Will COD be stereographic 3D? Worth 3D monitor?

[DoolittleRaider]

In the 16 Sep update, Luthier presented stereo screenshots for those with compatible monitors. he indicates the team is 'playing around with' 3d. Could/willl COD be true stereographic (have the option??), or is this just a screenshot novelty/trick? I assume that if so, we are talking 'true' Stereo with the shutter glasses, not movie theater throw away type of 3d......am I correct?

I ask, in part, because I'm building a new Rig, first completely new build since 2007.

Considering various 'normal' 2D monitors...
From a current August 2011 Review of best 27" LED monitors:
Viewsonic VX2753MH (about $360) or Acer 27” S273HL ($280)

From that August review: Newest and best 27" 3D monitor: Acer HN274H BMIIID 3D 27-Inch LED Monitor
" We’ve been waiting for the release of Acer’s 3D LED monitor for a long time and now that it’s finally here it doesn’t disappoint. The Acer HN274H is the world’s first 27 inch LED monitor which is nVidia 3D-ready. It is somewhat on the expensive side however, this version actually comes with nVidia’s 3D vision glasses included which cost you around $150 if purchased separately. Expect to pay additional money for any monitor that is nVidia 3D ready." (about $665)

If COD incorporates, or will be incorporating, 3D, I might go for the 3D Acer. I don't expect to upgrade for at least 4 years.

Any comments/addvice will be appreciated.

[r0bc]

I have a Acer HN274H, its a good gaming monitor.

[Madfish]

Mh,

I recommend to do extensive self tests by watching 3d-movies. Try active and passive techniques, meaning shutter and color filtered glasses (anachromatic). The reason is simply that many people can't enjoy it over a longer timeframe - only maybe half an hour or so.

I must add something that many forget though: that is the basic image quality.
I wouldn't go for anything else then a PVA or IPS type panel. You will really notice the difference in image quality and colors.

By the way - many big studios announced they won't jump on the 3d train (not yet at least).
The 3d techniques currently used are actually very very old. In the days of half life 1 there was a trend for shutter based 3d as basically everyone had CRT screens that supported it due to their higher frequencies.
All current techniques will eventually die again - at least don't expect them to stay. They are way too geeky and failure prone. Many are not compatible and the technology is primitive.
There are new techniques on the horizon. For example autostereoskopic 3d and head up displays with "true" 3d.

But in the end it's up to you of course. :)

[r0bc]

But in the end it's up to you of course. :)

Your the only one that can say if its worth it.
I also have a Dell U2711 plus a 52 inch 3D TV in my bedroom.
I bought it more for the refresh rate then the 3D, the only game I've been playing in 3D is Deux Ex HR and it really looks stunning.
If the price is a big deal to you its hard to recommend a $600+ 1080p monitor but if you really want 3D and price don't bother you...it's up to you.

[warbirds]

Will be interesting for those that spend big bucks on 3d gear when the fad dies out like it did so many times in the past.

[robtek]

I wouldn't choose a proprietary technology!
I still have some old nvidia shutter glasses lying around that aren't usable anymore because there is no connector on the graphic card for them.
But they were really great with B17, the mighty eight.
If possible use a monitor for polarized glasses, i'd say.

[r0bc]

Will be interesting for those that spend big bucks on 3d gear when the fad dies out like it did so many times in the past.

Why interesting? Explain.
Some of the best TV's on the market are 3D regardless if you use the 3D part or not and you'd be hard pressed to find a high end TV without it....and the 120hz tn panels is still better then 60hz tn panels even without 3D.
Everything fades out. If you consider a few hundred dollars big bucks, don't buy it I guess.

[Madfish]

Why would a 120hz TN?! panel be better than a 60hz one?

Also my point was that TN panels aren't good at all. If you're looking for a good monitor it's way better to invest in an IPS or PVA panel type one than into a 120hz TN panel one.

TV's are also very bad computer screens. Response time is way too high and other things like ghosting etc are also common.
Aside from that not everyone is a TV addict. I can't even remember the last time I watched TV and to be honest I'm glad about it. Interestingly I'm not alone as many of my peers don't watch TV at all. So it's a bit weird to assume everyone will get 3d capable equipment to play computer games on anyways.

Aside from that I also have these ages old nvidia shutter glasses. It was disappointing to say the least.

