Why can't regular 60hz screens do shutter 3d games?
November 13, 2010 04:03 PM
I noticed my gts 250 has a 3d ready mode, I'm thinking about buying a $300 3d monitor today of the 120hz shutter glasses variety...currently I get 30-60 fps in most of the games I play, so I figure I'll either lower the settings or get 15-30 fps in real 3D. Since my screen already does 60hz/fps refresh rate, is there any way I can just buy shutter glasses and sync them to my screen? I mean I'll probably lower the settings to bring the frame rates up, however is there some sort of driver design that would allow active shutter glasses and a 60hz screen to do up to 30fps of real 3D? I mean 30fps for most games is okay, and if the glasses are only like $50 or something that would be great for trying it out and for most games, I'm probably going to end up getting a new video card too just so the 3D games run at 30+ fps with good quality, although I'll see if I can lower the settings to use the 30-60 range. ;p I heard black ops is made for 3D too and I think 3D 3D games will be really, really awesome. I did see avatar in 3D and was impressed, I hope the 3D screens look that good. :)
*-----------------------sig------------Visit my web site (Free source code and games!) @ http://SpaceRacer2025.blogspot.com--------------------------------------*
841
November 13, 2010 04:18 PM
I think it probably just isn't fast enough to maintain the illusion. Just because you can't notice a difference between 30-60hz image refreshing doesn't mean you won't notice the difference between lights flickering at 30-60hz.
If the shutters aren't fast enough, you're going to be able to notice them flickering on and off, which is going to be the equivalent of shining two bright out of phase strobe lights into each of your eyes. I believe strobing lights at this frequency can cause dizziness/nausea or even vomiting, so that's probably why nobody bothers with 3d on 60hz screens. I'm sure they would love to do it if they could get away with it (the screen is a huge barrier to entry for 3d gaming, so imagine the market potential if they could make it work on 60hz). I think it just doesn't work though.
If the shutters aren't fast enough, you're going to be able to notice them flickering on and off, which is going to be the equivalent of shining two bright out of phase strobe lights into each of your eyes. I believe strobing lights at this frequency can cause dizziness/nausea or even vomiting, so that's probably why nobody bothers with 3d on 60hz screens. I'm sure they would love to do it if they could get away with it (the screen is a huge barrier to entry for 3d gaming, so imagine the market potential if they could make it work on 60hz). I think it just doesn't work though.
[size=2]My Projects:
[size=2]Portfolio Map for Android - Free Visual Portfolio Tracker
[size=2]Electron Flux for Android - Free Puzzle/Logic Game
[size=2]Portfolio Map for Android - Free Visual Portfolio Tracker
[size=2]Electron Flux for Android - Free Puzzle/Logic Game
November 13, 2010 04:26 PM
Also I had an idea for a 3D windows desktop, it seems like you could fit a lot more open windows and icons in a 3D volumetric area and still have them all be viewable and accessable. Controls would be similar in that you could still alt-tab between flat windows arranged in a 3d space, although some 3D controls, possibly touch controls based loosely on a kinect/webcam or other 3d detection system would work good in addition to the classic controls, along with maybe using a mouse for x/z with the scrollwheel for y axis.
Also I tried the cheap & easy 3D mode that came with my video card, the red/blue glasses mode. It was black & white and amazingly ugly, yet also incredibly impressive. The only downside was my card didn't come with red/blue glasses, so I had to use an old creased up marked pair that appeared to be the wrong colors, and it was still impressive or at least motivational. :) I play a lot of first person games, and having focus depth really changes the way I can view and comprehend a new environment quickly. If you've ever gotten 'lost' in a 3d environment or had a hard time seeing a house for a collection of walls, I think 3D has the potential to really change that.
Also I tried the cheap & easy 3D mode that came with my video card, the red/blue glasses mode. It was black & white and amazingly ugly, yet also incredibly impressive. The only downside was my card didn't come with red/blue glasses, so I had to use an old creased up marked pair that appeared to be the wrong colors, and it was still impressive or at least motivational. :) I play a lot of first person games, and having focus depth really changes the way I can view and comprehend a new environment quickly. If you've ever gotten 'lost' in a 3d environment or had a hard time seeing a house for a collection of walls, I think 3D has the potential to really change that.
*-----------------------sig------------Visit my web site (Free source code and games!) @ http://SpaceRacer2025.blogspot.com--------------------------------------*
2,052
November 13, 2010 04:30 PM
I had the same idea, but the problem is that every second frame is black so the strobe effect (as karwosts already said) is really bad.
You can try it by swapping between a black and a non black surface with 60 fps and looking at it. It really isn't nice.
