[quote]After all, why spend so much money on a tiny 24" 3D monitor + 3D Vision Kit when, for a few hundred more, you can get a 40" 3D HDTV/monitor with $40 3DTV Play software? [/quote]
1. Because it costs "a few" hundred more. (Looks like at least 4 hundred more to me.)
2. Because it's designed to be a television viewed from several feet away, not a video game player from two feet away.
3. Because it's too big/heavy to fit on a lot of desks.
P.S. I'm starting to think we're going to need different forums for 3D Vision and 3DTV.
After all, why spend so much money on a tiny 24" 3D monitor + 3D Vision Kit when, for a few hundred more, you can get a 40" 3D HDTV/monitor with $40 3DTV Play software?
1. Because it costs "a few" hundred more. (Looks like at least 4 hundred more to me.)
2. Because it's designed to be a television viewed from several feet away, not a video game player from two feet away.
3. Because it's too big/heavy to fit on a lot of desks.
P.S. I'm starting to think we're going to need different forums for 3D Vision and 3DTV.
[quote name='Zloth' date='08 December 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1291774336' post='1157684']
1. Because it costs "a few" hundred more. (Looks like at least 4 hundred more to me.)
2. Because it's designed to be a television viewed from several feet away, not a video game player from two feet away.
3. Because it's too big/heavy to fit on a lot of desks.[/quote]
All good points, but the bottom line is that demand for 3D computer monitors and Nvidia shutter glasses will likely take a nose dive once 3DTV software is released. Many users (like me) have the option of consolidating 3D equipment by using a small HDTV as a monitor and/or they have the option of outputting to a large HDTV to play 3D games.
Also, the savings from not having to buy a 3D Vision kit can go towards the extra cost of the 40" 3D monitor (and of course, prices will continue to come down).
I'd rather play a game at 720P on a high-quality 55" inch screen than at 1080P on a tiny 24" screen any day. I would have bought a 3D Vision kit a *long* time ago if they had made larger 3D dual-DVI monitors.
[quote name='Zloth' date='08 December 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1291774336' post='1157684']
1. Because it costs "a few" hundred more. (Looks like at least 4 hundred more to me.)
2. Because it's designed to be a television viewed from several feet away, not a video game player from two feet away.
3. Because it's too big/heavy to fit on a lot of desks.
All good points, but the bottom line is that demand for 3D computer monitors and Nvidia shutter glasses will likely take a nose dive once 3DTV software is released. Many users (like me) have the option of consolidating 3D equipment by using a small HDTV as a monitor and/or they have the option of outputting to a large HDTV to play 3D games.
Also, the savings from not having to buy a 3D Vision kit can go towards the extra cost of the 40" 3D monitor (and of course, prices will continue to come down).
I'd rather play a game at 720P on a high-quality 55" inch screen than at 1080P on a tiny 24" screen any day. I would have bought a 3D Vision kit a *long* time ago if they had made larger 3D dual-DVI monitors.
[quote name='isr2' date='07 December 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1291762664' post='1157590']
I think Nvidia knows that as soon as they release the 3DTV PLAY software, some hackers will work overnight to crack it, and in the next few days, people will just download the cracked version on Peer2Peer servers for free ...
Then no one will neither buy the 3D kit nor the software ...
[/quote]
On the other hand, it will make potential customers more likely to buy an Nvidia card. I don't really understand why they are going to charge extra for this driver in the first place. It's about as logical as selling special drivers for people who want to use more than one monitor, or any other video feature that not everybody uses. It adds a barrier that makes the ATI alternative seem much more attractive than it would otherwise be, and at $40 they can't possibly make much money from it.
If they weren't so caught up with charging for it, they could just release a public beta like with any other driver. It would give them lots of publicity, and there would finally be some tests I could use to determine which card I want to buy for my next computer. For most of us who have a 3DTV, 3D Vision is not an alternative at all, so they're not losing any business from it.
[quote name='isr2' date='07 December 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1291762664' post='1157590']
I think Nvidia knows that as soon as they release the 3DTV PLAY software, some hackers will work overnight to crack it, and in the next few days, people will just download the cracked version on Peer2Peer servers for free ...
Then no one will neither buy the 3D kit nor the software ...
