3D Vision Surround 1080p vs. 3D Vision 4K-TV
  1 / 2    
This is a very subjective question but as always I am very interested in your opinion. This question is meant exclusively for those folks here who already have experienced both solutions. While I have owned nearly every possible 3D Vision setup (different monitors (1080p, 1440p), TVs, projectors, 3D Vision Surround, Sony HMZ....) I never witnessed 3D Vision in 4K using a passive UHD-TV via EDID override. Right now some downsides of 3D Vision Surround feed my interest in 3D Vision 4K on a single 4K-TV so I am really interested what those of you prefer who already have tested both solutions. Feel free to name your preference and the reason why you prefer the one over the other. Or to cut a long story story short: If you could choose one of those 2 solutions for free which one would you get and why? I am totally aware that this question also implies the comparison between two different resolutions (1080p for Surround vs. 4K for the UHD-TV) but since this is a strictly subjective question I guess it should be possible to name a personal favourite (provided you have tested both solutions).
This is a very subjective question but as always I am very interested in your opinion. This question is meant exclusively for those folks here who already have experienced both solutions.

While I have owned nearly every possible 3D Vision setup (different monitors (1080p, 1440p), TVs, projectors, 3D Vision Surround, Sony HMZ....) I never witnessed 3D Vision in 4K using a passive UHD-TV via EDID override.

Right now some downsides of 3D Vision Surround feed my interest in 3D Vision 4K on a single 4K-TV so I am really interested what those of you prefer who already have tested both solutions.

Feel free to name your preference and the reason why you prefer the one over the other. Or to cut a long story story short:

If you could choose one of those 2 solutions for free which one would you get and why?

I am totally aware that this question also implies the comparison between two different resolutions (1080p for Surround vs. 4K for the UHD-TV) but since this is a strictly subjective question I guess it should be possible to name a personal favourite (provided you have tested both solutions).

#1
Posted 06/30/2016 06:18 PM   
TL;DR 1440p in surround. (when the technology can handle it at 60fps max detail.) I'd be surprised if you get much response to this because I think very few people have experienced it. hell, I didn't even know 4k was possible in 3dvision by monitor and nvidias limitations, until your other thread... But my two cents is. I recently downgraded from a surround setup for a single screen 27' 1440p, and as it stands I prefer my new setup. I use an Obutto revolution cockpit which is built for surround, yet I still prefer it. Because .... At 1440p in 3d vision your effective resolution is higher than 4k anyway. (due to blending of two images at different angles.) and I can still maintain near maximum graphics at 60fps. I also think this 4k thing is really a case of diminishing returns and the particular games assets have to keep up with that quality to really take advantage of it. Also consider if you do go to a native 4k resolution if you find you have to turn games down to get adequate performance resolution is not really an option without a drastic reduction in quality. (basically a blurry mess) I think whether surround is worth it ultimately depends on what kind of a gamer you are and what performance you expect. (I know Helifax swears by it) If you are a sim gamer or a first person horror gamer I think surround is incomparable. I'd take this any day over 4k. If you are a competitive gamer, not so much. I think it has a detrimental effect for FPS gaming. (although the new tech that removes the stretched periphery might change this.) single player fps campaigns it's awesome though. It's probably useful for MMO gaming due to the extra screen real estate for UI. I still find it curious you seem to love surround gaming in fighters, to me its very distracting as I want to concentrate on the action between the two characters right in front of me and find the other two screens just unnecessary over head. I am extremely competitive in fighting games though.... Also these games have to run locked at 60fps or the game simply breaks. Anyway this is becoming long winded, but to answer your question I thought long and hard about this when I recently brought my new monitor. But I also went to a single screen at 1440p for performance reasons. Basically I am taking the middle ground. 1440p is clearly a nice jump up in visual fidelity from 1080p and in 3d vision it's basically pushing my current hardware to the absolute limit in games like witcher 3 and rise of the tomb-raider while still maintaining max quality and the fps I wan.(and my computer although not the highest end, is no slouch.) I feel you start to get into the realms of diminishing returns at 4k while requiring hardware for 3dvision that may not really exist for the quality I expect. I feel 4k is better suited to movies and sport, and CCTV (which I am a technician.) Maybe in the next 10 years this will change as graphics technology and hardware evolves, I don't think we are there yet. Sure if you are playing in 2d it's worth it and okay, I guess. But who around here wants to do that? Also I cannot bear the thought of gaming at 30 (console) fps, and I would rather have my games at ultra detail at 60fps than a raw resolution increase. (or surround for that matter) Basically, I play all types of games and am competitive but I am committing for the foreseeable future with 1440p in 3dvision, Ultimately I would prefer surround 3D to a raw resolution increase, due to the kind of gamer I am and I will be going for 1440p surround before I bother with a 4k single screen. I will upgrade once again to surround when the hardware catches up and I can get the performance/quality I want. I feel its a vastly better experience in certain genres than a single 4k screen can bring.
TL;DR 1440p in surround. (when the technology can handle it at 60fps max detail.)

