DailyTech - NVIDIA Releases New 3D Gaming Glasses

Submit News

Hardware NVIDIA Releases New 3D Gaming Glasses
Jason Mick (Blog) - January 8, 2009 9:22 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

26 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Jan 12 at 11:37 AM

NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision (Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech)

New glasses will help you play Crysis in 3D

At the Consumer Electronics Show 2009 in Las Vegas, NVIDIA followed its new flagship desktop GPUs and notebook GPU releases and its recent Ion platform release, with a new product which aims to bring movie-quality stereo 3D similar to that found in IMAX theaters, to the home environment.

NVIDIA announced its GeForce 3D Vision glasses, which will retail for $199. Over 300 games will be support at the time of release, with many more being added. NVIDIA has worked with game developers to provide tweaked and improved 3D for many of these titles.

The glasses operate based on shuttering method. They can be used exclusively with 120 Hz monitors, and NVIDIA suggests only using them with an 8800 GT or higher. To use the glasses, you first install a special driver. Using the glasses driver, which patches the current NVIDIA drivers to add 3D support you can then play games in 3D. The drivers to include a significant performance hit of about 30 percent. However this is better than NVIDIA's early efforts, which decreased performance 50 percent or more.

The glasses communicate with your PC via infrared at up to a 20 ft range. They alternate shuttering the left and right lenses, effectively cutting the 120 Hz refresh rate into a 60 Hz rate for each eye. While the basic stereo technology driving the glasses has long been around, NVIDIA has delivered some nice tweaks, like a 40 hour battery life on a single charge. The glasses recharge via a mini USB connection.

Some games have so-called "depth effects" like Left For Dead, but other games like World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King deliver so-called "out of the screen" effects, which are even more eye catching, but harder to implement. In the WoW rendition, a dragon will appear to fly out of the screen at the gamer.

The glasses are relatively lightweight, weighing only 50 g. They fit comfortably over most glasses, as well.

DailyTech took an opportunity to meet with NVIDIA and try out the glasses first hand. Several games were played, and the early results were cautiously optimistic. While the glasses are nothing astounding, they do deliver arguably a better 3D experience than even IMAX, and characters and enemies in some games will really look 3D. While not for everyone, some gaming enthusiast may enjoy the experience these glasses provide.

NVIDIA has a list of certified monitor partners, whose 120 Hz displays are guaranteed to work with the glasses. NVIDIA reps say that other uncertified true 120 Hz displays "should work", but that "there's no guarantees (without certification)."

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

LCD's?

By oab on 1/8/2009 10:00:40 PM , Rating: 5

All the LCD's I've seen have refresh rates of 60-70Hz.

A special 120Hz monitor (unless it's a CRT, if you can still actually find those) seems like it would be a very expensive investment, on top of the expense of glasses.

RE: LCD's?

By inighthawki on 1/8/2009 10:05:44 PM , Rating: 2

I agree, especially at a high resolution. Larger monitors are often going to have a much higher resolution, and with higher resolutions tend to come lower refresh rates (60Hz).

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By Dribble on 1/9/2009 6:02:42 AM , Rating: 2

Yet the stores are full of very big 120hz LCD tv's? - I have a 40 inch one at home, and it wasn't that expensive.

Personally I am almost as interested in 120Hz computer monitors as I am in the glasses - they would be great for gaming. Given a couple of years chances are 120Hz will be standard for all but budget screens.

As for the glasses, they look great - if I had the hardware to support them :)

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By paydirt on 1/9/2009 1:01:37 PM , Rating: 2

You aren't really going to notice the refresh rate on an LCD monitor UNLESS you use it for 3D. LCD refresh rate =/ CRT refresh rate. I've been gaming with a 29" LCD with a 60 Hz refresh rate (1920x1200 res) for 4 years and haven't been bothered by the refresh rate... so I wouldn't get 120 Hz just to get 120 Hz.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By MrPoletski on 1/12/2009 11:24:11 AM , Rating: 2

Would *I* get a 120hz monitor just to get 120FPS max with vsync?

Yes I would, well, if I was in the market for a new screen I would.

