NVIDIA 3D Vision Pro Technology uses RF syncing to woo profs

[Silversurfer]

NVIDIA has a strong lead in PC land with its IR-based GeForce 3D Vision tech, but apparently us lowly consumers aren't enough for the squiggly green eyeball. The company has just announced NVIDIA 3D Vision Pro, which makes use of RF syncing to give the glasses a 150 foot range, along with avoiding some of those line of sight and crosstalk issues that plague the IR glasses used by most 3D-at-home applications. NVIDIA plans to market this new system, which will be out in October, to professionals for tasks such as 3D modeling and medical imaging, and just in case you don't believe them they've priced the glasses at $349 and the RF hub at $399. Still, when have unreasonable costs ever stood between us pesky proles and the 3D nectar we yearn for? There's a press release after the break, along with a video of Siemens putting the glasses to use on some ultrasound imaging.

[youtube-hd]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GX70Dk8z85g&co ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GX70Dk8z85g&co ... edded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube-hd]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/04/nvid ... professio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Likay]

What a waste... 3d, 3d, 3d-imagin etc etc and the youtubevid is 2d...

[yuriythebest]

umm are the professionals not woed enougn by passive polarized?

[tritosine5G]

-stop beating that drum, read those comments instead.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new ... technology


yeah, usb sucks , closed usb sucks even more, but the IR+shutter combo delivers.

[BlackShark]

-stop beating that drum, read those comments instead.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new ... technology


yeah, usb sucks , closed usb sucks even more, but the IR+shutter combo delivers.

This article is very old and the author is a well known anti-Nvidia guy. Everything Nvidia does is always bad for him.

[tritosine5G]

I know charlie, but lot of informative comments there , especially about the professional field, why pro's use shutter...

[Likay]

Why they use shutters is simply because smaller displays generally supports it better (none of them gives a good experience compared to shutters). However still nothing even comes close to a dual projector rig. A big cinemalike screen is hardly the best for a workstation imo. But: if two small projectors had a good resolution they could be used with backprojection and passive technology. That would blew shutters away as well.

[tritosine5G]

That would blew shutters away as well.

Im not so sure at all. There are those 15k Eur projection design 3d DLP's, those guys don't even mention passive, Crystal eyes CE-5 all over the place. In theory they would want to sell you multiple 15k pj's no?

Plus one of those comments say that if you have lazy eye, weak eye, shutter is your only option....

...And dont forget matte white screen can be viewed at any angle.

[Likay]

Agree it's hard to find a passive solution for workstations. On big screens passive always rules out shutters by a direct comparison. My thought (theoretical brainstormi) was using miniprojectors and backprojectionfilm but the so far low resolution and the clumsy size of the display would rule it out. If the res would have been the same then shutters would be ruled out as well. But as said: It's hard to make a full res passive small display and therefore shutters is the only alternative left. Simply that's why pros are using shutters.

Plus one of those comments say that if you have lazy eye, weak eye, shutter is your only option....

Uneducated crap. How on earth would shutters be better for people who have developed a lazy eye? In worst case lazy eye will render stereopsis impossible and shutters will not help in this matter.

[tritosine5G]

There s some new article by projection design™ , passive is mentioned, not read it yet.

http://www.projectiondesign.com/admin/c ... ileID=3194

- as far I get passive is their second class

[Likay]

You need to compare yourself and then i'm quite certain what you'll find the best. Put a passive projection rig using linear polarization + a decent silverscreen against a shutterig with components free of choice (resolution the same) and there will be no question which rig that performs best. You can even use a pj with double lumen (which rig will be the cheapest then?) as the passive rig and it'll still be left behind. I believe a common mistake is settling for circular polarization in a passive rig and that'll make ghosting worse so: Don't! Even though many says circular is better for passive. For those making a rig i strongly suggest getting both linear as well as circular filters for their own comparison. Then the circular filters will be shelved.
That sheet above also describes they use infitec technology which uses colorfiltering. I have yet to experience if it's better or worse than passive linear polarized.

[crim3]

One thing againts shutters, based on my own experience, is that you'd need crazy shuttering rates to perceive motion as fluidly as in passive solutions where both eyes are opened all the time. And that's important in action games and movies where motion is a basic element.

Although is true that you may not notice the difference never until trying both solutions with the same game, so still shutters are a great easy solution.

[tritosine5G]

One thing againts shutters, based on my own experience, is that you'd need crazy shuttering rates to perceive motion as fluidly as in passive solutions where both eyes are opened all the time. And that's important in action games and movies where motion is a basic element.

Although is true that you may not notice the difference never until trying both solutions with the same game, so still shutters are a great easy solution.

Yeah, never saw that , and I dont even beleive this (sorry ) .

