They should research other things instead of useless 3d-technology that won't become mainstream anyways. 3d simply doens't look that good and is very much overhyped.
Call me, when they do 3d-projections/holograms for less then $500 usable in your living-room.
Everyone touts holograms and that noise. This isn't Star Trek here folks. The tech we have will not be able to produce projections like you think. The real problem with 3D is the cost. Most people just recently invested in HDTV and more recently in 1080p. 3D adds another hardware change. Requiring new HDMI wiring, new receivers to handle the 3D signal passthrough, new Blu-Ray players, and a new TV. The initial cost of the TV isn't the problem, the glasses are expensive as well plus the extra hardware to keep what you're already used to. 7.1 surround and the like.
I think 3D has its place. Not necessarily on TV's but in projectors and possibly phones (have to see how that pans out).
Having said that if I had a 3D camera and/or camcorder then a 3D TV would be fantastic.
I'm waiting for projectors using polarisation to be released and become affordable. Then you can have ultra-light cheap glasses, and unlike TV's that use polarisation there's no loss of resolution.
Until then it's going to take more than 3D to get me to upgrade my 50" plasma.
i agree, 3d in the living room has a ways to come before i'll consider it. but nvidia's solution for the PC? i'm all over it. it works really well
don't have to worry about having more than one pair of glasses, way more media that supports it. tons of games work really well with it, and will run as well as your hardware can manage instead of at gimped resolution/framerate, not to mention that there are even porn sites that have nvidia 3d downloads
Yikes! There are some things you DON'T want coming out of the screen at you!
I bought a 3D kit years ago that's very similar to what Nvidia are selling now. It worked well except for the ghosting and the fact my monitor could only go to 75Hz.
However when I bought a new monitor recently I had the choice between a 3D one and a really good quality one; couldn't have both. I went for the quality.
"Besides the fact that the wireless glasses are wireless, it looks like the other features differentiating the two will be the 3D Vision control functionality the wireless hub offers - convergence controls and turning 3D Vision on & off - as there's no analog on the wired glasses."
Just to clarify, are you saying that only the hardware does not have these features any more, or the software as well? As both of the things you listed can be changed via the 3D Vision drivers, it is just that you won't have any hardware buttons on the glasses to get the same effect as they were both on the IR beamer, unless I am missing something.
You or Nvidia may need to expand that comment as bit, as for non 3D Vision users it may well put them off these glasses due to them thinking they are losing something they are not really.
First was Nvidia 3D VISION. When you describe it as wireless you could say Infra-Red Wireless to more fully explain how the technology works.
"As a bit of background, since the introduction of 3D Vision in 2009 the hardware has remained relatively unchanged."
Ryan, I feel the story would be improved if you had also mentioned the 3D Vision PRO version, which overcomes some limitations. That is Radio-Freqency based Wireless. It is also bi-directional, so can confirm the glasses are present and operational, more reliable, better range and more scalable. I believe from Nvidia site information that accelerometers on the glasses are a current or future option, allowing your head motion to be sent back to influence the viewed display. So, Nvidia were not standing still on the technology, and perhaps some of that may trickle down into the consumer range.
Although Nvidia are segmenting the market to Gforce (3d Vision) and Quadro (3d Vision PRO), I'd be interested to know if they are in fact interchangeable between the two types of GPU cards (Ask Nvidia or test it out). I know I would prefer the RF based product, even at the higher pricing.
In the glasses with batteries, recharging could be a problem, for example if you have a non-stop gaming session of over 24 hours (without bringing spare glasses to swap over to).
An improvement would be battery powered glasses that could be recharged by plugging in a USB tether temporarily. If either consumer or pro versions has an accelerometer, for more immersive use, it's best if that tether would be removable to not have your head movement restricted by the tethering wire.
I can see why they considered a more physically secure option for cyber cafes, but I think this could lead to accidental breakages. When a gamer stands up to reach for a can of Relentless or use the bathroom, they may forget about the tether cable, and it looks thin enough to break easily under strain. I think they were forced to take this route for many-user scenarios like a gaming cafe because of the problems of multiple players each needing IR bouncing around. The individual GPUs, monitors and glasses are not genlocked, so each needs its own sync signal, and the close proximity to the adjacent player makes IR problematic.
I think the problem of people stealing glasses is better dealt with in other ways, eg collect them as cinemas do, require a returnable deposit, so why you pay for your time you get the glasses deposit back by returning the glasses, or using store tagging passive RF the way a conventional retailer detects shoplifting at the exit.
