Why Should We Bother With 3D Now?

[Guest]

Are we willing to sacrifice image brilliance and saturation for our content to slightly pop out?

Why Should We Bother With 3D Now? : Read more

 

[Trueno07]

Yea.. Thanks, but no thanks.. It's not you, it's me...

 

[w1zz4]

Ok, judging by the title, I was sure this article would be about AMD not Nvidia...

 

[Parsian]

Yes the 3D technology needs a lot of improvement but I hate to see it disappear again... The only way these things can become feasible and improve is through increase in demand and popularity.

 

[hokkdawg]

Completely agree - 3D is overrated; it's a good idea on paper, but the practical technology just isn't there yet.

Anyone here see Avatar in 3D? I thoroughly enjoyed watching a high res, bright & saturated image on my home TV vs. the 3D version at the theater.

 

[twbg4cq]

I'm not too big on the whole 3D thing either. In fact, when I go to see movies in a theater, I would prefer viewing it without the glasses, but sometimes they don't give you a choice; 3D is all they have.

 

[dravis12]

I played 3D BC2 at PAX East and while it looked impressive it seemed a bit gimicky.

Top that off with >$4000 in hardware to be able to recreate the environment they had...no thanks.

 

[wolflive]

I agree, it doesn't look all that wonderful and the cost = performance for 3D right now just isn't worth it. I'd rather put my money into a better looking 2D image.

 

[Guest]

3D has been the rage since the 1950's. I guess it's the most tireless dead horse ever....It always require huge costs and fades away only to resurface later on and repeat the cycle
3D= Money wasted.

 

[mattclary]

Just in case playing an FPS didn't give you motion sickness, lets surround you with monitors. In 3D. :O*****

 

[Tomtompiper]

It's a Gimmick and an overpriced and uncomfortable one at that.

Sure some people will get it and the rest will nod and whisper to each other "But he isn't wearing any clothes?"

 

[mpdugas]

...why not for #D graphics programs? Like Maya, Carrara, Poser and the like?

It seems imminently sensible that a 3D design program would benefit greatly if it could utilize even existing 3D technology.

 

[smacks forehead]

3D will be great once they actualy have depth in the image on a gimicky pop-up book style image. Think Avatar vs. Alice in Wonderland.

 

[smacks forehead]

I meant "not" instead of "on"

 

[Guest]

Most of the poo-poohing of this tech seems to be coming from the people who are RABID about multiple GFX setups, 6 core processors, and high end liquid cooling.

All for a marginal increase in effects.

Why can you spend a grand on one and not on the other?

 

[xizel]

yeah.... ill have to say NO, Eyefinity is a much more appealing technology

 

[CoryInJapan]

Ill wait until you dont need any glasses to see the 3d effects.

 

[Guest]

aghhhhhhhhhh the term 3D hurts my head, most gfx cards can render in 3D for a while now, took me a while to realize they talking about artificial depth perception (we used to call it VR in the old days), someone should rename that damn thing, why are we adopting stupid movie industry terms

@mpdugas
most CAD packages have had this ability long time ago, it just never took off, it really didn't give you that much added value considering the performance hit, it can only project a limited perception of depth, you need full motion head tracking to even simulate any useful depth perception (maybe this in conjunction with natal might work)

 

[vertigo_2000]

I think the problem with most PC demos is that they've added the 3D after the fact.

I watched Avatar in 3D. While it wasn't the sole reason I went, I thought it added a little something to the movie. But, Avatar was created from the ground up with 3D in mind.

I'm still waiting for the 1st PC game designed to be in 3D and not have it added as an afterthought. I think only that will give the user a true idea of the possibilities.

 

[miloo]

i like the 3D effect no doubt, but i would say no for a 200 bucks glasses.

 

[joemehnert]

im sorry but 3d through a new led or plasma is far superior to anything ive see in a theater. yes it costs 3000 for a 55tv but until you enjoy it in your own home i would highly recommend the inexperienced keep there comments to themselves.

 

[steiner666]

*sigh*

And all the ppl who don't own 3D setups defend their decision to no spend money on the silly "gimmicks", and the rest complain about it hurting their delicate eyes.

while you guys do that i'll be enjoying some epic 3d gaming on my 60" dlp (~$1000). The glasses arent a bother to wear, they have a battery that needs charged so seldom that i often forget about it, and I've yet, in 4 months, to experience any sort of eyestrain.

ppl will always have something to complain about with new technology, and reasons to hold off for something newer and better. But you're really only depriving yourself. call it

 

[zaznet]

I hope 3D catches and stays but I won't be buying a consumer 3D HDTV for some time. Waiting on the "next gen" 3D to start coming out before I even consider it.

 

[Guest]

I've seen both personal and theater 3D before. In both cases the picture was darkened quite a bit. I never experienced any eye strain and I don't think its any type of gimmick. But when it comes right down to it the negative of the darker picture outweighs the positive of having 3D picture. So at least for me (and it seems like for others as well) the negatives outweigh the positive without even taking cost into consideration.

 

[pozaks]

I thought this was about "3D Now" and was bewildered that AMD was trying to bring that back.

Bewildered.