Glasses Free Stereoscopic 3D Monitor Kickstarter
  3 / 7    
@Shinra358, of course we are aiming high with our performance specifications. Will it be absolutely perfect? That's the goal and we hope to achieve it. We won the NASA contract for a glasses-free 3D cockpit display for two viewers based on a proof of concept of the eye tracking integrated with our backlight. We showed the work in progress at Immersed. It's getting better every time -- that's why Neil Schneider from mtbs3d.com backed us and wrote this incredible endorsement of our technology. http://tinyurl.com/pxc3g77
@Shinra358, of course we are aiming high with our performance specifications. Will it be absolutely perfect? That's the goal and we hope to achieve it. We won the NASA contract for a glasses-free 3D cockpit display for two viewers based on a proof of concept of the eye tracking integrated with our backlight. We showed the work in progress at Immersed. It's getting better every time -- that's why Neil Schneider from mtbs3d.com backed us and wrote this incredible endorsement of our technology. http://tinyurl.com/pxc3g77

#31
Posted 11/29/2014 11:21 PM   
[quote="Glasses-FreeTC"]@DarkStarSword Wondering why you had to read a translation of the patent. It was invented by Jesse Eichenlaub in Rochester, New York. [/quote] Looks like I was looking at the wrong patent (closest I could find with a global keyword search). With the inventor's name I've found these two which seem to be relevant: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120229462 http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100118218 I take it you will be looking to use a monitor where you don't have to use the half resolution vertical case so every eye of every viewer will see 1920x1080? Will it be able to achieve 60 fps per eye per viewer? Or only 30fps per eye for two viewers?
Glasses-FreeTC said:@DarkStarSword Wondering why you had to read a translation of the patent. It was invented by Jesse Eichenlaub in Rochester, New York.

Looks like I was looking at the wrong patent (closest I could find with a global keyword search). With the inventor's name I've found these two which seem to be relevant:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120229462

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100118218


I take it you will be looking to use a monitor where you don't have to use the half resolution vertical case so every eye of every viewer will see 1920x1080? Will it be able to achieve 60 fps per eye per viewer? Or only 30fps per eye for two viewers?

2x Geforce GTX 980 in SLI provided by NVIDIA, i7 6700K 4GHz CPU, Asus 27" VG278HE 144Hz 3D Monitor, BenQ W1070 3D Projector, 120" Elite Screens YardMaster 2, 32GB Corsair DDR4 3200MHz RAM, Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD, 4x750GB HDD in RAID5, Gigabyte Z170X-Gaming 7 Motherboard, Corsair Obsidian 750D Airflow Edition Case, Corsair RM850i PSU, HTC Vive, Win 10 64bit

Alienware M17x R4 w/ built in 3D, Intel i7 3740QM, GTX 680m 2GB, 16GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM, Win7 64bit, 1TB SSD, 1TB HDD, 750GB HDD

Pre-release 3D fixes, shadertool.py and other goodies: http://github.com/DarkStarSword/3d-fixes
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/DarkStarSword or PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/DarkStarSword

#32
Posted 11/30/2014 03:38 AM   
I'm curious to know how this method looks in terms of ghosting/crosstalk. When viewing high-contrast images (a dark character against light background, for example), every 3D technology seems to have some level of crosstalk visible in the image. How significant is the crosstalk with your method, or have you been able to eliminate it somehow? And regarding the suggestions of using the ROG Swift as a base, I'd like to advise against going for a resolution above 1080p. It might sound good for marketing, but even a rig with SLI 980s can't run the latest games at higher resolutions at the requisite 120ps in most cases.
I'm curious to know how this method looks in terms of ghosting/crosstalk. When viewing high-contrast images (a dark character against light background, for example), every 3D technology seems to have some level of crosstalk visible in the image. How significant is the crosstalk with your method, or have you been able to eliminate it somehow?

And regarding the suggestions of using the ROG Swift as a base, I'd like to advise against going for a resolution above 1080p. It might sound good for marketing, but even a rig with SLI 980s can't run the latest games at higher resolutions at the requisite 120ps in most cases.