For example then a museum visitor could view multiple 3d exhibits and walk around wearing the same pair of glasses without having to keep putting on new pairs of tethered glasses at each exhibit. When they leave they must hand over the glasses or an alarm will sound at the exit.
I do agree that they need more than one size. For example for teenage and big-headed adult. It's a comfort issue of having things clamping the side of your head. Being adult hand sized, I would make the same observation of Playstation PS3 controllers.
It's unfortunate that various television manufacturers have not or can't standardise their synchronisation standards to be cross compatible in glasses. I imagine in time some universal translator may arrive on the market.
One nice solution is PASSIVE 3D television of which LG have a good model, where you can use cheap polarised lens glasses, that don't need active switching or batteries. This becomes particularly cost effective when you have a large family or large number of guests visiting your home.
I'd like Nvidia glasses to gain accelerometers ASAP, and for similar reasons, eye movement tracking built into the glasses too would be a useful enhancement. eg in First person shooter, turn head to alter view, move eyes to focus aiming target. With some coding the effort, the targetting could support multiple users looking at the same screen, selecting individual targets, like 2 player cooperative game.
The original glasses seem affordable on ebay, perhaps people find them painful to wear.
The ideal product would be the reliable bidirectional RF solution with temporary tethering for recharging, headsize adjustment and compatible with the entire range of GPUs (enthusiast and professional). If they could make the same glasses work with 3d television protocols and have screen input lag compensation, it will be more useful/cost justifiable.
"Although Nvidia are segmenting the market to Gforce (3d Vision) and Quadro (3d Vision PRO), I'd be interested to know if they are in fact interchangeable between the two types of GPU cards (Ask Nvidia or test it out). I know I would prefer the RF based product, even at the higher pricing."
I actually asked about that back at the 2010 NV GPU Tech Conference, as NVIDIA had several exhibits using the Pro system. The answer at the time was that it's not compatible; Pro only works on Quadro cards. Apparently this has since changed, as looking at the Pro FAQ it now explicitly mentions that Pro works on GeForce cards. However given the price - $750 - it's not even in the same league as the consumer IR glasses.
Thanks Ryan, I'm glad to hear someone is asking the right questions.
It's good news that the pro system will now work with Geforce too.
I realise that the price is expensive, but consider this:
Let's imagine I do high end CAD and visualisation on a Quadro based system.
But at heart I'm also a gamer so also have a rig for gaming using GeForce.
I don't want to invest in two different incompatible 3D systems, I want just to be able to use my pairs of glasses with either system, have one transmitter, maybe sharing the same 3D monitor (which are also not cheap) through a switch box. Maybe I buy the PRO system for professional use, and want to do a bit of gaming with it as a bonus.
Admittedly, there may also be some reconnection of the transmitter unit required between base units, but it seems a neater solution just to standardise on the PRO components and save duplicated buying.
In a competitive gaming scenario I think the RF solution could give me an edge. Particularly I was thinking of making a "TV-be-gone" type handheld IR zapper that could interfere with my rivals IR glasses (change to the opposite shutter polarity for a cross eyed effect, or completely blind them for half a second?) while I headshot them! It would good for a LOL, and to attract their attention to my superior technology, obviously repeated use would be cheating.
So the wired glasses are, in theory, capable of having a better fit due to fewer components in the actual glasses. Which also makes them lighter. But doesn't do squat for me, based on that prototype photo.
Am I literally the only person in the world that ALREADY wears glasses and is still interested in 3D? Is there NO market at all for 3D glasses that fit over prescription glasses?
Good point, but remember, this is developed by Nvidia, a technology company.
Perhaps they are assuming anyone who needs vision adjustment would pay to have laser eye surgery. It can cost around the same as a high end graphics card in my country.
Then again, assuming you had the money, it will be a tough call between what to spend it on: getting your eyes fixed, or owning the latest GTX 590 card ;-) We can't assume everyone will choose the eye surgery.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
15 Comments
Back to Article
jrs77 - Sunday, May 29, 2011 - link
They should research other things instead of useless 3d-technology that won't become mainstream anyways. 3d simply doens't look that good and is very much overhyped.Call me, when they do 3d-projections/holograms for less then $500 usable in your living-room.
