I seriously wanna understand it, I rock an amazing Sammy S23A700D with excellent 3D capabilities, and recently I've been playing many games with 3d, the current one is Dead Space 2 and it's so freaking awesome!!! Way way better than all the buzz about 4K, so how come 3D gaming failed to deliver?
Glasses, headaches, price, incompatibility come to mind. I wouldn't say it 'failed', it just hasn't taken off. I would look to VR headsets next. I feel 3D monitors will become pretty obsolete once VR takes hold of the mainstream. Higher and higher resolutions is an easy thing to sell, pure benefit without any drawbacks. Well, other then a higher performance requirement, but that's been the case since forever.
ye i guess that the reason, not all games have good 3D and it requires extra work from developers and NVIDIA\AMD. I hope we gonna get some kind of 3D, VR and whatever it might be.
Glasses are the real pain in 3D screens. In the latest TV's 3D has also fallen out of favour. Parallax 3D with active tracking may be the answer, at least for single user computer monitor use. You get 3D without glasses . It would be no good for TV's though if there is more than one viewer, because even if the parallax filter is dynamically adjusted it can only adjust to one person. Who knows, maybe one day nanotech will allow mutli-angle viewing, but you would still need all the viewers to be of relatively the same distance from the TV for the full 3D effect. Same goes with computer monitors. Resolution is also a consideration. For 1920x1080P viewing, you would effectively need 3840x1080. For 4k/UHD or whatever you want to call it, you would need 7680x2160 to maintain full 4k/UHD. Basically, because of the left and right eye you would be running at half the horizontal resolution unless the panel has doubled its horizontal resolution.
I believe 3d failed for the following reasons. 1. Tech came out too early. Until recently, we have PC hardware that can actually drive two 1080p images at 60 fps per eye. Back when Tomb Raider came out, there was no way you could play that in 3d and enjoy it. The game was too demanding even on SLI systems. 2. You need a dedicated 3d monitor, Uses TN panel which is horrible for viewing angles. The price is too expensive when it came out. You had to invest in the 3d ecosystem. Also when you invested you really couldn't enjoy the games at the time 3d came out due to being too demanding to run. For games, 3d is in a sad place now. I think 3d is more valuable option now than VR is. We have the hardware now that can push most games. As for movies, you have that whole active vs passive 3d debate. You need to buy glasses and the glasses need batteries for active. Passive has had horrible image quality, due to the resolution being cut in half. Its not till this month that an actual good 3d tv with 4k passive LG oled flat display came out. 4k passive plus 3d is an amazing option and fixes most of the issues that 3d has been plagued with. Fixes the battery issue as well as the artifact issue and keeps a high resolution. my two cents
I am loving 3D I believe cinemas are partly to blame for low uptake due to Low quality 3D effects. I get better 3D from my Optoma Projector with Active glasses. 3D gaming is awesome but you need high end hardware my 980ti's get a real workout at 1080p
Here's another one on the glasses thing. How about having to wear eyeglasses in the first place. Glasses on glasses is super fun and I would recommend 10/10
^^This. Most so-called '3D Movies' just have some effects added after the fact. The ones actually shot in 3D can be amazing.
Glasses on glasses. Also, I have to admit Avatar was interesting with it's 3D effects, everything thereafter didn't impress me at all.
I agree about Avatar. I think it was one of the ones actually filmed in 3D. One of the opening scenes when the hero was removed from his sleep pod had amazing depth of field.