I'd be surprised if you get much response to this because I think very few people have experienced it.
hell, I didn't even know 4k was possible in 3dvision by monitor and nvidias limitations, until your other thread...

But my two cents is. I recently downgraded from a surround setup for a single screen 27' 1440p, and as it stands I prefer my new setup. I use an Obutto revolution cockpit which is built for surround, yet I still prefer it. Because ....

At 1440p in 3d vision your effective resolution is higher than 4k anyway. (due to blending of two images at different angles.) and I can still maintain near maximum graphics at 60fps.

I also think this 4k thing is really a case of diminishing returns and the particular games assets have to keep up with that quality to really take advantage of it. Also consider if you do go to a native 4k resolution if you find you have to turn games down to get adequate performance resolution is not really an option without a drastic reduction in quality. (basically a blurry mess)

I think whether surround is worth it ultimately depends on what kind of a gamer you are and what performance you expect. (I know Helifax swears by it)

If you are a sim gamer or a first person horror gamer I think surround is incomparable. I'd take this any day over 4k.

If you are a competitive gamer, not so much. I think it has a detrimental effect for FPS gaming. (although the new tech that removes the stretched periphery might change this.) single player fps campaigns it's awesome though.

It's probably useful for MMO gaming due to the extra screen real estate for UI.

I still find it curious you seem to love surround gaming in fighters, to me its very distracting as I want to concentrate on the action between the two characters right in front of me and find the other two screens just unnecessary over head. I am extremely competitive in fighting games though.... Also these games have to run locked at 60fps or the game simply breaks.

Anyway this is becoming long winded, but to answer your question I thought long and hard about this when I recently brought my new monitor. But I also went to a single screen at 1440p for performance reasons.

Basically I am taking the middle ground. 1440p is clearly a nice jump up in visual fidelity from 1080p and in 3d vision it's basically pushing my current hardware to the absolute limit in games like witcher 3 and rise of the tomb-raider while still maintaining max quality and the fps I wan.(and my computer although not the highest end, is no slouch.)

I feel you start to get into the realms of diminishing returns at 4k while requiring hardware for 3dvision that may not really exist for the quality I expect. I feel 4k is better suited to movies and sport, and CCTV (which I am a technician.) Maybe in the next 10 years this will change as graphics technology and hardware evolves, I don't think we are there yet. Sure if you are playing in 2d it's worth it and okay, I guess. But who around here wants to do that?

Also I cannot bear the thought of gaming at 30 (console) fps, and I would rather have my games at ultra detail at 60fps than a raw resolution increase. (or surround for that matter)

Basically, I play all types of games and am competitive but I am committing for the foreseeable future with 1440p in 3dvision, Ultimately I would prefer surround 3D to a raw resolution increase, due to the kind of gamer I am and I will be going for 1440p surround before I bother with a 4k single screen. I will upgrade once again to surround when the hardware catches up and I can get the performance/quality I want.