I did play fast paced action game , called borderlands, and its every bit as good as 2d, when it comes to motion, if not better. ( I really think that breaking constant light is actually good ! I mean , I saw it with good display tech , DLP, and I beleive it. 1/120 offset is bothering you... hmmm.... ) Im sure I'd find motion blur more distracting ( and that comes from constant light).

Again, that article says

active= premier technology
passive= troublesome tech.

[Likay]

active= premier technology
passive= troublesome tech.

The year aint over yet but so far this quote is a splendid candidate for the title: "Joke of the year"! I'm glad you didn't say it originally.

There are a lot of different passive solutions and most of them aren't too good, i agree. However a dual pj rig is a passive rig and is far from troublesome. Planar stereorigs generally also gives a great experience but lacks a little compability (still great and better than shutters) besides from being a tad clumsy. Due to the industrys poor choice of trying to be the top dog the compability issues regarding shutters makes it a far worse "troublesome tech" then it have to be. This is why i personally rule out shutters for now even if the technology itself is enough for a good experience (it's relatively cheap and works on many small displays). As is today even old-school-stereogamers with almost 10years old stereo shutter-rigs still blows new tech out of the water. It's hardly the developement i'm expecting or desire. If this trend continues i don't expect anyone to hook onto 3d and in the end everything with 3d would shade out which will leave evryone without the options to view in stereo.
I could very well buy a 3dtv using shutters but i want to play all stereomedia on it. Not just one selected movie... or broadcasts only... or gaming "only" (sorry but there are other medias. ). Or simply not being able to use 3d at all....
So not mistake my opinion: Shutters+a decent display do give a good experience but as is today: how do you know?? What's the "troublesome tech" and how on earth could someone say that shutters are "premium tech". He needs stop smoking and i don't mean cigarettes....

[crim3]

Yeah, never saw that , and I dont even beleive this (sorry ) .

I did play fast paced action game , called borderlands, and its every bit as good as 2d, when it comes to motion, if not better. ( I really think that breaking constant light is actually good ! I mean , I saw it with good display tech , DLP, and I beleive it. 1/120 offset is bothering you... hmmm.... ) Im sure I'd find motion blur more distracting ( and that comes from constant light).

The problem is that with shutters each eye sees a different instant of the scene, and the more speed the more difference.

I'm not arguing against shutters. I think they are great.
But when I first used the Zalman, after 3 years using the shutters output with a z800, what was most evident for me was the smoothness. Almost shocking, I didn't understand the reason. Then I realized that the reason was this: both eyes seeing the same instant of the scene at the same time.
I comment this from time to time trying to find someone who agrees...

[Likay]

I agree. But i don't really have a problem with it if using shutters. However i can see this in the local real-d cinema during fastpaced scenes. Since the image from the real-d projector is shuttered alternating polarization the whole image becomes a mess during those. I also agree with you that the overall modest zalman might be the best choice of all stereomonitors as is today due to compability, passive tech and prize.
However: I have this "one-frame-lag" phenomena while using dual projectors with win7 and iz3d because there doesn't seem to be a way to sync both outputs to the same "stereoframe" according to iz3d which is a pity. Usually it's fine but during fastpaced scenes i rather use nvidia old school (where sync is excellent) or winxp with the horisontal span mode (trackmania for instance) of the displaydriver. So yes: I agree but don't really find a huge problem. Maybe because i like to take it easy and enjoy gaming in 3d. 3'rd person adventures is after all my all time faves.

[tritosine5G]

-this is starting to get messy if you enter the hybrid realD into the equation, that requires some "ghostbuster" stuff to be sprayed on the screen & stuff

-anyway, "Who's teh shutter top dog" issue can be resolved easily , enter chinese manufacturers & ebay

-remember that nvidia copy? They just have to drop USB...

[PalmerTech]

I am think for those with no budget, Planar 3D displays are the best solution for a workstation, not projectors. Both are the same in terms of benefits from passive, though!

[tritosine5G]

You should be aware that ppl frequently compare 120hz shutter to 60hz CRT , and thats a FUD. So give active just a little credit a least.
And when it comes to image quality, I really think that a mechanical shutter would beat everything else really bad, ( IDK about autostereo stuff, leave that out ) , thats where I come from.
- I also see the shortcomings of passive polarised stuff, thats how shutterglasses work, when I look thru shutterglasses, I look thru the same polarizer foil. I don't think that having no blackframes ( "shuttering" ) would make this stuff any better , let alone waaaaay better... Also that 1/120 offset difference is very weak argument against active imho. Both of these are easily countered by the multiplexed nature of active projection, muxing absolutely worth it.