I wholeheartedly agree, refresh rate actually means the same thing on CRT vs LCD, but practically it means something different because of the way CRT's work. Refresh rate can become a very annoying and tiring aspect of using a CRT because you are essentially flashing a light that many times per second, as apposed to an LCDs output which is always on.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By Hypernova on 1/8/2009 10:39:53 PM , Rating: 2

Those new 120Hz LCD TVs in theory should work too. Obviously they aren't cheap either.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By jkresh on 1/8/2009 10:58:24 PM , Rating: 2

most new high end lcd's (at least tv's) are 120hz and 240hz ones have been announced at ces (240 is kind of silly, but might be a good idea for something like the faster shutter should be smoother). I don't know if there are any monitors that fit this spec. This should also work with most dlp's and there are a bunch of lcd/lcos projectors that can handle it.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By tastyratz on 1/8/2009 11:58:14 PM , Rating: 5

by technicality.

120hz lcd's are NOT common, what people see are 60hz displays with an overdriven circuit. The panel itself is still 60hz but the idea is that they can try to overdrive it with an interpolated frame between true frames.

This makes a smoother 60 frames but is NOT the same as a true 120hz. I would have to see this technology in action but I just cant see it working well with stereo on lcd's.

CRT's still reign king in stereoscopic reproduction.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By hadifa on 1/9/2009 1:34:33 AM , Rating: 2

I think you are right without even looking at spec. I have sensitive eyes and was in a store full of LCD TVs trying to see the output stability of 120HZ and 200HZ Sony and LG LCDs compared to the common ones and I was disappointed by what I saw.

I was expecting the 120HZ ones to provide a picture, comparable to a CRT monitor on that refresh rate, but that wasn't the case. I have a -heavy- 21" trinitron CRT which I usually run at 120hz and that provides a smooth and stable output which I can work/play with for 8hrs without stressing my eyes much.

That said, 60HZ on a PC LCD is not as bad as 60HZ on a CRT and doesn't tire the eye or at least my eyes.

I will be skeptical but at effective 30HZ on a pc LCD, the results can still acceptable. At least for most people.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By tastyratz on 1/9/2009 7:11:37 AM , Rating: 2

I would have to disagree. I don't see 30hz as being above the acceptable threshhold. 60 per eye in stereo or 60 for regular viewing is most likely what I would say is the bottom floor. You might be able to get away with less for other things, but when speaking of games you will be more sensitive to a lower frame rate.
Just think of how choppy a game looks at 30fps, even though ntsc video broadcast is just a little shy of it.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By paydirt on 1/9/2009 1:05:11 PM , Rating: 2

I've been gaming with a 60 Hz LCD for 4 years and haven't noticed problems and I notice right away when a *CRT* is running 60 Hz. 30 Hz may be pushing it for LCDs. I'm convinced that you need the 120 Hz monitor for 3D because the shutter glasses open and close 60 times every second.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By xeutonmojukai on 1/10/2009 5:08:09 PM , Rating: 3

That's right.

120Hz is necessary because the ideal refresh rate is 60Hz. 3D shutter glasses work by switching opacity between the left and right lens 120 times a second, such that each eye gets 60 refreshes in that second. It then needs to be perfectly synced with the monitor such that each refresh is the only one seen at a given time, rather than each eye seeing a transition.

There is no reason really why 60Hz is impossible to use for this, because that isn't the case. But I'm not sure anyone wants a maximum of 30 fps for any game they play in 3D.

I honestly think that LCD's are not the thing to use for this, nor are CRT's necessarily. OLED's should be much better, as they'll involve very high refresh rates an

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By MrPoletski on 1/12/2009 11:37:42 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
120Hz is necessary because the ideal refresh rate is 60Hz.

While it is obvious you need double the 'ideal' refresh rate for stereoscopic use, 60Hz is merely what manufacturers have accepted as 'good enough'. It has never been the 'ideal' refresh rate for anything - most of all because the 'ideal' refresh rate will be different depending on your source material.

60hz was the default refresh rate for CRT monitors because it was the accepted minimum before flickering took it's toll. This was before CRT's got into real high resolutions though and refresh rate problems were amplified.

