3D Vision Surround 1080p vs. 3D Vision 4K-TV
  2 / 2    
[quote="helifax"]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;)[/quote] ^^ This 100% I see your reasoning on the fighting game thing now Lohan as I tried out MK in my old surround setup, and it does look amazing. But yeah that shows our difference I play fighting games for the competition and I wouldn't consider playing in that environment, online in ranked. (not that that's a thing in MK anyway since the online is so atrocious). Because I play in a cockpit and the screen is so close to my face, I might as well be playing on a 50 inch anyway :P and the pixels are smaller on my 27". There really is nothing quite like 3 screens completely wrapping around your FOV with the bezels in the "blind spots" Nothing compares to surround imo for games like simulators, and some third person games for immersion. If configured correctly. So I don't see how 4k can compare here. I'm also still curious as to how you guys are running 4k in 3d vision without having to completely compromise on graphics quality in game without things just turning into a choppy unresponsive mess in 3d vision. I think maintaining a 60fps frame rate does a lot more for your gaming experience than a raw resolution increase, not only looks but feels 100% better.
helifax said: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;)


^^ This 100%

I see your reasoning on the fighting game thing now Lohan as I tried out MK in my old surround setup, and it does look amazing. But yeah that shows our difference I play fighting games for the competition and I wouldn't consider playing in that environment, online in ranked. (not that that's a thing in MK anyway since the online is so atrocious).

Because I play in a cockpit and the screen is so close to my face, I might as well be playing on a 50 inch anyway :P and the pixels are smaller on my 27". There really is nothing quite like 3 screens completely wrapping around your FOV with the bezels in the "blind spots"

Nothing compares to surround imo for games like simulators, and some third person games for immersion. If configured correctly. So I don't see how 4k can compare here.

I'm also still curious as to how you guys are running 4k in 3d vision without having to completely compromise on graphics quality in game without things just turning into a choppy unresponsive mess in 3d vision. I think maintaining a 60fps frame rate does a lot more for your gaming experience than a raw resolution increase, not only looks but feels 100% better.

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)

#16
Posted 07/02/2016 03:06 AM   
[quote="helifax"]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.[/quote] This is interesting because for me it's the immersion-factor where 3D Vision Surround falls short in some aspects. A few years back in 2012 I was stunned by the immersion factor of my Sony-HMZ. Although it only features 720p the 3D-picture it creates is absolutely stunning (I guess this could have something to do with the awesome OLED-displays). Additionally the HMZ gives me a proper sense of real-life scale which is a huge factor in my book when speaking of immersion. With the HMZ scale is not quite on VR level but it tends in that direction while also maintaining the visual 3D Vision Wow-factor. Always looking for the next big thing I couldn't resist to also get me a 3x27" Surround setup just to find out how great it really is (because back then everyone said that 3D Vision Surround is the most immersive way you can enjoy 3D Vision). I also bought a complete new rig to be able to run 3D Vision Surround in 1080p. When the set arrived I spent a whole weekend switching back and forth between 3D Vision Surround and my HMZ just to find out what I liked more. I did the test with Just Cause 2, Batman Arkham City, Assassin's Creed, Street Fighter vs. Tekken, Call of Duty Black Ops.....). I should add that my plan initially was to keep the Surround Setup and sell the HMZ. Although I totally loved the HMZ (and still love it) I thought no way could it be better than 1080p 3D in Surround that everyone was crowning as the king of immersion. Finally I ended up keeping the new rig but sending those 3 monitors back because I definitely felt the HMZ to be way more immersive than the Surround setup. That doesn't mean that I was not impressed with Surround. I absolutely liked the 1080p 3D and also the additional details you get to see when using Surround. So while I still prefer my HMZ for all immersive games I bought 3 great Acer monitors at the beginning of 2015 to play all those games in 3D V Surround instead where immersion is not such a big factor. This way I benefit from the 1080p 3D while also not loosing too much immersion-wise. 3D vision Surround is my go-to solution mainly for fighting games. Although this would normally be a game I would definitely play on my HMZ for immersion-reasons I am currently also playing Doom in 3D V Surround because I am facing issues when trying to use the Doom fix with my HMZ. Back to the initial question why I think that 3D Vision Surround falls short when speaking of immersion. For me immersion from a technical standpoint is defined by (in no particular order): - FOV - the quality of the 3D graphics - scale/size 1)While Surround gives you a very nice FOV horizontally the height always stays the same. So in the FOV-department Surround succeeds (horizontally) and also falls short at the same time (vertically). I am speaking here of a typical Surround setup of 3 monitors side-by-side since even one more added center monitor on top wouldn't make up for both sides where there would be still only one monitor on each side. So while your view is totally occupied horizontally it even doesn't cover 50% of your vertical FOV. For me this is definitely an immersion-breaker and it is safe to say that looking at a 55"-displpay from a 1.3m distance definitely covers more of your entire FOV (horizontal and vertical considered). 2) The quality of the 3D graphics is a point where both solutions (Surround and 4K TV) seem to succeed so I won't go into detail here. 3) The sense of scale/size. This is the point where Surround is really disappointing to me in terms of immersion. Although you can fill your horizontal field of view with those displays the scale/size always stays exactly the same as if you would just use a single monitor. When I am playing Doom on my HMZ and a Hell Knight is approaching me that thing is HUGE and fear-inducing. When playing Doom in Surround this Hell Knight has the exact same size as if I would play on a single 27"/24" monitor. When I am sitting 1.3m away from a 55" TV I guess I will also notice a significant boost in terms of size/scale compared to a single 27"-monitor or even a Surround-Setup where nothing changes in terms of size and scale. I didn't include those immersion-breaking bezels into this comparison because just as helifax said you could remove these so they wouldn't bother you any longer. But all things considered and having my personal experience on my mind I have to say that it is indeed the immersion-factor that lets me prefer the other solution over the Surround-solution.
helifax said: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.


