So, I was reading another forum about some 3D technology from
http://www.iz3d.com/t-dcdriver.aspx

From my understanding, it's just a driver you can install depending on your video card. Anyone else hear about this or try it out? I'm kind of curious as to how well it works. I know they are supposed to be using this primarily for a 3D monitor that they created, so I'm sure it works best on that. But, they said that the driver works without it as long as you have 3D glasses.

I want to try it out, but I don't want to waste my time if it sucks or slows down my fps in-game. Is there better technology for this even?

2/5/2009 12:59:04 PM

there's a reason 3d hasn't taken off in 20+ years.

If you use this on your own monitor, it will be in anaglyph or shutter mode. The first is the red/blue or polarized glasses method, which is a gimmick and gets old very fast. The second will give you headaches after 10-15 minutes.

Their monitors, and other similar systems are worth the money because you get stereoscopic projection without the side-effects. Still expensive, and limited, but at least you won't get migraines anymore

2/5/2009 8:22:07 PM

shouldn't the migraines be mitigated by the much higher refresh rate (120 Hz) LCD monitors that are coming out soon? (or at least when cheaper ones come out)

I've been interested in it, but not worth the $$$ right now, I saw that Bloody Valentine 3D movie and it was mostly gimmicky except when something was thrown directly at the camera

2/5/2009 8:33:11 PM

So if I were to invest today, I should go with the monitors instead of the glasses? Well, I guess I'll end up waiting it out then, because I don't really have that kind of money. I didn't know the shutter mode causes migraines. And, I can't really do the red/blue for the game I wanted to try it out on since the teams are red and blue (I read that it makes the red team look blue and the blue team look blue).

2/6/2009 12:40:45 AM

^yes, the stereo monitors are the only non-throw away option. Shutter glasses are total garbage.

^^Not at 120hz. That's still a 60hz per eye refresh, which is still going to cause crazy eye fatigue over time (were you around during the days of 60hz standard crt's? i think a whole generation of people ruined their eyesight from thos damn things)

2/6/2009 2:50:12 AM

Believe it or not yeah I have used 60 Hz CRTs before, and it is painful no doubt.

But I can run my LCD monitor at 60 Hz and it is not noticeable at all, you're thinking with the shutters it would replicate the feel of those CRTs? You don't think the flickering would blend in your mind considering that it is opposite phase between eyes?

Have you gotten the chance to try the new shutter glasses with one of the new LCDs? I haven't but I've heard it's leaps and bounds better than before and looked pretty cool to some.

2/6/2009 11:04:01 AM

I'm interested to know how shutter glasses work with an LCD. I have a pair of the ones that work with nvidia on a crt. 120hz hurt your eyes after a while.

2/6/2009 2:03:50 PM

With LCDs the refresh rate is the number of times per second the screen can be changed, but not the rate the screen is being swept. The actual transition time is variable with the present pixel value, but it's significantly lower than the inverse of the refresh rate for almost all recent panels.

On second thought, though, being as the eye is actually shuttered for 1/2 of the time, I suppose flicker could return as an issue. It probably wouldn't be as pronounced as CRT flicker, but still might be uncomfortable to some. You'd have a <2ms (for most recent panels, again) transient to a constant pixel brightness held for ~6.3ms @ 50% DC 120Hz which is essentially a square wave; as compared to a 120Hz 50% DC CRT which would peaks in approximately 1 microsecond at 1024x768 as the pixel is swept, decays over the full 8.3ms half cycle, and would be more of a sawtooth.

[Edited on February 6, 2009 at 5:10 PM. Reason : thought provoking and worth investigating, perhaps ]

2/6/2009 4:51:14 PM