LCD's are totally different technology so it doesn't make sense to automatically assume they should be based on the same 60hz standard - other than the infrastructure of... well everything is based on an expected 60hz refresh rate as default, or another rate close to that (70,75 or 85hz). It's obvious to anyone using an LCD that for everyday browsing, email, word and such which consititutes far and away the greatest amount of overall computer use, for that usage 60hz, 85hz, a billion hz would make zero difference on an LCD. It's only when you start using motion and temporal aliasing rears its ugly head that it becomes an issue.

So I think, that now CRT's are virtually extinct from everyday computer sales that manufacturers of LCD panels can just buck the trend totally of a 60/75hz standard.

This would be good for 2 reasons.

1) hardcore fps nuts like myself can get their glorious high FPS, but expect these monitors to come with a bit of a premium.

2) manufacturers can churn out 30hz monitors, dirt cheap, that can fill up library computers, office computers and the like where no animation is necessary. Nobody will notice the lower refresh rate, unless they fire up a 3d game. People shouldn't be playing 3d games at work unless they work for a 3d games company;)

Mind you they shouldn't be reading tech website comments and posting replies when they should be working. ruh-roh here comes my boss. Now get back to work, you slackers;)

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By foolsgambit11 on 1/10/2009 5:01:50 PM , Rating: 3

A game looks choppy at 30fps because it's an average of 30fps. If the game were delivered at a regular, consistent rate of 30fps, it wouldn't look choppy. I almost said it would look the same as a television broadcast, but it would probably look different due to interlaced vs. progressive scan differences. It also might appear different because captured video gives a softer edge to objects than graphics does, even with blur effects and AA.

But back on point. It's the fact that video games give irregular frame rates that makes it look like games stutter at 30fps. The game may render 30 frames in one second, but 3 of those frames may have taken a tenth of a second each to render (10fps), while the other 27 frames were rendered in a total of 7/10ths of a second (38.6fps).

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By MrPoletski on 1/12/2009 11:20:27 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
I think you are right without even looking at spec. I have sensitive eyes and was in a store full of LCD TVs trying to see the output stability of 120HZ and 200HZ Sony and LG LCDs compared to the common ones and I was disappointed by what I saw.

The problem there is that your source material is recorded at 24-30 fps depending on your region, displaying 30 fps (ntsc) at 120 fps does not make you see 120 fps worth of data. It will increas the quality though.

think of it like running a DVD player into a 1080p screen, that 'upscales' the 480p of DVD to 1080p. It looks better, but it's still not a patch on a true 1080p source.

Manufacturers have also taken to inserting individual frames of black in between real frames, or a clever, computer produced negative with weight put on regions of the screen that will change colour between frames.

This helps to overcome the switching speed of LCD's and reduce the 'motion ghosting' that used to plague the first displays. That problem has not gone away, it's just displays have got a bit faster and there are now these techniques to hide it.

inserting individual black frames between real frames sounds awfully like simulating a CRT's output though;)

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By Motoman on 1/9/2009 1:48:09 AM , Rating: 2

Yup. The Inquirer had a rant about these a while ago...and there's some fair points to be made. There are cheaper, simpler, and better ways to do this stuff...and the expense of finding/buying a 120Hz TV is a smack in the face.

I think some really cool 3D stuff is coming down the pike...but I don't think this is it. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure with an appropriate TV it's the dog's bollocks...but I'm not buying a $3,000 (or more) TV so I can play my $50 video game in 3D...

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By paydirt on 1/9/2009 1:06:34 PM , Rating: 2

There are two 22" 120 Hz LCD monitors, each retailing at $400. Check out the nVidia website for details. It's still a money hurdle, especially if you need a new graphics card too.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By Motoman on 1/9/2009 2:00:14 PM , Rating: 1

Well, I was thinking TV rather than monitor...but by that token, I love my current 22" LCD monitor, and I'm not going to be running out to spend $400 to replace it when it's perfectly fine, and probably will be for years.

Parent

RE: LCD's?

By MrPoletski on 1/12/2009 11:01:30 AM , Rating: 2

IMO:

It is about time LCD manufacturers started supporting higher refresh rates on their screens. I would like to see 200hz displays.