On the other hand, it will make potential customers more likely to buy an Nvidia card. I don't really understand why they are going to charge extra for this driver in the first place. It's about as logical as selling special drivers for people who want to use more than one monitor, or any other video feature that not everybody uses. It adds a barrier that makes the ATI alternative seem much more attractive than it would otherwise be, and at $40 they can't possibly make much money from it.
If they weren't so caught up with charging for it, they could just release a public beta like with any other driver. It would give them lots of publicity, and there would finally be some tests I could use to determine which card I want to buy for my next computer. For most of us who have a 3DTV, 3D Vision is not an alternative at all, so they're not losing any business from it.
[quote name='davin8r' date='08 December 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1291789333' post='1157764']
All good points, but the bottom line is that demand for 3D computer monitors and Nvidia shutter glasses will likely take a nose dive once 3DTV software is released. Many users (like me) have the option of consolidating 3D equipment by using a small HDTV as a monitor and/or they have the option of outputting to a large HDTV to play 3D games.
Also, the savings from not having to buy a 3D Vision kit can go towards the extra cost of the 40" 3D monitor (and of course, prices will continue to come down).
[/quote]
All good points, but the bottom line is that nvidia couldn't care less:
- 40 Bucks from "everybody" with whatever kind of stereoscopic display.
- no more neccessity to implement each and every display in the driver .inf
- Acer has allready announced [i][b]PC[/b][/i] monitors with HDMI 1.4 (only) input. I think we will see this become the norm - and nvidia is prepared. Eihter way, they still can code specially licensed drivers as they do for Zalman.
- no more hardware to take care of in terms of QC, production costs, after sales support, service, warranty etc. (40 bucks on a pure softwre solution compared to 130,- on a SW plus HW? Easy pick if you're an manufacturer.
No matter how you look at it, the "savings" are on nvidia's side here.
Maybe, if it's a chargeable for all product, they will finally remove the arbitrary refresh limitation and EDID check and add offset / Duty control asked so many times before here. They could also go beyond the HDMI 1.4 mandatory modes and implement an option to output 1080p/120Hz for future monitors....
[quote name='davin8r' date='08 December 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1291789333' post='1157764']
I'd rather play a game at 720P on a high-quality 55" inch screen than at 1080P on a tiny 24" screen any day. I would have bought a 3D Vision kit a *long* time ago if they had made larger 3D dual-DVI monitors.
[/quote]
So do I - fortunately it seems that Acer will fill the GAP with a 27" next year - sporting 1080/120 over DVI PLUS HDMI1.4.... Unless Samsung makes a 32" S3D TV until then they can count me in.
[quote name='davin8r' date='08 December 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1291789333' post='1157764']
All good points, but the bottom line is that demand for 3D computer monitors and Nvidia shutter glasses will likely take a nose dive once 3DTV software is released. Many users (like me) have the option of consolidating 3D equipment by using a small HDTV as a monitor and/or they have the option of outputting to a large HDTV to play 3D games.
Also, the savings from not having to buy a 3D Vision kit can go towards the extra cost of the 40" 3D monitor (and of course, prices will continue to come down).
All good points, but the bottom line is that nvidia couldn't care less:
- 40 Bucks from "everybody" with whatever kind of stereoscopic display.
- no more neccessity to implement each and every display in the driver .inf
- Acer has allready announced PC monitors with HDMI 1.4 (only) input. I think we will see this become the norm - and nvidia is prepared. Eihter way, they still can code specially licensed drivers as they do for Zalman.
- no more hardware to take care of in terms of QC, production costs, after sales support, service, warranty etc. (40 bucks on a pure softwre solution compared to 130,- on a SW plus HW? Easy pick if you're an manufacturer.
No matter how you look at it, the "savings" are on nvidia's side here.
Maybe, if it's a chargeable for all product, they will finally remove the arbitrary refresh limitation and EDID check and add offset / Duty control asked so many times before here. They could also go beyond the HDMI 1.4 mandatory modes and implement an option to output 1080p/120Hz for future monitors....
[quote name='davin8r' date='08 December 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1291789333' post='1157764']
I'd rather play a game at 720P on a high-quality 55" inch screen than at 1080P on a tiny 24" screen any day. I would have bought a 3D Vision kit a *long* time ago if they had made larger 3D dual-DVI monitors.
