Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No
Ads

Why Should We Bother With 3D Now?

by - source: Tom's Hardware US

Are we willing to sacrifice image brilliance and saturation for our content to slightly pop out?

Nvidia went through the trouble of putting up its own tent a block away from Taipei 101 for COMPUTEX 2010 visitors. Inside were showcases of various products and hardware using Nvidia technology, including laptops, all-in-one PCs, and reference GPU cards.

But the focus of the venue was clearly Nvidia's push into the 3D market. There were multiple three-display workstations, all running popular video games in 3D mode. For those who haven't tried viewing 3D yet, the screens presented a slightly blurry picture to plain sight. Users have to wear a pair of glasses for a clear image. If the format of the content supports it, objects slightly pop-out for the viewer.

Basically, current 3D technology creates the illusion of depth. Objects closer to the viewer pop out more. The problem is that this illusion isn't usually convincing. Worse, the tinted 3D glasses usually take away some of the saturation and brightness of the picture. The image is still clear, albeit darker and with less difference between the colors.

So there we were, showing off our mad driving skills on NFS: Shift, weaving through a virtual racetrack perceived via 3D glasses. And while we handily won the race, we left with the impression that nVidia's offering was pretty much the same as everyone else's. Wear the glasses for a clear, yet slightly darker image.

Sure, it's sometimes great to see objects pop-out slightly from the screen. But when the experience isn't impressive enough to be a must-have, it's probably best to wait for companies to make consumer 3D level technology more convincing.

Share:
69
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Add your comment
trueno07 06/02/2010 5:15 PM
Hide
-20+

Yea.. Thanks, but no thanks.. It's not you, it's me...

w1zz4 06/02/2010 5:17 PM
Hide
-13+

Ok, judging by the title, I was sure this article would be about AMD not Nvidia...

Parsian 06/02/2010 5:23 PM
Hide
-20+

Yes the 3D technology needs a lot of improvement but I hate to see it disappear again... The only way these things can become feasible and improve is through increase in demand and popularity.

hokkdawg 06/02/2010 5:25 PM
Hide
-11+

Completely agree - 3D is overrated; it's a good idea on paper, but the practical technology just isn't there yet.

Anyone here see Avatar in 3D? I thoroughly enjoyed watching a high res, bright & saturated image on my home TV vs. the 3D version at the theater.

dravis12 06/02/2010 5:27 PM
Hide
-18+

I played 3D BC2 at PAX East and while it looked impressive it seemed a bit gimicky.

Top that off with >$4000 in hardware to be able to recreate the environment they had...no thanks.

wolflive 06/02/2010 5:29 PM
Hide
-13+

I agree, it doesn't look all that wonderful and the cost = performance for 3D right now just isn't worth it. I'd rather put my money into a better looking 2D image.

twbg4cq 06/02/2010 5:27 PM
Hide
--1+

I'm not too big on the whole 3D thing either. In fact, when I go to see movies in a theater, I would prefer viewing it without the glasses, but sometimes they don't give you a choice; 3D is all they have.

Anonymous 06/02/2010 5:30 PM
Hide
-4+

3D has been the rage since the 1950's. I guess it's the most tireless dead horse ever....It always require huge costs and fades away only to resurface later on and repeat the cycle
3D= Money wasted.

mattclary 06/02/2010 5:35 PM
Hide
-4+

Just in case playing an FPS didn't give you motion sickness, lets surround you with monitors. In 3D. :O*****

tomtompiper 06/02/2010 5:36 PM
Hide
-9+

It's a Gimmick and an overpriced and uncomfortable one at that.

Sure some people will get it and the rest will nod and whisper to each other "But he isn't wearing any clothes?"

mpdugas 06/02/2010 5:38 PM
Hide
-4+

...why not for #D graphics programs? Like Maya, Carrara, Poser and the like?

It seems imminently sensible that a 3D design program would benefit greatly if it could utilize even existing 3D technology.

smacks forehead 06/02/2010 5:43 PM
Hide
-5+

3D will be great once they actualy have depth in the image on a gimicky pop-up book style image. Think Avatar vs. Alice in Wonderland.

smacks forehead 06/02/2010 5:44 PM
Hide
-0+

I meant "not" instead of "on"

Anonymous 06/02/2010 5:50 PM
Hide
-2+

Most of the poo-poohing of this tech seems to be coming from the people who are RABID about multiple GFX setups, 6 core processors, and high end liquid cooling.

All for a marginal increase in effects.

Why can you spend a grand on one and not on the other?

xizel 06/02/2010 5:53 PM
Hide
-3+

yeah.... ill have to say NO, Eyefinity is a much more appealing technology

CoryInJapan 06/02/2010 6:04 PM
Hide
-6+

Ill wait until you dont need any glasses to see the 3d effects.

