"Stereoscopic 3D still sucks"

[thilanliyan]

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16256

 

[Wreckage]

His biggest complaint is that you have to wear glasses. :roll:

I guess he wants a holodeck.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
His biggest complaint is that you have to wear glasses. :roll:

I guess he wants a holodeck.

You should check out Scott Adam's idea on what will happen when we do in fact have holodecks

While it was an inane amount of complaining about the glasses, it is a valid point (I wear glasses, I wouldn't want to wear glasses over mine) albeit a minor one (I could get contacts I guess? ). At least glasses would look less retarded than a huge helmet inclusive of a visor

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
His biggest complaint is that you have to wear glasses. :roll:

I guess he wants a holodeck.

You say that like its a bad thing

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16256

I'm told it produces excellent image quality, but there are some real barriers of entry here.

Another guy who's never seen it, bashing it. There's an educated opinion.

Oh well, kiosks coming to a retailer near him/you, perhaps after actually experiencing it he'll like it better. (or at least have better reasons why he doesn't like it.)

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16256

I'm told it produces excellent image quality, but there are some real barriers of entry here.

Another guy who's never seen it, bashing it. There's an educated opinion.

Oh well, kiosks coming to a retailer near him/you, perhaps after actually experiencing it he'll like it better. (or at least have better reasons why he doesn't like it.)

Looks like he has tried it (I think the part you quoted is not written well and makes it seem as if he hasn't tried it):
"A kiosk I continually pass by at Fry's Electronics has a monitor tweaked for stereoscopic vision, too. All you have to do is put on these crazy 3D glasses and you, too, can enjoy Hellgate: London (yes, this really is one of the games they demo it with) in stereoscopic, questionable-quality 3D! Given how well it worked, I wouldn't pay five bucks for it, much less three figures."

Do you know which stores in Canada would have a demo? I'd like to see it for myself.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16256

I'm told it produces excellent image quality, but there are some real barriers of entry here.

Another guy who's never seen it, bashing it. There's an educated opinion.

Oh well, kiosks coming to a retailer near him/you, perhaps after actually experiencing it he'll like it better. (or at least have better reasons why he doesn't like it.)

Looks like he has tried it (I think the part you quoted is not written well and makes it seem as if he hasn't tried it):
"A kiosk I continually pass by at Fry's Electronics has a monitor tweaked for stereoscopic vision, too. All you have to do is put on these crazy 3D glasses and you, too, can enjoy Hellgate: London (yes, this really is one of the games they demo it with) in stereoscopic, questionable-quality 3D! Given how well it worked, I wouldn't pay five bucks for it, much less three figures."

Do you know which stores in Canada would have a demo? I'd like to see it for myself.

i agree with this completely .. clearly this guy has seem it and - like me, feels it is in its infancy and unfortunately rather overpriced and imperfect:

My biggest problem with 3D is that, frankly, it's not 3D?just an approximation of it. When you put on the glasses, it just feels like an optical illusion. This is compounded by the fact that for some of us (maybe just me?), there's something of a concerted effort required to get the most out of the experience. It's not one of those things where it just looks perfect from every angle; there are certain ways to look at it that seem better than others. Having my viewing experience of a film or game significantly altered by not looking at it dead on just seems silly to me. And as I said before, after all this trouble, I don't think it looks that good, especially with the coloring, contrast, and brightness problems it can induce.

When demos are specifically created for it, it can be pretty amazing .. but this "approximation" of 3D is pretty accidental; when games are actually created to be 3D, it may well turn out to be awesome

the games i liked best were NWN-style - top down .. they looked consistently good to me

make sure you spend a lot of the time at the kiosk before dropping $600 on it .. and check their return policy if you still have doubts
- in better economic times it would have a better chance imo

i hope it ultimately does succeed .. 3-D is the future .. but perhaps not 3-D glasses at all

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: thilan29
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16256

I'm told it produces excellent image quality, but there are some real barriers of entry here.

Another guy who's never seen it, bashing it. There's an educated opinion.

Oh well, kiosks coming to a retailer near him/you, perhaps after actually experiencing it he'll like it better. (or at least have better reasons why he doesn't like it.)

Looks like he has tried it (I think the part you quoted is not written well and makes it seem as if he hasn't tried it):
"A kiosk I continually pass by at Fry's Electronics has a monitor tweaked for stereoscopic vision, too. All you have to do is put on these crazy 3D glasses and you, too, can enjoy Hellgate: London (yes, this really is one of the games they demo it with) in stereoscopic, questionable-quality 3D! Given how well it worked, I wouldn't pay five bucks for it, much less three figures."

Do you know which stores in Canada would have a demo? I'd like to see it for myself.

I've seen that at Fry's as well, and it is not NVIDIA's 3D thing, but some other company's. That being said, the article wasn't directed at NV specifically. I don't know how the thing at Fry's compares to NV's, but that is pretty much how the author describes it...

