"Stereoscopic 3D still sucks"

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Ares202

Originally posted by: Creig
You can continue to try and sell these things as hard as you want, but the technology is the same as it was 10 years ago. I know what lower res games look like and what higher res games look like. I know what lower res 3D stereoscopic looks like, I know what higher res 3D stereoscopic will look like.

I'm sorry if nobody here seems to be getting as excited about these glasses as your employer would like, but it's simply not worth the asking price. Once people already have 120Hz monitors and fast Nvidia cards and the price of the glasses drops to $100, then I think you'll sales start to take off. Don't forget, this technology was released 10 years ago, back when people already had CRTs capable of 140Hz and the glasses were only $50-$80. And yet it still fizzled. Now you expect people to shell out $600-$900 for the privilege of seeing the exact same thing, but at a higher res?

Good luck.

+1

$600 thats a joke, i used to see these at computer fairs for $80 if they come down in price ten fold then some people might consider it

Guess that depends on your pocketbook.

$600 is not a lot of money to a lot of people, and while people complain about the recession, most of us still have our jobs. I don't even know anyone effected by the recession except for having more money because the price of gas,interest and vehicles has tanked.

I spend $600 (or more) on hobbies all the time.

I just spent $800 but not on anything remotely computer or gaming or electronic related. It's not necessarily the $600, it's $600 for gaming alone. Then I'd have to turn things down or I'd witness a slideshow (all reviews say the Framerate takes a hit).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
@apoppin

Why you didn't shop for a good price on your 4870 x2 ? I clearly remember you getting yours at BestBuy online for a great price at the time.

huh? i did .. i got a great price on it


- most all of my HW was got on sale or discounted pretty far
- i think i have some lucky timing

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: nRollo

"There is nothing you can add to a computer that I'd consider mid-range (3GHz C2D/GTX260/2GBRAM/24" monitor) for $600 that will offer 1/100th the change in gaming experience this will, not to mention the added bonus of going dual monitor and having a ton more desktop"

Well, I already have a dual monitor and a HD4870, so is it worth it to me to get an Nvidia card good enough to handle 3D and Physx and then another $600 more to upgrade 3D?

Well, I haven't seen it but frankly, for no more then I game it's just not going to be worth it. Since I put my new system together (3 weeks ago) I've gamed once.... for an hour.

To me it's really as simple as this, what nobodyknows wrote. Consumers will decide if this is worth this amount of money or not. They will either buy it, or it will drop in price so more users will adopt it, or it'll wither and die. Take the GTX280 for example, regardless of how fanboys will spin it, no way in hell it provided $650 worth of performance, especially in comparrison to the competition. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gamers will decide 3D is simply not worth a total of $600+ ($400 22" monitor and $200 glasses) to have this feature. I have no doubt that the technology is very cool and much more immersive then any 2D monitor. I just don't see it taking off in this economy at this launch price. When 120hz monitors are more the norm, and priced as the norm, and Nvidia isn't charging so much for the glasses ('so much' being my opinion) then I can see this technology moving forward. But with todays economy and the premium for small-ish 120hz monitors, I just don't see this gaining a foothold and being bought by anyone other then staunch Nvidia fanboys. Just my $.02.

I didn't buy the GTX280 for $600...I waited until it was under $400, which is my personal limit on how much I'm willing to spend on a new card. Gaming on my PC isn't all that important to me, not when I have a PS3 and 360 as well.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


I just spent $800 but not on anything remotely computer or gaming or electronic related. It'd not necessarily the $600, it's $600 for gaming alone. Then I'd have to turn things down or I'd witness a slideshow (all reviews say the Framerate takes a hit).

The framerate takes a hit because the image is being rendered twice, doing double the work slows down cards some.

On the bright side, you have a GTX280 that can render 16X10 4X16X at very high framerates at a lot of games.

There's also some thought that the blending of the two rendered images somewhat diminishes the need for AA in general.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: SirPaulie
nRollo,

Need time to adjust to this alias, hehe,!

Since you benched Mirror's edge with Stereo3d and thanks for that. I have a question that will deal with a subjective view from you.

Mirror's edge has a lot of scale -- with tall buildings and such -- how does the 3d effect feel like to you in this title? Do you get the realistic feeling of heights looking down and such?

Can you offer some comments, please.

In my experience, I've had to turn down the level of depth in Mirrors Edge compared to what I use in other games.