Autostereoscopy or real HUD 3d yes - everything else is just a marketing gag for the industry to sell new devices. And interestingly it's always the same culprits... :-P

[snwkill]

Will be interesting for those that spend big bucks on 3d gear when the fad dies out like it did so many times in the past.


I don't think it will die out this time, the only thing is it might be improved upon, especially when glasses free 3d solutions start to become more mainstream... I have a 3d projector and it is one of the best upgrades I have done next to my SSD. Being able to watch 3d movies like you are in the theater is mind blowing.

Like others have said it has a bit to go for the gaming community, I get headaches in 2d with IL2, I couldn't imagine in 3d.

[r0bc]

Why would a 120hz TN?! panel be better than a 60hz one?

Also my point was that TN panels aren't good at all. If you're looking for a good monitor it's way better to invest in an IPS or PVA panel type one than into a 120hz TN panel one.

TV's are also very bad computer screens. Response time is way too high and other things like ghosting etc are also common.
Aside from that not everyone is a TV addict. I can't even remember the last time I watched TV and to be honest I'm glad about it. Interestingly I'm not alone as many of my peers don't watch TV at all. So it's a bit weird to assume everyone will get 3d capable equipment to play computer games on anyways.

Aside from that I also have these ages old nvidia shutter glasses. It was disappointing to say the least.

Autostereoscopy or real HUD 3d yes - everything else is just a marketing gag for the industry to sell new devices. And interestingly it's always the same culprits... :-P

I'm not going to argue TN vs IPS......I have 2 IPS panels in house and sit in front of them at work. The quality can't be beat but I game on a TN panel and I prefer how smooth things seem with 120hz.

I don't assume everyone will get 3d capable equipment but a lot of TV's now have 3D as a feature, like internet and apps....its just there and some people still watch TV. In fact 3D is being adopted faster the HD was, I guess because its just that a feature.....and yes the glasses are dumb no one likes them....but thats what we currently have.

TV's really aren't bad computer screens,I wouldn't use it in my office but I have a HTPC connected to my TV( 7+TB Blu Ray ISO's and counting) save all F1 races to disk and even play some games but only ones I can lay back and play with a xbox controller...it works damn good.

I want 4K

[ATAG_Bliss]

I wonder if this means we are finally going to get a nvidia profile in the near future?

Proper SLI / FSAA etc?

[gonk]

maybe these Sony 3d Headset (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/31/sony-3d-headset-750-inch-_n_942925.html) with TrackIR (http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/)....

or these Vuzix VR (http://www.vuzix.com/consumer/products_wrap_1200vr.html) on their own will be worth trying....:-)

[Osprey]

I think some people are underestimating this, I don't think it's a gimmic. I have used VR goggles and 3D in FSX (I think it was FSX) and it is amazing - you have a very nice depth perception so it'll help to judge distances.

I'd rather have a pair of hi res VR goggles though.

[nearmiss]

3D first introduced in 1915

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_film

The film house of wax was released in 1953 - 3D

Red and Blue images onto of each other with outlines parallel to each other

The red lens on eye and the blue lens the other eye.

Gives you feel of 3d, but it actually makes some people just want to puke.

After you watch it for awhile it can create nausea

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045888/

The sad part is... there is nothing fixed or improved.

Same old same old

I wouldn't pay much attention to it, until you start reading some competent reviews. (not paid for reviews)

[Les]

...
I want 4K

lol, I was just going to say something about 4K and in the last sentence of the thread someone mentions it.

4K for the masses is going to start arriving next year, and will be called SuperHD or some such thing. The technology has been ready to go for at least a couple of years but has been held back while the media giants suck as much money out of 1080p as they can.

For those who don't know, current HD is roughly 2K (1920x1080 for example), while 4K is somewhere around double that (3840 x 2160 for example).

I haven't heard about any 4K computer monitors that are being worked on, but I haven't been looking either. I have heard though of an affordable, 3D capable, 4K projector that's being developed by the 'RED' company. This projector will require the use of 'passive' 3D glasses (like used in cinema's), not the 'active' shutter-type glasses that the mainstream media giants are still pushing.

Anyway, the point is, 4K (or SuperHD or whatever they'll call it) is definitely coming and any monitor or projector you can afford now will soon be superceded. Not that it matters if you need to buy a monitor now.

For me personally, I'd put overall image quality above novelty features like 3D. That means I wouldn't buy any of the monitors the OP mentions, and would try to find an affordable IPS panel, like one of the DELL Supersharp's or the Hazro's mentioned in this thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25658

I replaced a TN monitor with an IPS panel a couple of years ago when I found a 27" model on sale, and when put side by side, the difference in the accuracy of the colours was jaw-dropping.