Here is my test code. You may want to change the resolution.
I don't take any responsibility for seizures and stuff ^^
About the 100Hz - 120Hz screens, we have one at work (including the nVidia shutters) and you can still slightly see the flickering. It is way better than 60Hz but still noticeable.
Also note, that a 100Hz/120Hz beamer might be a better choice, because the limited viewing angle of a monitor kind of breaks the illusion IMO.
You can try it by swapping between a black and a non black surface with 60 fps and looking at it. It really isn't nice.
Here is my test code. You may want to change the resolution.
I don't take any responsibility for seizures and stuff ^^
#include <cstdlib>#include <SDL.h>#include <GL/gl.h>int main ( int argc, char** argv ){ // initialize SDL video if ( SDL_Init( SDL_INIT_VIDEO ) < 0 ) { printf( "Unable to init SDL: %s\n", SDL_GetError() ); return 1; } // make sure SDL cleans up before exit atexit(SDL_Quit); SDL_GL_SetAttribute( SDL_GL_DOUBLEBUFFER, 1 ); SDL_GL_SetAttribute(SDL_GL_SWAP_CONTROL, 1); // create a new window SDL_Surface* screen = SDL_SetVideoMode(1600, 900, 32, SDL_OPENGL | SDL_FULLSCREEN); if ( !screen ) { printf("Unable to set 640x480 video: %s\n", SDL_GetError()); return 1; } // program main loop bool done = false; while (!done) { // message processing loop SDL_Event event; while (SDL_PollEvent(&event)) { // check for messages switch (event.type) { // exit if the window is closed case SDL_QUIT: done = true; break; // check for keypresses case SDL_KEYDOWN: { // exit if ESCAPE is pressed if (event.key.keysym.sym == SDLK_ESCAPE) done = true; break; } } // end switch } // end of message processing glClearColor(0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); glFlush(); SDL_GL_SwapBuffers(); glClearColor(1.0f, 0.75f, 0.1f, 0); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); glFlush(); SDL_GL_SwapBuffers(); } // end main loop // all is well ;) printf("Exited cleanly\n"); return 0;}About the 100Hz - 120Hz screens, we have one at work (including the nVidia shutters) and you can still slightly see the flickering. It is way better than 60Hz but still noticeable.
Also note, that a 100Hz/120Hz beamer might be a better choice, because the limited viewing angle of a monitor kind of breaks the illusion IMO.
607
November 15, 2010 12:23 AM
Although it is possible for a 60fps 3d system (although I am not sure if the current systems support it), a 100-120fps system is much better.
Even though we only need 24fps to get a sense of movment, our eyes can actually tell the difference between a 30 ro 60 fps flicker.
If you have the ability to do so on an old monitor (if your system supports it), you can turn down the refresh rate from 60fps to 30fps. When you do so, although you can still get the illusion of movement, it will seem more stuttering and you will have a greter flicker that you can see.
This flicker, after even a short period of time can cause eye strain and even a sense of nausea in some people (and this effect increases when ther is movement in the 3d scene).
So there is a real reason that 3D screens have opted for such high refresh rates as at a lower refresh rate the effect would be mared by potential eye strain and nausea in the person viewing it.
Even though we only need 24fps to get a sense of movment, our eyes can actually tell the difference between a 30 ro 60 fps flicker.
If you have the ability to do so on an old monitor (if your system supports it), you can turn down the refresh rate from 60fps to 30fps. When you do so, although you can still get the illusion of movement, it will seem more stuttering and you will have a greter flicker that you can see.
This flicker, after even a short period of time can cause eye strain and even a sense of nausea in some people (and this effect increases when ther is movement in the 3d scene).
So there is a real reason that 3D screens have opted for such high refresh rates as at a lower refresh rate the effect would be mared by potential eye strain and nausea in the person viewing it.
129
November 15, 2010 08:17 AM
The problem with current stereoscopic technology is that it lowers the brightness, in my opinion too severely to be worth it. If you figured out a way to keep your glasses and monitor in sync, it'd probably technically be effective but it'd also only be, at best, half as bright as your monitor is currently capable (and from what I've seen, they aren't working at best yet).
Besides that, people don't have much appreciation for subtler, even more effective types of simulating depth perception. It's been long well-known in the simulation community that you can make the image appear to have depth by mounting a Fresnel mirror in front of the monitor. This will not only increase the field of view, but also leave room for you to move your head a little bit without screwing up the image. Brightness is still reduced but by a much smaller amount.
