Why Should We Bother With 3D Now?
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.
- Bethesda Reveals E3 2010 Lineup
- Commodore Tackles Asus Eee Keyboard with Invictus
- The Antec Lanboy Case Air Up Close
- Deals for June 1st: Deals for Weekend Hangovers
- Intel Reveals New ''Canoe Lake'' Platform
- Computex Protesters: Steve Jobs is a Bloodsucker!
- Qualcomm Announces First Dual-Core Snapdragon
- HP Invests in Automation and Cloud; 9000 Jobs Go
- Hitachi Reveals Super Skinny 7mm HDDs
- Sandisk Announces Mobile-Oriented SSDs
- Dungeon Keeper Online Definitely In The Works
- Up-Close With Clevo's New Desktop Replacements
- More Hands On With the Asus Eee Tablets
- Gigabyte GTX 470 'Super Overclock' Speeds, Fans
- Gigabyte Mobo Can Feed (or Fry) CPU With 1500W
- Valve: We Have a Surprise For You!
- GA-H55N-USB3: Mini-ITX mobo with USB 3.0
- Help Asus Come Up With Better Names!
I'm guessing 3D will take atleast 2-3 years to become mainstream.
I cant believe I'm actually seeing a hardware reviewer trashing "3D" for the crap that it is, big thumbs up THG, if you buy any 3D hardware now expect to shelf it next to the betamax/laserdisc/HD-DVD players in a few years
Ive seen modern holograms and even the late 90's ones make all the 3d junk (inc avatar) that everyone's pushing atm look like the red/blue glasses comic book jobs
I for one don't feel the need for 3D. And I don't know why all the hype right now when nVidia had stereoscopic drivers that supported all sorts of 3D a LONG time ago only the glasses were too expensive (and 120 hertz screens). I prefer a crystal clear picture and no glasses.
I cant believe I'm actually seeing a hardware reviewer trashing "3D" for the crap that it is, big thumbs up THG, if you buy any 3D hardware now expect to shelf it next to the betamax/laserdisc/HD-DVD players in a few yearsIve seen modern holograms and even the late 90's ones make all the 3d junk (inc avatar) that everyone's pushing atm look like the red/blue glasses comic book jobs
Just one thing, I don't think they 'trashed' 3D. But definitely said what we're thinking!
The current 3d trend reminds me of the "virtual reality" craze during the 90's. It'll go away.
Is it just me or did anyone else think it was a bit weird to be discussing the benefits of AMD's instruction set extension after so many years?
On the stereoscopic side of the coin (since this is what the article turned out to be about) the reviewer completely misses the point, it isn't about things popping _out_ of the screen, it's about seeing the depth into the screen. Your brain does a lot of clever trickery to work out how far away things are and how fast they are moving based on stereoscopic information, which you can't get from a standard display. Imagine trying to jump a river in real life without depth perception (close one eye and try it, you should have your eye closed before the object you're trying to jump comes into sight). The reviewer should have tried something like mirror's edge, not a racing game, if he wanted to experience the more intense sensations the 3d cues give your brain.
I own a zalman trimon for the record, I wouldn't touch Nvidia's shutterglasses with a barge pole because I know it would give me a headache.
Good one! Just what I am thinking about 3D. It could be cool if it works the way it is. I doubt that it will ever work. For games maybe, for movies - I'd rather say - no way it won't work.
My argument is that when you watch a normal movie the camera focuses on what you have to pay attention to and viewing can be relaxing. In 3d your brain must detect what you should look at and that is tiresome. You miss half the action and you get a headache. 3D might be good for 30 min documentaries but not for 3 hour long movies. Avatar in 3d sucked, I enjoyed it so much more in 2D and also the picture was much clearer.
Is it just me or did anyone else think it was a bit weird to be discussing the benefits of AMD's instruction set extension after so many years?
I did too