This is one of the games that gets a "Good" rating rather than "Excellent" for 3d, has an issue with light halos being 2d and doesn't like a ton of depth. It does look pretty good with the 3d turned down, and does offer 3d.

I installed two old games tonight and found myself sucked into replaying them longer than I planned.

Painkiller works excellent with 3D, as does Serious Sam 2. (SS2 is an example of an unrated game I've tried that works very well if you turn off the bloom and HDR)

Note to BFG10K: Yep, I was even getting a kick out of SS2, blue babies and all. It pretty freaking surreal in 3d.

Bolded part, that's what I don't like. HDR was such a big deal not long ago and now everyone wants to turn it off? I don't want to turn off any effects, none. Come back when I can run everything maxed in DX10 and still get good fps.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


I just spent $800 but not on anything remotely computer or gaming or electronic related. It'd not necessarily the $600, it's $600 for gaming alone. Then I'd have to turn things down or I'd witness a slideshow (all reviews say the Framerate takes a hit).

The framerate takes a hit because the image is being rendered twice, doing double the work slows down cards some.

On the bright side, you have a GTX280 that can render 16X10 4X16X at very high framerates at a lot of games.

There's also some thought that the blending of the two rendered images somewhat diminishes the need for AA in general.

I have a GTX295 step-up order in with evga. I figured, $100 and I get roughly 2x the performance in some games. I just really don't like having to turn down effects for the 3D thing. Also, gaming isn't my PC's primary function so I can't see spending so much on it. Other hobbies sure, but not PC gaming.

It's all a personal choice, but really there's many who probably feel that many of the graphics cards out there aren't worth it. They can get a PS3 or 360 and play Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2 without worrying about whether they can play in DX10 or not. Or if they have to turn down shadows and post processing effects and AA/AF. PC Gaming isn't what it used to be that's for sure. That's why I really don't feel that this is a good time to release a product such as these 3D glasses.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: nRollo

"There is nothing you can add to a computer that I'd consider mid-range (3GHz C2D/GTX260/2GBRAM/24" monitor) for $600 that will offer 1/100th the change in gaming experience this will, not to mention the added bonus of going dual monitor and having a ton more desktop"

Well, I already have a dual monitor and a HD4870, so is it worth it to me to get an Nvidia card good enough to handle 3D and Physx and then another $600 more to upgrade 3D?

Well, I haven't seen it but frankly, for no more then I game it's just not going to be worth it. Since I put my new system together (3 weeks ago) I've gamed once.... for an hour.

If you game an hour a month, my thought is you don't need to spend much on gaming equipment.

I'd say this is more for hobbyists who are ready for something new.

Well I like to game, I've just been too busy what with year end stuff, taxes, etc. Once I'm caught up I might game for hours on the week-ends..... but when spring comes it will be a different story. I won't have time to game again until next winter.

Which is why I bought the the 4870 over the 260 in the first place. I wanted the 260 but video card age is worse then dog age where one dog year equals 7 human years.

 

[Ares202]

Originally posted by: v8envy
And yet, it looks like the rig in your signature is about $900. Did you consider donating to less fortunate in a third world country and making do with an E2140 and 9600GT instead?

I dont claim to be holier than thou, even if you do drive a 5 litre mustang but if i had that amount of money id use it on something more useful thats for sure

I also kinda get the feeling that some people on here dont have any morals

Instead of wasting time telling others what they should do with their money on the internet he could be out volunteering somewhere... where does it stop? If someone wants to pay $600 for a 22" monitor and 3D glasses, more power to them.

Its a bad choice and a rip off, these wouldnt be my first choices but its a good example

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
What I can get for $600 dollars
1) Half the cost of a new PC.
2) I could buy another 37" 1080P monitor.
3) Buy at least 12 new games.
4) Buy 40 DVDs.
5) Go see a 75 new movies.
6) Fill the gas in my car 27 times.
7) Pay for a year membership in a gym.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
With that said, how can someone legitimately diss a product without first giving a good test run? What is even worse is the press writing a article on the subject without proper testing and research. People should just ignore this dolt who wrote this dribble altogether.

One reason why I'm withholding any comments for the most part on these new glasses. Major concerns of mine are how good the effect is. I've used many 3D glasses in the past and they all pretty much have sucked.

