3D Stereo Gaming Without Expensive Shutters

[tuannguyen]

3D is all the rage recently. Zalman has a solution for some.

3D Stereo Gaming Without Expensive Shutters : Read more

 

[the_krasno]

If this gets good reviews out there and has nice specs I might get one sometime.

 

[jamoise]

So just like most movie theaters that used the polarized glasses, both images are displayed at different polarities, and each eye can only see one of the images, due to the differing polarity of each of the lenses.

 

[sseyler]

Yeah, I'm also curious to see how these monitors work. I didn't realize that Samsung already had a vertical-horizontal polarized 3D TV. I'm guessing each image has its light polarized in a different direction (of rotation, of course).

 

[bogcotton]

I don't actually know how these work, but I think the light source in the back of the lcd has 2 modes of polarisation, and it shines alternate polarisations through the lcd for each frame.

 

[ravewulf]

If they can improve the verticle viewing angle and the price comes down over time, I'm getting one!

 

[proxy711]

Still not sold of 3D...its a waste of time on a silly gimmick. move on to better tech plz.

 

[aethm]

Don't forget about IZ3D monitors. I don't know how this will stake up against them but it's the same tech.

 

[Guest]

Zalman vs Iz3d?

 

[kelemvor4]

21.5" monitors? Is this some sort of 1998 retro thing going on? what a joke. How about I run my nvidia 3d vision kit over to the 65" tv that it works perfectly on ($899 at compusa by the way for the tv).

Hmm.. 1199 for the tv and glasses and watch/game on a 65" 1080p screen or $499 for 21.5"... tough choice...

 

[descendency]

Now all they need is 3 of these side by side with no bezel.

 

[thedreadfather]

[citation][nom]kelemvor4[/nom]21.5" monitors? Is this some sort of 1998 retro thing going on? what a joke. How about I run my nvidia 3d vision kit over to the 65" tv that it works perfectly on ($899 at compusa by the way for the tv).Hmm.. 1199 for the tv and glasses and watch/game on a 65" 1080p screen or $499 for 21.5"... tough choice...[/citation] So you're planning on putting your TV on a desk?

 

[twisted politiks]

so does this mean your graphics card needs to render at 120 fps to get standard 60 fps in 3D?

 

[anamaniac]

So, LCD producers have no interest in making 30" 2560x1600 or even 3840x2160?
I'm fine with 2D and 60Hz, just give me reasonably priced 4k resolution monitors and projectors!

 

[Trialsking]

[citation][nom]aethm[/nom]Don't forget about IZ3D monitors. I don't know how this will stake up against them but it's the same tech.[/citation]

Amen to that brotha! How many more days till 3D dies........

The year 2030: VH1's new show i luv the 2010's is highlighting another the silly fad.....3D movies and video games........

 

[Guest]

Again, the table is not human-readable even after pressing zoom!!!!!!

 

[jenesuispasbavard]

[citation][nom]proxy711[/nom]Still not sold of 3D...its a waste of time on a silly gimmick. move on to better tech plz.[/citation]
Have you tried Batman: Arkham Asylum in 3D?

 

[Guest]

ooo!! can't wait for the 32"

 

[magicandy]

[citation][nom]twisted politiks[/nom]so does this mean your graphics card needs to render at 120 fps to get standard 60 fps in 3D?[/citation]

Yep, on average, stereoscopic 3D draws about twice the power of normal 2D because the card has to render two scenes at once. It's not always exactly a 50% loss in performance (sometimes better sometimes worse), but a good rule of thumb is that if you can play a game at least at 80 FPS in 2D, you can use the same settings in 3D for a playable experience around 40 FPS.

Although some games are odd. I use Nvidia's 3D Vision and with TF2 it acts differently if you have the built-in 3D cursor enabled. Without the 3D cursor I can play in 3D at a constant 60 FPS with my GTX 280 and Q6600, but with the 3D cursor enabled it dips below 30 or even 20 FPS in hairy scenes. Source engine games are the only ones I've seen that react to the 3D cursor like this.

 

[djab]

The biggest pros of this solution seems to be the cost of the glasses.

The biggest cons: the resolution is halved.

Some cons in the comparison table for NVidia shutter glasses do not seems justified:
- glasses comfort, poeple who have prescription glasses reports having no problem wearing the 3D glasses over there prescription glasses.
- Dual display support, why would it be impossible to do that with NVidia 3dvision solution? Glasses do not seems to synchronize with the screens but with the pyramid shaped emitter connected to the graphic card.
- flicker: 4 days ago, in a great and complet article on TsH, Don Woligroski said about NVidia solution with a 120hz display that "you shouldn't be able to perceive any strobing or flickering"
- Cross-talk and ghosting: Tech Ed Don Woligroski also said that "crosstalk and ghosting made occasional appearances. The problem was minimal (far less than polarized setups)".

I am not trying to be an NVidia fan boy.
I am just trying to discriminate between truth and untruth as I may be interested in buying a 3D display at some time.

It would have been nice to indicate the source of the comparison table ...

 

[Chris_TC]

Um yeah, and somehow the article fails to mention that you only get half the resolution with the polarized system. But who needs HD, right?

 

[Guest]

I don't think the resolution is halved on these monitors, they work similar to the movies except in this case the backlight polarises one way for one frame and the other for the next frame, same as the nvidia solution, except you don't need active glasses.
The IZ3D uses alternate line polarisation so halves the vertical res, but I believe that is not the case for the Zalmans.
I want this tech in a projector though...

 

[erikstarcher]

[citation][nom]that3dguy[/nom]I don't think the resolution is halved on these monitors, they work similar to the movies except in this case the backlight polarises one way for one frame and the other for the next frame, same as the nvidia solution, except you don't need active glasses.The IZ3D uses alternate line polarisation so halves the vertical res, but I believe that is not the case for the Zalmans.I want this tech in a projector though...[/citation]

The IZ3D does not use alternate line polarization. It is a full res (1680x1050) 3D monitor. It uses a rear panel for the picture, and a front panel for polarization. Now the old Zalmans used alternate line polarization, but I am not sure about these new models.

 

[MxM]

FTA: "Third, the circular-polarization of Zalman's glasses means that you can lie down and watch a 3D movie without worrying about your image going totally black. "

This sentence is wrong on so many levels...
A) Neither shatters nor linearly polarized glasses will go black if you lay dawn. In fact, the shatters will show exactly the same as the circularly polarized glasses, and linearly polarized glasses will switch image from left to right eye and vice verse. (If instead of laying down you watch at 45 degree, then you will have doubles for linearly polarized glasses)
B) The stereoscopic effect with ANY glasses (shatters, circular or linearly polarized) will break down when you lay down. The orientation of your eyes will not correspond to the images your eyes are receiving.

 

[wildwell]

When do we see this kind of 3D tech for televisions too?