#33
Posted 11/30/2014 04:06 AM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"] And regarding the suggestions of using the ROG Swift as a base, I'd like to advise against going for a resolution above 1080p. It might sound good for marketing, but even a rig with SLI 980s can't run the latest games at higher resolutions at the requisite 120ps in most cases.[/quote] Do you have a ROG Swift?, and if so, what was your main reason for buying it?
Pirateguybrush said:

And regarding the suggestions of using the ROG Swift as a base, I'd like to advise against going for a resolution above 1080p. It might sound good for marketing, but even a rig with SLI 980s can't run the latest games at higher resolutions at the requisite 120ps in most cases.


Do you have a ROG Swift?, and if so, what was your main reason for buying it?

Intel Core i7 4770k @ 4.4Ghz, 3x GTX Titan, 16GB Tactical Tracer LED, CPU/GPU Dual-Loop Water-Cooled - Driver 331.82, DX11.0

#34
Posted 11/30/2014 05:04 AM   
Tom, just from my first hand observations, I've introduced numerous people to view 3D vision with glasses for the first time, amongst those being, a highly qualified computer technician, a semi-retired ex-bank manager and an electrician/AV specialist who's main focus is installing home entertainment systems. In each case, I almost had to prize the mouse from out of their hands, they were completely in the zone, once they saw proper S3D. Once the glasses come off of course, the magic disappears too. Even I forget how good S3D is when I've not played it for a while. I assume that that's the critical difference here, that with no glasses required, the magic is always there. That's well worth investing in, and if I could further finance the remainder I would do. Unfortunately, in the words of Bud Fox, "..I'm tapped out Marv, American Express have got a hit man lookin' for me".
Tom, just from my first hand observations, I've introduced numerous people to view 3D vision with glasses for the first time, amongst those being, a highly qualified computer technician, a semi-retired ex-bank manager and an electrician/AV specialist who's main focus is installing home entertainment systems. In each case, I almost had to prize the mouse from out of their hands, they were completely in the zone, once they saw proper S3D. Once the glasses come off of course, the magic disappears too. Even I forget how good S3D is when I've not played it for a while. I assume that that's the critical difference here, that with no glasses required, the magic is always there. That's well worth investing in, and if I could further finance the remainder I would do. Unfortunately, in the words of Bud Fox, "..I'm tapped out Marv, American Express have got a hit man lookin' for me".

Intel Core i7 4770k @ 4.4Ghz, 3x GTX Titan, 16GB Tactical Tracer LED, CPU/GPU Dual-Loop Water-Cooled - Driver 331.82, DX11.0

#35
Posted 11/30/2014 05:36 AM   
[quote="ToThePoint"]Do you have a ROG Swift?, and if so, what was the your main reason for buying it?[/quote] No, I'm happy with my VG278H and my projector at the moment. But there have been many forum posts talking about problems with it.
ToThePoint said:Do you have a ROG Swift?, and if so, what was the your main reason for buying it?


No, I'm happy with my VG278H and my projector at the moment. But there have been many forum posts talking about problems with it.

#36
Posted 11/30/2014 08:45 AM   
I've not read any reviews regarding using either twin 980s, or twin 970s for that matter, with respect to the ROG Swift. Aside from the latest driver issues, or the likes of Ubisoft not getting their act together with Far Cry 4, for instance, if I was the owner of twin 980s and still couldn't get a minimum frame rate of 60 fps with everything maxed out in 2D, never mind 3D, I'd be feeling more than disappointed. That is a surprise if that's the case. I've not read any in depth reviews about either the 970s or the 980s, simply because I've not been interested in buying them. I'm looking to skip those entirely and wait to see what comes out in the new year. If I may ask, what has been your overall experience running twin 970s in 3D and 1080p, simply in terms of frame rate? EDIT: Correction, Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed rather than Far Cry 4. I've not been interested in either game to be honest.
I've not read any reviews regarding using either twin 980s, or twin 970s for that matter, with respect to the ROG Swift. Aside from the latest driver issues, or the likes of Ubisoft not getting their act together with Far Cry 4, for instance, if I was the owner of twin 980s and still couldn't get a minimum frame rate of 60 fps with everything maxed out in 2D, never mind 3D, I'd be feeling more than disappointed. That is a surprise if that's the case. I've not read any in depth reviews about either the 970s or the 980s, simply because I've not been interested in buying them. I'm looking to skip those entirely and wait to see what comes out in the new year. If I may ask, what has been your overall experience running twin 970s in 3D and 1080p, simply in terms of frame rate?