I feel its a vastly better experience in certain genres than a single 4k screen can bring.

i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
EVGA 1080TI SLI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS
3D Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)

#2
Posted 07/01/2016 04:10 AM   
Thanks necro for a truly detailed answer to my question. It's really interesting how both of us have a very similar taste concerning video games while also being different in some regards. Two spects where my preference is different from your's: 1) I am exclusively playing single-player so while I have a weakness for fighting games I never play those or any other game in any competitive way. 2) I am quite forgiving when it comes to game-performance. So while I am a sucker for the best possible graphics I can live with shortcomings performance-wise. (yes I would rather live with hiccups before I would lower the graphic-settings) Normally I am playing more "immersive" games like Witcher, GTA......on my Sony HMZ-T3 because for me this is the most immersive way those games can be played. It's a little bit like the best of both worlds when we add VR into the equation. VR right now is great (I own the Vive and the Rift) but it definitely lacks great games right now and the resolution for this huge FOV is definitely - while being ok - not comparable to the 3D awesomeness of 3D Vision. With my 720p HMZ-T3 I get a scale-perception that tends in the VR-direction while at the same time maintaining the 3D awesomeness of 3D Vision. So up to this point for me nothing beats my HMZ. I don't know if it's the OLED-displays of the HMZ but somehow even those 720p-only just look stunning in 3D Vision. Then there are games like fighting games where immersion is not such a great factor because the action more or less is playing like "on a stage" that you are looking at. For those games I prefer 3D Vision Surround in 1080p. In 3D Vision Surround you can still focus on the center monitor because that is were the characters are placed but having the stage spanning to the left and right does wonders for immersion. But that is not the main point for me. Mortal Kombat X is a very good example for the greatness of 3D Vison Surround even in fighting games where the Surround benefits don't come to mind instantly. You just get to see more! When you do a fatality in Mortal Kombat X there is much more rendered in 3D Vision Surround than on a single screen. Here's an example: I guess you have seen the iconic Scorpion fatal with the dropping heart and the cut brain. On single screen you see the chest of the victim in a close-up when Scorpion begins his dirty deed. In Surround you get to see not only the chest but also the shoulders and the arms of the victim (rendered on the side monitors). This does wonders for immersion. when the body falls to the floor with a close-up of the cut head you only get to see the head and the upper body on single screen while in Surround the entire body is spanning over your displays including the feet. And this applies to all the fatalities. I could describe any other fatal and everyone of them would render so much more in Surround than you get to see on a single screen. Remember the Ermac fatal where he pulls the intestines of the victim out of the body by telekinesis. In Surround those intestines are spanning over all Surround displays. When I already had my Surround setup I also ordered the Rog Swift because I "felt the need" to see 1440p 3D Vision in action. While I was impressed with the significant better resolution it wasn't enough for me to prefer 1440p over the benefits of 3D Vision Surround so I returned the ROG Swift. Now 3D Vision Surround is not a perfect solution for me either. I don't like the bezels, I don't like the fact that especially the games I want to play in Surround often are just not Surround-compatible and I definitely don't like the fact that the FOV-benefits of Surround only apply to the width and not to the height. And this is where my new interest for 4K 3D Vision comes into play. Sitting very close to a 55" 4K TV seems to be the perfect solution for me right now. My entire field of view (vertically and horizontally) would be occupied by the huge TV and with that resolution on an OLED screen this should also be gaming nirvana in the graphics department. As I said performance-wise I am very forgiving. Just to give you an example: Right now I am playing Doom in 3D Vision Surround on Ultra using a single Titan X. I know something must be wrong there performance-wise but I am totally enjoying it and I don't feel like something isn't running smooth. So I guess a single 4K TV in 3D Vision using a single Nvidia 1080 should definitely do the trick!
Thanks necro for a truly detailed answer to my question.

It's really interesting how both of us have a very similar taste concerning video games while also being different in some regards.
Two spects where my preference is different from your's:

1) I am exclusively playing single-player so while I have a weakness for fighting games I never play those or any other game in any competitive way.

2) I am quite forgiving when it comes to game-performance. So while I am a sucker for the best possible graphics I can live with shortcomings performance-wise. (yes I would rather live with hiccups before I would lower the graphic-settings)

Normally I am playing more "immersive" games like Witcher, GTA......on my Sony HMZ-T3 because for me this is the most immersive way those games can be played. It's a little bit like the best of both worlds when we add VR into the equation.
VR right now is great (I own the Vive and the Rift) but it definitely lacks great games right now and the resolution for this huge FOV is definitely - while being ok - not comparable to the 3D awesomeness of 3D Vision.

With my 720p HMZ-T3 I get a scale-perception that tends in the VR-direction while at the same time maintaining the 3D awesomeness of 3D Vision. So up to this point for me nothing beats my HMZ. I don't know if it's the OLED-displays of the HMZ but somehow even those 720p-only just look stunning in 3D Vision.

