How does this compare to iZ3D drivers + colorcode 3d glasses (super bowl glasses)?
I've been interested in this, but since the super bowl I kept one of the pairs of glasses and have been extremely impressed and satisfied with my poor-man's solution for my windows XP box. I had e-dimensional glasses before this on an LCD monitor and they are a very large improvement (especially since it's free...). You can get a pair of color code 3d glasses for less than 2 USD (plus shipping) if you didn't keep your super bowl glasses. I highly recommend it to anyone who has a windows XP box or a nice big monitor they dont want to give up in order to get 120 Hz.
However, I plan on later getting a new computer as mine is getting out-dated. One of the things I'm interested in is 3D vision, but the price has really put me off of it, as well as the compatibility. I don't actually want a big monitor due to space restrictions, so that isn't a big issue. However, I'm reading some complaints on this forum and I'm wondering if these people are the exception or the rule. Basically...
My current set-up is 90% ghost free top to bottom in day-light, and can run with post-processing on. Some games, like red orchestra, I use the old beta stereo drivers for nvidia since it has better performance. Other games like COD4 I can't decide because neither driver is perfect. For example, with the nvidia drivers I have to increase the eye seperation until the texture that is rendered in front of the camera is no longer obstructing the view. This creates a nice cinematic experience with no HUD. However, aiming with the gun is just too close to the screen so you can only guestimate where you are aiming and can't really see the gun since one side is on the far left and the other on the far right. Additionally, things like flashbangs do not obscure your vision, and cinematic sequences can look wierd. The iZ3D drivers do not have this issue and have the HUD and everything, however the gun is rendered at a weird depth which detracts from the experience. The iZ3D drivers are also a 60% framerate hit while the nvidia drivers are only a 40% framerate hit.
With the lights turned down, everything can be 98% ghost free depending on the colors. Solid blues kinda give me eye strain and a headache because my brain keeps flipping between showing me the blue and not. I would like to alleviate from this eye strain. Nevertheless, it is much better than my e-dimensional glasses and the eye strain is minimal for the most part, minus some very blue-ish night missions in COD4 and any other game that decides that there isn't enough blue everywhere.
Also the flimsy glasses are a little annoying at times
So whats the verdict? Would you recommend paying extra at this point in time?
I've been interested in this, but since the super bowl I kept one of the pairs of glasses and have been extremely impressed and satisfied with my poor-man's solution for my windows XP box. I had e-dimensional glasses before this on an LCD monitor and they are a very large improvement (especially since it's free...). You can get a pair of color code 3d glasses for less than 2 USD (plus shipping) if you didn't keep your super bowl glasses. I highly recommend it to anyone who has a windows XP box or a nice big monitor they dont want to give up in order to get 120 Hz.
However, I plan on later getting a new computer as mine is getting out-dated. One of the things I'm interested in is 3D vision, but the price has really put me off of it, as well as the compatibility. I don't actually want a big monitor due to space restrictions, so that isn't a big issue. However, I'm reading some complaints on this forum and I'm wondering if these people are the exception or the rule. Basically...
My current set-up is 90% ghost free top to bottom in day-light, and can run with post-processing on. Some games, like red orchestra, I use the old beta stereo drivers for nvidia since it has better performance. Other games like COD4 I can't decide because neither driver is perfect. For example, with the nvidia drivers I have to increase the eye seperation until the texture that is rendered in front of the camera is no longer obstructing the view. This creates a nice cinematic experience with no HUD. However, aiming with the gun is just too close to the screen so you can only guestimate where you are aiming and can't really see the gun since one side is on the far left and the other on the far right. Additionally, things like flashbangs do not obscure your vision, and cinematic sequences can look wierd. The iZ3D drivers do not have this issue and have the HUD and everything, however the gun is rendered at a weird depth which detracts from the experience. The iZ3D drivers are also a 60% framerate hit while the nvidia drivers are only a 40% framerate hit.
With the lights turned down, everything can be 98% ghost free depending on the colors. Solid blues kinda give me eye strain and a headache because my brain keeps flipping between showing me the blue and not. I would like to alleviate from this eye strain. Nevertheless, it is much better than my e-dimensional glasses and the eye strain is minimal for the most part, minus some very blue-ish night missions in COD4 and any other game that decides that there isn't enough blue everywhere.