Anonymous 06/02/2010 6:08 PM
Hide
-13+

aghhhhhhhhhh the term 3D hurts my head, most gfx cards can render in 3D for a while now, took me a while to realize they talking about artificial depth perception (we used to call it VR in the old days), someone should rename that damn thing, why are we adopting stupid movie industry terms

@mpdugas
most CAD packages have had this ability long time ago, it just never took off, it really didn't give you that much added value considering the performance hit, it can only project a limited perception of depth, you need full motion head tracking to even simulate any useful depth perception (maybe this in conjunction with natal might work)

miloo 06/02/2010 6:12 PM
Hide
-7+

i like the 3D effect no doubt, but i would say no for a 200 bucks glasses.

vertigo_2000 06/02/2010 6:11 PM
Hide
-4+

I think the problem with most PC demos is that they've added the 3D after the fact.

I watched Avatar in 3D. While it wasn't the sole reason I went, I thought it added a little something to the movie. But, Avatar was created from the ground up with 3D in mind.

I'm still waiting for the 1st PC game designed to be in 3D and not have it added as an afterthought. I think only that will give the user a true idea of the possibilities.

joemehnert 06/02/2010 6:13 PM
Hide
-8+

im sorry but 3d through a new led or plasma is far superior to anything ive see in a theater. yes it costs 3000 for a 55tv but until you enjoy it in your own home i would highly recommend the inexperienced keep there comments to themselves.

steiner666 06/02/2010 6:19 PM
Hide
-7+

*sigh*

And all the ppl who don't own 3D setups defend their decision to no spend money on the silly "gimmicks", and the rest complain about it hurting their delicate eyes.

while you guys do that i'll be enjoying some epic 3d gaming on my 60" dlp (~$1000). The glasses arent a bother to wear, they have a battery that needs charged so seldom that i often forget about it, and I've yet, in 4 months, to experience any sort of eyestrain.

ppl will always have something to complain about with new technology, and reasons to hold off for something newer and better. But you're really only depriving yourself. call it

zaznet 06/02/2010 6:26 PM
Hide
-5+

I hope 3D catches and stays but I won't be buying a consumer 3D HDTV for some time. Waiting on the "next gen" 3D to start coming out before I even consider it.

Anonymous 06/02/2010 6:45 PM
Hide
-0+

I've seen both personal and theater 3D before. In both cases the picture was darkened quite a bit. I never experienced any eye strain and I don't think its any type of gimmick. But when it comes right down to it the negative of the darker picture outweighs the positive of having 3D picture. So at least for me (and it seems like for others as well) the negatives outweigh the positive without even taking cost into consideration.

pozaks 06/02/2010 6:46 PM
Hide
-5+

I thought this was about "3D Now" and was bewildered that AMD was trying to bring that back.

Bewildered.

gm0n3y 06/02/2010 6:48 PM
Hide
-5+

I think 3D is a great idea in concept. While I've never tried 3D gaming, for the movies that I've seen I was disappointed. The motion always look very blurry. The 3rd dimension doesn't really add anything, though this could just be because the director/producers are just starting to use it. I don't want to see the tech disappear, I just won't be jumping on the bandwagon anytime soon.

the associate 06/02/2010 6:48 PM
Hide
-3+

It's time we moved on from 2D, the upcoming nintendo hand held seems promising to show 3D without the need for glasses. I can't wait to see the day 3D is standard, would you prefer to be milked for the same technology for the rest of your life? Or at least have the chance to experience new innovations, obviously at higher costs, as everything new and cool is expensive at first, duh...

Common people, name one thing that came out and was PERFECT from the start and never improved. There isn't anything, hence the existence of the word "progress".

gm0n3y 06/02/2010 6:52 PM
Hide
-1+

the associate :
Common people, name one thing that came out and was PERFECT from the start and never improved. There isn't anything, hence the existence of the word "progress".


Why do you have to call us all 'common'? Be quiet you plebeian.

quicksilver98 06/02/2010 6:52 PM
Hide
--1+

This has all been done by Nvidia before.. Does any one remember the Geforce2? Elsa made a card that had 3d glasses.. Same crap different decade..

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/pro [...] rator.html

RADIO_ACTIVE 06/02/2010 6:54 PM
Hide
--1+

I don't know how most people can comment on consumer level 3D when they do not own it yet. Yes its expensive! Its brand new tech poeple! I am loving my 3D Nvision set-up on my PC. Games are amazing. I can't wait to try 3D bluray next :)

RADIO_ACTIVE 06/02/2010 6:58 PM
Hide
-1+

xizel :
yeah.... ill have to say NO, Eyefinity is a much more appealing technology


Nothing like having the edges of your monitors in the middle of your screen. I could be wrong, I havent tried it but...
I think they need to just stick to making larger curved monitors instead of hooking up six of them.

etrom 06/02/2010 6:59 PM
Show

Ads

Best offers

Newsletters


OK
Ads