Is 3D worth it. Does 3D work

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Black space? where did you get that from?

Ever seen green screening? where something is filmed and then lifted perfectly? like for example a TV advert where the same person is sitting next to him or herself?

True depth without fooling the eyes (and the side effects of) would come from, well, true depth.

It's perfectly possible to do, even with true film and not rendered objects. It would just take time. A lot of movies now are green screened any way, that's how they pull off the effects.

The problem of course is price. Ten screens would cost ten times the amount of one. If it took off? sure, it would become far cheaper. Mind you, let's face it, a 32" one could easily be done for less than a grand and a 3DTV would cost that.

It's similar to electric cars. They work, and, now they are perfectly viable. However, they're expensive (at the moment) and there's bugger all in them for the govt. No emissions so no taxes there, no petrol so no taxes there. Infact, they're close to impossible to tax. Couple them with a fast charging unit and nuclear power and there is your solution to the petrol problem. Yet why aren't the govt endorsing and pushing it?

I run an electric bike. Hideously expensive, no tax. Simply as it's been restricted to 15mph and thus isn't considered a motor vehicle. I can ride ten miles without even breaking a sweat, and get there bloody fast

I'm sure as they become more and more popular they will reduce in price. It's all about production numbers. If the depth of field TV idea took off then it wouldn't be that long before they were perfectly affordable. Going back to your storage question.. Blu ray have more than enough capacity to store three games on one disc.

If the people that just poodle about in their bangers were given horses and riding lessons as part of a government help scheme that would solve the problem. How do they think people got about 150 years ago? Ofcourse if you commute to London everyday with a bootload of gear then a horse or pushbike aren't feasable.

Maybe they could make triple screens and greater more affordable by lowering the resoloution and putting them in laptops. 3x 720p for 1.5x - 2x the cost of single 1080 would be nice

 

[Scarey]

I'm not going to enter the 3D arena until they progress away from the glasses. Don't wanna risk the headaches, etc. Can't imagine it'll be far off at a decent price. Although the 120Hz monitors are cool for 2D refresh rates.

 

[Runebeard]

Having owned an Alienware AW2310 (yes Alienware boo hoo

) and glasses for about a year now, I can safely say that I don't think I wasted a penny.

The monitor is one of the crispest I've ever had the joy of using and the colours are better than my mates standard BenQ monitor that cost him as much as mine, though admittedly this could be partially down to him having odd settings or something.

The 3D effect itself is "amazing", claim numerous friends of mine who have seen 3D films in cinemas and also say that the Nvidia 3D vision is miles better than the films in terms of quality and the convincing nature of the 3D.

Having used it for a long time, I can verify the obvious that some games perform better than others, namely newer rather than older, as more developers account for it, but this just means it will get better and better over time.

As for the headaches and nausea worries, this appears to be down to the user in question. The first time I used it, I played for a 6 HOUR gaming stint and suffered no adverse reactions. Only one person I've shown said they felt a bit weird to begin with, though this subsided the longer they watched.

Basically, I wouldn't write it off until you've at least tried it for a reasonable amount of time, and sure it may be a bit gimmicky, but so was multi-monitor gaming with little support a while back, though this has grown in popularity as the technology has developed...

 

[Scarey]

Thank you for the detailed response Runebeard

It's good to see some proper feedback on gamers with 3D glasses. I checked the monitor situation ages ago. No new monitors seem to have been released for a long while. I think the 23" Alienware was top choice then too. I assume you're running some serious GPU horsepower to achieve decent 3D frame rates though?

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Thank you for the detailed response Runebeard

It's good to see some proper feedback on gamers with 3D glasses. I checked the monitor situation ages ago. No new monitors seem to have been released for a long while. I think the 23" Alienware was top choice then too. I assume you're running some serious GPU horsepower to achieve decent 3D frame rates though?

There was a 3D monitor reviewed on LTT recently and the monitor does all of the 3D processing out of what the GPUs render in 2D

 

[Runebeard]

Thank you for the detailed response Runebeard

It's good to see some proper feedback on gamers with 3D glasses. I checked the monitor situation ages ago. No new monitors seem to have been released for a long while. I think the 23" Alienware was top choice then too. I assume you're running some serious GPU horsepower to achieve decent 3D frame rates though?

No problem dude

The Alienware was the best 1080p 3D monitor around when I was looking, the only other option then was an Acer one, which reportedly suffered from ghosting, so I steered clear of that one.

Initially I was running a single GTX275 and as you'd expect the frame rate wasn't great, so I just popped on eBay and grabbed another second-hand one for SLi and now get smooth frame rates in pretty much all games I own. 2 x GTX275's are supposedly somewhere between a GTX560ti and GTX570 in terms of grunt for reference against current hardware.

 

[alienware]

As for the headaches and nausea worries, this appears to be down to the user in question. The first time I used it, I played for a 6 HOUR gaming stint and suffered no adverse reactions. Only one person I've shown said they felt a bit weird to begin with, though this subsided the longer they watched.

Oh definitely. My perception of light isn't the greatest either. I can't even play handhelds

I'm still a bit cautious over it though. No long term research into the side effects have been done yet. Mind you hark at me. Had perfect vision until I was 18 and I'm sure it was down to staring at mode 7 on the SNES for ten hours at a time

Ed. Those full fat 275s should actually be faster in DX9 that the 570 IIRC. From what I can remember (don't quote me on that though !) my 295 is something like the specs of a pair of 285s at 260 clocks. And they outperform a 480, so full fat 275s should easily do the same and there's not much between the 480 and 570.

