Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Graphics Technology

NVIDIA Launches 3D Vision 2 76

MojoKid writes "NVIDIA just announced their next generation of 3D Vision technology that claims to deliver greater realism and immersion for 3D games, movies and photos. 3D Vision 2 is very similar to NVIDIA's original 3D Vision. The technology is backwards compatible with NVIDIA's first gen 3D emitter technology. However, NVIDIA has made a number of physical and technical tweaks that enhance the technology in a few key ways. NVIDIA's active-shutter glasses have been redesigned with 20% larger lenses and the company has worked with partners to bring new, larger, full-HD 3D Vision compatible monitors to market. NVIDIA has also developed a new technology dubbed LightBoost that ultimately results in brighter on-screen imagery and better environmental lighting characteristics in 3D content as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA Launches 3D Vision 2

Comments Filter:
  • This is great news! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TechLA ( 2482532 ) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @02:16PM (#37732090)
    Games are one place where 3D actually makes a huge difference. The information is already there in the graphics card, fully, so it can process it much more better than in movies. I used to play Left4Dead and Left4Dead2 with the NVIDIAs tools with 3D glasses and the game was MUCH more scarier and cooler. I suggest you try it... it's really a completely different and better experience. It works extremely well for scary and FPS games, but I can see it could be strategically used in RTS games too.
    • I use to use the Nvidia Stereo driver for Microsoft Flight Sim occassionally and they were nothing but a royal PAIN. You had to match the 3D Stereo driver version to the main graphics driver version, but they only put out the Stereo driver for a select few versions. So if there was a bug with your graphics card or a particular game on the lastest compatible main driver you were stuck with that main driver for ages (like a year or more). You could upgrade the driver but if you did you lost the 3D. Horrible.

      • by Gojira Shipi-Taro ( 465802 ) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @04:07PM (#37732798) Homepage

        They've very much fixed that issue. The integrated driver packs now upgrade everything properly. I haven't had driver issues in over a year with my first-gen 3d vision stuff. Very much looking forward to this new kit. The 27" monitor will also be a great improvement.

        • They didn't fix it they just removed support for the stereo drivers. You can't use Elsa3d anymore (active glasses, 10$ or less on ebay) with a geforce 7 and newer like you used to be able to on previous graphic cards. So now you have to buy the full price Nvidia glasses if you want 3d.
      • I've used nVidia's shutter glasses mode, and it's not an experience I'd like to repeat. First you need to carefully calibrate it for the distance that you sit from the screen, otherwise you get a 3D image but the depth just looks weird and wrong. Then you need to make sure you don't move your head very much, or you get weird distortions. And then you're left feeling motion sick after about 5 minutes, because you're getting some of the depth cues that your brain expects, but not others.
        • I've never had that experience with the nvidia hardware. "Carefully calibrate the distance"? sounds like the description of parallax filter montiors that I've read.

        • by strack ( 1051390 )
          your talking out your ass. you can adjust the depth of the effect, but its hardly like its unplayable if its not set 'correctly', and theres certainly no need to be careful in setting it. nvidia have presets for all major games anyway. and those distortions are much less of a problem than you make out. and getting motion sick? i had no problem. but then, i dont get motion sick, most of us have no problems at all. and team fortress 2 in 3d is fucking awesome. especially if your meeleeing. ive noticed that yo
        • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

          Was it one of their early shutter-glasses implementations, or the newer "3D Vision" stuff.

          Early shutter-glasses implementations were often card-manufacturer-specific, used 60Hz monitors (reducing per-eye refresh to 30 Hz), and were driver hell.

          3D Vision is, based on all I've read, majorly improved. The only reason I haven't tried it is due to the lack of 3D Vision-capable monitors - I'm NOT dropping to a 20-22" monitor for 3D! It looks like supposedly monitor selection is improved, but it bothers me that

  • by jadin ( 65295 ) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @02:34PM (#37732230) Homepage

    Hey movie studios! You need LightBoost on your 3D movies!

    I'm tired of the dark screens, and I'm boycotting 3D until you do something about it.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Hey movie studios! You need LightBoost on your 3D movies!

      I'm tired of the dark screens, and I'm boycotting 3D until you do something about it.

      Welcome to post process 3d

      moves that use 3d cameras suffer FARE less light loss as 3d post process involves then making background img darker to force the prospective.

      Pro tip. Make sure the move use’s 3d camera research via rotten tomatoes or Google the movie if its post process go see the non 3d as the 3d WILL sux.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        What? No.

        It's due to the absorption of light by the 3D (polarising) glasses.
        It *can* be combated by using a brighter bulb for the projector.

        Or... the whole 3D film fad could just die a deserved death, again.

        • The problem with 3D is that it's seen as a profit maker rather than as a means of making a better film. Post process 3D just makes it even worse by causing problems with quality. It does work with animated films in most cases, but trying to post process films usually doesn't work very well. THX 1138 would probably work well.

