Active "vs." Passive 3d: Viewing duration?

[NumberSix]

I've been doing my homework here and elsewhere so I'm familiar with the differences of resolution, image quality, viewing angles, and expense between active-shutter and passive (polarized) 3d monitor choices.

My question is a bit different and is directed to owners of either type: How long can, or do, you game at a stretch in 3d mode?

I'm asking because my primary use for 3d gaming would be simulation racing (namely iRacing, but I'll no doubt go back and drive rFactor, GTR Evolution, GTR 2, and even Grand Prix Legends).

Some of these races are somewhat longish (up to 2.5 hours) and unlike a single-player game there's no pause; even MMORPGs tend to involve breaks for snacks etc. These will be solid periods of time staring directly and intently at the screen.

So, I'm trying to determine if active or passive will have me tearing the glasses off after an hour or whether I'll be as happy (and safe -- no fair ruining others' races!) in 3d on the last lap as the first. Please reply with your own experiences; discussing what you think the screen you don't have might be like is not as helpful to me.

[Dilip]

I have been in 3D gaming for almost Last 6 Years
My findings are

1) i have used X Force 3D shutter glasses + 85 Hz 17" Monitor + Nvidia Geforce 6600 + forceware 94 for 04 Years and played FPS Action Adventures & Even Racing Like NFS Porche Unleashed,UG,UG2 as it was at 85 Hz
yes there was noticable flicker & you can't go for more then half hour at stretch as it used to give head ache if dark area in game like UT

I have also had demo of 3D vision kit+ Asus Gamers Republic serise Laptop
with LEFT FOR DEAD game

I also had demo of Prince of Persia Worrior Within+Viewsonic 2268 Monitor+3d Vision Kit

Good Part
1) Solid 3d effect
2) FULL HD ( Though you require VG236 or Alienware monitor as Viewsonic was 1650X1080)
3) Good Pop out effects
4) Over all nice 3D if monitor set to max light
5) Best Drivers as NVIDIA CARD+NVIDIA Software works fine with
Highest number of games

Now Limitations
1)You can still notice flicker say if florocent light is there in room and you are looking at screen then looking around you feel flickers

2)No head ache though but some thing annoying for long hours of play

3) Light get 1/2 Killed due to shutter glass Dark Areas in games look really
sad gloomy and little strain for eyes is there if you are not ok with it

4) Electronic glass little heavy to normal very costly and need to recharge
them delecate you may damage if your glass tend to fall often

5) No clip-on type. If you already have vision correction specs you have to
wear 3D glasses on it

# Considering all this i decided to go for Passive technology. and i had purchased LG D2342P+Core i5 2400+Intel DH67CL+Corsair 4GB DDR3 1600+1TB Segate 7200Rpm on 05 July 11 My findings are as follows

Good Part

1) No electronics No reacharge

2) Cheap glass for extra pair, Cheap for Replacement

3) No weight of glass. Clip-on type pair is provided

4) Good bright screen Vivid Colors

5) Light Monitor in weight & lighter on your pocket compared to NVIDIA

6) I have played fable for 2 Hours without any eye fatigue. passive is really
comfortable

Now Limitations
1) Half horizontal resolution as its line interleaved technology

2) Micro black lines noticed if you see from very close

3) Low viewing Angles 12 Degree Verticle & 175 Degree Horizontal
it does not matter so much if only single viewer sitting comfortably after
properly adjusting monitor other 2 viewers can also enjoy if they are in same
horizontal line say of same hight and sitting at same level

4) DDD drivers or IZ3D drivers need to be used as NVIDIA is not supporting
them. DDD are DX9 fine DX10 no experience DX11 not there they work in
most of the games but not As POLISHED & As ROWBUST As NVIDIA so this
you will loose

So All that matter is what you think most important for you.

[cybereality]

I've used both passive and active, and passive is certainly more comfortable. No question. Especially for long sessions (over 1 hour) there is a difference. But that is not to say that active shutter glasses are uncomfortable, though. Merely that they can be straining after a longer period. I have, for example, watched 2 hour movies with shutter glasses and my eyes did not melt. So it can be done. But assuming all things were equal, I would prefer passive. However all things are not equal. Most passive monitors today are FPR-based, or interleaved displays. This means you effectively lose half the resolution in 3D (though its not as bad as it sounds). Worse, though, is that the passive displays have very limited viewing angles. This means you basically have to keep your eyes in line with the vertical center of the display, otherwise you get serious ghosting. This can be a bigger problem if you want to game with a racing wheel and/or motion-simulation seat. The advantage to passive is that it is brighter, the glasses are light, comfortable, and cheap. The whole package is also usually cheaper (since they come with glasses for free). Advantage to active glasses is that you get the full resolution (1080P) and that you are free to move your head without additional ghosting. Hard to say one is better than the other, they are different.

