Nintendo 3ds. If Nintendo can really nail this product offer high quality 3d imagery and bring it to the masses for an affordable price then this product alone could be a major game changer. The Nintendo DS has been such a huge success I can't see how this product wont take off with Nintendos clever marketing gurus. Ok so the screen will be small and the graphics wont be excellent but it will be a start. People will realize that 3d isn't just a gimmick and can just pick it up and play without the need of glasses. Nintendo where responsible for a huge percent of non-gamers playing games with the DS and the Wii, lets hope they can do something similar with glasses free 3d!

 

[Von Death]

From what I've seen 3D has to come a long way to win the general public. A lot of consumers still don't buy fully into HD simply because they're not aware of the technical difference between that and SD; they are not interested in looking further than a regular DVD player hooked up to a big TV. It comes down to the consumer's individual technical knowledge on the subject, pricing, and their history of technological upgrades.

Generally speaking, people will buy into fairly low cost technology that exists with a wide user base and offers unique benefits (recently, Netbooks). So when 3D Bluerays are out at a low cost along with HD 3D screens set up and easily viewed at Best Buy and Wallmart, your average Joe will seriously consider it an option.
However they must be convinced that a.) 3D is significantly superior to 2D (which they must decide themselves by comparing) b.) 3D is now the standard and there is no end in sight.

 

[Guest]

Been playing AC2 on my 56' DLP with 3D and it is the best experience I have had playing a campaign. Some people will hate just to hate and if you get headaches I can understand but if your telling me that you had a bad showing with this technology your not doing something right or your playing games that aren't rated that high on the 3D Game list.

I can't wait till game designers come out with more "3D ready" games or compeletely render the game to take full advantage of it.

 

[Zingam]

I've watched a movie in 3D (Avatar) and I have played a game in 3D (some racing game) and I've not been impressed and I don't want more especially if it costs me any money.

 

[Guest]

As long as there are glasses- this will absolutely not succeed. Home viewing for most, unlike at the theaters, is far too much a transitory experience. I watch some tv, I work on my laptop, I watch some tv, I look for my kid, I watch some more I talk with someone.

 

[djab]

[citation][nom]timobkg[/nom]I have yet to see anything to convince me that 3D is better than 2D.[/citation]

Real life.

Real life is in 3D, in high resolution, in colour, with surrounding sound.
Why would people not want to have that for games/movies?


Ok, other real things like odour may not be that great to have in some games/movies ;-)

 

[Guest]

I am not sure why the glass-less technology was not mentioned here. I thought Philips and Toshiba are close to launching their products?

 

[Guest]

Whereas 3D gives only 50% more D, the price should not be more than 50% higher.

 

[Guest]

Just to echo the UK correction, theatres here mostly use polarized, and there are also some (passive) Dolby3D screens. There may be a few shutter screens but they're in the minority.

I also think shutter glasses are a horrible dead end, they're easier on the screen manufacturers right now as they have to do almost nothing to support 3D except provide high enough refresh rates - but everybody else is loosing out. How many families want to pay for 3-5 pairs of expensive glasses that are heavy to wear, and require batteries? Or pay to replace them if they get busted up (which is bound to happen sooner or later)? And while not everybody is sensitive to flicker, quite a few people are - it's just the wrong technology in the long rum. The magic has to happen at the screen, one way or another.

Of course glasses need to be gotten rid of altogether, but until they come up with a good multi-viewer solution, passive glasses like polarized (or Dobly3D, which would be interesting to see in the home as it works brilliantly) are a much better solution.

 

[invlem]

For PC gaming I have nothing against shutter glass technology, since 99% of the time its just a single individual.

For movies however, I think the industry should seriously consider the polarized option... Paying 250$ for each extra individual you want to be able to see the movie in 3D is not an acceptable figure in my opinion, especially considering you can pick up polarized 3D glasses for less than 10$ each online. At least this way you're limiting the initial investment to the 3D TV and not subjecting consumers to a $1000 surcharge just so a 4 person family can enjoy a movie at the same time.

 

[_gl]

Just to echo the UK correction, theatres here mostly use polarized, and there are also some (passive) Dolby3D screens. There may be a few shutter screens but they're in the minority.

I also think shutter glasses are a horrible dead end, they're easier on the screen manufacturers right now as they have to do almost nothing to support 3D except provide high enough refresh rates - but everybody else is loosing out. How many families want to pay for 3-5 pairs of expensive glasses that are heavy to wear, and require batteries? Or pay to replace them if they get busted up (which is bound to happen sooner or later)? And while not everybody is sensitive to flicker, quite a few people are - it's just the wrong technology in the long rum. The magic has to happen at the screen, one way or another.

Of course glasses need to be gotten rid of altogether, but until they come up with a good multi-viewer solution, passive glasses like polarized (or Dobly3D, which would be interesting to see in the home as it works brilliantly) are a much better solution.

 

[scifi9000]

Everyone has to remember that you need a new monitor to run shutter glasses tech anyways (min 120Hz), so if you have to get a new monitor for the 2 technologies, why not got the polerized route (the better one IMHO)... oh I know, coz it doesn't really exist... well, what are you waiting for ATI?

 

[nurn]

I don't think I want rapidly moving parts with batteries parked 1/2 inch away from my retina.