Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What do I need for HD3D?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 8, 2012 11:32:19 AM

Hi,

I have a Radeon HD 6870, and I'm planning to buy the LG D2342P monitor.
I thought it will be simple but now I dont know, I read something about TriDef 3D which is not free, and I dont know how do I use HD3D technology.

Let's say I buy the screen (it comes with glasses) so how do I activate 3d? I have Crysis 2, will I be able to play it in 3d? To watch movies in 3d? what do I need for that?

Thank you, and I am sorry if it's not the right place for this thread...

More about : hd3d

January 8, 2012 12:24:13 PM

Waiting a suitable answer to understand AMD HD3D technology (I only undestand Nvidia one)
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 12:29:17 PM

AMD has "3d" technology in their products??
m
0
l
Related resources
January 8, 2012 12:37:12 PM

After a quick search I found that you need TriDef 3D or DDD. Both aren't free!
It looks that the LG D2342P is supported by AMD 3D technology.

But don't forget about this limitation:
"There's one more limitation to bear in mind. Because AMD utilizes the HDMI 1.4a specification, which boasts a maximum TMDS throughput of 10.2 Gb/s, you can either game in stereo at 720p maxing out at 60 frames per second per eye, or you can game at 1080p with up to 24 frames per second per eye. That's actually pretty severe, considering we've been playing around with 5760x1080 using 3D Vision Surround and dual-link DVI connectors (each display running at 1920x1080). AMD says it'll transcend the shackles of HDMI 1.4a next year sometime when monitor vendors begin incorporating DisplayPort 1.2. A peak effective bandwidth of 17.28 Gb/s is enough to enable 1080p at 60 frames per eye."

Saying this I would conclude that you would only play at FullHD if you can accept to do it at 24fps, or play it 60fps but at 720p (since this monitor do not include Displayport 1.2)
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 12:40:28 PM

you would see difference in 24 or 60 fps? as long as eyes can see 24 frames. Or there will be black screen or something?
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 12:51:49 PM

Usually I would say that 24 fps is more than enough (Movie Theaters displays at 24fps).
But at games I can feel difference at 24fps and highers fps. Taking as example games that is locked at 30fps, you sure can get used to it, but when you raises the bar like, playing at 120fps in a 120hz monitor, you ask yourself "Why I was playing at 30fps?" More than the fps mark that stays at your screen, the feeling is what makes the difference.

After some airfighter pilots tests, medicine conclude that they can perceive a variation of light, variation of movement equivalent "1 frame of a 600fps movie". Even that eyes can see only 24 frames/second... It's all about the feeling, the slugish..

Wicked don't?
m
0
l
April 18, 2012 3:36:55 PM

vitornob said:
Usually I would say that 24 fps is more than enough (Movie Theaters displays at 24fps).
But at games I can feel difference at 24fps and highers fps. Taking as example games that is locked at 30fps, you sure can get used to it, but when you raises the bar like, playing at 120fps in a 120hz monitor, you ask yourself "Why I was playing at 30fps?" More than the fps mark that stays at your screen, the feeling is what makes the difference.

After some airfighter pilots tests, medicine conclude that they can perceive a variation of light, variation of movement equivalent "1 frame of a 600fps movie". Even that eyes can see only 24 frames/second... It's all about the feeling, the slugish..

Wicked don't?

There is no min the eye can see. All this "the eye can only see such and such" has always been pure speculation by the author.

24fps isn't even close, in fact it is a feat of the mind that the mind turns 24 fps in to a smooth image. Then again anyone who has seen startrek 2009 knows that even then 24fps is abit choppy. If that was shoot at 120fps it wouldn't seem so jerky.

I've done blind tests with a 120fps monitor and GoPro Hero2 camera that can shoot at 120. Everyone I've shown has chosen the 120fps version of the SAME video to be the smoothest, I've used handbrake to convert the video in lossless down to 60 and 30.

It's not just some placebo effect. It has nothing to do with how it "feels", It is noticeably smoother.
m
0
l
April 18, 2012 3:40:38 PM

vitornob said:
Waiting a suitable answer to understand AMD HD3D technology (I only undestand Nvidia one)


With AMD you have HD3D, but games have to support that natively, and AMD has not done near the work Nvidia has on the 3d front, so there are alot less games that work.

But there are 3rd party 3D support. I think the biggest is TriDef. But it isn't free and even then support isn't quite where Nvidia's is.

Then you have two types of 3D. 3D like the consoles do it, which is pull the depth from the back buffer and just separate the images, This is great for performance, as you are only rendering the screen once. The cons are distortion around the edge of some objects, and its not giving the eye 2 truly distinct images, but you do get true depth perception for objects.

You can also render each image twice, once for each eye. This gives the best 3d if done right but has it's downsides too, sometimes certain effects only get rendered in one eye and the performance is cut in half.

AMD does support some forms of DL DVI 3d packing, with the right monitor you can do 3d over dual link. Nvidia also needs a 3D vision compatible monitor to work right and has purposely expunged support for monitors that don't buy the Nvidia 3d logo.
m
0
l
!