Thoughts on Nvidia's 3D Vision?

no_1_dave · 6 Jan 2010 at 15:04

Personal preference.
I went with the Samsung as I prefer the look & also have a samsung TV.

CreAtiv3 · 6 Jan 2010 at 15:15

Bit of a dumb question this one but ill ask anyway :rolleyes:

What's the difference between the RealD tech used in cinemas and 3D vision? I understand the shutters on 3D vision alternate to provide 60Hz to each eye but why is this not required in the cinemas?

My guess would be that they are using two projectors or a single projector with dual lenses which are projecting two images at different perspectives?

Hope that makes some sense, been a long day so far!

EDIT: Ignore me I should have researched harder.

CreAtiv3 · 6 Jan 2010 at 15:22

uv said:
Out of the two 22" 120hz monitors, should I be looking at the Sammy or the Viewsonic? There's so little difference in price, and the specs seem exactly the same..

The viewsonic has an edge over the sammy with a slightly better response rate.
Theres a review of the Acer 23.6" over here if your interested which has some comparisons against the 22" models.

Chronictank · 6 Jan 2010 at 15:55

Just to reitterate, i would hold off to see how things pan out
The push for 3d is on now so i suspect there is going to be a fair bit of kit being pushed out over this year

You really don't want to be locked into buying nvidia

no_1_dave · 6 Jan 2010 at 16:14

Chronictank said:
Just to reitterate, i would hold off to see how things pan out
The push for 3d is on now so i suspect there is going to be a fair bit of kit being pushed out over this year

You really don't want to be locked into buying nvidia

Nvidia 3D Vision is compatible with 3D Blu-Ray standard & 3D TVs being launched.

Chronictank · 6 Jan 2010 at 17:19

no_1_dave said:
Nvidia 3D Vision is compatible with 3D Blu-Ray standard & 3D TVs being launched.

And not necessarily the best solution for it

For all you know the other manufacturers may jump on the boat and release a more standardised (open) solution, increasing competition and lowering prices

I have no problem with the kit but personally i think it is very expensive for what it is and not worth the money until we see how this all pans out
The nvidia specs may just end up the same as HD-DVD

cyberheater · 6 Jan 2010 at 17:34

I recently had a shot of 3D gaming at Overclockers and it's amazing.

I'm seriously thinking of getting a 3D capable projector and do it with style. It's well worth it.

drunkenmaster · 6 Jan 2010 at 18:00

no_1_dave said:
Nvidia 3D Vision is compatible with 3D Blu-Ray standard & 3D TVs being launched.

Yes but if you decide to get a 3dtv in the future that uses something else, or can do various versions but you've got yourself glasses which you find you can't watch a film because you get a headache before the end.

Personally I can't see shutter glasses of any type winning the "formats" war for 3d. Its expensive, at $100 for glasses, you have friends over to watch 3d, you think in the future cheap $10 polarised glasses will win out, or $100 glasses that give many people headaches and requires a double Hz screen vs polarised.

Frankly I see 3d dying, again because people will again realise the extra cost isn't worth it for a few great examples, a bunch of games/films that simply don't work well with it, the added cost in making films and games designed for it and that lack of a unifying cheap format to get it to work on everything. Pretty much all the same reasons the exact same versions of 3d have come, and gone, and come, and gone, and come and gone over the last 50 years.

IN theory its a nice idea, in reality making something look 3d, on a 2d screen is nigh on impossible, will never look truly fantastic, just possible a bit better.

CreAtiv3 · 6 Jan 2010 at 18:11

Chronictank said:
And not necessarily the best solution for it
For all you know the other manufacturers may jump on the boat and release a more standardised (open) solution, increasing competition and lowering prices

Although I have no doubt there will be more 3D solutions to come there are only two methods manufacturers can use at the moment and that's Active 3D or Passive 3D.

Active 3D being glasses with lcd shutters like 3D Vision and passive 3D using z screens/filters + glasses like RealD use in cinemas.

Sony have opted for the Active 3D route for their Bravia TV range as well as support for PS3 and BluRay. Not sure about any other manufacturers just yet.

Chronictank · 6 Jan 2010 at 18:29

Yeah you are spot on CreAtiv but i was getting at what drunkmaster posted

Say the average family is 4 people, thats $400 worth of specs to watch a movie with your family

Compared to a slightly more expensive tv but $5 specs each which when they break are cheap and easy to replace

Thats why i am waiting on the fence since as good as the shutter tech is, i don't think it will win out in the home market personally

That said hopefully if it does go down that route we will get cheaper glasses inc from Taiwan etc.. again a reason for me to sit on the fence for now.

Personally i think Sony just released it as a marketing gimmick, in reality it is pretty easy to put the active lense route on a tv which has a reasonable refresh rate (with little to no loss in picture quality in 2d) and to a console either route is pretty easy to program so its a win win for them really even if it doesnt take off

CreAtiv3 · 6 Jan 2010 at 20:10

Completely hear where your both coming from, its going to be an interesting year for 3D tech!

