Nvidia Announces 3D Vision 2 With New Hardware

[mm0ety]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]We have 2 eyes because we use binocular vision. We don't judge depth primarily by shadows, we judge depth by how our eyes align on an object, which is EXACTLY the same way 3D vision works. Both eyes will point at an object, because they are separated by a couple inches, they will point inward at different angles to achieve this. That is what 3D vision does. It causes your eyes to angle the same exact way we do in real life. If you ever try to focus on an object right in front of your nose, for example, you go cross eyed. (This cross-eyed effect can be problematic with 3D vision, because sometimes they screw up the depth and it causes your eyes to go cross-eyed in the extreme. This is likely why it's not advised for kids. It's not because 3D vision doesn't work, it's because the games have bugs).The only thing that 3D vision is not able to emulate, at least not at this time, is how the individual eye focuses on those images. We do judge by shadowing as well, but that's 2ndary, and 3D vision adjust shadows based on your perspective as well, so that's not different either.[/citation] thats not true. 3d works by drawing two images simultaneously and the shutter glasses lets one eye see at a time back and forth rapidly tricking your eyes to see that image at a different location. Not what our eyes naturally do. I wouldn't recommend this for your eyes health. I could see some endused siezures coming out of this.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]mm0ety[/nom]thats not true. 3d works by drawing two images simultaneously and the shutter glasses lets one eye see at a time back and forth rapidly tricking your eyes to see that image at a different location. Not what our eyes naturally do. I wouldn't recommend this for your eyes health. I could see some endused siezures coming out of this.[/citation]

Yes, it does go back and forth simultaneously, but the two images are drawn so that it each eye is seeing an image from a slightly different perspective, the same perspective you'd see if you were seeing an object at a particular distance. Just like real life. But because the screen is at a single distance, it does it by drawing a different image for each eye, to give the same effect that your eyes have when they are at different depths.

Simply put, by drawing a different image for each eye, it causes your eyes to align in the manner it would normally align if you saw the same thing in real life.

Edit: Try reading this for a simple but good explanation of how sterioscopic 3D works:

How does 3d work?

Most human beings use what is known as binocular vision to perceive depth and see the world in 3D. The binocular vision system relies on the fact that we have two eyes, which are approximately 3 in apart. This separation causes each eye to see the world from a slightly different perspective. The brain fuses these two views together. It understands the differences and uses them to calculate distance creating our sense of depth and ability to gauge distance.

A simple way to understand this principle is to hold your thumb up at arms length and close one eye. Then try closing the other eye. As you switch between open eyes you should see your thumb "jumping" back and forth against the background. To see how much of a difference the binocular vision system makes, have a friend throw you a ball and try to catch it while keeping one eye closed.

http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/classroom/how.shtml

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]dlpatague[/nom]I agree. 3D is lame and long term use will be bad for you especially young children. Your eyes aren't meant for it. The way your eyes, or mind rather, makes 3D happen in real life is by using shadows. Some guy at this TV store tried to sell me on 3D HDTVs and I just laughed at him. Then he tried to bring up watching a movie in 3D at the movies like Transformers. I did regrettably go see Transformers: DOTM in IMAX 3D and hated every minute of it. Will never watch a 3D movie again. And in no way will I ever game in 3D. Not to mention having to wear annoying glasses.[/citation]

Eye strain does not cause adverse effects on eye health. The worst side effect possible from over exposure to 3D vision is a temporary headache or fatigue.
Remember the old wives tales of "Sitting too close to a TV will hurt your eyes. You're doing the same thing here. Making health stuff up because it's new tech and your understanding of how eyes work, grow and develop is pretty non existent.

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]2D surround and 3D surround both require SLI, but it can be a single SLI card, like the 295 and 590.[/citation]

Yes I've always run SLI (For GPU horse power to handle 3x monitors OR 3D vision). I forgot that the 3rd micro HDMI port can't be used as a 3rd display outlet for 3x monitors on a single card. But I consider 590 and 295 to be a "single card" solution. Anyway, not like ATI can handle 3X 1080p monitors on a single 5780 or 6780. The 3x monitors crush single ATI cards in modern games. So I don't see ATI as having any hardware advantage over nvidia.

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]mm0ety[/nom]This 3d stuff couldn't be good for your brain in long gaming sessions. I'd rather sit comfortably for a good few hours than to pay a little extra money for 3d.[/citation]

There are no "brain effects" for long term 3D exposure outside of maybe getting a headache. I played through almost all of Duke Nukem Forever in 3D, in one sitting, at 100% depth and felt fine through the whole session that lasted many hours. Once you get used to 3D and adjust the settings correctly to your tolerance, there is very little strain on your eyes (if any at all)

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]There are no "brain effects" for long term 3D exposure outside of maybe getting a headache. I played through almost all of Duke Nukem Forever in 3D, in one sitting, at 100% depth and felt fine through the whole session that lasted many hours. Once you get used to 3D and adjust the settings correctly to your tolerance, there is very little strain on your eyes (if any at all)[/citation]

I believe the headache/strain that people might get from 3D is directly related to flickering, not the 3D effect. The flickering happens at 60hz, and gives the same strains that 60hz CRT's give people for the same reason. I personally don't have this issue and have played for hours at a time.

