My only experience with 3D stuff is with a high end set about a year ago. It was a Samsung IIRC.

I didn't like it. It didn't look "real", plus it gave me a headache. It provided an interesting effect, but I would rather watch a nice 2d image with no glasses, personally.

Surround gaming I like.

I just think that all this 3d stuff has way too many "cons" right now. Here are my pros and cons for the technology:

pros:

- it provides an interesting quasi-3d effect
- you can decipher depth perception to an extent

cons:

- the images look like "paper mario" glued onto a 3d space
- you need to wear glasses -- it's very antisocial and they're not comfortable, especially if you wear glasses to begin with
- the cost
- headaches
- lack of over-the-air content
- you need 120hz monitors
- you need a beast of a rig for it to work properly
- the technology is still in its infancy, so you get to pay some corporations your hard earned money so you can be a guinea pig for them

i feel really hurt. i spent SIX MONTHS researching this subject and just published a 17,000 word evaluation (with the high point being my interview with Jon Peddie) and you completely ignore it to post drivel. Didn't you see it on the main page? Maybe i should have done it in brighter colors


3D Vision Mega Evaluation – Gimmick or Gaming’s Future?


http://alienbabeltech.com/main/3d-visio ... ture/all/1

i feel certain that you did not read my article since it answers every single one of your points .. my replies to you are in BOLD. But do read the article, please.


It was not set up right. Convergence needs to be adjusted individually for S3D PC gaming.


i do also - but only for certain games; games developed with it in mind especially and S3D over 3 panels is immersive. i am looking forward to 3x2 S3D gaming

It doesn't look like that[b] period - you got a bad demonstration - or else it was not 3D Vision; some "glasses free" or 2D conversions look like you describe

A lie repeated often enough gains credibility with sheep; NO ONE has issues with wearing SUNGLASSES for hours on end and in public or at the IMAX - so drop that STUPID argument! Again, NO ONE had issues - not one of my 20 guest with the 3D Vision glasses; and many of them wear prescription eyeglasses


The costs of a 120Hz LCD should be absorbed for a better FPS gaming experience - then it is only $80 for a pair of wired 3D Vision glasses; jut one special edition game will cost that, and i got to REPLAY 80 games - most of which i would have NEVER replayed otherwise - great bang-for-buck!

Again, have a S3D demo set up properly - NONE of my 20 guests got headaches although some games fatigued some players more than others

It will be cable that leads the way ...

You should have one ANYWAY for shooters. You 60Hz LCD is blurry as hell for fast paced shooters, you are just used to it; did you forget how crisp your old CRT looked? Side by side playing Mirror's Edge




Read my article - performance hit is less than 50%; i got charts and graphs for "worst case" and you can even get a satisfactory 3D Vision experience playing with a GTX 550 Ti; 560 Ti is plenty for most gamers


S3D has been around since the 1850s. The S3D experience for active shutter PC games since the early 1980 for the consoles and since 1999 for PC gaming. The tech is mature and the experience is awesome = it is worth it imo and it is the future of gaming as my article points out.

Yep. It didn't take off then or at any point between then and now, and is quite unlikely to do so now. maybe by 2150. Once a gimmick, always a gimmick.

That Mirror's edge comparison Image I find extremely unbelievable. It is very blurry, which simly won't happen on a quality LCD monitor. A cheap LCD TV, maybe. And the broken lines? Vsync issues which can still happen at 120 hz if the game renders quickly enough (quake 3 for instance).

I still have access to my old CRT monitor and it is flat out ugly in comparison to both my 30" and 24" LCD's. I'd never back or call it crisp. I don't miss the optical distortion or the flickery scanlines.

The difference is that the earlier iterations of S3D was simply awful and headache inducing.
- today's provides a decent experience and it is constantly improving.

i bet you didn't read my article.
- i covered the image in the article as "worst case" - "best case". Those are actual frames captured with a high speed camera. i am working on my own side-by-side evaluation and i need to make a frame for my display; unlike with Nvidia's example, i will use two of the SAME (ASUS) displays - one being at 120Hz and the other at 60Hz.

It will take a little while to set up. However, if you are playing a fast-paced shooter on a 60Hz display you are already used to the blur and tearing

I did read your article. The day you posted the link.

What blur and tearing though? I've played fast paced shooters on all my high end monitors and the 60 hz LCD's are so superior to the CRT even though it could do well above 120 hz in a lot of modes that it simply isn't funny.

There is some nice data in there from nVidia, thanks!:)

Edit: I missed this obviously!

I never knew that nVidia had a dynamic convergence API.

Sometimes it doesn't work at all; and the devs lock the convergence in many new games. You can play with the hotkeys but they do essentially nothing. This is the only point that i take issue with Nvidia on - our choice in adjusting it for ourselves:


If you can get it to work in a game with a lot if ghosting, you get a much nicer game with extra depth. Most of the time, i left the setting as they were OoB and just adjusted the depth - then i would physically move the screen to an optimum viewing experience for me - a couple of inches either way .. but i never mentioned that.



Most people don't notice it. Most gamers went for high resolution on their CRTs and aimed for 85Hz or so. The pros went for 140Hz at low resolution so as to have absolutely crisp images.

i have to do some high speed camera work and i am going to further research this. But i need to build a stand to set one display above the other and turn my HD camera sideways. Of course, i have to make sure that i am taking shots of at at least 120fps and that one display is being fed a 60Hz signal while the other cloned display is getting 120Hz. Then we will see,

I guess the people who say I blindly hate AMD because I constantly criticize them will now say that I blindly hate nvidia because I contstantly criticize their 3DVision (and S3D in general) .......

Have you actually evaluated 3D Vision properly set up?

If not, i would just say that you are blindly criticizing it