Another is cost of entry. While I can afford it and while I've certainly spent my money on plenty of useless items, I now have a baby daughter to support. I have two 24" monitors on one computer, I can't justify getting another monitor just for 3D effects. The 3D would really really have to wow me.

The other is that I wear glasses. Do I have contacts? Yes, but I only wear then rarely, usually at formal occasions. If I have to wear contacts because these 3D glasses interfere with my normal prescription glasses then it's a no go.

Last is comfort. What will the effects of these be on your ears and head long term? I have a pair of Grado SR325i's which I paid a pretty penny for. They took a while to get broken in and were a bit uncomfortable until I got it broken in (pads and bending the shape of the metal band sitting on top of your head). Unfortunately you can't bend these 3D glasses judging from the way they are designed and there are certainly no pads to break in. If they are so heavy that they hurt your nose and ears upon which they rest, then it's a no go.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Bolded part, that's what I don't like. HDR was such a big deal not long ago and now everyone wants to turn it off? I don't want to turn off any effects, none. Come back when I can run everything maxed in DX10 and still get good fps.

HDR was a "big deal" because we didn't have this choice to make.

AA was a huge deal at 640X480 because the jaggies were about a 1/3 of an inch tall, but at 25X16 it's nowhere near as necessary.

I'm convinced there's not a person on the planet who could look at Serious Sam2 in 2D with HDR, compare it to Serious Sam 2 in 3d without HDR and say "Oh man, can't do without that HDR".

Like I said, I'm walking up to power ups, ammo, etc and just looking at it. HDR is kind of a yawn in comparison. Been there, done that, still just a little better 2d.

Times are changing, and the people with this can still choose the old crap if they prefer. I'm guessing they won't.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: soonerproud
With that said, how can someone legitimately diss a product without first giving a good test run? What is even worse is the press writing a article on the subject without proper testing and research. People should just ignore this dolt who wrote this dribble altogether.

One reason why I'm withholding any comments for the most part on these new glasses. Major concerns of mine are how good the effect is. I've used many 3D glasses in the past and they all pretty much have sucked.

Another is cost of entry. While I can afford it and while I've certainly spent my money on plenty of useless items, I now have a baby daughter to support. I have two 24" monitors on one computer, I can't justify getting another monitor just for 3D effects. The 3D would really really have to wow me.

The other is that I wear glasses. Do I have contacts? Yes, but I only wear then rarely, usually at formal occasions. If I have to wear contacts because these 3D glasses interfere with my normal prescription glasses then it's a no go.

Last is comfort. What will the effects of these be on your ears and head long term? I have a pair of Grado SR325i's which I paid a pretty penny for. They took a while to get broken in and were a bit uncomfortable until I got it broken in (pads and bending the shape of the metal band sitting on top of your head). Unfortunately you can't bend these 3D glasses judging from the way they are designed and there are certainly no pads to break in. If they are so heavy that they hurt your nose and ears upon which they rest, then it's a no go.

Heh- I'm going to be glad when the kiosks go up.

"$600 is a lot for something that might have some downsides!" is going to to change to "Damnit! Now I have to spend $600 because what I used to think was "good graphics" just became the equivalent of a 12" black and white tv with tin foil on the rabbit ears".

I can't describe what the effect is like, you guys just need to see it.

 

[imported_Scoop]

The comeback of 3D glasses? Make sure you close the curtains...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: nRollo

"There is nothing you can add to a computer that I'd consider mid-range (3GHz C2D/GTX260/2GBRAM/24" monitor) for $600 that will offer 1/100th the change in gaming experience this will, not to mention the added bonus of going dual monitor and having a ton more desktop"

Well, I already have a dual monitor and a HD4870, so is it worth it to me to get an Nvidia card good enough to handle 3D and Physx and then another $600 more to upgrade 3D?

Well, I haven't seen it but frankly, for no more then I game it's just not going to be worth it. Since I put my new system together (3 weeks ago) I've gamed once.... for an hour.

To me it's really as simple as this, what nobodyknows wrote. Consumers will decide if this is worth this amount of money or not. They will either buy it, or it will drop in price so more users will adopt it, or it'll wither and die. Take the GTX280 for example, regardless of how fanboys will spin it, no way in hell it provided $650 worth of performance, especially in comparrison to the competition. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gamers will decide 3D is simply not worth a total of $600+ ($400 22" monitor and $200 glasses) to have this feature. I have no doubt that the technology is very cool and much more immersive then any 2D monitor. I just don't see it taking off in this economy at this launch price. When 120hz monitors are more the norm, and priced as the norm, and Nvidia isn't charging so much for the glasses ('so much' being my opinion) then I can see this technology moving forward. But with todays economy and the premium for small-ish 120hz monitors, I just don't see this gaining a foothold and being bought by anyone other then staunch Nvidia fanboys. Just my $.02.