It could be down to the way SLI works of course. IIRC 3D is like two images very slightly offset in weird colours. So that with the glasses on it gives it an impression of depth.

 

[Lollipop]

Short answer... no

 

[alienware]

Must do more studying ! Though it's kinda pointless really as I can't use it.

I was tempted to do it a wee while ago, but the investment IIRC was about £250+ and if it made me hurl I'd get bugger all back for it.

 

[AxJaWz]

I don't like 3D. A mate of mine has it and you can't watch it for more than 2 hours without you're eyes hurting.

 

[Ya93sin]

For some people it causes headaches, for others its fine. For whatever reason when I've watched 3D on screens before it didn't do anything, but I got mild headaches the last time.

 

[iiTzMaTTy]

This topic helped me decide to get a 3D monitor although some may think the whole idea is 'gimmicky' I would still edge towards the idea, although I am just a paying customer I will give my full honesty and let you guys know

 

[UFN]

Personally I can't really enjoy 3DTV's (with glasses, the 3DS version works slightly better) because i've got wonky eyesight and I get headaches, but it does...sort of...work. IMO 3D doesn't make things jump out of the screen, more it makes certain things fall back deeper into the screen.

I think, as a whole, 3D is nothing but a gimmick. Pushed and pushed by Film studios and cinemas to stop the latter becoming entirely irrelevant now that giant TV's and 7.1 Surround sound is relatively affordable; "The Big screen" is no longer a very good selling point for The Big screen. Faux 3D, an almost century old technology which has managed to remain novel through scarcity, is the perfect hook.

Still I can see 3D becoming mainstream, but it won't be commonly used until they get rid of the glasses. Nobody wants to cough up the ridiculous amount of money the kit costs, overlooking even the glasses requiring batteries too, and have to wear glasses whenever you want to enjoy the minor impression of depth - It's too much work for sod all.

IMO, 3D will only really be worth it when you can surround the viewer and offer glasses-less 3D and reduce the severe eyestrain it causes. Right now the technology is like the first generation of mobile phones, ridiculously expensive, completely unpractical, barely working and may actually cause you physical strain for the pleasure.

 

[Philib]

3D is definitely bad for your eyes and I will explain why.

When you look at things in the real world your eyes focus on different things depending on how far the thing is you are looking at. On a 3D image you cant do that because its still and flat surface. So in a film when you have the main focal point all nice and clear often the background is blurred if you try and focus on the background it doesn't all become clear like it should so over time it hurts your eyes. Did you parents ever tell you not to put on other people glasses because it can damage your eyes? Its the same with the 3D you cant focus on something that is being made blurry by a different effect.

 

[yassarikhan786]

3D is definitely bad for your eyes and I will explain why.

When you look at things in the real world your eyes focus on different things depending on how far the thing is you are looking at. On a 3D image you cant do that because its still and flat surface. So in a film when you have the main focal point all nice and clear often the background is blurred if you try and focus on the background it doesn't all become clear like it should so over time it hurts your eyes. Did you parents ever tell you not to put on other people glasses because it can damage your eyes? Its the same with the 3D you cant focus on something that is being made blurry by a different effect.

3D does give me headaches and my eyes hurt. I've only seen one 3D movie and I couldn't focus for too long. 3D is not for me.

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Personally I can't really enjoy 3DTV's (with glasses, the 3DS version works slightly better) because i've got wonky eyesight and I get headaches, but it does...sort of...work. IMO 3D doesn't make things jump out of the screen, more it makes certain things fall back deeper into the screen.

I think, as a whole, 3D is nothing but a gimmick. Pushed and pushed by Film studios and cinemas to stop the latter becoming entirely irrelevant now that giant TV's and 7.1 Surround sound is relatively affordable; "The Big screen" is no longer a very good selling point for The Big screen. Faux 3D, an almost century old technology which has managed to remain novel through scarcity, is the perfect hook.

Still I can see 3D becoming mainstream, but it won't be commonly used until they get rid of the glasses. Nobody wants to cough up the ridiculous amount of money the kit costs, overlooking even the glasses requiring batteries too, and have to wear glasses whenever you want to enjoy the minor impression of depth - It's too much work for sod all.

IMO, 3D will only really be worth it when you can surround the viewer and offer glasses-less 3D and reduce the severe eyestrain it causes. Right now the technology is like the first generation of mobile phones, ridiculously expensive, completely unpractical, barely working and may actually cause you physical strain for the pleasure.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I have wonky eyesight too and my glasses only work when I look at them head on - silly chamellion eyes

(i.e. if I look down slightly everything floats about)

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Ah well, 3D is still better than 5D (stinky gas being puffed in your face and water sprayed in your eyes that's been sat in a canister for a month) - amusement park gimmicks

 

[yassarikhan786]

Ah well, 3D is still better than 5D (stinky gas being puffed in your face and water sprayed in your eyes that's been sat in a canister for a month) - amusement park gimmicks

I've experienced 4D in London. It was some sort of London Eye 4D advert and I admit it looked better than 3D. It only ran for a couple of minutes, but it was pretty good apart from the water being sprayed on me.

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

I've experienced 4D in London. It was some sort of London Eye 4D advert and I admit it looked better than 3D. It only ran for a couple of minutes, but it was pretty good apart from the water being sprayed on me.

So 3D would have been better then

 

[malarky13]

I was sat in Currys watching a few 3D showreels looks pretty cool very expensive though and im sure as always if I got one there would be something better just around the corner. Ill stick with my normal HDTV for a while longer I think.