Then there are games like fighting games where immersion is not such a great factor because the action more or less is playing like "on a stage" that you are looking at. For those games I prefer 3D Vision Surround in 1080p. In 3D Vision Surround you can still focus on the center monitor because that is were the characters are placed but having the stage spanning to the left and right does wonders for immersion. But that is not the main point for me. Mortal Kombat X is a very good example for the greatness of 3D Vison Surround even in fighting games where the Surround benefits don't come to mind instantly. You just get to see more! When you do a fatality in Mortal Kombat X there is much more rendered in 3D Vision Surround than on a single screen. Here's an example:

I guess you have seen the iconic Scorpion fatal with the dropping heart and the cut brain. On single screen you see the chest of the victim in a close-up when Scorpion begins his dirty deed. In Surround you get to see not only the chest but also the shoulders and the arms of the victim (rendered on the side monitors). This does wonders for immersion. when the body falls to the floor with a close-up of the cut head you only get to see the head and the upper body on single screen while in Surround the entire body is spanning over your displays including the feet. And this applies to all the fatalities. I could describe any other fatal and everyone of them would render so much more in Surround than you get to see on a single screen. Remember the Ermac fatal where he pulls the intestines of the victim out of the body by telekinesis. In Surround those intestines are spanning over all Surround displays.

When I already had my Surround setup I also ordered the Rog Swift because I "felt the need" to see 1440p 3D Vision in action. While I was impressed with the significant better resolution it wasn't enough for me to prefer 1440p over the benefits of 3D Vision Surround so I returned the ROG Swift.

Now 3D Vision Surround is not a perfect solution for me either. I don't like the bezels, I don't like the fact that especially the games I want to play in Surround often are just not Surround-compatible and I definitely don't like the fact that the FOV-benefits of Surround only apply to the width and not to the height.

And this is where my new interest for 4K 3D Vision comes into play. Sitting very close to a 55" 4K TV seems to be the perfect solution for me right now. My entire field of view (vertically and horizontally) would be occupied by the huge TV and with that resolution on an OLED screen this should also be gaming nirvana in the graphics department.

As I said performance-wise I am very forgiving. Just to give you an example: Right now I am playing Doom in 3D Vision Surround on Ultra using a single Titan X. I know something must be wrong there performance-wise but I am totally enjoying it and I don't feel like something isn't running smooth.

So I guess a single 4K TV in 3D Vision using a single Nvidia 1080 should definitely do the trick!

#3
Posted 07/01/2016 11:19 AM   
yep the question is , do you want 3Dvision with a 27" 1440p or a 55" 4k... Personnaly I couldn't never go back to a 27" after enjoying my 49" at 1.2 meter every day :)
yep the question is , do you want 3Dvision with a 27" 1440p or a 55" 4k...
Personnaly I couldn't never go back to a 27" after enjoying my 49" at 1.2 meter every day :)

http://photos.3dvisionlive.com/chtiblue/album/530b52d4cb85770d6e000049/3Dvision with 49" Philips 49PUS7100 interlieved 3D (3840x2160) overide mode, GTX 1080 GFA2 EXOC, core i5 @4.3GHz, 16Gb@2130, windows 7&10 64bit, Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 Marantz 6010 AVR

#4
Posted 07/01/2016 11:42 AM   
Thanks, chtiblue. Exactly what I wanted to hear because I am really about to catch the "4K-train". If it is not too much asking could you please have a look here. I would be very interested in your opinion... [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/943900/3d-vision/search-information-about-edid-for-3dvision-on-lg-oled-4k-55ef950v-55ef9500-/[/url]
Thanks, chtiblue. Exactly what I wanted to hear because I am really about to catch the "4K-train". If it is not too much asking could you please have a look here. I would be very interested in your opinion...

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/943900/3d-vision/search-information-about-edid-for-3dvision-on-lg-oled-4k-55ef950v-55ef9500-/

#5
Posted 07/01/2016 12:29 PM   
Previously, I created portrait-oriented 3 screen Eyefinity setup using AMD cards and Ignition. It never worked correctly (2D ok, 3D needed non-existing AMD active glasses shutter sync), but I found that good multi-screen display required display calibration tool to get consistent colors/brightness across all 3 screens, and bezel compensation/offset for more seamless 3D. A single display avoids bezel obstruction and its compensation, and multi-monitor calibration.
Previously, I created portrait-oriented 3 screen Eyefinity setup using AMD cards and Ignition. It never worked correctly (2D ok, 3D needed non-existing AMD active glasses shutter sync), but I found that good multi-screen display required display calibration tool to get consistent colors/brightness across all 3 screens, and bezel compensation/offset for more seamless 3D. A single display avoids bezel obstruction and its compensation, and multi-monitor calibration.