This is interesting because for me it's the immersion-factor where 3D Vision Surround falls short in some aspects.

A few years back in 2012 I was stunned by the immersion factor of my Sony-HMZ. Although it only features 720p the 3D-picture it creates is absolutely stunning (I guess this could have something to do with the awesome OLED-displays). Additionally the HMZ gives me a proper sense of real-life scale which is a huge factor in my book when speaking of immersion. With the HMZ scale is not quite on VR level but it tends in that direction while also maintaining the visual 3D Vision Wow-factor.

Always looking for the next big thing I couldn't resist to also get me a 3x27" Surround setup just to find out how great it really is (because back then everyone said that 3D Vision Surround is the most immersive way you can enjoy 3D Vision). I also bought a complete new rig to be able to run 3D Vision Surround in 1080p. When the set arrived I spent a whole weekend switching back and forth between 3D Vision Surround and my HMZ just to find out what I liked more. I did the test with Just Cause 2, Batman Arkham City, Assassin's Creed, Street Fighter vs. Tekken, Call of Duty Black Ops.....).

I should add that my plan initially was to keep the Surround Setup and sell the HMZ. Although I totally loved the HMZ (and still love it) I thought no way could it be better than 1080p 3D in Surround that everyone was crowning as the king of immersion.

Finally I ended up keeping the new rig but sending those 3 monitors back because I definitely felt the HMZ to be way more immersive than the Surround setup. That doesn't mean that I was not impressed with Surround. I absolutely liked the 1080p 3D and also the additional details you get to see when using Surround. So while I still prefer my HMZ for all immersive games I bought 3 great Acer monitors at the beginning of 2015 to play all those games in 3D V Surround instead where immersion is not such a big factor. This way I benefit from the 1080p 3D while also not loosing too much immersion-wise. 3D vision Surround is my go-to solution mainly for fighting games.

Although this would normally be a game I would definitely play on my HMZ for immersion-reasons I am currently also playing Doom in 3D V Surround because I am facing issues when trying to use the Doom fix with my HMZ.

Back to the initial question why I think that 3D Vision Surround falls short when speaking of immersion. For me immersion from a technical standpoint is defined by (in no particular order):

- FOV
- the quality of the 3D graphics
- scale/size

1)While Surround gives you a very nice FOV horizontally the height always stays the same. So in the FOV-department Surround succeeds (horizontally) and also falls short at the same time (vertically). I am speaking here of a typical Surround setup of 3 monitors side-by-side since even one more added center monitor on top wouldn't make up for both sides where there would be still only one monitor on each side. So while your view is totally occupied horizontally it even doesn't cover 50% of your vertical FOV. For me this is definitely an immersion-breaker and it is safe to say that looking at a 55"-displpay from a 1.3m distance definitely covers more of your entire FOV (horizontal and vertical considered).


2) The quality of the 3D graphics is a point where both solutions (Surround and 4K TV) seem to succeed so I won't go into detail here.

3) The sense of scale/size. This is the point where Surround is really disappointing to me in terms of immersion. Although you can fill your horizontal field of view with those displays the scale/size always stays exactly the same as if you would just use a single monitor. When I am playing Doom on my HMZ and a Hell Knight is approaching me that thing is HUGE and fear-inducing. When playing Doom in Surround this Hell Knight has the exact same size as if I would play on a single 27"/24" monitor.
When I am sitting 1.3m away from a 55" TV I guess I will also notice a significant boost in terms of size/scale compared to a single 27"-monitor or even a Surround-Setup where nothing changes in terms of size and scale.

I didn't include those immersion-breaking bezels into this comparison because just as helifax said you could remove these so they wouldn't bother you any longer.

But all things considered and having my personal experience on my mind I have to say that it is indeed the immersion-factor that lets me prefer the other solution over the Surround-solution.

