[quote name='martinlandau' post='594325' date='Sep 29 2009, 08:10 PM']Cyber, I think some folks here are misinformed about how the brain works and perception regarding FOV versus stereo3D.
...
To sum it up, those that think S3D is more important that wide FOV, well the science does not back you up - sorry! :([/quote]
Well I agree that FOV is very important, but it can't replace Stereo3D. What you are talking about is immersion, and if all you want to be is immersed then a large IMAX DOME is probably all you need. However, stereo 3d is about more than immersion. It is about making virtual objects and characters seem more real and more tangible. For example, pick up your mouse and hold it in your hand. Turn it around and look at it from different angles. Notice the weight of it, feel the texture of the plastic. Now it feels pretty real to you, doesn't it? But are you "immersed" in you mouse? The answer is no. But that doesn't change the fact that it is 100% real. So you can see that there is a distinction here. Although stereo3d can be used as an immersive tool, I think there is more to the experience than that. If I had to choose between the two, I would certain pick stereo 3d. In fact, I did have to make that decision (and almost bought a 5870) but then I came to my senses and realized stereo 3d is much more essential. However, ideally you could have both and I think that is the ultimate goal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
[quote name='martinlandau' post='594325' date='Sep 29 2009, 08:10 PM']Cyber, I think some folks here are misinformed about how the brain works and perception regarding FOV versus stereo3D.
...
To sum it up, those that think S3D is more important that wide FOV, well the science does not back you up - sorry! :(
Well I agree that FOV is very important, but it can't replace Stereo3D. What you are talking about is immersion, and if all you want to be is immersed then a large IMAX DOME is probably all you need. However, stereo 3d is about more than immersion. It is about making virtual objects and characters seem more real and more tangible. For example, pick up your mouse and hold it in your hand. Turn it around and look at it from different angles. Notice the weight of it, feel the texture of the plastic. Now it feels pretty real to you, doesn't it? But are you "immersed" in you mouse? The answer is no. But that doesn't change the fact that it is 100% real. So you can see that there is a distinction here. Although stereo3d can be used as an immersive tool, I think there is more to the experience than that. If I had to choose between the two, I would certain pick stereo 3d. In fact, I did have to make that decision (and almost bought a 5870) but then I came to my senses and realized stereo 3d is much more essential. However, ideally you could have both and I think that is the ultimate goal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
[quote name='cybereality' post='595701' date='Oct 2 2009, 08:17 PM']Well I agree that FOV is very important, but it can't replace Stereo3D. What you are talking about is immersion, and if all you want to be is immersed then a large IMAX DOME is probably all you need. However, stereo 3d is about more than immersion. It is about making virtual objects and characters seem more real and more tangible. For example, pick up your mouse and hold it in your hand. Turn it around and look at it from different angles. Notice the weight of it, feel the texture of the plastic. Now it feels pretty real to you, doesn't it? But are you "immersed" in you mouse? The answer is no. But that doesn't change the fact that it is 100% real. So you can see that there is a distinction here. Although stereo3d can be used as an immersive tool, I think there is more to the experience than that. If I had to choose between the two, I would certain pick stereo 3d. In fact, I did have to make that decision (and almost bought a 5870) but then I came to my senses and realized stereo 3d is much more essential. However, ideally you could have both and I think that is the ultimate goal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.[/quote]
Catching up with some threads here and I completely agree. while ideally we would have both, since we do not, my choice is very clear, 3D means Real 3D not monitors around me.