So do I - fortunately it seems that Acer will fill the GAP with a 27" next year - sporting 1080/120 over DVI PLUS HDMI1.4.... Unless Samsung makes a 32" S3D TV until then they can count me in.
[quote]After all, why spend so much money on a tiny 24" 3D monitor + 3D Vision Kit when, for a few hundred more, you can get a 40" 3D HDTV/monitor with $40 3DTV Play software? [/quote]
1. Because it costs "a few" hundred more. (Looks like at least 4 hundred more to me.)
2. Because it's designed to be a television viewed from several feet away, not a video game player from two feet away.
3. Because it's too big/heavy to fit on a lot of desks.
P.S. I'm starting to think we're going to need different forums for 3D Vision and 3DTV.
1. Because it costs "a few" hundred more. (Looks like at least 4 hundred more to me.)
2. Because it's designed to be a television viewed from several feet away, not a video game player from two feet away.
3. Because it's too big/heavy to fit on a lot of desks.
P.S. I'm starting to think we're going to need different forums for 3D Vision and 3DTV.
1. Because it costs "a few" hundred more. (Looks like at least 4 hundred more to me.)
2. Because it's designed to be a television viewed from several feet away, not a video game player from two feet away.
3. Because it's too big/heavy to fit on a lot of desks.[/quote]
All good points, but the bottom line is that demand for 3D computer monitors and Nvidia shutter glasses will likely take a nose dive once 3DTV software is released. Many users (like me) have the option of consolidating 3D equipment by using a small HDTV as a monitor and/or they have the option of outputting to a large HDTV to play 3D games.
Also, the savings from not having to buy a 3D Vision kit can go towards the extra cost of the 40" 3D monitor (and of course, prices will continue to come down).
I'd rather play a game at 720P on a high-quality 55" inch screen than at 1080P on a tiny 24" screen any day. I would have bought a 3D Vision kit a *long* time ago if they had made larger 3D dual-DVI monitors.
1. Because it costs "a few" hundred more. (Looks like at least 4 hundred more to me.)
2. Because it's designed to be a television viewed from several feet away, not a video game player from two feet away.
3. Because it's too big/heavy to fit on a lot of desks.
All good points, but the bottom line is that demand for 3D computer monitors and Nvidia shutter glasses will likely take a nose dive once 3DTV software is released. Many users (like me) have the option of consolidating 3D equipment by using a small HDTV as a monitor and/or they have the option of outputting to a large HDTV to play 3D games.
Also, the savings from not having to buy a 3D Vision kit can go towards the extra cost of the 40" 3D monitor (and of course, prices will continue to come down).
I'd rather play a game at 720P on a high-quality 55" inch screen than at 1080P on a tiny 24" screen any day. I would have bought a 3D Vision kit a *long* time ago if they had made larger 3D dual-DVI monitors.
I think Nvidia knows that as soon as they release the 3DTV PLAY software, some hackers will work overnight to crack it, and in the next few days, people will just download the cracked version on Peer2Peer servers for free ...
Then no one will neither buy the 3D kit nor the software ...
[/quote]
On the other hand, it will make potential customers more likely to buy an Nvidia card. I don't really understand why they are going to charge extra for this driver in the first place. It's about as logical as selling special drivers for people who want to use more than one monitor, or any other video feature that not everybody uses. It adds a barrier that makes the ATI alternative seem much more attractive than it would otherwise be, and at $40 they can't possibly make much money from it.
If they weren't so caught up with charging for it, they could just release a public beta like with any other driver. It would give them lots of publicity, and there would finally be some tests I could use to determine which card I want to buy for my next computer. For most of us who have a 3DTV, 3D Vision is not an alternative at all, so they're not losing any business from it.
I think Nvidia knows that as soon as they release the 3DTV PLAY software, some hackers will work overnight to crack it, and in the next few days, people will just download the cracked version on Peer2Peer servers for free ...
Then no one will neither buy the 3D kit nor the software ...
On the other hand, it will make potential customers more likely to buy an Nvidia card. I don't really understand why they are going to charge extra for this driver in the first place. It's about as logical as selling special drivers for people who want to use more than one monitor, or any other video feature that not everybody uses. It adds a barrier that makes the ATI alternative seem much more attractive than it would otherwise be, and at $40 they can't possibly make much money from it.
