Slashdot Mirror


NVIDIA Offers 3D Glasses For the Masses

Vigile writes "A new stereoscopic 3D gaming technology has hit the street today from NVIDIA, though demoed earlier in the year, that promises to bring high quality 3D gaming to the PC. The GeForce 3D Vision technology utilizes active shutter glasses and a 120 Hz display (either 120 Hz LCD or 3D-Ready DLP TVs) to bring an immersive 3D effect to PC games. Using the depth buffer information stored in DirectX, the NVIDIA software is able to construct a stereo 3D image out of existing game content while the 120 Hz requirement gives each eye 60 frames of motion per second negating the physical detriments that were known to occur with previous 3D offerings. The review at PC Perspective details how the technology works, the performance hit your games take while using it and the advantages and disadvantages to the user's gaming experience with 3D Vision."

28 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Uh oh by LilGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just wait until someone figures out how to make them wireless. 3D mobile porn while driving...

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  2. Accessories? by Mikkeles · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does it come with Aspirin?

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Accessories? by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If RTFA :), you'll notice that previous systems used refresh rates in the 30Hz range for each eye, which indeed would lead to severe headaches. This system uses 120Hz total (for 60Hz to each eye) which is much more tolerable and shouldn't cause as much eye strain. 80Hz to each eye would be eve better, but we'll see.

      Overall though, the general effect shouldn't cause any headaches aside from the refresh rate problems. Afterall most of us walk around all day seeing in 3d - it's just that the objects aren't coming off a screen :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Accessories? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that when we are walking around all day seeing in 3d, we can focus on things at different distances by flexing the lenses of our eyes.

      In a 3d movie, everything is at the same focal length (the distance from your eyes to the screen) regardless of how far away it appears to be.

      That's going to cause some degree of eye strain no matter what.

    3. Re:Accessories? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just had a horrible thought.

      What if someone used this technology for a mod for Mirror's Edge.

    4. Re:Accessories? by tdcarrol · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I am reading things correctly, this should work with Mirror's Edge, no mod required.

    5. Re:Accessories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Display Hz is independent of fps.

  3. Gaming? by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who thought of selling a 3d display system for gaming?

    Let's see. How many gamers watch porn regularly?
    Now, how many non-gamers watch porn regularly?
    And finally, how many games get so greater for being in 3d as porn?

    How hard can it be to sell a product with "Full 3D titties. $X. Pay here."

    How hard? I ask you.

    1. Re:Gaming? by Toe,+The · · Score: 4, Funny

      It is often the case that "gaming" is code for "porn." That's just how they have to market it to the mainstream.

      Same as how "home video" was code for "home porn."

      Same as how "internet access" was code for "porn access."

      Same as how "broadband" is code for "more porn."

      Same as how "high-def" is code for "clearer porn."

      You get the picture.
      (Which is code for "you get porn.")

  4. Re:If your specs aren't good enough by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, I definitely want one, but I'm not going to pretend that this would be remotely useful until I upgrade to a brand new machine.

    Well, you could buy it now and, while you wait for a more powerful rig, use it on older games.

    Like tetris.

  5. And for those of us without 20/20 vision? by astrodoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like those glasses would not fit over mine. So I guess this product is going purely for the good vision and contact lens market?

  6. Re:New? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    My Asus GeForce 2 shipped with a pair of shutter glasses. The darn things did frak' all on the pack-in game. (Soldier of Fortune) I pretty much tried them out once, then stuck 'em into storage. Shutter glasses are highly overrated.

    If manufacturers really want 3D gaming with true depth perception, monitor and GPU manufacturers should work together to create polarized computer monitors. Simply turn on the 3D effect, put on a pair of stylish shades with mismatched lenses, and BAMMO! Instant 3D.

  7. I have the older glasses by Flentil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The glasses work great. Any direct3D will show in full 3D. The only reasons I don't wear them all the time (or ever really) are bad 3d driver support from nvidia in the past, and more importantly, every game I've ever played in 3D has used some weird visual shortcuts for displaying explosions or gunshots or something that breaks the whole immersion. For example, in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, it's all full 3D except the streetlights and headlights. Those appear to be painted on a 2D window in front of you because they don't really appear in the 3D space. Anyway, it's weird enough to make me not want to play it that way. So if this is going to ever work in the mainstream, game developers have to meet halfway and stop using graphical shortcuts like that.

    1. Re:I have the older glasses by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any direct3D will show in full 3D

      Any Direct3D application will look good and 3D. However, there is a flaw . While it will show the pixels adjusted for each eye, the occlusion testing is only done once. That is, your right eye cannot see slightly around a barrel, or both eyes will perceive you rounding a corner at the same time.

      if this is going to ever work in the mainstream, game developers have to meet halfway and stop using graphical shortcuts like that.

      It's not worth it to use until these devices become mainstream, or have reached a pricepoint where they can become so easily. Then they will rush to do so.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:I have the older glasses by azorian · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think this is fixed nowadays, with most developers no longer using sprites for steam, explosions, etc.