About the only effect I have noticed is that I now feel disoriented a bit when playing a game I'm used to playing in 3D, after switching to 2D. My eyes keep wanting to adjust for depth, and have to readjust back.

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]I believe the headache/strain that people might get from 3D is directly related to flickering, not the 3D effect. The flickering happens at 60hz, and gives the same strains that 60hz CRT's give people for the same reason. I personally don't have this issue and have played for hours at a time.About the only effect I have noticed is that I now feel disoriented a bit when playing a game I'm used to playing in 3D, after switching to 2D. My eyes keep wanting to adjust for depth, and have to readjust back.[/citation]

Preaching to the choir buddy. I'm same as you. With proper adjustments and a little use 3D works great and doesn't give me any eye strain or headaches.

People on this comment thread are very ignorant. Most of them have probably never sat in front of a 3D monitor and gamed on one, and if they had I doubt they did so for more then 5 minutes.

I hate 3D movies, there isn't a lot of noticable depth, it darkens the movie screen and doesn't look as good imo. However, 3D gaming on a good 120hz LCD has massive, almost unbelievable amount of added depth and realism. If you'd have asked me about 3D vision before I tried it, I would have called it gimmicky and probably said that it was probably as bad as "movie theature 3D". Having actually owned one for a while now, I wouldn't go back to a standard monitor for gaming.

Only time I wouldn't use 3D is if my PC couldn't handle the 3d game at 50-60fps and I was trying to be competitive. (Like BF3). But when that day comes I'll just upgrade my GPUs. And till I put in the new GPUs, the 120hz 3D monitors do 2D gaming the best anyway. zero ghosting, awesome picture and up to 120FPS with vsync on. Amazing.

 

[monsta]

whats with all the whining? Its an update which means an improvement...not a kick in the nuts

 

[rooket]

120 fps would be sweet playing TF2. Doesn't the current 3D monitors (120 Hz) already support that? When I play games, I really miss the old days 19" CRT monitor.

I sure DO NOT miss the CRT lol. When I upgraded from a nice "bright" Sony CRT monitor to a cheap Samsung 60hz CCFL backlit 23" screen the difference was quite literally night and day as far as brightness and sharpness are concerned.

I made a switch from a nice Sony monitor with a VGA switch built in to a single Sony with no switch. I thought both were great and then I went to the flat panel (I was hoping for LED backlit but they were $500-$1500 at the time for any size above 20").

All I can say is, CRT is ugly, blotchy graphics, not sharp, dim, did I mention ugly? I mean it didn't have anywhere near the amount of colors an LCD has. I would never go back.

And I still have one 19" Sony CRT so I could try out my old nvidia 3D glasses set from the AGP days. It was some Asus set and I could play tomb raider and need for speed among other titles of the time in 3D as long as they were direct3d games. So although it works, it isn't worth it and a total utter waste on a CRT. I put that CRT back up by an old Sony computer since it matches but it never gets turned on.

CRT? YUCK! You can have mine for free though but then again I'm sure there's about a dozen or so craigslisters ready to offload them for free right now. I have seen the posts on there. They sometimes want a few bucks but there's always a few that just want you to take it so they don't have to pay disposal fees on those archaic pieces of junk

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]rooket[/nom]I sure DO NOT miss the CRT lol. When I upgraded from a nice "bright" Sony CRT monitor to a cheap Samsung 60hz CCFL backlit 23" screen the difference was quite literally night and day as far as brightness and sharpness are concerned.I made a switch from a nice Sony monitor with a VGA switch built in to a single Sony with no switch. I thought both were great and then I went to the flat panel (I was hoping for LED backlit but they were $500-$1500 at the time for any size above 20").All I can say is, CRT is ugly, blotchy graphics, not sharp, dim, did I mention ugly? I mean it didn't have anywhere near the amount of colors an LCD has. I would never go back.And I still have one 19" Sony CRT so I could try out my old nvidia 3D glasses set from the AGP days. It was some Asus set and I could play tomb raider and need for speed among other titles of the time in 3D as long as they were direct3d games. So although it works, it isn't worth it and a total utter waste on a CRT. I put that CRT back up by an old Sony computer since it matches but it never gets turned on.CRT? YUCK! You can have mine for free though but then again I'm sure there's about a dozen or so craigslisters ready to offload them for free right now. I have seen the posts on there. They sometimes want a few bucks but there's always a few that just want you to take it so they don't have to pay disposal fees on those archaic pieces of junk[/citation]

When LCDs first came out, they were horrible for gaming. They were smaller in size and had better color/resolution, but the ghosting-streaking in movement was absolutely terrible, slow response rate felt like playing a game in slow motion.

But it's been many years since any decent LCD screen shipped with these problems. I bought my first LCD screen back in early 2000's, probably about 2002 or 2003 and games ran perfectly on it. Great colors, resolution and no visible ghosting, great response time.

Fast forward to about 2009 where you can now get ghosting free LCD monitors that play games ghost free and at 120 FPS with vysnc on(3D monitors in 2D mode).

Basically, CRT monitors haven't been viable for PC gaming almost a decade. I can't see why people still talk about them.

 

[billybobser]

Having mucked around on a 3-d laptop, it looks like old cartoons where it is basically layers of 2-d images.

The technology is impressive, but the implementation is poor.