I can see myself using 3 monitors if I want a tactical advantage for COD4 and even then, I would prefer to added reality of 3D /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
[quote name='cybereality' post='595701' date='Oct 2 2009, 08:17 PM']Well I agree that FOV is very important, but it can't replace Stereo3D. What you are talking about is immersion, and if all you want to be is immersed then a large IMAX DOME is probably all you need. However, stereo 3d is about more than immersion. It is about making virtual objects and characters seem more real and more tangible. For example, pick up your mouse and hold it in your hand. Turn it around and look at it from different angles. Notice the weight of it, feel the texture of the plastic. Now it feels pretty real to you, doesn't it? But are you "immersed" in you mouse? The answer is no. But that doesn't change the fact that it is 100% real. So you can see that there is a distinction here. Although stereo3d can be used as an immersive tool, I think there is more to the experience than that. If I had to choose between the two, I would certain pick stereo 3d. In fact, I did have to make that decision (and almost bought a 5870) but then I came to my senses and realized stereo 3d is much more essential. However, ideally you could have both and I think that is the ultimate goal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Catching up with some threads here and I completely agree. while ideally we would have both, since we do not, my choice is very clear, 3D means Real 3D not monitors around me.
I can see myself using 3 monitors if I want a tactical advantage for COD4 and even then, I would prefer to added reality of 3D /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
...
To sum it up, those that think S3D is more important that wide FOV, well the science does not back you up - sorry! :([/quote]
Well I agree that FOV is very important, but it can't replace Stereo3D. What you are talking about is immersion, and if all you want to be is immersed then a large IMAX DOME is probably all you need. However, stereo 3d is about more than immersion. It is about making virtual objects and characters seem more real and more tangible. For example, pick up your mouse and hold it in your hand. Turn it around and look at it from different angles. Notice the weight of it, feel the texture of the plastic. Now it feels pretty real to you, doesn't it? But are you "immersed" in you mouse? The answer is no. But that doesn't change the fact that it is 100% real. So you can see that there is a distinction here. Although stereo3d can be used as an immersive tool, I think there is more to the experience than that. If I had to choose between the two, I would certain pick stereo 3d. In fact, I did have to make that decision (and almost bought a 5870) but then I came to my senses and realized stereo 3d is much more essential. However, ideally you could have both and I think that is the ultimate goal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
...
To sum it up, those that think S3D is more important that wide FOV, well the science does not back you up - sorry! :(
Well I agree that FOV is very important, but it can't replace Stereo3D. What you are talking about is immersion, and if all you want to be is immersed then a large IMAX DOME is probably all you need. However, stereo 3d is about more than immersion. It is about making virtual objects and characters seem more real and more tangible. For example, pick up your mouse and hold it in your hand. Turn it around and look at it from different angles. Notice the weight of it, feel the texture of the plastic. Now it feels pretty real to you, doesn't it? But are you "immersed" in you mouse? The answer is no. But that doesn't change the fact that it is 100% real. So you can see that there is a distinction here. Although stereo3d can be used as an immersive tool, I think there is more to the experience than that. If I had to choose between the two, I would certain pick stereo 3d. In fact, I did have to make that decision (and almost bought a 5870) but then I came to my senses and realized stereo 3d is much more essential. However, ideally you could have both and I think that is the ultimate goal. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
check my blog - cybereality.com
Catching up with some threads here and I completely agree. while ideally we would have both, since we do not, my choice is very clear, 3D means Real 3D not monitors around me.
I can see myself using 3 monitors if I want a tactical advantage for COD4 and even then, I would prefer to added reality of 3D
Catching up with some threads here and I completely agree. while ideally we would have both, since we do not, my choice is very clear, 3D means Real 3D not monitors around me.
I can see myself using 3 monitors if I want a tactical advantage for COD4 and even then, I would prefer to added reality of 3D
*CPU: i7 920 DO @ 4.1Ghz 1.35v HT On*CPU Cooler: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme*Mobo: Evga X58 SLI / RAM: 12GB Crucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer DDR3 1600 7-7-7-21 1.5v*Video Cards:Tri Sli Evga GTX 660 ti x 2 & MSI GTX 660 ti *Speakers:CBM-170 SE*PSU: Corsair HX1000W*Display: Mitusbishi 60" DLP (3D Vision ) Qnix QX2710 27" 1440P*Case: CoolerMaster HAF X (932 side) *Windows 7 64Bit on Samsung 840 256GB*Others: Roccat Kone XTD | Roccat Alumic | Logitech G15 | *Mobile: Galaxy Note 2