Funnily enough Kotaku have just published this in relation to 3D specs.
£60-£100 on passive lenses, come off it!

D.P. · 7 Jan 2010 at 08:44

drunkenmaster said:
Yes but if you decide to get a 3dtv in the future that uses something else, or can do various versions but you've got yourself glasses which you find you can't watch a film because you get a headache before the end.

Personally I can't see shutter glasses of any type winning the "formats" war for 3d. Its expensive, at $100 for glasses, you have friends over to watch 3d, you think in the future cheap $10 polarised glasses will win out, or $100 glasses that give many people headaches and requires a double Hz screen vs polarised.

Frankly I see 3d dying, again because people will again realise the extra cost isn't worth it for a few great examples, a bunch of games/films that simply don't work well with it, the added cost in making films and games designed for it and that lack of a unifying cheap format to get it to work on everything. Pretty much all the same reasons the exact same versions of 3d have come, and gone, and come, and gone, and come and gone over the last 50 years.

IN theory its a nice idea, in reality making something look 3d, on a 2d screen is nigh on impossible, will never look truly fantastic, just possible a bit better.

You've obviously never used Nvidia's 3D vision have you!

Yes, there are issues around 3D and this wont be the 1st time 3D products have been released, but the current technology is leagues ahead of things that were kicked around in the 90s

D.P. · 7 Jan 2010 at 08:52

Chronictank said:
Yeah you are spot on CreAtiv but i was getting at what drunkmaster posted

Say the average family is 4 people, thats $400 worth of specs to watch a movie with your family

Compared to a slightly more expensive tv but $5 specs each which when they break are cheap and easy to replace

Thats why i am waiting on the fence since as good as the shutter tech is, i don't think it will win out in the home market personally

That said hopefully if it does go down that route we will get cheaper glasses inc from Taiwan etc.. again a reason for me to sit on the fence for now.

Personally i think Sony just released it as a marketing gimmick, in reality it is pretty easy to put the active lense route on a tv which has a reasonable refresh rate (with little to no loss in picture quality in 2d) and to a console either route is pretty easy to program so its a win win for them really even if it doesnt take off

The shutter glasses can be made much cheaper when mass produced on large scales and when competition and cheap chinese manufacture get on board. $20 glasses with reasonable quality can be expected.

The polarising glasses are only cheap because they are poor quality. A qood quality polariser with good optics sets you back £100 for a camera. At the most I would say the price difference would be a factor 2, and on items that are fairly cheap that is no big deal.

What will probably happen is there will be family packs bundled with blu-rays systems etc.

The polarising glasses tend to give the same headaches as shutter glasses so thats not an argument.

It just a format war, blu-ray vs hd-dvd. Sony is backing shutter glasses to go with it blu-ray format which has won that format war.

no_1_dave · 7 Jan 2010 at 15:14

I didn't realise you could do polarized images on normal TVs...
Not modern polarization anyway, only red/blue etc...

BassPunk · 7 Jan 2010 at 21:14

Not taken the plunge yet but having bought my first set of 3d shutter glasses in 2004 I know the technology.

Waiting for Optoma to launch the hd66 in the next few weeks before I get the 3dvision

Chronictank · 7 Jan 2010 at 23:09

Personally i am hoping this just takes off enough to get 3d blu rays out there

This is what i am really waiting for

http://www.dimensionalstudios.com/philips_42_3d_wowvx_display.html

3d without the glasses

uv · 9 Jan 2010 at 18:37

Screw waiting for the Acer, I'm now waiting for the Alienware 23"

Google "AW2310", it's seems much higher specced than the current offerings - tiltable, swivelable, 4 USB ports, HDMI and DVI, capacitive buttons, and the stand doesn't look like a clown made it.

Converting the NewZealand price into GBP works out at £300, so same price as the Acer.. here's hoping the NZD to GBP conversion actually works out when it's sold over here!

Rroff · 9 Jan 2010 at 18:41

Unfortunatly if it does come to the UK the AW2310 is looking more like £410 than £300

shame its not 2048x either as I'd be all over it even at that price if it was.

bee · 9 Jan 2010 at 18:55

Rroff said:
Unfortunatly if it does come to the UK the AW2310 is looking more like £410 than £300 shame its not 2048x either as I'd be all over it even at that price if it was.

is 2048 x 1152 @ 120hz even possible with dual link dvi? i remember reading a post from someone on here that showed 1920 x 1200 was right on the edge of the bandwidth limit

uv · 9 Jan 2010 at 18:57

bee said:
is 2048 x 1152 @ 120hz even possible with dual link dvi? i remember reading a post from someone on here that showed 1920 x 1200 was right on the edge of the bandwidth limit

Not just that, but I doubt my single GTX280 would cope, being that nVision 3D takes a ~40% FPS hit!