      And you would be wrong. Most games still use a lot of alpha blending effects (smoke, halos, hair, windows, etc.). The problem with using the depth buffer for depth/3D position extrapolation is that alphas don't Z-Write, so the alpha pixels will pick up the same depth as what ever solid geometry is behind it. This is the same problem that plages other post processing effects such as depth of field, depth buffer based motion blur etc...

  8. Re:Retinal Projection by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The military will have it before the commercial airlines, by probably a couple decades at least. The airlines are perpetually on the brink of bankruptcy whereas the military has (nearly) unlimited funds.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  9. After reading the title... by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... I expected the Slashdot story to be something like:

    3 young lasses from Manassas made glasses for the masses rendering 3d in two passes. Currently the glasses are omitting noxious gasses and they're receiving an action lawsuit in classes so they really need to cover their asses.

    more as time passes.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  10. Re:New? by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've got a Zalman monitor that does precisely that.

    It's great. Unlike anaglyph, it doesn't suffer from ghosting and color problems. Unlike shutter glasses it doesn't require any special support: If you have the monitor, and the glasses, all that's needed is to produce a correctly formatted image. So it can work with any video card without specific support, and you can view 3D photos by just opening the image in the web browser.

    The only disadvantage is that horizontal resolution is halved. But it's still much better than the other options.

  11. It's not a new technology by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Informative

    But a new and more likely useful implementation. First off it's wireless which makes them much more practical for general use. The big deal these days is the faster monitors. Back when they first came out, you had to use them CRTs, LCDs were too slow. However even good CRTs had real hell doing refresh rates high enough not to produce severe flicker. 85Hz was fine for a normal image, too slow for this sort of thing to work well. It took a top of the line CRT to do 120Hz at even 1024x768.

    Well that's not a problem now. DLP screens update way, waaaaaay, faster. They cycle colours thousands of times per second. So doing 120Hz, or rather 60Hz per eye, is no problem at all.

    Nothing revolutionary, but it is practical now. I remember playing with it when it first came out. It was kinda cool, but not all that usable and only really worked when I tried it on a professional CRT at work. This sounds like I could make it work in my living room on a normal DLP screen.

  12. Re:OpenGL support? by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Welp, to answer my own question, it looks like it does not. That's a shame, as the only game I really play is ETQW.

  13. There are downsides to this approach by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 4, Informative

    To understand why this may be a poor choice for 3D glasses technology for consumers, as well as some thoughts on why NVIDIA might have gone with it anyways, here's an article that gets into the nitty gritty. Brief summary; headaches and batteries.

    (Insert usual disclaimer about the Inquirer not exactly being an enthusiastic supporter of NVIDIA here..)

  14. I've played it all by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've owned and used heavily 2 stereoscopic 3d systems.

    One used a large CRT monitor that could run at 150Hz. I had two different 3d shutter glasses I used. I remember having to do quite a bit of tweaking with each game I wanted to play, but eventually I was able to get 'perfect' effects that were completely and totally awesome.

    You can't really know til you try it, but 3d can make games feel dramatically more real. It can make even older games look a LOT better. Deus Ex was pretty darn awesome looking when your weapons actually have depth to them, and so do the enemies.

    I then built a passive stereoscopic rig using polarized glasses and 2 LCD monitors, as well as a half-silvered mirror. Total cost : about $650. That one also ruled, and worked better than the shutter glasses. I found that the killer app game for it was World of Warcraft.

    This was 18 months ago : I was playing WoW in full 3d. I had to disable just 1 effect to get it to work perfectly, all of the time, smooth as glass. Again, a lot of the graphics of that game look amazing when they have depth, because your brain automatically fills in details that aren't really in the low detail graphics.

    Why did I quit? Time, and the fact that Nvidia basically abandoned stereo 3d for a while. My 8800GT did not work at all for a long time. Stereo 3d IS worth it, but it requires heavy driver support or it doesn't work.

    Also, I never could eliminate "ghosting". That is where the images from one eye leak into the other. One game in particular, a horror game, was AWESOME and VASTLY more scary with depth. The problem was, the dark shadows and flashlights would create various halos on the screen from ghosting which was very unrealistic and distracting.

    Ghosting is inherent to shutter glasses. The only 3d tech that completely eliminates it is a headset with a separate display for each eye. However, no affordable, high resolution headsets are available on the market today. (and when I say affordable, I mean for any reasonable price. You cannot get a high resolution head mounted display for even $2000)

  15. RTFA - these are shutter glasses for displays by billstewart · · Score: 4, Informative

    These aren't the kind of video glasses that display the image right in front of each eye - these are shutter glasses that alternately black out the left and right sides, synchronized with your monitor that's alternately showing right and left images.