#6
Posted 07/01/2016 05:04 PM   
I ordered the LG 55EF950V (LG 55EF9500) two hours ago whyme and I will definitely get back to you with a few questions when it arrives ;-)
I ordered the LG 55EF950V (LG 55EF9500) two hours ago whyme and I will definitely get back to you with a few questions when it arrives ;-)

#7
Posted 07/01/2016 06:45 PM   
Get 3 exact panels (buy all 3 together) and you will have zero issues or needs to calibrate displays. De-bezel them to remove the extra plastic bezels Align them properly and you get the most immersive experience in 3D ever. 4K on a normal 27-32' monitor is a bit gimmicky. Sure it looks better but not by much since you can't "stick" your eyes to the monitor or close to it to see all the extra detail. 4K 50-60' is another topic in 3D;) But the extra FOV and VIEW man...there is where the immersion lies! Don't forget your HUMAN eye can see around 120-130 FOV degrees (what surround does) and is not achievable on a single screen To compensate for the Vertical FOV you would require another layer of monitors like 6 way Eyefinity OR 9 way eyefinity with monitors with a very small height but bigger width (a bit more than 21:9). In any case Surround/Eyefinity is the BEST in trying to replicate what the HUMAN eye can see. No single monitor can do that. (Not talking about resolutions and pixel densities here) but RAW real-estate viewing area:) I will probably never ever get rid of my Surround setup. I have my laptops and a single 50' TV (non-3D) but it just pales in comparison... Playing Tomb Raider, Witcher 3, Doom, SW:Battlefield, Dark Souls, etc in Surround is pure epic. You can actually check some of my videos made in Surround ([url]http://3dsurroundgaming.com/GameList.html[/url]) and see exactly what you miss;) My 2 cents on the matter;)
Get 3 exact panels (buy all 3 together) and you will have zero issues or needs to calibrate displays.
De-bezel them to remove the extra plastic bezels
Align them properly and you get the most immersive experience in 3D ever.

4K on a normal 27-32' monitor is a bit gimmicky. Sure it looks better but not by much since you can't "stick" your eyes to the monitor or close to it to see all the extra detail.
4K 50-60' is another topic in 3D;)

But the extra FOV and VIEW man...there is where the immersion lies! Don't forget your HUMAN eye can see around 120-130 FOV degrees (what surround does) and is not achievable on a single screen

To compensate for the Vertical FOV you would require another layer of monitors like 6 way Eyefinity OR
9 way eyefinity with monitors with a very small height but bigger width (a bit more than 21:9).

In any case Surround/Eyefinity is the BEST in trying to replicate what the HUMAN eye can see. No single monitor can do that. (Not talking about resolutions and pixel densities here) but RAW real-estate viewing area:)

I will probably never ever get rid of my Surround setup. I have my laptops and a single 50' TV (non-3D) but it just pales in comparison...

Playing Tomb Raider, Witcher 3, Doom, SW:Battlefield, Dark Souls, etc in Surround is pure epic.
You can actually check some of my videos made in Surround (http://3dsurroundgaming.com/GameList.html) and see exactly what you miss;)

My 2 cents on the matter;)

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#8
Posted 07/01/2016 07:04 PM   
I purchased three identical Samsung D8000 HDTVs, and I could not remove the bezels from these displays (I had to saw off part of TV logo to minimize total bezel thickness). These displays required a calibration tool and software to obtain good, consistent color/brightness across all three displays. Note that 16:9 display screen is a reasonable match for our eyes' field of view, including peripheral vision - see [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision#/media/File:Field_of_view.svg[/url]. This is reason why I opted for portrait orientation, rather than landscape orientation, in my Eyefinity setup.
I purchased three identical Samsung D8000 HDTVs, and I could not remove the bezels from these displays (I had to saw off part of TV logo to minimize total bezel thickness). These displays required a calibration tool and software to obtain good, consistent color/brightness across all three displays.