EDIT: Correction, Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed rather than Far Cry 4. I've not been interested in either game to be honest.

Intel Core i7 4770k @ 4.4Ghz, 3x GTX Titan, 16GB Tactical Tracer LED, CPU/GPU Dual-Loop Water-Cooled - Driver 331.82, DX11.0

#37
Posted 11/30/2014 11:05 AM   
I honestly can't give you much information yet, as the majority of my gaming since I got these cards has been older games that would easily run on a single, lesser card. But from the reports I've seen of Far Cry 4, AC: Unity, Dragon Age Inquisition, performance at 1080p 3D is acceptable, but not a solid 60. So to go higher in resolution would make it even harder.
I honestly can't give you much information yet, as the majority of my gaming since I got these cards has been older games that would easily run on a single, lesser card. But from the reports I've seen of Far Cry 4, AC: Unity, Dragon Age Inquisition, performance at 1080p 3D is acceptable, but not a solid 60. So to go higher in resolution would make it even harder.

#38
Posted 11/30/2014 11:29 AM   
On the 1440p/1080p issue, that comes as quite a relief in that case. I was concerned that Tom and the DTI team had arrived on the platform, just as the train was pulling out of the station with regards to resolution.
On the 1440p/1080p issue, that comes as quite a relief in that case. I was concerned that Tom and the DTI team had arrived on the platform, just as the train was pulling out of the station with regards to resolution.

Intel Core i7 4770k @ 4.4Ghz, 3x GTX Titan, 16GB Tactical Tracer LED, CPU/GPU Dual-Loop Water-Cooled - Driver 331.82, DX11.0

#39
Posted 11/30/2014 11:50 AM   
I wonder if it will be compared to high convergence and hight depth 3D Vision quality lvl. If not - it's for ppl who is contented with 3D Vision CM mode that is major sux honestly
I wonder if it will be compared to high convergence and hight depth 3D Vision quality lvl.
If not - it's for ppl who is contented with 3D Vision CM mode that is major sux honestly

#40
Posted 11/30/2014 12:18 PM   
[quote="ksyon"]I wonder if it will be compared to high convergence and hight depth 3D Vision quality lvl. If not - it's for ppl who is contented with 3D Vision CM mode that is major sux honestly[/quote] With Tom's permission, I'll quote his reply to me on this specific issue:- "You will be glad to hear that DTI glasses-free 3D comes out of the screen like nothing you have ever seen without glasses before (and it is user adjustable as to how much "out-of-screen" effect you can achieve). We have a short animated film that we show where a snake comes out of the screen about 12 inches and little bugs fly by your ears."
ksyon said:I wonder if it will be compared to high convergence and hight depth 3D Vision quality lvl.
If not - it's for ppl who is contented with 3D Vision CM mode that is major sux honestly


With Tom's permission, I'll quote his reply to me on this specific issue:-

"You will be glad to hear that DTI glasses-free 3D comes out of the screen like nothing you have ever seen without glasses before (and it is user adjustable as to how much "out-of-screen" effect you can achieve). We have a short animated film that we show where a snake comes out of the screen about 12 inches and little bugs fly by your ears."

Intel Core i7 4770k @ 4.4Ghz, 3x GTX Titan, 16GB Tactical Tracer LED, CPU/GPU Dual-Loop Water-Cooled - Driver 331.82, DX11.0

#41
Posted 11/30/2014 12:38 PM   
[quote="DarkStarSword"][quote="Glasses-FreeTC"]@DarkStarSword Wondering why you had to read a translation of the patent. It was invented by Jesse Eichenlaub in Rochester, New York. [/quote] Looks like I was looking at the wrong patent (closest I could find with a global keyword search). With the inventor's name I've found these two which seem to be relevant: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120229462 http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100118218 I take it you will be looking to use a monitor where you don't have to use the half resolution vertical case so every eye of every viewer will see 1920x1080? Will it be able to achieve 60 fps per eye per viewer? Or only 30fps per eye for two viewers?[/quote] These are the primary new patents for our Kickstarter display. Answer on fps per eye coming shortly from tech. They hate it when I answer before checking with them :)
DarkStarSword said:
Glasses-FreeTC said:@DarkStarSword Wondering why you had to read a translation of the patent. It was invented by Jesse Eichenlaub in Rochester, New York.