Now LCd's eliminated the issue of refresh flicker causing headaches which was the main reason higher refresh rates were pushed on to CRT's. A simple equation, the refresh rate maximum is equal to the max video bandwidth of the screen divided by the number of pixels. So a display that does 1600x1200 at 60hz might do 640x480 at 200 - and many did.

This equation still applies to LCD's but none allow a refresh rate higher than 75hz (and at the native resolution, usually only 60).

Thing is, you have to use vsync to avoid frame tearing so you are limiting every game to 60 FPS (but even without vsync, you will only ever see 60fps anyway, except with tearing).

I want to be able to play my games at a higher framerate than that. 200Hz should cater for even the most hardcore fps nut.

....and before people come out with the old 'the eye can't see more than 30/40/60 fps' know that this is one of the most misunderstood aspects of computing.

The way games are currently rendered, you can easily (at least I can) tell the difference between 50 and 100 fps.

The faster on screen objects move (which includes how quickly you intend to spin around) the more a higher framerate is required. The goal being that no on screen object has moved an appreciable number of pixels since the frame before it. If it does move an appreciable amount, then you will notice the temporal aliasing (the technical term for what I want to avoid).

You will reach a point though, where an object has to be moving so fast for it to move an appreciable number of pixels per frame, that you would barely see it anyway. I believe this happens, for me, at around 90-100 FPS.

But boosting your framerate to 200hz will still have benefits even if it doesn't give a better visual experience because all of your physics routines and such will be running at the higher rate too (in a game where the two aren't decoupled, doom3 for example decouples this).

... and aside from anything else, I have a beefy PC. With vsync off in counter strike source, all settings max, I get between about 150 and 300 FPS. But I can only display 60. Wasted computer!

Perhaps Nvidia or ATi can do the decent thing and add support for motion blur in it's drivers. Why can't my 4870x2, for example, alternate frame render then combine the two frames. This would at best half and at worse more than half my framerate, sure. But half of 150FPs is still more than 60 and it's gonna make my older games look better.

Parent

what happened to VR?

By Dreifort on 1/9/2009 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 2

I thought the next step in gaming was going to be VR?

The Wii looks to be headed in that direction. Isn't 3D viewing just a stepping stone to VR? What good will it be to see a game in 3D if your controls don't respond in a 3 dimensional fashion?

http://emol.org/media/virtualreality/3d/index.html

3D viewing is great for movies and such...but 3D use on computer games will be problematic if your controls don't respond to what you are viewing.

RE: what happened to VR?

By taber on 1/9/2009 6:41:37 PM , Rating: 2

You're only going to get to VR in small steps.

Lots of games already have 3d controls, try most RPG's and FPS's, I'd think those would work nicely. Even an RTS like Starcraft would be nice making it look like a board sitting on a table in front of you.

I'd be all for something like this if you could get some support for it. Get a few good games using it and some picture viewing utilizing it and it would be really fun. The article doesn't mention applications outside of gaming, but there's a lot there too. If they released a camera along with this to take stereo pictures, that would interest many. I can think of one industry in particular that could utilize it....

Parent

How many times..

By Clauzii on 1/8/2009 11:00:34 PM , Rating: 2

..do they think will buy old wine on new bottles?

Basically it's still the same way of doing it - and that didn't catch the consumers attention.

For once, wait till it really works AND are usable for most people, unless they don't wan't to make money, which would be a moot point.

Besides, I think the 'quality' of 3D perception in games are already pretty ok. If I wan't It in 3D and more realistic, I would join a paintball field :)

RE: How many times..

By Alpha4 on 1/9/2009 12:26:06 AM , Rating: 1

I like the way you think.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of other paintballers, however, I would recommend Airsoft. Depending on the quality of the field, and your taste in FPS I guess, it would better simulate the gaming experience but in Über 3D. :D

Parent

60fps

By AnnihilatorX on 1/9/2009 7:40:51 PM , Rating: 2

I presume that in order not to cause any nausea, the frame rate must be twice as high as in the case without the 3D glass. 30 frames is playable without the glass, but with its shuttering action, a 30fps game becomes a 15fps effectively and that may induce nausea as well.

So in theory, you will need to invest a lot on getting multiple graphics cards if you intend to play comfortably on more demanding games.