My perfect 3D screen is 1440p 144Hz passive 3D. No headache, fluid movement and depth perception. Simply awesome, but it did not came. Therefore I am waiting for VR goggles. with similar parameters as that would in addition give peripheral vision. What I am concerned about VR is refresh rate and motion to pixel (light) time. As I think it would be best if there was G and Freesync version and over 100Hz. As for failure, I have played quite a lof of games in 3D even Half-Life 2 which had at places wrong shadowing, but still awesome. And Yes, I did play Dead Space 2 too, close fights are just sick
In my opinion it was just too big a fuss for developers to make their games "3D Ready" even if many that weren't categorized as were pretty good to play. I think the signs were not so good from the start, back in 2009 when I planning for a new PC, 3D seemed like a good choice but I could see the limits - Only a few games at the beginning, such as Batman Arkham Asylum that atm coudn't be played so well on a single gpu in 3D @ good frame rates. ( still GF200 series ). - A limited number of monitors: 2233RZ, an AOC and later an Alienware by Dell - 3D expectations took a big hop with Avatar @ the Imax in Dec 09/Jan 10. - A golden period in 2010-11 with some good games kept it alive ( Mafia, La Noire even mostly MP games like BC2 or BF3... though never used it for MP! ) and it quickly faded later, that time I wished I had a better GPU than 470 to be able to max them in 3D! - Prolly Nvidia made lots of efforts to convince developers to "go 3D" and succeeded until they realized they won't sell a much bigger amount if they have them crystal clear 3D ready, so not worth the buck. - Many people felt they would be tied to Nvidia by having to buy the shutters + displays and it kinda is like that, ATI didn't have an official solution then... and it wasn't cheap to get the full kit. - The best part is it motivated me to get a 120hz monitor, otherwise I would've probably gotten a 60, so 3D or no 3D, good choice IMO. - They launch Nvidia 3D Vision 2 when it was all dead already. - Now there are 144hz monitors + even with G-Sync Chip by Nvidia dat actually do not support 3D ( pretty much the best confirmation we should sue Nvidia for those $150 we paid for their ****ters ). :nerd: - No headaches, go perfect with eyeglasses too, but tbh, after max 1 hour I would get bored to wear them, i think for VR it would be 10 minutes lol.
I've had a 3D TV with glasses, but never saw the difference or i just couldn't get it to work. Tried it in Black Ops 1 on PS3.
Pricing and the fact that people don't consider it a "need" or "must have". Though I've tried NVIDIA's 3D back in the day and it was till this day, the only 3D experience I had that didn't cause migraines (I suffer from migraines). Haven't tried Oculus though.
There was nothing ground breaking about it. It wasn't something that people had to have, and was not the cheapest solution for a small effect. Personally as well, 3D gaming and TV hurts my head.
The only movie that I ever saw in 3d was Avatar and it looked awesome in 3d. But like many others have stated 3d gives some people discomfort. Also to me 3d is a old gimmick that dates back to when my Parents were growing up in the 1950s that was improved upon.
lately I been enjoying blu ray movie's mainly the 3D editions,Now the only blu ray's I usually buy are those that have an 3D version in the combo or the 3d blu ray it self separated. I can wear the 3D vision 2 glases for an long time without any issues, even while gaming. The only discomfort that happened is not with the 3D vision 2 glasses, but the Red cyan glasses many years ago, when i first started using 3D vision 2 using the method for red/cyan. After an while of use my eyes would be messed up from staring at the red and cyan, to the point that I had to move away from it, til I did it right.
biggest down side I found using my 3d TV was to get 60hz I had to play in 720p 3d 1080p was limited to 30hz, which gave me head aches, it's to do with the bandwidth of the HDMI, although I think I read some where the R9 390 has some trickery to pull off 60hz it's via hdmi port for 3d, Display port 1.2 or above is more suited to cards that don't have the latest version of HDMI for 60hz 3d gaming, probs is my TV does not have Display port :/ thinking about it, I'm going to reinstall tridef 3D (bought it about 4 years ago to add AMD HD3D support to games) and have a play around ... you can get a 14 day free trial if you want to try it out from https://www.tridef.com/download What are the system requirements for HD3D? ***8203;***8203; AMD Radeon™ HD5000 series or above graphics card Latest graphics card drivers from the AMD website: www.amd.com/drivers Supported 3D Display with HDMI™ 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2, or DVI input. 3D glasses are supplied by the display manufacturer: Currently supported displays 3D Middleware software, such as TriDef to convert games that don’t have native 3D support Additional requirements for 3D Blu-Ray movie playback: Blu-ray optical disc drive AMD Radeon HD6000 or above graphics card for Blu-ray 3D playback Blu-ray playback software such as CyberlinkPower DVD 10, Arcsoft or similar