[ShawmK]

I would just add two extra points about active glasses:

1. You need to remember to keep them fully charged, or there's a chance they might decide to conk out in the middle of a long session;

2. At 120Hz there is no visible flicker on the screen, however if you have a second monitor with a lower refresh rate, it may flicker quite badly in your peripheral vision. I have a small 60Hz touchcreen monitor sitting next to my 3D monitor, and it blinks like a carnival attraction when I have the Nvidia glasses on. If I'm using 3D for a long stretch, I sometimes need to switch off the smaller monitor, or it gets too annoying...

[crim3]

This weekend I spent most of the friday night playing HL2 with shutter-glasses at 120Hz and had no problem at all.
I also have the Zalman and it may be a bit uncomfortable for long sessions but not because of the eyes, but the restrictive viewing angle that forces you to be at the very same position all the time.

Both methods are safe for the eyes. What can really be a problem is to use excessive separation that make eyes diverge, or excesive convergence. Those things can make you feel very sick if they are wrong.

[tritosine5G]

For example 3d nvidia ready monitors have way worse flicker than DLP. DLP has about twice the frame length, or 3 times the frame length, theres no reason 3D DLP should flicker more than a 2D plasma (actually LC glasses are rather guilty for DLP flicker, transitions are not clear cut)

& I did 5 hours straight with DLP many times! Even without anti aliasing @ 720p , aliasing in 3D makes you a lot less nervous than in 2D. In 2D your eyes track the jaggies , with 3D thats not the case anymore.

Remember. Theres a lot of FUD (better yet, flat out lies) on the internets both about flicker and 3D .

[NumberSix]

Thanks! I didn't mean to mislead with the "safe" comment - I wasn't thinking that either type of 3d was physically dangerous to me.

I was referring to safe virtual driving - people put a lot of prep time into these races and reckless driving (even if it's due to tired eyes) can be protested to an official sanctioning body.

Anyway all your responses were very helpful. It appears as if a comfortable solution can be had with active or passive glasses with proper expectations and preparation. I need to take a look at the ergonomics of my desk area (lights/monitors for active-shutter, monitor positioning for passive) and see how that influences my choice.

[ancjob]

i am confused is the 3D great to look at via passive / active shutter glasses or on HMDs lile Sony

becoz on active/passive there is one screen to get 3D from and in HMDs no cross talk at all

so which 3D is best - comfortable to watch with great depth - active /passive glasses OR HMDs[Sony] - plz advice

[Dilip]

No doubts!!

HMD(Sony) is best option provided that you can afford it
beside i been through nice review of sony hmd on MTBS only

down sides
> images can be blurry at corners of screen
> very small text can be tough to read (Font size 8,9 while in game)
> Noticable weight on face so little bad for long gaming sessions

Its bit expensive tech as today

still its in development bita Phase you can say.
where as 3d monitors are alreay on evolution path.

Due to fov you may not get full immersion but still its much greater to monitor for sure if you use light shilds (Specially in FPS) so if you play fps or rpg like fps (SKYRIM/MASS EFFECT) then this will be good choice

there is much data available already of all this tech on MTBS.Most are genuine knowledge sharings.

My best option i crave for(read FANTACY TO GET) 120Hz passive LED/OLED
benifits will be
> FULL HD
> No flicker
> NO half resolution
> Full view angle
> No power requiered for glass no need of recharge
> Cheap addtional pair & easy to buy one
> you can get 32" or 42" too.

Don't know who will produace and when
Sure i will buy it first its avalibale for me!

[cybereality]

I have to do some more testing, but I've been really impressed by DLP projection (lets ignore the issues with DLP-Link and syncing and all that). In terms of bang-for-your-buck a 3D DLP projector simply kills all the other options, provided you have the space. HMDs are good for VR applications, where you need headtracking and stuff like that. But if you just want to watch 3D movies, and play a few games then I think the big screen is the way to go. Although an HDTV will have better picture quality (in most cases) there is more ghosting and the cost is a lot more.

[spectrogj]

Has anyone tried the passive projection system from Omega Optical Inc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBBZry-2gSE