          Personally, I won't go to a 3D film if it wasn't shot in 3D, and often even if it was I won't got because it's expensive and 3D offers very little over the natural 3D that comes from a w

        • Can I say a hearty "yes please!" to the whole die thing? I'm old enough to remember the last TWO times this crap went around, late 70s-mid 80s for movies and late 90s for games and you know what? It still really sucks because you get one guy, if you are lucky two, that has ANY idea what to do with it, the rest make "Dr Tongue's 3D House Of Pancakes" just like every hack has done since the first spin in the 1950s.

          This of course doesn't count the fact there is a huge number of people for whom it either doesn'

          • Actually it first appeared in the 50's, not the 70's. Sucked then, sucks now. Nothing's changed. At all.
            • by aix tom ( 902140 )

              And it was experimented with even earlier. Anaglyph red/green was done since 1915 a few times. A "shutter glass" type system (Teleview) was done in 1922, although only one movie (The Man From M.A.R.S.) [wikipedia.org] was filmed and shown using that technology.

              When one sees that all OTHER advancements (sound, colour) to the moving picture became a success quite fast, in a couple of years at last, even though they were not perfect in the beginning, 3D seems to go nowhere big even 100 years after it started.

              • This is because its not 3d. Its stereo for eyes and all that it implies.

                I don't go to movies that are in 3d anymore. I wait for the DVD/BluRay.
          • seriously? you cannot compare modern 3d to some lame ass crap from 40+ years ago. red/blue glasses, yes it sucked and looks nothing like current 3d. jesus, it's like impossible for some people to accept there have been improvements. every time there's a post here about 3d, guys come out of the woodwork like the 3d monster ate your dog. Just because you saw a couple of movies with jabby things coming out at you doesn't mean every movie does that. I hear all the time about how Avatar did it "right" too bad
            • Sure we can and here is why: while the TECH has gotten better the DIRECTORS have not. Like I said we have ONE, count 'em ONE, director that has shown so far that he has a real grasp of the medium and what does HE say about it? That its a fad and that 60 FPS is the way to go. Don't believe me, feel free to Google Cameron on 60 FPS VS 3D and read it in his own words.

              The simple fact is this friend, no matter HOW good the tech is in the end the ONLY thing the fake 3D really excels at is the classic "boo!" shit

              • by strack ( 1051390 )
                you do realise you can have 60 fps and 3d at the same time right? and avatar pretty much disproved that 3d is only good at the stuff jumping out at you sort of thing. and when the best argument you have against something is that directors are stupid with it cause its new and something about corporations, your not doing too well. its here to stay, and its another tool, that when used intelligently does add to the film. imho. and anyway, it fucking rules for computer games. imho.
                • by sjames ( 1099 )

                  and avatar pretty much disproved that 3d is only good at the stuff

                  That would be the ONE, count 'em ONE director he referred to.

                  you do realise you can have 60 fps and 3d at the same time right?

                  Only if you substantially increase the bandwidth of your setup and the capacity of the media. A lot of hardware can manage one or the other, not both at once.

              • Yep, time to go back to B & W silent films. Don't need any of that fancy "color" or "talking" in movies.

                • And do you see ANY directors using sound as an effect? Or color? That would be a NO. As I said we have ONE, count 'em ONE director that has ANY real grasp of the medium. How many 3D movies have come out now that were variations on the "Boo!" shit jumps out at you?

                  Again it takes incredible skill to use this medium for ANYTHING that isn't "boo!" and lets be honest friend: If they haven't gotten it in 50+ years? They probably won't get it ever. Even a hack director can make a beautiful scene with vivid color o

          • "Dr Tongue's 3D House Of Pancakes"
            Now I'm hungry.

      • Is there a new thing where you capitalise your spelling mistakes as some kind of ironic statement? I've seen this ALOT (but not that alot [blogspot.com]) recently.
  • Create Open3D so that all makers are in.

    Now competition is killing itself.

    The 3D market is very close to a halt, for movies/gaming.

    There really needs to be a larger base that nVidia plying with their own tool. HANDS ON THE BED!

    • by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @03:10PM (#37732480) Homepage Journal
      Create Open3D so that all makers are in.

      They already have that. It is called OpenGL [opengl.org]
      • I'm pretty sure the GP doesn't mean OpenGL or DirectX, he means some sort of standard API for shutter glasses.

        • Actually, OpenGL was designed with that in mind. It allows you to render to separate left and right colour buffers. That's the only thing an API really needs to support stereoscopy.
          • by makomk ( 752139 )

            I think NVidia 3D Vision uses some proprietary API instead, though.

            • There is no support for stereo in Direct3D, so NVidia exposes its own api to do that (ATI too).

              Basically you put a double image in the main buffer, with an additional line containing some parameters, and they take care of displaying that correctly.
              OpenGL has a standard mechanism to do that, named quad buffering, but ATI and NVidia enable it in their professional cards only.

              So you can have standard stereo-vision in OpenGL using 3d vision glasses, if you have a Quadro card it works well (and no need to
      • Why so ATI can fuck it up like they always do?

