Will R420 Support 3D Glasses ?!

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

They are totally driver independant. Any catalyst works as any non ATI driver. Those drivers work with any gfx card (nvidia too) but aren't on par with nvidias native support yet.

Details on how it works aren't very forthcoming though. I gather from doing some reading up that it appears to be some sort of OpenGL/DX wrapper. What versions of OpenGL/DX do they support, and what performance hit tdo they cause? Do they work in XP too?

I notice you were just about the only poster on the Rage3D threads who has good things to say about these glasses on ATI cards...

 

[KimB]

Details on how it works aren't very forthcoming though. I gather from doing some reading up that it appears to be some sort of OpenGL/DX wrapper. What versions of OpenGL/DX do they support, and what performance hit tdo they cause? Do they work in XP too?

If they work in Windows 2000, they'll almost certainly work in Windows XP.

And as for a performance hit? There shouldn't be one, as the layer could be extremely small. Essentially all that you'd want to do is modify the transform matrices before they get sent to the video card.

 

[KimB]

Head-mounted displays can be really hard on the eyes. Your eyes just aren't meant to focus that closely. Lenses may help, but it's definitely a nontrivial issue (using a lens may end up requiring that the LCD screen be non-square for proper viewing).

I've never seen any that were focused to the actual distance in front of your face. I would be surprised if any were actually manufactured that didn't increase the focal distance.

I was just remembering Nintendo's attempt at a 3D console a while back. It didn't have any sort of lenses to adjust the focal length, so it was very hard on the eyes (not to mention it was a large headset that you had to put your face into, so it was extremely uncomfortable). I rented the console some time back, and while it was kinda neat, there was no way I'd ever buy one.

 

[Sage]

Quadro's an other workstation cards have a special stereo connecteor, that's how important it is to some people.

 

[3dcgi]

The Imax 3D films I've seen in the US used LCD shutter glasses, not polarized glasses. Also, there are numerous attractions in Orlando that use polarized glasses. My favorite is the Spiderman ride at Universal Islands of Adventure. The innovation with that ride is it keeps the 3D effect as you move. I remember reading that was difficult to do.

 

[Fred da Roza]

I was just remembering Nintendo's attempt at a 3D console a while back. It didn't have any sort of lenses to adjust the focal length, so it was very hard on the eyes (not to mention it was a large headset that you had to put your face into, so it was extremely uncomfortable). I rented the console some time back, and while it was kinda neat, there was no way I'd ever buy one.

Never heard of Nintendo HMDs.

We have bought some from NVIS
http://www.nvisinc.com/products.htm

and Kaiser
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/kaiserelectronics/pages_00q1/hm.html

Some are focused to infinity and some are adjustable. I haven't seen any under 2 meters.

 

[KimB]

Well, a major problem was that it wasn't head-mounted. You put your face into it (it was just too big to be head-mounted).

 

[Sage]

yeah, also it was monochrome. All it could show was red and that got really annoying. I remember one of my friends had one and it was rather unimpressive. Also, he tended to hog the thing and noone could even see what he was playing thus making it even more boring for the rest of us.

 

[KimB]

yeah, also it was monochrome. All it could show was red and that got really annoying. I remember one of my friends had one and it was rather unimpressive. Also, he tended to hog the thing and noone could even see what he was playing thus making it even more boring for the rest of us.

Not to mention all display was wireframe. Of course, what else would you display 3D images in with only monochrome display?

Edit:
Ah! And I finally remembered the name: Virtual Boy.

 

[Sage]

i didnt know it was wireframe, I acutally remember it being a 2.5D game (it was 2d pictures in 3d space- think street-fighter style but with depth perception)

edit: oops, misplaced wireframe with monochrome

 

[KimB]

i didnt know it was monochrome, I acutally remember it being a 2.5D game (it was 2d pictures in 3d space- think street-fighter style but with depth perception)

I don't think we're talking about the same thing....unless it did offer a few more ways of displaying games. The game I played on it was fully 3D, all wireframe, and definitely monochrome.

 

[Sage]

hmm it may have been wireframe, I suppose. Remember I said that my friend was constantly hogging the thing and so I got, at most, maybe 5 minutes of play total. Also, I was quite young at the time and had certianly never even been presented with the concept of wireframe and my momory is likely off.