#17
Posted 07/02/2016 10:38 AM   
[quote="helifax"][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 :)[/quote] Thanks for the advice.. strongly considering it, as 3D vision is awesome even using the trial red/blue glasses. I do have to wonder if your giving 4K proper justice with a 32' monitor though. It seems like it would kind of be like me playing in 1440p on my monitor, only yours is bigger.. which I find wholly unimpressive. That jump though from 1440p to 4K on a 27 inch monitor though... (i.e. 27 inches are normally the size /dpi of 1440p).. with the toyification games in 4K I think has to be seen to be believed. Dropping it down to 1440p is a big droppoff and at that point usually with most games I find I might as well just drop it all the way down to 1080p and get those extra fps. Edit... just as side note.. I have never ever played a game in full screen 1440p on my 4k monitor.. it looks like garbage.. I always end up keeping the native 4K resolution and playing in a 1440p window. It just seems that 4K on a 32inch as compared to a 27 inch seems like its almost like playing on a big 1440p screen since the pixels are that big.
helifax said:
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 :)


Thanks for the advice.. strongly considering it, as 3D vision is awesome even using the trial red/blue glasses. I do have to wonder if your giving 4K proper justice with a 32' monitor though. It seems like it would kind of be like me playing in 1440p on my monitor, only yours is bigger.. which I find wholly unimpressive. That jump though from 1440p to 4K on a 27 inch monitor though... (i.e. 27 inches are normally the size /dpi of 1440p).. with the toyification games in 4K I think has to be seen to be believed. Dropping it down to 1440p is a big droppoff and at that point usually with most games I find I might as well just drop it all the way down to 1080p and get those extra fps.

Edit... just as side note.. I have never ever played a game in full screen 1440p on my 4k monitor.. it looks like garbage.. I always end up keeping the native 4K resolution and playing in a 1440p window. It just seems that 4K on a 32inch as compared to a 27 inch seems like its almost like playing on a big 1440p screen since the pixels are that big.

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

#18
Posted 07/03/2016 02:24 AM   
[quote="lohan"] 3) The sense of scale/size. This is the point where Surround is really disappointing to me in terms of immersion. Although you can fill your horizontal field of view with those displays the scale/size always stays exactly the same as if you would just use a single monitor. When I am playing Doom on my HMZ and a Hell Knight is approaching me that thing is HUGE and fear-inducing. When playing Doom in Surround this Hell Knight has the exact same size as if I would play on a single 27"/24" monitor. When I am sitting 1.3m away from a 55" TV I guess I will also notice a significant boost in terms of size/scale compared to a single 27"-monitor or even a Surround-Setup where nothing changes in terms of size and scale. [/quote] I can totally understand you here! I WISH I was able to add another row of 3 displays (or make it 2 rows ^_^) to compensate for the "lack" of Vertical FOV. Still I find Surround vs Single Display waaay better;) As a side note: What are your problems with the DOOM fix and your Sony HMZ ? (Can you re-post in the DOOM thread? I can at least give it a look as much as I can;) )
lohan said:

3) The sense of scale/size. This is the point where Surround is really disappointing to me in terms of immersion. Although you can fill your horizontal field of view with those displays the scale/size always stays exactly the same as if you would just use a single monitor. When I am playing Doom on my HMZ and a Hell Knight is approaching me that thing is HUGE and fear-inducing. When playing Doom in Surround this Hell Knight has the exact same size as if I would play on a single 27"/24" monitor.
When I am sitting 1.3m away from a 55" TV I guess I will also notice a significant boost in terms of size/scale compared to a single 27"-monitor or even a Surround-Setup where nothing changes in terms of size and scale.


I can totally understand you here! I WISH I was able to add another row of 3 displays (or make it 2 rows ^_^) to compensate for the "lack" of Vertical FOV. Still I find Surround vs Single Display waaay better;)

As a side note: What are your problems with the DOOM fix and your Sony HMZ ? (Can you re-post in the DOOM thread? I can at least give it a look as much as I can;) )

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)

#19
Posted 07/03/2016 02:39 AM   
I will give it another try today with the updated fix first because the fix used to work flawlessly with my HMZ some weeks ago. Then all of a sudden the game always launched in side-by-side on the HMZ although I didn't change anything. Since I had no idea how to fix this issue I began to play in Surround instead (which is also absolutely great). I will instantly post in the Doom thread if the issue still persists.
I will give it another try today with the updated fix first because the fix used to work flawlessly with my HMZ some weeks ago. Then all of a sudden the game always launched in side-by-side on the HMZ although I didn't change anything. Since I had no idea how to fix this issue I began to play in Surround instead (which is also absolutely great). I will instantly post in the Doom thread if the issue still persists.

#20
Posted 07/03/2016 09:35 AM   
  2 / 2    
Scroll To Top