I didn't buy the GTX280 for $600...I waited until it was under $400, which is my personal limit on how much I'm willing to spend on a new card. Gaming on my PC isn't all that important to me, not when I have a PS3 and 360 as well.

That's pretty much exactly my point. You didn't pay $600+ for a GTX280, and most people didn't and my guess is most people wouldn't. So Nvidia changed the price accordingly, and the GTX280 sold decently. Right now, to me, 3D is just too costly to sell significantly in my opinion. When the price drops (like it had to for the GTX280) then this may take off. But, I just don't see this taking off today, at it's current cost. For me it'd be $600 for the glasses and monitor, and I'd have to get a new video card. Being that my computer is multi-purpose, if I'm going to spend more money on a monitor it's not going to be for an identical size monitor and my current desk just won't allow more then one monitor.

Anyway, my point was that I just don't see this doing well at the price it costs today. Much like the GTX280 would have struggled if Nvidia kept the price high, I think they'll have to adjust the price of the 3D set up for this to sell well. Just my opinion... maybe I'll be proved wrong and this will sell like mad. But I doubt it.

 

[SirPaulie]

Curious the blending of frames and how it helps improve curbing aliasing to some levels. That would be one of the first things I would investigate as well.

 

[SirPaulie]

But it's like anything else: when is the right time to make the move to 3d Stereo?

This is a complex decision based on many facets from each individual. Right now, it's for early adopters whom may be looking for new experiences for 3d. Others, well, it's a bit out of reach, but something to look at down the road. Others, well, they may wait 'till the the technology matures more.

What if a gamer buys a 120hz monitor for the quality and 120hz aspects of the monitor when prices drop in due time?

Then decide later on to try nVidia's 3d stereo?

It's not about right now - this instant -- just that the choice starts now and very welcomed from fruit-cake gamers like me always on the prowl for improved gaming experiences.

We have some powerful players looking at Stereo 3d and placing their name behind it -- man, i can learn about at least. And if it delivers -- have the choice to buy it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Bolded part, that's what I don't like. HDR was such a big deal not long ago and now everyone wants to turn it off? I don't want to turn off any effects, none. Come back when I can run everything maxed in DX10 and still get good fps.

HDR was a "big deal" because we didn't have this choice to make.

AA was a huge deal at 640X480 because the jaggies were about a 1/3 of an inch tall, but at 25X16 it's nowhere near as necessary.

I'm convinced there's not a person on the planet who could look at Serious Sam2 in 2D with HDR, compare it to Serious Sam 2 in 3d without HDR and say "Oh man, can't do without that HDR".

Like I said, I'm walking up to power ups, ammo, etc and just looking at it. HDR is kind of a yawn in comparison. Been there, done that, still just a little better 2d.

Times are changing, and the people with this can still choose the old crap if they prefer. I'm guessing they won't.

I'm guessing they won't fork over money to Nvidia like it grows on trees either. And so far I'm winning the guessing game.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Ares202
I also kinda get the feeling that some people on here dont have any morals

Its a bad choice and a rip off, these wouldnt be my first choices but its a good example

You are being "holier than thou" with these types of comments. What gives you the right to determine what is moral and immoral for others to do with their own money? So I guess you consider it "evil" for people to spend their own hard earned money how they see fit? Freedom must really be evil then. Supporting a company that employs thousands of working people and provides jobs must be evil in your world view.

You are not God and have no right to tell anyone they are immoral for buying a product they desire. I bet if we were to get access to your home and bank account we could find all sorts of immoral ways you have spent your own money by your very definition. Your post is filled with hypocrisy.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd


I'm guessing they won't fork over money to Nvidia like it grows on trees either. And so far I'm winning the guessing game.

And that's their loss.

People who don't fork over money to Ferrari like it grows on trees still end up driving cars that are boring in comparison.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: nRollo
Times are changing, and the people with this can still choose the old crap if they prefer. I'm guessing they won't.