 

[apoppin]

correct .. it is a very general article directed at 3D

but generally he is correct about the glasses .. it really hasn't changed that much
- for me i do not get the headaches i got with the earlier glasses

the Nvidia ones were tolerable for me .. and i wore contacts
- my only problem was that i was unable to spend enough time with it to make real conclusions - about long-term comfort ... i went back over and over to try games and demos

 

[AzN]

It didn't quite live up to the potential 7 years ago. Why is Nvidia trying to push this stereoscopic 3d again?

It's one of those things it might be cool for an hour but really it gets in the way of gaming in long term.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

make sure you spend a lot of the time at the kiosk before dropping $600 on it .. and check their return policy if you still have doubts
- in better economic times it would have a better chance imo

i hope it ultimately does succeed .. 3-D is the future .. but perhaps not 3-D glasses at all

OTOH, if $600 isn't a lot of money to you, maybe just buy it, try it, sell it for $100-$200 loss if it turns out you don't like it.

I've dropped a hundy or two on worse things.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: nRollo

OTOH, if $600 isn't a lot of money to you, maybe just buy it, try it, sell it for $100-$200 loss if it turns out you don't like it.

Maybe they can hire you to write their ads?

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wish there was a Fry's near here, I'd like to see 3D first hand.

I still think that the price of this is going to kill it, and more then anything else that's it's biggest negative. The cheapest 22" monitor on TigerDirect is $139.99. They also list a 120Hz 22" monitor combo with the 3D glasses... $599.99. :roll: Not to mention the possible video card upgrades that may be required depending on what you're running currently. Just like the prices Nvidia wanted for the GTX260/GTX280, I think this is just the wrong time to introduce something like this, at least at the price they're asking. Just like the GTX260/GTX280 the price will have to drop for this to take off I think.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Azn
It didn't quite live up to the potential 7 years ago. Why is Nvidia trying to push this stereoscopic 3d again?

It's one of those things it might be cool for an hour but really it gets in the way of gaming in long term.

And yet I've been using it for a month with no intention of stopping, with the best gaming monitor on the planet sitting next to it unused.

So we have your opinion of what you would use when you don't own either tech (25x16 or 3D Vision) and my actual experience and choice when I have both.

It's sort of like if I owned a Ferrari and a Lamborghini and you said "Lamborghinis suck!" and I drove the Lamborghini to work every day.

 

[zerocool84]

I pray to the gods it doesn't take off and dies a horrible death.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I pray to the gods it doesn't take off and dies a horrible death.

LOL!

I can't conceive of why it would matter one way or another to you, but you gave me a laugh!

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Azn
It didn't quite live up to the potential 7 years ago. Why is Nvidia trying to push this stereoscopic 3d again?

It's one of those things it might be cool for an hour but really it gets in the way of gaming in long term.

So we have your opinion of what you would use when you don't own either tech (25x16 or 3D Vision) and my actual experience and choice when I have both.

And my actual experience and choice when I have used it far longer than you and don't get paid by the company who is producing it. It's worth spending $100 to see the effects if you already have a capable monitor and video card, but no more than that.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Azn
It didn't quite live up to the potential 7 years ago. Why is Nvidia trying to push this stereoscopic 3d again?

It's one of those things it might be cool for an hour but really it gets in the way of gaming in long term.

So we have your opinion of what you would use when you don't own either tech (25x16 or 3D Vision) and my actual experience and choice when I have both.

And my actual experience and choice when I have used it far longer than you and don't get paid by the company who is producing it. It's worth spending $100 to see the effects if you already have a capable monitor and video card, but no more than that.

No, you've never used it.

Low res + 4:3 aspect smaller screen + headaches from <85Hz on CRT = not even close to current experience.

What you just said is like saying "I know what the new corvettes are like because I had one in the 60s".

The monitor makes the difference, I can/do look at 60HZ all day on a LCD, and even if you had a good CRT where you could get 150Hz at some crap res like 800X600, the 75Hz effective resulted in eyestrain.

I'm playing at 16X10 on a 22"WS at 4X16X, and you weren't using that level of AA/AF back then either.

Not really very comparable at all was it?

Note: I had a good monitor and the shutter glasses with my GF4, I've experienced both.

 

[Creig]

You can continue to try and sell these things as hard as you want, but the technology is the same as it was 10 years ago. I know what lower res games look like and what higher res games look like. I know what lower res 3D stereoscopic looks like, I know what higher res 3D stereoscopic will look like.

I'm sorry if nobody here seems to be getting as excited about these glasses as your employer would like, but it's simply not worth the asking price. Once people already have 120Hz monitors and fast Nvidia cards and the price of the glasses drops to $100, then I think you'll sales start to take off. Don't forget, this technology was released 10 years ago, back when people already had CRTs capable of 140Hz and the glasses were only $50-$80. And yet it still fizzled. Now you expect people to shell out $600-$900 for the privilege of seeing the exact same thing, but at a higher res?

