Opinions - NVIDIA 3D Vision: ready for prime-time consumption?

Quote:

---

I take a look at NVIDIA's 3D Vision ecosystem and pass judgement.

---

Read more.

i'm sorry but no 3D gaming is not the next step in PC gaming..it's so ****!
apart from the very temporary wow effect of 3D gaming (and i'm talking at least 10% of the wow factoer when you first see HD vs SD) but also the fact that PC gaming is limited to such a small piece of real restate - who would pay £1500 for a 3D capable rig and stick with 23" ?

I tried 3D gaming the other day in micro direct and was so underwhelmed it was pathetic
Give me 27" at 1920x1200 with max settings any time any day

I view 3D gaming with the same level of disdain as 3D movies/TV. Stereoscopy just sucks.

I completely agree with the comments so far. I would take a large 30" screen with a nice 'traditional' perspective projection over a 22" paper-cut-outs-overlaid-over-each-other-effect anyday.

The same applies at the cinema: Imax looks incredibly immersive in traditional '2D' (wasn't perspective projection touted as '3D' back in the day?:rolleyes:)

The important question, which no one is asking, is:

"What does... adult material... look like in 3d?"

If Nvidia had the nuts to mount a massive advertising campaign based around that issue, they'd all soon be richer than Bill Gates.

^ Already covered by Gizmo almost 1.5 years ago (apparently NSFW, so I'll let look it up yourself ;)).
I do my PC gaming on a larger estate than most, and with 3D projectors already here, and more on the way, it's hardly an excuse to diss 3D.
Fine if you don't like 3D in the first place. But this is not the only critic warming up to the idea: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2703/5

If I wanted endless headaches and eye aches, I'd get married and start welding without a face shield.

As a glasses wearer (and no I won't put in contact lenses every time I want to game or watch a film) I find the idea of wearing 3D glasses stupid, they don't sit over my glasses properly and the edges of the film/game always look fuzzy and I can see the rims because they are sitting further off my face.

Nevermind the fact that in order to be "immersive" I need massive screens, stupid powerful graphics etc

Normally new tech and things excites me, but 3D is a big "meh" as far as I'm concerned, I just don't see if becoming standard in it's current form, the technology just isn't good enough, it will remain niche.

I'd rather they focussed on making bigger, higher resolution screens for a lower price and on broadcast technology to match. When I can buy ~50" screens, 3840x2160 pixels for <£1000 and watch a broadcast with resolution to match, then I'll be much more interested/excited than I am in stupid 3D...

Just one point of correction on the article. If you want to play 2D Blu -ray using Cyberlink's latest software you will need a monitor that is fully HDCP compliant at 120HZ. Quite a few 3D screens now on sale do not comply and the only way you can play 2D Blu-Ray is to reset the monitor at 60HZ. This is a pain which Cyberlink have not been able to resolve as yet.
The Asus GD 245HD I am now using has no problems but 3D screens like the Samsung SyncMaster 2233 do not have HDCP compliancy for Cyberlink Power DVD 10 Ultra in 2D Blu-ray.

Eh? The Samsung SM 2233 does indeed have HDCP support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aidanjt

If I wanted endless headaches and eye aches, I'd get married and start welding without a face shield.

---

I wonder what % of people are affected by headaches/eye aches (and over what period of time). I know I can do at least two hours (never tried longer) without any of those symptoms, but it would be silly to generalise my experience (and vice-versa). And I have a handful of friends who suffers from those symptoms just from playing FPS. The effect went away for everyone who persisted, but some simply decided it wasn't worth trying (fair enough).

It might be that the same applies here, and fair enough if you don't want to give it a shot, you'll be saving money as well as the technology doesn't become mainstream/integrated with every unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle

As a glasses wearer (and no I won't put in contact lenses every time I want to game or watch a film) I find the idea of wearing 3D glasses stupid, they don't sit over my glasses properly and the edges of the film/game always look fuzzy and I can see the rims because they are sitting further off my face.

Nevermind the fact that in order to be "immersive" I need massive screens, stupid powerful graphics etc

Normally new tech and things excites me, but 3D is a big "meh" as far as I'm concerned, I just don't see if becoming standard in it's current form, the technology just isn't good enough, it will remain niche.

I'd rather they focussed on making bigger, higher resolution screens for a lower price and on broadcast technology to match. When I can buy ~50" screens, 3840x2160 pixels for <£1000 and watch a broadcast with resolution to match, then I'll be much more interested/excited than I am in stupid 3D...

---

On the point of glasses, I would be really surprised if they design a glasses that doesn't overcome the issues you've mentioned.

The point you make on immersion also comes to me across as a cop out (to diss 3D). Immersion is not 'on' or 'off', merely 'more' or 'less' (at least for the moment). "Stupid powerful graphics" is an issue (I am not willing to pay £600 on GFX card either, though I would not append 'stupid' on everything that doesn't suit me), but then you go on about talking about QFHD resolutions which would also require a monstrous amount of GPU power.

I suppose that what bothers me somewhat is how negative people can sometime be about new technology simply because it doesn't suit their needs/budget. It's not enough to simply say "This is not for me", "It's too expensive" etc. Granted, some technology never grow beyond a very niche market (e.g. DVD-A, SACD), yet others, such as HD, had it's share of nay-sayers (especially 1080p). How about just wait and see? AFAIK, 3D has done alright on the big screens (i.e. cinema), so I wouldn't consider such a bad bet anyway.

Sorry aidjant, you are misinformed about the Samsung and its ability to handle Cyberlink 2D Blu-Ray. It is a 120Hz monitor but if you run Cyberlink's BluRay compatibility check you will see it is not HDCP compliant for Blu-Ray it only works if you reset the monitor to 60 HZ. I should know. I have both the Samsung and the Asus screens and have been in contact with Cyberlink's tech people over the last 6 months. They refuse to admit the problem but Samsung will also confirm this point if you were to ask them as I have done. This same point has cropped up on other forums particularly in the USA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigertop1

Sorry aidjant, you are misinformed about the Samsung and its ability to handle Cyberlink 2D Blu-Ray. It is a 120Hz monitor but if you run Cyberlink's BluRay compatibility check you will see it is not HDCP compliant for Blu-Ray it only works if you reset the monitor to 60 HZ. I should know. I have both the Samsung and the Asus screens and have been in contact with Cyberlink's tech people over the last 6 months. They refuse to admit the problem but Samsung will also confirm this point if you were to ask them as I have done. This same point has cropped up on other forums particularly in the USA

---

Cyberlink crapware doesn't negate the fact that the monitor has HDCP support. I suggest you seek a refund and get Bluray playback software which isn't useless.