So now any game that you aren't using 3D glasses on is "old crap"? :roll:

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: nRollo
Times are changing, and the people with this can still choose the old crap if they prefer. I'm guessing they won't.

So now any game that you aren't using 3D glasses on is "old crap"? :roll:

Pretty much.

(at least for the games that work well there's no comparison)

EDIT: I think you misunderstood that- by "old crap" I meant the old enhancing features like HDR and Bloom. They're just weak comparatively.

 

[Extelleron]

I'd love to try out nVidia's 3D vision in a store if they ever have it available to show off, but right now it is still too expensive and from what I see it is a nice tech demo of what is to come, not a fully functioning product that is ready for mainstream use.

The cost is too high, there are too many issues, and there are so few games where it really works well and performance is acceptable. There are also too many image quality sacrifices that have to be made, and people who buy multiple $500 graphics cards, $1000 monitors, etc..... don't make sacrifices.

I'll look into it when the glasses are $49, 24" 120Hz LCDs are available for $199, and the bugs are fixed....

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
I'd love to try out nVidia's 3D vision in a store if they ever have it available to show off, but right now it is still too expensive and from what I see it is a nice tech demo of what is to come, not a fully functioning product that is ready for mainstream use.

The cost is too high, there are too many issues, and there are so few games where it really works well and performance is acceptable. There are also too many image quality sacrifices that have to be made, and people who buy multiple $500 graphics cards, $1000 monitors, etc..... don't make sacrifices.

I'll look into it when the glasses are $49, 24" 120Hz LCDs are available for $199, and the bugs are fixed....

It's because I buy expensive parts that I enjoy this, I want the best.

I've got a 24" 19X12 monitor, a 30" 25X16 monitor, a 47" HD TV, and a 50" HD TV I could be gaming on, I'm using the 22" 16X10 because it offers much higher immersion.

That says a lot- I don't even have to buy monitors you consider better, just hook them up. I don't though.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: nRollo
Guess that depends on your pocketbook.

$600 is not a lot of money to a lot of people, and while people complain about the recession, most of us still have our jobs. I don't even know anyone effected by the recession except for having more money because the price of gas,interest and vehicles has tanked.

I spend $600 (or more) on hobbies all the time.

Umm...I don't know what neighborhood you're from but the majority of America can't afford $600 on a video upgrade, which is essentially what this is. This is already assuming you have a powerful video card to run alongside the glasses and 120hz LCD.

Even without the recession, most people I know can't afford, or at least not justify, spending $600 on a new computer much less on a computer upgrade.

Not to turn this into a video game console thread but why do you think, with the popularity of the Playstation brand, the PS3 is failing miserably? Cause it was priced at $600 on launch. Most of America simply do not have the funds to spend $600 on a full game console, why in the world would someone think they would spend $600 on a video upgrade for their computer?

AT'ers and those who frequent tech sites such as AT are not in the majority. We are in the minority. Even with the people who are more tech minded and love tech as a whole, a lot of them can't afford $600 for a video upgrade.

**EDIT**

I and my brothers helped my dad build his businesses and he has started and sold two successful retail businesses. We are immigrants from a war torn country (at that time) and came to America knowing zero English. We are not affected by the stock market since we have moved our assets to real estate. Suffice to say the rent monies bring in more than many people (even those in the lower middle class) make in a year. Enough to say that I don't have to work if I didn't want to.

With all that said, I still work. I want to say I supported my daughter and not leached off of my parents. I want to be able to say I earned what I got. I can afford this tech. However, being able to afford it and having friends who can afford it doesn't mean I'm blind to the plight of many in the world who are much poorer and hit hardest by the recession.

I know a lot of people who used to own shops or work in low wage jobs losing their jobs. Heck, the local supermarket was hiring a couple of workers and there was a line of about 50 people when I went shopping for groceries one time. Before they had to plaster the help wanted sign all over the store front before anyone noticed.

 

[nRollo]

akugami-

I never said "most people" can afford it, I said "most people I know".

 

[cmdrdredd]

Well, I really wish you (nRollo) were NOT an Nvidia marketing person. Then you could see from our perspective. If it wasn't free, would the $600 be worth it. You can say yes, but that doesn't mean anything until you're on the other side of the fence which you can't be. I wonder, if ATI had come up with this first and priced it just as Nvidia has, if you and others would be as gung ho about it. I doubt it.