 

[Quitch]

Well, can mustrum tell us how these worked out, or can Bros (sorry, but I ain't typing all that out ) point me to the Rage3D thread?

 

[Snyder]

The Imax 3D films I've seen in the US used LCD shutter glasses, not polarized glasses.

Really? That's interesting - I only know the IMAX cinema here in Vienna, and they are definitely using polarisation filters. Wouldn't the LCD System be unnecessarily expensive on such a large scale? (Need to synchronize hundreds of glasses)

 

[tazdevl]

I'm amazed this thread has lasted as long as it has.

Not sure why ATI would waste resources building support for a feature that is literally used by an extreme minority of the already small enthusiast segment. Not to mention, these days I doubt anyone would perceive it as a key point of differentiation, since it has no practical value, if a AIB included it in a bundle. Most folks would most likely see it as a unnecessary expense, would have been smarter to just pass the savings on to the customer.

I did have a pair of Elsa's 3D Glasses that came with a GF2. If I remember correctly, it didn't require support with the chipset.

 

[Entropy]

I'm amazed this thread has lasted as long as it has.

Because other people may have other priorities?
Because 3D-technology discussions actually belong on the "3D Technology and Hardware" forum, regardless of how "enthusiasts" feel about them? (Enthusiast what exactly?)
Because there's a few people around that are actually interested in 3D-tech in a broader sense (rather than simply when Half-Life 2 is finally going to ship, running Aquamark in the mean time to alleviate the boredom)?

I'm sorry, but stereoscopic 3D has been around for over a century, and has been used in computer graphics for (at least) two decades. How long was it since the Voodoo1 was released? How long will it be until 3D-accellerators as we know them has become an integral part of of our computational devices, and a quaint footnote in the history of computing?

Stereoscopic 3D is the real thing. That's how we percieve the world, and eventually any virtual reality simulation will emulate it. The question is only how and when. These "PCs" that use "3D-cards" to show flattened projections are simply a passing fad.

 

[KimB]

Not sure why ATI would waste resources building support for a feature that is literally used by an extreme minority of the already small enthusiast segment.

They're used for things other than games.

Anyway, this is one of my longstanding gripes with ATI. If you want to do anything a bit out of the ordinary, it typically doesn't work very well (for me, that means Linux).

 

[FUDie]

Not sure why ATI would waste resources building support for a feature that is literally used by an extreme minority of the already small enthusiast segment.

They're used for things other than games.

Anyway, this is one of my longstanding gripes with ATI. If you want to do anything a bit out of the ordinary, it typically doesn't work very well (for me, that means Linux).

ATI doesn't support 3D glasses, heaven forbid! ATI never let's me have any fun. Can you be any more melodramatic?

Good grief, grow up already.

-FUDie

 

[3dcgi]

The Imax 3D films I've seen in the US used LCD shutter glasses, not polarized glasses.

Really? That's interesting - I only know the IMAX cinema here in Vienna, and they are definitely using polarisation filters. Wouldn't the LCD System be unnecessarily expensive on such a large scale? (Need to synchronize hundreds of glasses)

It is strange that Imax would use more than one method. Each pair of glasses was rather large and there was a sensor of some sort on them. I imagine there might have been an infrared pulse that it detected. That's just a guess though.

Not sure why ATI would waste resources building support for a feature that is literally used by an extreme minority of the already small enthusiast segment.

I'd guess that smart shader is a niche and Ati supports that. Stereo 3D is just another niche.

 

[gunblade]

Not sure why ATI would waste resources building support for a feature that is literally used by an extreme minority of the already small enthusiast segment.

They're used for things other than games.

Anyway, this is one of my longstanding gripes with ATI. If you want to do anything a bit out of the ordinary, it typically doesn't work very well (for me, that means Linux).

ATI doesn't support 3D glasses, heaven forbid! ATI never let's me have any fun. Can you be any more melodramatic?

Good grief, grow up already.

-FUDie

Well, I know it is a challenge to your manhood that your beloved company get criticized.
And I know Ati is doing pretty danm well right now. however, wouldn't it be better to take in suggestion on where they can improve upon to get even better?
3d stereo glass is a niche but it is useful in many level of rendering.