Ben90 - Sunday, May 29, 2011 - link
I don't care about 3D itself, but thank god for the technology. The entire reason for current 120hz monitors is because of 3Dcmdrdredd - Sunday, May 29, 2011 - link
Everyone touts holograms and that noise. This isn't Star Trek here folks. The tech we have will not be able to produce projections like you think. The real problem with 3D is the cost. Most people just recently invested in HDTV and more recently in 1080p. 3D adds another hardware change. Requiring new HDMI wiring, new receivers to handle the 3D signal passthrough, new Blu-Ray players, and a new TV. The initial cost of the TV isn't the problem, the glasses are expensive as well plus the extra hardware to keep what you're already used to. 7.1 surround and the like.rolodomo - Sunday, May 29, 2011 - link
>Call me, when they do 3d-projections/holograms for less then $500 usable in your living-room.<Is this sarcasm or are you the epitome of an anti-3D troll? Regardless, hilarious!
BugblatterIII - Sunday, May 29, 2011 - link
Use your own damn living room! ;oÞI think 3D has its place. Not necessarily on TV's but in projectors and possibly phones (have to see how that pans out).
Having said that if I had a 3D camera and/or camcorder then a 3D TV would be fantastic.
I'm waiting for projectors using polarisation to be released and become affordable. Then you can have ultra-light cheap glasses, and unlike TV's that use polarisation there's no loss of resolution.
Until then it's going to take more than 3D to get me to upgrade my 50" plasma.
SPianw - Sunday, May 29, 2011 - link
i agree, 3d in the living room has a ways to come before i'll consider it. but nvidia's solution for the PC? i'm all over it. it works really welldon't have to worry about having more than one pair of glasses, way more media that supports it.
tons of games work really well with it, and will run as well as your hardware can manage instead of at gimped resolution/framerate, not to mention that there are even porn sites that have nvidia 3d downloads
BugblatterIII - Monday, May 30, 2011 - link
Yikes! There are some things you DON'T want coming out of the screen at you!I bought a 3D kit years ago that's very similar to what Nvidia are selling now. It worked well except for the ghosting and the fact my monitor could only go to 75Hz.
However when I bought a new monitor recently I had the choice between a 3D one and a really good quality one; couldn't have both. I went for the quality.
yelped - Sunday, May 29, 2011 - link
I think you meant "Manufacturers are building the IR receiver in the monitor", not that the "monitor" is building it into the monitor. :)Ph0b0s - Monday, May 30, 2011 - link
"Besides the fact that the wireless glasses are wireless, it looks like the other features differentiating the two will be the 3D Vision control functionality the wireless hub offers - convergence controls and turning 3D Vision on & off - as there's no analog on the wired glasses."Just to clarify, are you saying that only the hardware does not have these features any more, or the software as well? As both of the things you listed can be changed via the 3D Vision drivers, it is just that you won't have any hardware buttons on the glasses to get the same effect as they were both on the IR beamer, unless I am missing something.
You or Nvidia may need to expand that comment as bit, as for non 3D Vision users it may well put them off these glasses due to them thinking they are losing something they are not really.
Ryan Smith - Monday, May 30, 2011 - link
Just the hardware. The software will still have it; you'll just have to use keyboard shortcuts to access it rather than using buttons on the hub.peternelson - Monday, May 30, 2011 - link
It is interesting to see this range expanding.
First was Nvidia 3D VISION. When you describe it as wireless you could say Infra-Red Wireless to more fully explain how the technology works.
"As a bit of background, since the introduction of 3D Vision in 2009 the hardware has remained relatively unchanged."
Ryan, I feel the story would be improved if you had also mentioned the 3D Vision PRO version, which overcomes some limitations. That is Radio-Freqency based Wireless. It is also bi-directional, so can confirm the glasses are present and operational, more reliable, better range and more scalable. I believe from Nvidia site information that accelerometers on the glasses are a current or future option, allowing your head motion to be sent back to influence the viewed display. So, Nvidia were not standing still on the technology, and perhaps some of that may trickle down into the consumer range.
Although Nvidia are segmenting the market to Gforce (3d Vision) and Quadro (3d Vision PRO), I'd be interested to know if they are in fact interchangeable between the two types of GPU cards (Ask Nvidia or test it out). I know I would prefer the RF based product, even at the higher pricing.
In the glasses with batteries, recharging could be a problem, for example if you have a non-stop gaming session of over 24 hours (without bringing spare glasses to swap over to).
An improvement would be battery powered glasses that could be recharged by plugging in a USB tether temporarily. If either consumer or pro versions has an accelerometer, for more immersive use, it's best if that tether would be removable to not have your head movement restricted by the tethering wire.
I can see why they considered a more physically secure option for cyber cafes, but I think this could lead to accidental breakages. When a gamer stands up to reach for a can of Relentless or use the bathroom, they may forget about the tether cable, and it looks thin enough to break easily under strain. I think they were forced to take this route for many-user scenarios like a gaming cafe because of the problems of multiple players each needing IR bouncing around. The individual GPUs, monitors and glasses are not genlocked, so each needs its own sync signal, and the close proximity to the adjacent player makes IR problematic.