Also the flimsy glasses are a little annoying at times
So whats the verdict? Would you recommend paying extra at this point in time?
I've tried a little bit making my own anaglyph as well as colorcode glasses with discolightfilters. For anaglyph you get amazing results with Lee-filters (HT)026-bright red and (HT)116 Medium green/blue. That later one is even better than the (HT)141-bright blue (better color experience and same ghosting reduction).
However for colorcode i haven't got any good filtercombinations. I ended up with VERY dark blue filter for the blue and then i needed to compensate the amber one and choose a very dark one for that as well.
After what i've tried it seems like colorcode is no more than a hype since it doesn't even give better results than anaglyph. The resulting image is either: Very dark but relatively ghostingfree or brighter with increased ghosting. There's none of these problems with anaglyph. However: Printed out images looks better with colorcode (better depth and ghosting rejection than anaglyph) but that's the only advantage i find.
Remember that these results are with my experience of experimenting with colorfilters. There might be a slight possibility real colorcode glasses gives better results but i somehow doubt it. Share your experience on whether or not you find them ghosting/dark and if you like: Pm me and i'll send some red/cyan filters for your own comparison. I have trouble believeing colorcode is better than anaglyph when my own experience shows the total opposite.
For information: I experimented with these filters just for fun to give relatives and friends a couple of decent and cheap glasses for stereodriver experiments. I normally use a dual projector rig and an iz3d. :)
I've tried a little bit making my own anaglyph as well as colorcode glasses with discolightfilters. For anaglyph you get amazing results with Lee-filters (HT)026-bright red and (HT)116 Medium green/blue. That later one is even better than the (HT)141-bright blue (better color experience and same ghosting reduction).
However for colorcode i haven't got any good filtercombinations. I ended up with VERY dark blue filter for the blue and then i needed to compensate the amber one and choose a very dark one for that as well.
After what i've tried it seems like colorcode is no more than a hype since it doesn't even give better results than anaglyph. The resulting image is either: Very dark but relatively ghostingfree or brighter with increased ghosting. There's none of these problems with anaglyph. However: Printed out images looks better with colorcode (better depth and ghosting rejection than anaglyph) but that's the only advantage i find.
Remember that these results are with my experience of experimenting with colorfilters. There might be a slight possibility real colorcode glasses gives better results but i somehow doubt it. Share your experience on whether or not you find them ghosting/dark and if you like: Pm me and i'll send some red/cyan filters for your own comparison. I have trouble believeing colorcode is better than anaglyph when my own experience shows the total opposite.
For information: I experimented with these filters just for fun to give relatives and friends a couple of decent and cheap glasses for stereodriver experiments. I normally use a dual projector rig and an iz3d. :)
However, I plan on later getting a new computer as mine is getting out-dated. One of the things I'm interested in is 3D vision, but the price has really put me off of it, as well as the compatibility. I don't actually want a big monitor due to space restrictions, so that isn't a big issue. However, I'm reading some complaints on this forum and I'm wondering if these people are the exception or the rule. Basically...
My current set-up is 90% ghost free top to bottom in day-light, and can run with post-processing on. Some games, like red orchestra, I use the old beta stereo drivers for nvidia since it has better performance. Other games like COD4 I can't decide because neither driver is perfect. For example, with the nvidia drivers I have to increase the eye seperation until the texture that is rendered in front of the camera is no longer obstructing the view. This creates a nice cinematic experience with no HUD. However, aiming with the gun is just too close to the screen so you can only guestimate where you are aiming and can't really see the gun since one side is on the far left and the other on the far right. Additionally, things like flashbangs do not obscure your vision, and cinematic sequences can look wierd. The iZ3D drivers do not have this issue and have the HUD and everything, however the gun is rendered at a weird depth which detracts from the experience. The iZ3D drivers are also a 60% framerate hit while the nvidia drivers are only a 40% framerate hit.