    So if you're walking around instead of looking at your monitor, unless the real world is blinking on and off in sync with your glasses, it'll just look a little dimmer. And if the real world *is* blinking on and off in sync with your glasses, you've found Owsley's Secret Lost Acid Stash... let me help you with that :-)

    (My first question when reading the headline about new 3D glasses was to wonder what resolution they are, since I'm not happy reading text at less than 800x600, and most gamer glasses have been 640x200 or less, , but of course they don't work for that either, so no gargoyle mode for me yet.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  16. Re:New? by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Correction (or emphasis perhaps, since you did mention it), as I had a pair of glasses as well, they worked IF the game used the Z buffer 'correctly'. However many games did wacky stuff with their UI's and the Z buffer, making it do all sorts of wacky stuff.

    I think I remember one game had set the "base" of the UI to be at the bottom, while all the interactive parts were at the top, so while it looked correctly without the glasses you had an UI that looked as if it were sunk well below the 'game window' and the dials and gauges are such were floating in the air. What's more, they weren't just floating above the spots they would have had on the base, but offset.

    Another game, for some reason, had every other element at a different level, meaning while (again) the UI looked normal without the glasses, it looked like something Escher and Dali would have co-created while on LSD.

  17. Duke Nukem Forever? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I may be responsible for the fact that Duke Nukem 4ever has yet to be released.

    A year or three (a long time ago, I don't remember exactly when) after Duke Nukem 3-D came out, there was a gaming discussion site called Planet Crap. It was a low visibility site, and most of the folks who posted there tried to keep it that way, not mentioning or linking it on their own sites.

    It was a site shared by gamers, game webmasters (who were of course all gamers), and industry insiders. Warren Marshall posted there (he was a pirate in his college days, which is why he fears pirates so badly), as did several of his artists and programmers. People from ID posted there, and Charles Broussard and his people posted there as well.

    There was a discussion one day, I don't remember the topic, but Mr. broussard was posting. I wondered out loud why Duke Nukem 3-D was not really 3-D at all, but 2-D perspective. Charles said something to the effect of "we don't yet have holographic displays". I mentioned stereoscopic viewing and suggested red/green glasses.

    Duke Nukem 4ever became more and more a joke as time went by, but I've always wondered if they were working on a true 3-D game. These glasses in TFA would do the trick far better than the red/green glasses.

    I also wonder when we're going to have truly holographic displays? All one would need would be a high enough resolution LCD, with instead of a white backlight, a mirrored back and a laser frontlight. It would be monochromatic, but I think you could work it out with three lasers each firing in turn and tied to display different diffraction patters so that it could be true color, true 3-D. It would be more than stereoscopic viewing as these glasses are, but true 3-D, so you could actually see around the displayed objects by moving your head (if you've ever seen a real hologram you know what I mean).

  18. Re:New? by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Informative

    Which model is that?

    Zalman TRIMON ZM-M220W

  19. Not just that by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nvidia fucked over the consumer with these.

    I've had a pair of shutter glasses (as have a hell of a lot of other people) for years. For years, I was a fan of Nvidia because they included shutter support in an add-on driver release. I played Portal with my original-series VRStandard glasses and it was AMAZING.

    Six months ago, Nvidia entered into a monetary partnership with people who make some shitty, half-assed "3d compatible" lcd monitors. All of a sudden, the latest version of the add-on driver (a) is Vista-Only (fucking bullshit) and (b) dropped support for anything but anaglyph, these "3d compatible lcd monitors", or "official Nvidia shutter glasses."

    I'm not about to infect my computer with the Vista Virus to have this, much less have to go spend money on buying more new hardware that, internally, is exactly the fucking same as I already own except for having the monitor-sync bit use a different one of the 14 VGA pins to hide its left/right signal.

    Fuck Nvidia till they start putting the consumer first again. And if they don't fix this and give us back the driver support, then I won't buy their cards anymore.

  20. Further taking RTFA apart by Moryath · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't a "review", this is a paid-for advert disguised as one.

    A few examples:
    Active glasses for stereo 3D viewing are not a technology created by NVIDIA and in fact they have been around for some time as well. However, the quality of the glasses and the user experience has been low due to low frame rates (30 Hz to each eye usually) and bulky hardware.

    Reality: Existing glasses solutions (from companies like EDimensional and preceding them, VRStandard) are just as slim as the NVidia offering and run at the same framerate (100-120 Hz).

    As of today, NVIDIA's 3D technology will work with only two types of displays: true 120 Hz LCD monitors and 3D-Ready DLP projection televisions.

    That's only because Nvidia has a monetary interest in forcing people to buy new hardware; the old glasses solutions worked just fine with true 120-Hz monitors, DLP projection TV's, and even standard CRT monitors until recently when Nvidia deliberately broke the drivers and made 3D-support only available on Windows Vista.

    I feel it is also important to realize that while the 3D effects we are seeing today are really cool and well worth the investment of $199,

    A pair of EDimensional glasses six months ago ran you $60-80 depending on where you bought them, and were exactly the same technology inside; all NVidia's done is changed which pin they're hiding the monitor/glasses sync signal in on the video cable. Charging $200 is fucking highway robbery and they know it.

    It's a pity that "PC Perspective" ran a shitty, paid-for "review" and are trying to fool everyone. I call Scam because I see one.