    • by skids ( 119237 )

      It's really absurd the level to which the vendors have hosed shutter glasses scene up. I'm a veteran of many compatibility horror scenes, and this one is truly up there with some of the best. There are tens of flavors of glasses protocols, and many "universal" glasses that don't even have manual tuning options, which you will need, because even if the protocol works, the actual lens timings that result will be off from where they really need to be. Meanwhile lots of consumers are sitting around watching

      • True enough.
        I have to give Nvidia credit, though - They and they alone brought us 120hz LCDs.
        Before that, if you wanted *anything* over 60hz, you had to go with a smallish screen. Now? 1920x1080 monitors with 120hz!
        I have one, and I really like it. It makes lots of stuff feel smoother, including the mouse cursor.

        • Note about my previous post:
          I *do not* have 3d glasses for it. Just the monitor. I won't get 3d glasses until Nvidia decides to support them on Linux with GeForce cards.

  • I've sort of been thinking about giving them a try - I already have a 120hz monitor (Samsung 2233rz, which is awesome. 120hz is so nice) so it wouldn't require that much effort. But, I don't know, when I saw this press release I didn't really understand how it was that much better. Is brightness a huge problem with the original glasses?

    Also, how is the 3d effect in general? Even worth it? Last 3d thing I owned was the (lol) iglasses in like 1996, with an amazing resolution of like 320x200 or something ridic

    • by Z8 ( 1602647 )

      Also, how is the 3d effect in general? Even worth it? Last 3d thing I owned was the (lol) iglasses in like 1996, with an amazing resolution of like 320x200 or something ridiculous. it was fucking horrible. =/

      My current computer has version 1 of the Nvidia 3D vision. I only used it a few days for novelty's sake and have no intention of using it again. Here are my reasons:

      • 1. Most importantly, bad eyestrain. I can handle 3D movies, but 3D on a monitor is much "worse" because it is only 2 feet away from yo
  • by Anonymous Coward

    If the 80's taught us anything about glasses, it's that 20% larger is 20% COOLER.

  • Eh, all 120HZ monitors are TN displays, and by now I'm kinda spoiled by MVA and IPS...
    • by strack ( 1051390 )
      the better blacks of a ips display dont matter so much in this case cause the darkness of the shutter glasses pulls the tn black levels down. at least when you have them on. and i hear that since ips displays have a longer pixel switching time they cant really be used for 120hz. can someone confirm that?
  • 7 or 8 years ago, flicker glases went for under $25, all you needed was a relatively high refresh CRT and current gfx card like the geforce fx 5500. The glasses haven't really changed as far as I can work out, except in that the prices have been hyper inflated and there are claims that something is new. I'm not sure that an infrared strobe, a suitable sensor, a rechargeable battery and a couple of transistors warrant the extra $100+ .... oh right, fools and their money....of course... nevermind, nothing to

    • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

      They reduced the on/off transition times significantly - not an easy thing to do.

      • the recommended monitor refresh was 100hz or above even back then, so I really don't know for certain that any significant improvement has been made to the glasses in that respect, as we are only at 120hz for most flicker systems. Sure monitors have improved, but the glasses, really? I'm not convinced.

  • You know how it rains after you wash your car.

    Well yesterday me and a friend went on a 3D shopping spree at Fry's yesterday. Were going to set serious about 3D.

    I bought an LG W2363D 3D monitor, a GeForce GTS450 Graphics Card and the 3D Vision Glasses Kit.
    Now 24 hours later, it's obsolete!! NVidia come out with the Next Generation.

    I also a second 3DS for my youngest, at least that's not obsolete yet...

    My friend Will also bought the ASUS Laptop with the NVidia 3D built in yesterday as well.

    • Fry's Electronics Retail Store Return/Exchange Privileges

      1. For a refund or exchange, most products may be returned within 30 days of original purchase date. Some other products, such as notebook computers, netbooks, tablets and iPads, desktop computers, monitors, MP3 players and iPods, memory, microprocessors, motherboards, network-attached storage, CD and DVD recorders, camcorders, digital cameras, projectors, and air conditioners (IF UNUSED) may be returned within 15 days of original purchase date.

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      I think you need to look up the word "obsolete".

      Your kit is still in use, still being sold, still works, still generally available. It just isn't the latest-greatest thing. It's like saying that last week's NVidia drivers are "obsolete". No, they're not. They're just not the latest version. They are obsolete when you start having problems obtaining or using them.

      Also - so what? You bought it knowing what it was, what it could do and what games it runs on etc. That hasn't changed one single iota since

      • by cbope ( 130292 )

        Please, take your logical replies elsewhere, you're distracting all the ADD/ADHD types here.

  • one thing i would like to see on nvidia shutter glasses are some ir leds, or visible light leds, so you could use a webcam to track your head in space, and adjust the image on the screen so it seems like the object is floating behind the screen and you can move your head around to look at it from different angles, like that demo from johnny chung lee, but in stereoscopic 3d.
  • So where are the 120hz, 27" or greater, glossy monitors?
    • by cbope ( 130292 )

      Well, if they are glossy, hopefully at the bottom of a landfill somewhere. Piled right in with 3D glasses...

  • I was using Nvidia's 3d technology in the year 2000 with my Riva TNT 2 card on Windows 95/98.

    Suddenly, you have to have Windows 7 to use this fancy new tech, and it has an extremely limited hardware list as well.

    Very boring, Nvidia.  Very boring, indeed.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.