With the lights turned down, everything can be 98% ghost free depending on the colors. Solid blues kinda give me eye strain and a headache because my brain keeps flipping between showing me the blue and not. I would like to alleviate from this eye strain. Nevertheless, it is much better than my e-dimensional glasses and the eye strain is minimal for the most part, minus some very blue-ish night missions in COD4 and any other game that decides that there isn't enough blue everywhere.
Also the flimsy glasses are a little annoying at times
So whats the verdict? Would you recommend paying extra at this point in time?
However, I plan on later getting a new computer as mine is getting out-dated. One of the things I'm interested in is 3D vision, but the price has really put me off of it, as well as the compatibility. I don't actually want a big monitor due to space restrictions, so that isn't a big issue. However, I'm reading some complaints on this forum and I'm wondering if these people are the exception or the rule. Basically...
My current set-up is 90% ghost free top to bottom in day-light, and can run with post-processing on. Some games, like red orchestra, I use the old beta stereo drivers for nvidia since it has better performance. Other games like COD4 I can't decide because neither driver is perfect. For example, with the nvidia drivers I have to increase the eye seperation until the texture that is rendered in front of the camera is no longer obstructing the view. This creates a nice cinematic experience with no HUD. However, aiming with the gun is just too close to the screen so you can only guestimate where you are aiming and can't really see the gun since one side is on the far left and the other on the far right. Additionally, things like flashbangs do not obscure your vision, and cinematic sequences can look wierd. The iZ3D drivers do not have this issue and have the HUD and everything, however the gun is rendered at a weird depth which detracts from the experience. The iZ3D drivers are also a 60% framerate hit while the nvidia drivers are only a 40% framerate hit.
With the lights turned down, everything can be 98% ghost free depending on the colors. Solid blues kinda give me eye strain and a headache because my brain keeps flipping between showing me the blue and not. I would like to alleviate from this eye strain. Nevertheless, it is much better than my e-dimensional glasses and the eye strain is minimal for the most part, minus some very blue-ish night missions in COD4 and any other game that decides that there isn't enough blue everywhere.
Also the flimsy glasses are a little annoying at times
So whats the verdict? Would you recommend paying extra at this point in time?
No input on this?
No input on this?
However for colorcode i haven't got any good filtercombinations. I ended up with VERY dark blue filter for the blue and then i needed to compensate the amber one and choose a very dark one for that as well.
After what i've tried it seems like colorcode is no more than a hype since it doesn't even give better results than anaglyph. The resulting image is either: Very dark but relatively ghostingfree or brighter with increased ghosting. There's none of these problems with anaglyph. However: Printed out images looks better with colorcode (better depth and ghosting rejection than anaglyph) but that's the only advantage i find.
Remember that these results are with my experience of experimenting with colorfilters. There might be a slight possibility real colorcode glasses gives better results but i somehow doubt it. Share your experience on whether or not you find them ghosting/dark and if you like: Pm me and i'll send some red/cyan filters for your own comparison. I have trouble believeing colorcode is better than anaglyph when my own experience shows the total opposite.
For information: I experimented with these filters just for fun to give relatives and friends a couple of decent and cheap glasses for stereodriver experiments. I normally use a dual projector rig and an iz3d. :)
cheers
However for colorcode i haven't got any good filtercombinations. I ended up with VERY dark blue filter for the blue and then i needed to compensate the amber one and choose a very dark one for that as well.
After what i've tried it seems like colorcode is no more than a hype since it doesn't even give better results than anaglyph. The resulting image is either: Very dark but relatively ghostingfree or brighter with increased ghosting. There's none of these problems with anaglyph. However: Printed out images looks better with colorcode (better depth and ghosting rejection than anaglyph) but that's the only advantage i find.
Remember that these results are with my experience of experimenting with colorfilters. There might be a slight possibility real colorcode glasses gives better results but i somehow doubt it. Share your experience on whether or not you find them ghosting/dark and if you like: Pm me and i'll send some red/cyan filters for your own comparison. I have trouble believeing colorcode is better than anaglyph when my own experience shows the total opposite.
For information: I experimented with these filters just for fun to give relatives and friends a couple of decent and cheap glasses for stereodriver experiments. I normally use a dual projector rig and an iz3d. :)
cheers
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.