Then there's also face-tracking technology, which allows you to use an ordinary webcam (or a hacked Kinect for better results) to keep track of the user's face and change the image on the monitor to resemble a window, so that when your face is closer to the screen the image expands, and when you move to the left, the angle displayed shows more of what's to the right of the screen, &c. This is a drastically more immersive effect than simply stereoscopifying the image, which forces the player into a rigid, unengaged pose.
Besides that, people don't have much appreciation for subtler, even more effective types of simulating depth perception. It's been long well-known in the simulation community that you can make the image appear to have depth by mounting a Fresnel mirror in front of the monitor. This will not only increase the field of view, but also leave room for you to move your head a little bit without screwing up the image. Brightness is still reduced but by a much smaller amount.
Then there's also face-tracking technology, which allows you to use an ordinary webcam (or a hacked Kinect for better results) to keep track of the user's face and change the image on the monitor to resemble a window, so that when your face is closer to the screen the image expands, and when you move to the left, the angle displayed shows more of what's to the right of the screen, &c. This is a drastically more immersive effect than simply stereoscopifying the image, which forces the player into a rigid, unengaged pose.
7,644
November 15, 2010 09:20 AM
Quote: Original post by Portugal Stew
The problem with current stereoscopic technology is that it lowers the brightness, in my opinion too severely to be worth it. If you figured out a way to keep your glasses and monitor in sync, it'd probably technically be effective but it'd also only be, at best, half as bright as your monitor is currently capable (and from what I've seen, they aren't working at best yet).
This isn't a problem with stereoscopic technology in general, its a problem with shutter glasses, there are steroscopic HMDs that work far better than shutter glasses, (and also gives you nice features such as head tracking), the problem with these is that they tend to be far more expensive (even cheap low resolution HMDs can cost around $400 and good ones cost anywhere from $1000 to over $10.000)
Prices and weights are dropping rapidly in the HMD area aswell though so i'd expect shutter glasses to pretty much disappear in the future.
[size="1"]I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
103
November 15, 2010 06:36 PM
they can, with some trickery :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Master_System#SegaScope_3-D_Glasses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Master_System#SegaScope_3-D_Glasses
2,001
November 15, 2010 07:20 PM
I was just about to mention the Sega Master System, as that used regular 60Hz CRT TVs (or eveb 50Hz in PAL regions). The flickering is noticeable and quite unpleasant after extended use, sadly.
LCDs emit linearly polarised light. LCD shutter glasses use LCD panels (naturally) which also include linear polarisers. Every LCD I have been able to try emits light at 90° to the polarisation of my shutter glasses, which means that the screen appears black unless you rotate it (or your head) through 90°.
A CRT will fairly transparently map the input signal to the output; whatever happens at the input is instantaneously displayed on its screen. LCDs do not seem to do this (there is some delay between what goes in and what's shown on the display) and as the glasses typically rely on the vsync pulse to synchronise themselves with what's currently on the screen they will not work. Even if you can get it to synchronise the ghosting is far worse (at least with my monitor) than with a CRT, resulting in double images.
I presume these expensive stereoscopic monitors address the above concerns. However, if you've got an old CRT kicking around then these can usually be driven at higher rates than standard LCDs (over 100Hz at lower resolutions) and don't suffer from the above issues. Building an adaptor for cheap glasses is relatively straightforward.
LCDs emit linearly polarised light. LCD shutter glasses use LCD panels (naturally) which also include linear polarisers. Every LCD I have been able to try emits light at 90° to the polarisation of my shutter glasses, which means that the screen appears black unless you rotate it (or your head) through 90°.
A CRT will fairly transparently map the input signal to the output; whatever happens at the input is instantaneously displayed on its screen. LCDs do not seem to do this (there is some delay between what goes in and what's shown on the display) and as the glasses typically rely on the vsync pulse to synchronise themselves with what's currently on the screen they will not work. Even if you can get it to synchronise the ghosting is far worse (at least with my monitor) than with a CRT, resulting in double images.
I presume these expensive stereoscopic monitors address the above concerns. However, if you've got an old CRT kicking around then these can usually be driven at higher rates than standard LCDs (over 100Hz at lower resolutions) and don't suffer from the above issues. Building an adaptor for cheap glasses is relatively straightforward.
[Website] [+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++]
703
November 15, 2010 08:28 PM
now that we're talking about 3d, what is your opinion on polarized monitor?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2779
http://www.3d-display-info.com/zalman-techs-polarized-22-3d-monitor-gets-reviewed
which if preferred? ghosting or flickering?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2779
http://www.3d-display-info.com/zalman-techs-polarized-22-3d-monitor-gets-reviewed
which if preferred? ghosting or flickering?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement