Has nvidia abandoned 3dvision for good?
  5 / 7    
[quote="Qwinn"]I very much hope 3D Vision stays alive. I'm as interested in VR 3D Vision can look fantastic in *any* of these game formats. VR brings a ton of limitations. It'll be fantastic for a very specific type (or two) of games, but 3D Vision will be needed and capable of covering *all* games. If I were running the joint, I know where I'd devote at least half my attention, in case VR turns out to crash and burn as hard as they seem to think 3D has. I wonder, could full 3D Vision be properly demo'd/replicated in modern 3D movie theaters? If so, frankly, NVidia should be buying a commercial for 3D Vision to run before every 3D movie showing anywhere, everywhere. But only if you can turn the depth and convergence up enough to actually impress, otherwise, you're just exacerbating the low-expectations problem. [/quote]Not possible, 3DVision must be set with the size of the screen, in theater there is no specific size, if you have 100% on the LG theater in Sydney, you'll get less than 20% on the biggest screen in Paris theater... 20% won't amaze anybody there. VR won't works, it is more restrictive than actual 3D... See about theater and VR: [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/904247/3d-vision/has-nvidia-abandoned-3dvision-for-good-/post/4769487/#4769487[/url] .
Qwinn said:I very much hope 3D Vision stays alive. I'm as interested in VR

3D Vision can look fantastic in *any* of these game formats. VR brings a ton of limitations. It'll be fantastic for a very specific type (or two) of games, but 3D Vision will be needed and capable of covering *all* games. If I were running the joint, I know where I'd devote at least half my attention, in case VR turns out to crash and burn as hard as they seem to think 3D has.

I wonder, could full 3D Vision be properly demo'd/replicated in modern 3D movie theaters? If so, frankly, NVidia should be buying a commercial for 3D Vision to run before every 3D movie showing anywhere, everywhere. But only if you can turn the depth and convergence up enough to actually impress, otherwise, you're just exacerbating the low-expectations problem.
Not possible, 3DVision must be set with the size of the screen, in theater there is no specific size, if you have 100% on the LG theater in Sydney, you'll get less than 20% on the biggest screen in Paris theater... 20% won't amaze anybody there.


VR won't works, it is more restrictive than actual 3D...


See about theater and VR:

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/904247/3d-vision/has-nvidia-abandoned-3dvision-for-good-/post/4769487/#4769487





.
i always read about the Half resolution about passive tech, compared to active tech....and is a totally misleading. The myht of the Half resolution for passive, also apply to active tech.....people says half the resolution because they see one frame and one eye, but you have to see 2 frames and 2 eyes (because this is 3D, not 2D) to do a real comparison. Both tech get the same amount of pixels on screen one 1 frame and 2 frames, using both eyes. The bad thing in active tech it's you get one black screen time to time....so this introduce flicketing and ghosting, passive don't. Also passive is cheaper and not need to charge the glasses. [url]http://stijndewitt.com/2012/02/04/active-vs-passive-3d-myth/[/url] I don't want to create a debate here, but it's simple to look at the image: [img]http://stijndewitt.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/diagram-active-vs-passive-3d1.png?w=530[/img]
i always read about the Half resolution about passive tech, compared to active tech....and is a totally misleading.

The myht of the Half resolution for passive, also apply to active tech.....people says half the resolution because they see one frame and one eye, but you have to see 2 frames and 2 eyes (because this is 3D, not 2D) to do a real comparison. Both tech get the same amount of pixels on screen one 1 frame and 2 frames, using both eyes.

The bad thing in active tech it's you get one black screen time to time....so this introduce flicketing and ghosting, passive don't. Also passive is cheaper and not need to charge the glasses.

http://stijndewitt.com/2012/02/04/active-vs-passive-3d-myth/

I don't want to create a debate here, but it's simple to look at the image:

Image

MY WEB

Helix Mod - Making 3D Better

My 3D Screenshot Gallery

Like my fixes? you can donate to Paypal: dhr.donation@gmail.com

#62
Posted 02/13/2016 03:07 PM   
[quote="Dugom"][quote="Qwinn"]I very much hope 3D Vision stays alive. I'm as interested in VR 3D Vision can look fantastic in *any* of these game formats. VR brings a ton of limitations. It'll be fantastic for a very specific type (or two) of games, but 3D Vision will be needed and capable of covering *all* games. If I were running the joint, I know where I'd devote at least half my attention, in case VR turns out to crash and burn as hard as they seem to think 3D has. I wonder, could full 3D Vision be properly demo'd/replicated in modern 3D movie theaters? If so, frankly, NVidia should be buying a commercial for 3D Vision to run before every 3D movie showing anywhere, everywhere. But only if you can turn the depth and convergence up enough to actually impress, otherwise, you're just exacerbating the low-expectations problem. [/quote]Not possible, 3DVision must be set with the size of the screen, in theater there is no specific size, if you have 100% on the LG theater in Sydney, you'll get less than 20% on the biggest screen in Paris theater... 20% won't amaze anybody there. [/quote] I dont see any reason why it wouldnt be technically possible. Even on 1 profile its possible, as long as that profile gives enough depth for smallest screens. Larger ones with that same profile would give more separation. Thats no problem, you can adjust nvidia percentage lower to get same separation compared to smaller screens. This is also assuming you could run demo in real time which would be pretty hard i think. If there was a video clip showing 3d vision, the separation should be set according to largest screens imo or ideally specific to a theater.
Dugom said:
Qwinn said:I very much hope 3D Vision stays alive. I'm as interested in VR

3D Vision can look fantastic in *any* of these game formats. VR brings a ton of limitations. It'll be fantastic for a very specific type (or two) of games, but 3D Vision will be needed and capable of covering *all* games. If I were running the joint, I know where I'd devote at least half my attention, in case VR turns out to crash and burn as hard as they seem to think 3D has.

I wonder, could full 3D Vision be properly demo'd/replicated in modern 3D movie theaters? If so, frankly, NVidia should be buying a commercial for 3D Vision to run before every 3D movie showing anywhere, everywhere. But only if you can turn the depth and convergence up enough to actually impress, otherwise, you're just exacerbating the low-expectations problem.
Not possible, 3DVision must be set with the size of the screen, in theater there is no specific size, if you have 100% on the LG theater in Sydney, you'll get less than 20% on the biggest screen in Paris theater... 20% won't amaze anybody there.



I dont see any reason why it wouldnt be technically possible. Even on 1 profile its possible, as long as that profile gives enough depth for smallest screens. Larger ones with that same profile would give more separation. Thats no problem, you can adjust nvidia percentage lower to get same separation compared to smaller screens. This is also assuming you could run demo in real time which would be pretty hard i think. If there was a video clip showing 3d vision, the separation should be set according to largest screens imo or ideally specific to a theater.

#63
Posted 02/13/2016 03:10 PM   
[quote="DHR"]I don't want to create a debate here, but it's simple to look at the image[/quote]Well in active you see the complete image on one eye then the other, passive you see half the image in each eyes at the same time. The point is in passive you always lost half the definition, in active you always lost 1 images of 2. What is better? .
DHR said:I don't want to create a debate here, but it's simple to look at the image
Well in active you see the complete image on one eye then the other, passive you see half the image in each eyes at the same time. The point is in passive you always lost half the definition, in active you always lost 1 images of 2.

What is better?


.
[quote="GibsonRed"]If love to know what that 3D Vision team does all day! Sitting around playing community fixes? Someone needs to phone up nvidia and ask to speak to someone in the 3D department and tell them to get off their arse and sort it out. [/quote] They sit around and play games in 3D with Helix mod all day. Andrew used to sit in his office all day and throw pencils at the ceiling and think of new ways to "keep users from stealing his 3D tv play software."
GibsonRed said:If love to know what that 3D Vision team does all day!
Sitting around playing community fixes?
Someone needs to phone up nvidia and ask to speak to someone in the 3D department and tell them to get off their arse and sort it out.




They sit around and play games in 3D with Helix mod all day. Andrew used to sit in his office all day and throw pencils at the ceiling and think of new ways to "keep users from stealing his 3D tv play software."

AMD Phenom II X3 720 @ 2.8GHZ
8GB RAM
Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb @ 2048x1536 @ 85hz
Edimensional glasses and Nvidia 3D Vision

#65
Posted 02/13/2016 03:41 PM   
[quote="sammy123"]I dont see any reason why it wouldnt be technically possible. Even on 1 profile its possible, as long as that profile gives enough depth for smallest screens. Larger ones with that same profile would give more separation. Thats no problem, you can adjust nvidia percentage lower to get same separation compared to smaller screens. This is also assuming you could run demo in real time which would be pretty hard i think. If there was a video clip showing 3d vision, the separation should be set according to largest screens imo or ideally specific to a theater. [/quote]Cause video depth cannot be edited. You'll need a computer with good setting for each theater screens... It won't happen, too expensive. If you set a video 3D to 100% for a small theater screen, then on a bigger screen you get divergent vision, with immediate headache... This is how 3D works. The "simplest" way will be to send different pre recorded 3D video with different depth amount. Each specific video will be distributed to the right screen... But nobody will even try that. I go to 3D movie every month, it always shows the Xpand trailer in inverted 3D. I've give up any hope a long time ago. .
sammy123 said:I dont see any reason why it wouldnt be technically possible. Even on 1 profile its possible, as long as that profile gives enough depth for smallest screens. Larger ones with that same profile would give more separation. Thats no problem, you can adjust nvidia percentage lower to get same separation compared to smaller screens. This is also assuming you could run demo in real time which would be pretty hard i think. If there was a video clip showing 3d vision, the separation should be set according to largest screens imo or ideally specific to a theater.
Cause video depth cannot be edited. You'll need a computer with good setting for each theater screens... It won't happen, too expensive.
If you set a video 3D to 100% for a small theater screen, then on a bigger screen you get divergent vision, with immediate headache...

This is how 3D works.

The "simplest" way will be to send different pre recorded 3D video with different depth amount. Each specific video will be distributed to the right screen... But nobody will even try that.
I go to 3D movie every month, it always shows the Xpand trailer in inverted 3D. I've give up any hope a long time ago.




.
@dugom You still thinking in 2D, not 3D Full resolution in 3D will mean that in one frame, you will have full resolution in both eyes, one eye in a different offset to produce the 3D. Neither active or passive do that! I just say that both tech work with "half-resolution" About the diffrerent tech, of course this is for personal preferences. I personally prefer passive 3DTV....my eye/brain don't tolerate the flickering that produce active shutter. There is some interesting reading: [url]http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm[/url] [quote][b]Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses[/b] By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it’s easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can’t get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision. But it’s not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. [color="green"]The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical – but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn’t any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see[/color][/quote]
@dugom
You still thinking in 2D, not 3D
Full resolution in 3D will mean that in one frame, you will have full resolution in both eyes, one eye in a different offset to produce the 3D. Neither active or passive do that! I just say that both tech work with "half-resolution"

About the diffrerent tech, of course this is for personal preferences. I personally prefer passive 3DTV....my eye/brain don't tolerate the flickering that produce active shutter.

There is some interesting reading:
http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm

Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses
By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it’s easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can’t get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.

But it’s not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical – but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn’t any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see

MY WEB

Helix Mod - Making 3D Better

My 3D Screenshot Gallery

Like my fixes? you can donate to Paypal: dhr.donation@gmail.com

#67
Posted 02/13/2016 04:13 PM   
[quote="DHR"]@dugom You still thinking in 2D, not 3D Full resolution in 3D will mean that in one frame, you will have full resolution in both eyes, one eye in a different offset to produce the 3D. Neither active or passive do that! I just say that both tech work with "half-resolution"[/quote]Nope, time and pixels are not the same, sorry, we may have to be agree to disagree on this one. Full image in half the time is not half resolution. You lose Hz/FPS, not definition... But I get what you mean, for simplified exemple: 1080p 3D in active is (1x1080)+(0x1080), and in passive (1x540)+(1x540), both equal the same pixels. But i'm completely not ok to says that the definition will be the same. Plus passive in 3D theater, is full image in both eyes at the same time. [quote][b]Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses[/b] [color="green"]The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical – but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn’t any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see[/color][/quote]Kinda agree and I've already describe the vertical 3D info here somewhere to explain my thought to helifax [s](I'm searching wait 2sec)[/s]. Done here: [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/908779/question-about-3d-movies-technologies/?offset=6#4782593[/url] .
DHR said:@dugom
You still thinking in 2D, not 3D
Full resolution in 3D will mean that in one frame, you will have full resolution in both eyes, one eye in a different offset to produce the 3D. Neither active or passive do that! I just say that both tech work with "half-resolution"
Nope, time and pixels are not the same, sorry, we may have to be agree to disagree on this one. Full image in half the time is not half resolution. You lose Hz/FPS, not definition... But I get what you mean, for simplified exemple: 1080p 3D in active is (1x1080)+(0x1080), and in passive (1x540)+(1x540), both equal the same pixels. But i'm completely not ok to says that the definition will be the same.

Plus passive in 3D theater, is full image in both eyes at the same time.


Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses
The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical – but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn’t any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see
Kinda agree and I've already describe the vertical 3D info here somewhere to explain my thought to helifax (I'm searching wait 2sec).

Done here:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/908779/question-about-3d-movies-technologies/?offset=6#4782593



.
.
.
I'm just worried that they don't seem to be on sale anymore. Newegg is out, Amazon is out, only resellers are selling them and there's no way I'm spending $50 bucks extra for a technology that nVidia is abandoning. I was going to buy one soon but we were waiting to find out news about both tax returns and financial aid for me and my GF, I've been trying to get some sort of 3D for years and it's always been just out of my reach. Very frustrating, to say the least.
I'm just worried that they don't seem to be on sale anymore. Newegg is out, Amazon is out, only resellers are selling them and there's no way I'm spending $50 bucks extra for a technology that nVidia is abandoning.

I was going to buy one soon but we were waiting to find out news about both tax returns and financial aid for me and my GF, I've been trying to get some sort of 3D for years and it's always been just out of my reach. Very frustrating, to say the least.

#70
Posted 02/13/2016 05:19 PM   
I don't agree with DHR either. You're getting full resolution in active (it just requires twice as many frame updates). It's the whole reason you give each eye a full resolution image (that is merged by the brain into a single image... just like the brain does in real life). The fact they're not displayed at the same time, IMO, is irrelevant. Because the brain is pretty stupid and doesn't really care. It's happening fast enough that it still believe it's viewing a single stereo image. It's not creating any artifacts from this anomaly. You could technically argue passive is full resolution too, but data is clearly missing from each viewpoint. And the end result is the brain is creating an image with artifacts as a result of that missing image info (at least when the resolution is so low... like at 1080p.)
I don't agree with DHR either. You're getting full resolution in active (it just requires twice as many frame updates). It's the whole reason you give each eye a full resolution image (that is merged by the brain into a single image... just like the brain does in real life). The fact they're not displayed at the same time, IMO, is irrelevant. Because the brain is pretty stupid and doesn't really care. It's happening fast enough that it still believe it's viewing a single stereo image. It's not creating any artifacts from this anomaly.

You could technically argue passive is full resolution too, but data is clearly missing from each viewpoint. And the end result is the brain is creating an image with artifacts as a result of that missing image info (at least when the resolution is so low... like at 1080p.)

#71
Posted 02/13/2016 05:35 PM   
Be careful, passive TV technology is not like passive theater, theaters don't use interlaced filters. In theater they use one projector with one active polarisation filter or two projectors with a different polarisation filter on each one. Anyhow, no loss of definition there. .
Be careful, passive TV technology is not like passive theater, theaters don't use interlaced filters.

In theater they use one projector with one active polarisation filter or two projectors with a different polarisation filter on each one.

Anyhow, no loss of definition there.



.
I'm referring to the pictures he posted. There's a reason most people could see the interlaced lines on passive 3D TV. And that's because it was in fact transmitting half as much data points to the human brain. It was half the data bandwidth as active. 4k passive is another category too. It's the same problem, but since you've hit a high enough standard, it's no longer easy to see.
I'm referring to the pictures he posted. There's a reason most people could see the interlaced lines on passive 3D TV. And that's because it was in fact transmitting half as much data points to the human brain. It was half the data bandwidth as active.

4k passive is another category too. It's the same problem, but since you've hit a high enough standard, it's no longer easy to see.

#73
Posted 02/13/2016 08:34 PM   
It's a good chat here, always in this kind of conversation all have the reason and different point of view. I first bought an Active 3DTV (Samsung) because of the "half resolution" statement, but i can't tolerate the flickering, so was a no go for me....then in a friend house i see "IMAX Grand Canyon Adventure" movie in an LG 3DTV...really amazing how looks and no flickering. The next week i bought my Passive LG 3DTV Cinema...and the fact is there is no loss in resolution using both 3DTV (i compare both TV) I play with 3DTV Play, yes 720p!.....so if the "half resolution" statement was true i would now playing all my games at 360p 3D....if was true i will noticed for sure, i'm not blind (even my wife will noticed) and i have perfect view. Also i test different Active Samsung models, Sony and Passive LG.....never test Monitors, so the story may be different there. The guys for displaymate do a deep test for both tech and get the same results. Both tech are improved over the years so the image quality in a 3DTV using both tech is the same (of course depending on the model, more/less bright / crosstalk / etc)....except for the flickering that suffer active tech. [url]http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm[/url] Theater in general have Full resolution in 3D, and that is produced by displaying at the same time a full image in both eyes with the corresponding offset to produce the S3D effect.
It's a good chat here, always in this kind of conversation all have the reason and different point of view. I first bought an Active 3DTV (Samsung) because of the "half resolution" statement, but i can't tolerate the flickering, so was a no go for me....then in a friend house i see "IMAX Grand Canyon Adventure" movie in an LG 3DTV...really amazing how looks and no flickering. The next week i bought my Passive LG 3DTV Cinema...and the fact is there is no loss in resolution using both 3DTV (i compare both TV)

I play with 3DTV Play, yes 720p!.....so if the "half resolution" statement was true i would now playing all my games at 360p 3D....if was true i will noticed for sure, i'm not blind (even my wife will noticed) and i have perfect view.

Also i test different Active Samsung models, Sony and Passive LG.....never test Monitors, so the story may be different there.

The guys for displaymate do a deep test for both tech and get the same results. Both tech are improved over the years so the image quality in a 3DTV using both tech is the same (of course depending on the model, more/less bright / crosstalk / etc)....except for the flickering that suffer active tech.

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm


Theater in general have Full resolution in 3D, and that is produced by displaying at the same time a full image in both eyes with the corresponding offset to produce the S3D effect.

MY WEB

Helix Mod - Making 3D Better

My 3D Screenshot Gallery

Like my fixes? you can donate to Paypal: dhr.donation@gmail.com

#74
Posted 02/13/2016 10:23 PM   
[quote="DHR"]I play with 3DTV Play, yes 720p![/quote] You mean 720i, the 720P input is converted to 720I. Line Interleaved is an interlaced format.
DHR said:I play with 3DTV Play, yes 720p!


You mean 720i, the 720P input is converted to 720I.

Line Interleaved is an interlaced format.

#75
Posted 02/13/2016 10:30 PM   
  5 / 7    
Scroll To Top