I think the problem of people stealing glasses is better dealt with in other ways, eg collect them as cinemas do, require a returnable deposit, so why you pay for your time you get the glasses deposit back by returning the glasses, or using store tagging passive RF the way a conventional retailer detects shoplifting at the exit.
For example then a museum visitor could view multiple 3d exhibits and walk around wearing the same pair of glasses without having to keep putting on new pairs of tethered glasses at each exhibit. When they leave they must hand over the glasses or an alarm will sound at the exit.
I do agree that they need more than one size. For example for teenage and big-headed adult. It's a comfort issue of having things clamping the side of your head. Being adult hand sized, I would make the same observation of Playstation PS3 controllers.
It's unfortunate that various television manufacturers have not or can't standardise their synchronisation standards to be cross compatible in glasses. I imagine in time some universal translator may arrive on the market.
One nice solution is PASSIVE 3D television of which LG have a good model, where you can use cheap polarised lens glasses, that don't need active switching or batteries. This becomes particularly cost effective when you have a large family or large number of guests visiting your home.
I'd like Nvidia glasses to gain accelerometers ASAP, and for similar reasons, eye movement tracking built into the glasses too would be a useful enhancement. eg in First person shooter, turn head to alter view, move eyes to focus aiming target. With some coding the effort, the targetting could support multiple users looking at the same screen, selecting individual targets, like 2 player cooperative game.
The original glasses seem affordable on ebay, perhaps people find them painful to wear.
The ideal product would be the reliable bidirectional RF solution with temporary tethering for recharging, headsize adjustment and compatible with the entire range of GPUs (enthusiast and professional). If they could make the same glasses work with 3d television protocols and have screen input lag compensation, it will be more useful/cost justifiable.
Ryan Smith - Monday, May 30, 2011 - link
"Although Nvidia are segmenting the market to Gforce (3d Vision) and Quadro (3d Vision PRO), I'd be interested to know if they are in fact interchangeable between the two types of GPU cards (Ask Nvidia or test it out). I know I would prefer the RF based product, even at the higher pricing."I actually asked about that back at the 2010 NV GPU Tech Conference, as NVIDIA had several exhibits using the Pro system. The answer at the time was that it's not compatible; Pro only works on Quadro cards. Apparently this has since changed, as looking at the Pro FAQ it now explicitly mentions that Pro works on GeForce cards. However given the price - $750 - it's not even in the same league as the consumer IR glasses.
peternelson - Sunday, June 12, 2011 - link
Thanks Ryan, I'm glad to hear someone is asking the right questions.It's good news that the pro system will now work with Geforce too.
I realise that the price is expensive, but consider this:
Let's imagine I do high end CAD and visualisation on a Quadro based system.
But at heart I'm also a gamer so also have a rig for gaming using GeForce.
I don't want to invest in two different incompatible 3D systems, I want just to be able to use my pairs of glasses with either system, have one transmitter, maybe sharing the same 3D monitor (which are also not cheap) through a switch box. Maybe I buy the PRO system for professional use, and want to do a bit of gaming with it as a bonus.
Admittedly, there may also be some reconnection of the transmitter unit required between base units, but it seems a neater solution just to standardise on the PRO components and save duplicated buying.
In a competitive gaming scenario I think the RF solution could give me an edge. Particularly I was thinking of making a "TV-be-gone" type handheld IR zapper that could interfere with my rivals IR glasses (change to the opposite shutter polarity for a cross eyed effect, or completely blind them for half a second?) while I headshot them! It would good for a LOL, and to attract their attention to my superior technology, obviously repeated use would be cheating.
LordOfTheBoired - Monday, May 30, 2011 - link
So the wired glasses are, in theory, capable of having a better fit due to fewer components in the actual glasses. Which also makes them lighter.But doesn't do squat for me, based on that prototype photo.
Am I literally the only person in the world that ALREADY wears glasses and is still interested in 3D? Is there NO market at all for 3D glasses that fit over prescription glasses?
peternelson - Sunday, June 12, 2011 - link
Good point, but remember, this is developed by Nvidia, a technology company.Perhaps they are assuming anyone who needs vision adjustment would pay to have laser eye surgery. It can cost around the same as a high end graphics card in my country.
Then again, assuming you had the money, it will be a tough call between what to spend it on: getting your eyes fixed, or owning the latest GTX 590 card ;-) We can't assume everyone will choose the eye surgery.