Good luck.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

make sure you spend a lot of the time at the kiosk before dropping $600 on it .. and check their return policy if you still have doubts
- in better economic times it would have a better chance imo

i hope it ultimately does succeed .. 3-D is the future .. but perhaps not 3-D glasses at all

OTOH, if $600 isn't a lot of money to you, maybe just buy it, try it, sell it for $100-$200 loss if it turns out you don't like it.

I've dropped a hundy or two on worse things.

yes, i just dropped almost $300 on Vista64 Home Premium Upgrade and Office 2007 Small Business Upgrade, this past Monday {$99 + $169}
[they are on sale at OD this week and i need these tools]


i have already tried StereoVision - for hours - and i do not feel it is worth $600 in its current state
- maybe StereoVision II with larger LCDs and improvements .. as it becomes more universally adopted and they actually design games specifically with 3D in mind
---you also have to realize that i saw the 3D LCD displays that do not require 3D glasses at all .. and i want to see where that tech goes before i decide; i prefer 3d without glasses

. . . the only games i felt it really consistently "improved" by SV were 'top down' isometric games like NWN .. and i don't play many of these anymore

 

[Ares202]

Originally posted by: Creig
You can continue to try and sell these things as hard as you want, but the technology is the same as it was 10 years ago. I know what lower res games look like and what higher res games look like. I know what lower res 3D stereoscopic looks like, I know what higher res 3D stereoscopic will look like.

I'm sorry if nobody here seems to be getting as excited about these glasses as your employer would like, but it's simply not worth the asking price. Once people already have 120Hz monitors and fast Nvidia cards and the price of the glasses drops to $100, then I think you'll sales start to take off. Don't forget, this technology was released 10 years ago, back when people already had CRTs capable of 140Hz and the glasses were only $50-$80. And yet it still fizzled. Now you expect people to shell out $600-$900 for the privilege of seeing the exact same thing, but at a higher res?

Good luck.

+1

$600 thats a joke, i used to see these at computer fairs for $80 if they come down in price ten fold then some people might consider it

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: apoppin
---you also have to realize that i saw the 3D LCD displays that do not require 3D glasses at all .. and i want to see where that tech goes before i decide; i prefer 3d without glasses

That would be ideal, imo. I dislike the need for the 3D glasses for various reasons. I've already gone over a couple of them -- the issue with wearing them with prescription glasses and the gimmicky/goofy appearance factor.

But I'd also be concerned with how much of a dimming those 3D glasses cause. There are games out there that are dark to begin with (Doom 3, L4D, the night campaign maps in Company of Heroes, the dungeons in Fallout 3 and Oblivion, etc). I can put up with a bit of dimming in some games, like say Civ 4 (a top down game), as a tradeoff for immersion factor. But for FPSs, that could be a dealbreaker if it's going to make it harder to see the enemy.

Ideally someone can come up with a decent implementation that doesn't require the 3D glasses.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig
You can continue to try and sell these things as hard as you want, but the technology is the same as it was 10 years ago. I know what lower res games look like and what higher res games look like. I know what lower res 3D stereoscopic looks like, I know what higher res 3D stereoscopic will look like.

I'm sorry if nobody here seems to be getting as excited about these glasses as your employer would like, but it's simply not worth the asking price. Once people already have 120Hz monitors and fast Nvidia cards and the price of the glasses drops to $100, then I think you'll sales start to take off. Don't forget, this technology was released 10 years ago, back when people already had CRTs capable of 140Hz and the glasses were only $50-$80. And yet it still fizzled. Now you expect people to shell out $600-$900 for the privilege of seeing the exact same thing, but at a higher res?

Good luck.

Personally I don't care if anyone buys them, not like I get anything out of it if they do.

I'm just saying you don't really know what it looks like, and as such, are passing judgement on it's value from a position of inexperience.

1. NVIDIA has improved the depth, you've never seen that.
2. 16X10 is over 3X the number of pixels on the screen as the 800X600 you likely had to run to get that 140Hz, much higher detail of the 3d image you've never seen.
3. 4X 16X is a much higher level of image quality enhancement of the 3d image than you've seen.
4. 22" wide screen is more screen real estate than you've seen, and the LCDs don't burn your eyes out like 70Hz effective on a CRT does. (that's not even VESA standard, which was barely tolerable for short times)
5. You didn't have tips from NVIDIA for each game to improve the 3D effect.

I agree you've seen that works on the same principle, but what you (and I) used to use is light years below this for comfort, image quality, and depth of field- pretty significant factors.

People who saw Black and White tvs can't really comment on whether Pioneer Kuros are "worth it" for the same reason.

 

[taltamir]

ok so i am a bit confused, did the author just try a DIFFERENT 3d from nvidia's in frys and decide that all 3d sucks, including nvidias, or did he actually try the nvidia implementation?

 

[apoppin]

the LCDs don't burn you eyes out like 70Hz effective on a CRT does

Didn't you run your own CRT at 70hz - just to get a higher resolution?
- when lower resolutions and 100hz were also available to you?