If they weren't so caught up with charging for it, they could just release a public beta like with any other driver. It would give them lots of publicity, and there would finally be some tests I could use to determine which card I want to buy for my next computer. For most of us who have a 3DTV, 3D Vision is not an alternative at all, so they're not losing any business from it.
All good points, but the bottom line is that demand for 3D computer monitors and Nvidia shutter glasses will likely take a nose dive once 3DTV software is released. Many users (like me) have the option of consolidating 3D equipment by using a small HDTV as a monitor and/or they have the option of outputting to a large HDTV to play 3D games.
Also, the savings from not having to buy a 3D Vision kit can go towards the extra cost of the 40" 3D monitor (and of course, prices will continue to come down).
[/quote]
All good points, but the bottom line is that nvidia couldn't care less:
- 40 Bucks from "everybody" with whatever kind of stereoscopic display.
- no more neccessity to implement each and every display in the driver .inf
- Acer has allready announced [i][b]PC[/b][/i] monitors with HDMI 1.4 (only) input. I think we will see this become the norm - and nvidia is prepared. Eihter way, they still can code specially licensed drivers as they do for Zalman.
- no more hardware to take care of in terms of QC, production costs, after sales support, service, warranty etc. (40 bucks on a pure softwre solution compared to 130,- on a SW plus HW? Easy pick if you're an manufacturer.
No matter how you look at it, the "savings" are on nvidia's side here.
Maybe, if it's a chargeable for all product, they will finally remove the arbitrary refresh limitation and EDID check and add offset / Duty control asked so many times before here. They could also go beyond the HDMI 1.4 mandatory modes and implement an option to output 1080p/120Hz for future monitors....
[quote name='davin8r' date='08 December 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1291789333' post='1157764']
I'd rather play a game at 720P on a high-quality 55" inch screen than at 1080P on a tiny 24" screen any day. I would have bought a 3D Vision kit a *long* time ago if they had made larger 3D dual-DVI monitors.
[/quote]
So do I - fortunately it seems that Acer will fill the GAP with a 27" next year - sporting 1080/120 over DVI PLUS HDMI1.4.... Unless Samsung makes a 32" S3D TV until then they can count me in.
All good points, but the bottom line is that demand for 3D computer monitors and Nvidia shutter glasses will likely take a nose dive once 3DTV software is released. Many users (like me) have the option of consolidating 3D equipment by using a small HDTV as a monitor and/or they have the option of outputting to a large HDTV to play 3D games.
Also, the savings from not having to buy a 3D Vision kit can go towards the extra cost of the 40" 3D monitor (and of course, prices will continue to come down).
All good points, but the bottom line is that nvidia couldn't care less:
- 40 Bucks from "everybody" with whatever kind of stereoscopic display.
- no more neccessity to implement each and every display in the driver .inf
- Acer has allready announced PC monitors with HDMI 1.4 (only) input. I think we will see this become the norm - and nvidia is prepared. Eihter way, they still can code specially licensed drivers as they do for Zalman.
- no more hardware to take care of in terms of QC, production costs, after sales support, service, warranty etc. (40 bucks on a pure softwre solution compared to 130,- on a SW plus HW? Easy pick if you're an manufacturer.
No matter how you look at it, the "savings" are on nvidia's side here.
Maybe, if it's a chargeable for all product, they will finally remove the arbitrary refresh limitation and EDID check and add offset / Duty control asked so many times before here. They could also go beyond the HDMI 1.4 mandatory modes and implement an option to output 1080p/120Hz for future monitors....
[quote name='davin8r' date='08 December 2010 - 08:22 AM' timestamp='1291789333' post='1157764']
I'd rather play a game at 720P on a high-quality 55" inch screen than at 1080P on a tiny 24" screen any day. I would have bought a 3D Vision kit a *long* time ago if they had made larger 3D dual-DVI monitors.
So do I - fortunately it seems that Acer will fill the GAP with a 27" next year - sporting 1080/120 over DVI PLUS HDMI1.4.... Unless Samsung makes a 32" S3D TV until then they can count me in.