Note that 16:9 display screen is a reasonable match for our eyes' field of view, including peripheral vision - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision#/media/File:Field_of_view.svg. This is reason why I opted for portrait orientation, rather than landscape orientation, in my Eyefinity setup.

#9
Posted 07/01/2016 07:29 PM   
[quote="whyme466"]I purchased three identical Samsung D8000 HDTVs, and I could not remove the bezels from these displays (I had to saw off part of TV logo to minimize total bezel thickness). These displays required a calibration tool and software to obtain good, consistent color/brightness across all three displays. Note that 16:9 display screen is a reasonable match for our eyes' field of view, including peripheral vision - see [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision#/media/File:Field_of_view.svg[/url]. This is reason why I opted for portrait orientation, rather than landscape orientation, in my Eyefinity setup.[/quote] If you say so... A 16:9 monitor will not be enough unless you have your eyes "glued" to it... I recommend reading some more about it... WSGF is a good place to start. Everyone wants to "defend" their purchase;) If you are happy with just a 16:9 fine by me. I am not and countless others aren't...so, either we are all "wrong" or "there is more to it" :) Think before you say something like that... ^_^ (See the 21:9 vs 16:9 debate and WHY ALL THE MOVIES are made in 21:9 Ar rather than 16:9).
whyme466 said:I purchased three identical Samsung D8000 HDTVs, and I could not remove the bezels from these displays (I had to saw off part of TV logo to minimize total bezel thickness). These displays required a calibration tool and software to obtain good, consistent color/brightness across all three displays.

Note that 16:9 display screen is a reasonable match for our eyes' field of view, including peripheral vision - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision#/media/File:Field_of_view.svg. This is reason why I opted for portrait orientation, rather than landscape orientation, in my Eyefinity setup.


If you say so... A 16:9 monitor will not be enough unless you have your eyes "glued" to it...
I recommend reading some more about it... WSGF is a good place to start.


Everyone wants to "defend" their purchase;) If you are happy with just a 16:9 fine by me. I am not and countless others aren't...so, either we are all "wrong" or "there is more to it" :)
Think before you say something like that... ^_^ (See the 21:9 vs 16:9 debate and WHY ALL THE MOVIES are made in 21:9 Ar rather than 16:9).

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#10
Posted 07/01/2016 07:44 PM   
This discussion gives me an idea. Has anyone tried 3D Vision with these ambient light LEDs behind the screen? This might be a good way to enhance immersion by faking periferal vision, if the monitor sits close to a white wall.
This discussion gives me an idea. Has anyone tried 3D Vision with these ambient light LEDs behind the screen? This might be a good way to enhance immersion by faking periferal vision, if the monitor sits close to a white wall.

#11
Posted 07/01/2016 10:36 PM   
[quote="Gruftlord"]This discussion gives me an idea. Has anyone tried 3D Vision with these ambient light LEDs behind the screen? This might be a good way to enhance immersion by faking periferal vision, if the monitor sits close to a white wall.[/quote] Yep I tried every days since I have my3D4k Philips ambilight TV :) It's definitely a plus in immersion and better for the eyes in a dark room!
Gruftlord said:This discussion gives me an idea. Has anyone tried 3D Vision with these ambient light LEDs behind the screen? This might be a good way to enhance immersion by faking periferal vision, if the monitor sits close to a white wall.


Yep I tried every days since I have my3D4k Philips ambilight TV :)
It's definitely a plus in immersion and better for the eyes in a dark room!

http://photos.3dvisionlive.com/chtiblue/album/530b52d4cb85770d6e000049/3Dvision with 49" Philips 49PUS7100 interlieved 3D (3840x2160) overide mode, GTX 1080 GFA2 EXOC, core i5 @4.3GHz, 16Gb@2130, windows 7&10 64bit, Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 Marantz 6010 AVR