Looks like I was looking at the wrong patent (closest I could find with a global keyword search). With the inventor's name I've found these two which seem to be relevant:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120229462

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100118218


I take it you will be looking to use a monitor where you don't have to use the half resolution vertical case so every eye of every viewer will see 1920x1080? Will it be able to achieve 60 fps per eye per viewer? Or only 30fps per eye for two viewers?


These are the primary new patents for our Kickstarter display.
Answer on fps per eye coming shortly from tech. They hate it when I answer before checking with them :)

#42
Posted 11/30/2014 01:20 PM   
@Pirateguybrush, our 3D/2D displays provide excellent 3D clarity and depth of field. Based on our expert review and feedback it is equal to glasses-based 3D. With the addition of eye-tracking to eliminate the fixed point viewing, (this is the focus of the NASA project -- pilot, co-pilot seeing the same 3D display); we have removed two of the major barriers to broad 3D adoption -- glasses; and fixed point viewing.
@Pirateguybrush, our 3D/2D displays provide excellent 3D clarity and depth of field. Based on our expert review and feedback it is equal to glasses-based 3D. With the addition of eye-tracking to eliminate the fixed point viewing, (this is the focus of the NASA project -- pilot, co-pilot seeing the same 3D display); we have removed two of the major barriers to broad 3D adoption -- glasses; and fixed point viewing.

#43
Posted 11/30/2014 01:45 PM   
@ToThePoint, We chose 1920 x 1080p for a number of reasons. It's still by far the most mainstream resolution for monitors in this category. We chose 27" based on feedback from gamers, CAD engineers, 3D movie animators and editors. We wanted to keep the Kickstarter price point down to under $1,000. As Neil Schneider wrote in his mtbs3d.com article on us http://tinyurl.com/pxc3g77; this is more than a single product; it is a product platform that can scale up to larger sizes, down to smaller sizes (think laptop/tablet/smartphone) up to higher resolutions (including 4K if we can get some development support from NVIDIA hint, hint). But first things first, we have to crush it on Kickstarter so the upstream players -- content developers, publishers, console makers, stereo camera makers, GPU and display mfrs -- get excited about 3D again.
@ToThePoint, We chose 1920 x 1080p for a number of reasons. It's still by far the most mainstream resolution for monitors in this category. We chose 27" based on feedback from gamers, CAD engineers, 3D movie animators and editors. We wanted to keep the Kickstarter price point down to under $1,000.

As Neil Schneider wrote in his mtbs3d.com article on us http://tinyurl.com/pxc3g77; this is more than a single product; it is a product platform that can scale up to larger sizes, down to smaller sizes (think laptop/tablet/smartphone) up to higher resolutions (including 4K if we can get some development support from NVIDIA hint, hint).

But first things first, we have to crush it on Kickstarter so the upstream players -- content developers, publishers, console makers, stereo camera makers, GPU and display mfrs -- get excited about 3D again.

#44
Posted 11/30/2014 01:55 PM   
Glasses-based 3D has pretty varied levels of crosstalk, I'd be interested to know if you were comparing it to passive or active displays in that regard. Some crosstalk is definitely acceptable though. I don't suppose it's possible to take a photo of the output one eye would see? Also, I've seen you use the phrase "depth of field" a number of times. That's a little confusing. Depth of field relates to the focus in an image across different depths. It's useful when talking about film or photography, I've not seen it used when discussing 3D display technology, unless you're talking about some kind of light field system (which might be interesting, but I doubt that's what you're doing).
Glasses-based 3D has pretty varied levels of crosstalk, I'd be interested to know if you were comparing it to passive or active displays in that regard. Some crosstalk is definitely acceptable though. I don't suppose it's possible to take a photo of the output one eye would see?

Also, I've seen you use the phrase "depth of field" a number of times. That's a little confusing. Depth of field relates to the focus in an image across different depths. It's useful when talking about film or photography, I've not seen it used when discussing 3D display technology, unless you're talking about some kind of light field system (which might be interesting, but I doubt that's what you're doing).

#45
Posted 11/30/2014 02:35 PM   
  3 / 7    
Scroll To Top