... seems to me that the Projectiondesign™ article is no bs. Once constant light has to be broken ( thats actually good for your eyes), and you do it with shutterglasses, thats a fine way to enter the stereoscopic 3d realm as well, 2 birds with 1 stone

PalmerTech, lifesize 3d is the way , that should be obvious (sorry , sounds like im mocking you ).

[Likay]

I mentioned real-d as an example on what crim3 said and verified that i experience the same. As for you Tritosine i don't really find this "one-frame-lag" a huge obstacle and never use it as an argument against shutters anyway. I'm overall fine using shutters (used 85Hz in the old days) but i'll never change my dual pj rig to a shutterrig, simply because i want the luxuary of having a practically ghostingfree and bright 3d-screen. When my rig breaks, i get a new dual pj rig unless something else on consumerlevel surfaced that gives an equal experience. I think it's going to take some time though.

I have to add: I'm not mocking/harassing but i find the discussion interesting. Sometimes you seem turning arguments back and forwards (workstation vs lifesize) to gain arguments which arent suitable for other. For instance: Dual projectors are not suitable for workstations because of the big image and therefore ruled out. However planars are not.

For lifesize 3d a dual passive projection rig using linear polarization always leaves shutters behind in regards of quality (mechanical shutters is imo a stoneage, noisy, still dark and dangerous, especially if used for eyeshuttering as well). The only thing that maybe will come close to dual pj+linear is dual pj using infitec filters.

For workstations as PalmerTech says planar is provingly better than shutters as well. Again because of the lightissues of shutterglasses. The image is sharp, full resolution and relatively bright. I can very well believe that light is crucial in some professional applications. However as you can see, planarsolution are quite bulky compared to a standard screen. The rigs from planar3d are very expensive but can be made relatively cheap on consumerlevel with a tiny bit more knowledge than for passive linear dual-pj rigs. Compability is great and again leaves shutters far behind.

You keep refering to an article, which one? The link you posted is a datasheet of consisting products of a company, one tech using shutters, the other using dual pj's+infitec technology (no actual workstations...) and the first one with that "antinvidiaguy"... which none really contains actual reliable comparisons...

Ps: I stand my "joke-of-the-year-candidate" expression. A product (shutters in general) with overall so many compability issues can hardly be called anything else than "troublesome tech". I don't think chineses will solve the situation regarding the overall shutter compability issues. And again: This issue is the industrys poor choice. It surely doesn't have to be this way.

[tritosine5G]

http://www.projectiondesign.com/admin/c ... ileID=3194

-Theres no better 120hz commercial pj than projection design™, couple it with mechanical shutter (or comparable, we re after image quality specification afterall...!) - hardly any passive rig blows that out of water, if anything. ( Just for the sake of image quality!!!) .

The fact that they arent after >120hz tells a lot too.

I can't argue about this anymore I told everything I know.

-I just love my frame sequential , multiplexed 3d, see no issue with it, apart the polarization stuff. I dont like that at all , we need better shutters , mechanical-alike-spec.

[Likay]

Where's the image degrading using a dual-pj rig with linear polarization? There is none!
Besides the datasheet shows their dual pj-designs using infitec technology. I've seen roses about infitec but i haven't seen it action. Maybe infitec suffers from colordistortion and actually is a lot worse than polarized rigs... You don't have any of this in a linear polarized dual-pj rig.
You need to see both kind of rigs yourself before determining what's actually best. I've seen and compared both and my opinion is crystalclear.

[tritosine5G]

...well , screen properties... polarization foil properties .... last but not least: mismatch between 2 pj's ...

Its insanely hard to manufacture 2 pieces of the same loudspeaker driver to match eachother, nowadays tolerance is an unknown entity when it comes to speaker drivers. I 'm VERY skeptical about pj's in this regard. Edge blending and 'surround @ 120hz 3d arrangement would be totally preferred on my behalf against passive 3d..


BTW who knows LCD technology , can someone tell me if it s worth looking at OCB LCD shutter? Is that the same polarization foil stuff?

[Likay]

Besides the parameters for audio driverunits change during time. Some of ageing, some of usage. So yes, audio can't practically be an exact science...

However:
Screen properties: no different issue from single pj
Foluidistortion: Besides the spars i have three different linear polarizationfoils and a good circular foil to try with. None of the linear foils interferes more than simply reducing the light due to polarization. The circular foil however besides from making the image darker, also makes it look a little "washed out" (no extra distortion though).
Projector alignment in a dual pj-rig is only crucial in the horisontal plane. A huge mismatch of 2 centimetres vertical is actually not noticeable when you wear glasses.
The vertical mismatch on 100" in my rig is 2mm's maximum when good aligned. If that's annoying in 2d i can of course use one pj only.

It feels like we can go on forever ripping this into atoms so i also end here.

Cheers!