#12
Posted 07/01/2016 11:56 PM   
Hey all I wanted to join in the discussion because I am playing on a 170 ppi 27" 4K screen and in 4K at this level of minute detail, 3D vision is amazing. The issue is that I'm only using the red/green seperation ( so no color) and of course its only on a 60hz monitor I am not sure if this will help anyone but the level of detail at 4K resolution is astounding. But I also wanted to find out if anyone has played in black and white on a 4K screen and can compare that to a 144 hz full color 1080 screen and which they thought was better. I am considering getting an actual 3D vision ready monitor and 3D glasses but am somewhat worried that I might be underwhelmed after playing in glorious 4K (albeit in black and white w/ red/blue glasses)
Hey all I wanted to join in the discussion because I am playing on a 170 ppi 27" 4K screen and in 4K at this level of minute detail, 3D vision is amazing. The issue is that I'm only using the red/green seperation ( so no color) and of course its only on a 60hz monitor

I am not sure if this will help anyone but the level of detail at 4K resolution is astounding.

But I also wanted to find out if anyone has played in black and white on a 4K screen and can compare that to a 144 hz full color 1080 screen and which they thought was better.

I am considering getting an actual 3D vision ready monitor and 3D glasses but am somewhat worried that I might be underwhelmed after playing in glorious 4K (albeit in black and white w/ red/blue glasses)

MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC
Intel i9-9900K @ 5.0 Ghz
32 GB Patriot Viper RAM @ 2666Mhz
ASUS 1080GTX Turbo

#13
Posted 07/02/2016 12:53 AM   
[quote="helifax"] 4K on a normal 27-32' monitor is a bit gimmicky. Sure it looks better but not by much since you can't "stick" your eyes to the monitor or close to it to see all the extra detail. 4K 50-60' is another topic in 3D;) )[/quote] I would have to say I disagree for diorama type games, but I would probably agree for 1st person games it might not effect the immersion. But for games like Diablo 3 etc, 3D vision on a small 4K monitor is something everyone has to try.
helifax said:

4K on a normal 27-32' monitor is a bit gimmicky. Sure it looks better but not by much since you can't "stick" your eyes to the monitor or close to it to see all the extra detail.
4K 50-60' is another topic in 3D;)

)


I would have to say I disagree for diorama type games, but I would probably agree for 1st person games it might not effect the immersion. But for games like Diablo 3 etc, 3D vision on a small 4K monitor is something everyone has to try.

MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC
Intel i9-9900K @ 5.0 Ghz
32 GB Patriot Viper RAM @ 2666Mhz
ASUS 1080GTX Turbo

#14
Posted 07/02/2016 12:56 AM   
[quote="rise_of_chaos"][quote="helifax"] 4K on a normal 27-32' monitor is a bit gimmicky. Sure it looks better but not by much since you can't "stick" your eyes to the monitor or close to it to see all the extra detail. 4K 50-60' is another topic in 3D;) )[/quote] I would have to say I disagree for diorama type games, but I would probably agree for 1st person games it might not effect the immersion. But for games like Diablo 3 etc, 3D vision on a small 4K monitor is something everyone has to try. [/quote] I returned my 4K 32' monitor after 5 days... It was 2D only but yeah... I was totally unimpressed Vs Surround let alone 3D Vision and 3D Surround... and after bought my current 3x 3D monitors. Also Anaglyph can't compare with pure colour 3D. Do yourself a favour and buy a proper 3D Vision Display + glasses if you want to see how proper 3D looks like:) You will forget about the 4K-2D (or Anaglyph) thing the next minute... :) If you don't like it or find not to your taste you can return the hardware :)
rise_of_chaos said:
helifax said:

4K on a normal 27-32' monitor is a bit gimmicky. Sure it looks better but not by much since you can't "stick" your eyes to the monitor or close to it to see all the extra detail.
4K 50-60' is another topic in 3D;)

)


I would have to say I disagree for diorama type games, but I would probably agree for 1st person games it might not effect the immersion. But for games like Diablo 3 etc, 3D vision on a small 4K monitor is something everyone has to try.


I returned my 4K 32' monitor after 5 days... It was 2D only but yeah... I was totally unimpressed Vs Surround let alone 3D Vision and 3D Surround... and after bought my current 3x 3D monitors.

Also Anaglyph can't compare with pure colour 3D. Do yourself a favour and buy a proper 3D Vision Display + glasses if you want to see how proper 3D looks like:) You will forget about the 4K-2D (or Anaglyph) thing the next minute... :)
If you don't like it or find not to your taste you can return the hardware :)

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#15
Posted 07/02/2016 01:45 AM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top