Having said that though, the IPS panels are usually a lot more expensive than the TN panels and that price difference can be hard to justify if all you want to do is use the monitor for gaming or general computer use. So, in that case I would in fact go with one of the 120Hz TN panels. Keeping in mind that the latest ones that use LED backing lights and have fast response times can sometimes be just as expensive as the cheaper IPS panels that have better colour reproduction.

As always, it comes down to researching what's available, then deciding what features you prefer, and what you can afford. Everyone's preferences and circumstances are different at any given time, so there's no easy answer for this kind of thing.

A final note about the 3D thing as it applies to Cliffs Of Dover. If all they're talking about in the recent update thread is nVidia 3D (though I don't think they are), I hope they've sorted out the issues highlighted by the last set of pictures posted in this thread - http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25422&page=4

[r0bc]

Yeah I can't wait for 4k....its getting closer thats for sure.
For the record I'm not the biggest fan of 3D but I am a fan of 120hz.
Try watching racing at 120hz or any fast paced sport...hell even a action movie and you'll see what I mean.

[Madfish]

r0bc, I'm wondering, why do you assume that 120hz is so great? I don't get it - especially when talking about 3d and flat screens. Technologically that's not making sense.

You need 120mhz for shutter based 3d only and that is because it will degrade any 120hz display to a 60hz one due to swapping the images per frame. You gain nothing by using a 120hz display as it's a regular 60hz display - the opposite really: because the image doesn't just "progess" (in motion) but needs to be swapped out and replaced the effects of low response time panels is much more pronounced.

If you don't use 3d then it still mostly depends on your actual FPS and the panels response time.
Seeing how consoles are framelocked and most computers don't exceed 60fps anyways it's basically pointless to have a theoretical 120fps available because the source of the image can't deliver 120 frames, only 60 or less.
All "regular" image formats (tv, dvd, blueray etc.) and as mentioned games (console, pc varies but usually also around or lower than 60fps) are FPS based and in gaming the response time of the display is way more of a limiting factor.
The refresh rate has nothing to do with image quality and it doesn't matter if it's fast paced sport or whatever.

This said I will agree that 120hz is a trend, because it sells, and thus newer displays will most likely be developed with this in mind. In other words many good screens coming out do have 120hz because many customers expect it. But them being so good is not because they are 120hz models - it's just because they are "new types".


I don't want to make 120hz look silly - it's just odd that so many people confuse the theoretical number with what can actually be provided by the sources. Traditionally the frequency is also a bandwidth variable - and I don't see the bandwidth of non-3d media rising - only for 3d media and that will halve it again back to 60. Even worse: while traditional 60hz flat screens are without flicker that's not the case anymore for 3d as the continuous swapping often results in ghosting and blurring which then often leads to feeling dizzy or getting a headache. :-P

[r0bc]

Madfish I totally understand what your saying but just watch this

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfhydb_60hz-vs-120hz-hdtv_tech


Seeing how consoles are framelocked and most computers don't exceed 60fps anyways it's basically pointless to have a theoretical 120fps available because the source of the image can't deliver 120 frames,

A lot of PC's can deliver 120fps but I've never owned a modern console

[Madfish]

What you're saying may be correct for a few games but all the new titles usually tend to completely maxing out the newest hardware.

But then again, if you hit 60fps in a game under ALL circumstances (numbers of enemies, big maps etc.) you might as well just framelock the game as everything beyond that is literally waste of electricity as the human eye can only interpret about 30fps - but that is not a fixed number as the human eye doesn't see in frames (chemical reactions based on stimuli). So let's give an additional buffer of another 30fps and you should be fine.
At least you don't need 1295 frames per second and many games use framelocks to avoid exactly that. Beyond 60frames there is a lot you can improve - but the framerate is not important - the human eye wouldn't be able to see it at all.
Also a lot of games these days are multiplatform titles and thus inherit the 60frames lock of their console brothers and sisters.

Also please keep in mind that from 60fps on the limiting factor in gaming is not the display but actually mouse- and inputlag, the response time of your display and also in online gaming your ping. I have played fast paced shooters for a long long time, including quake 3 arena (rocket arena to be precise) and others. While there is a myth of the more FPS the better there is much more to it - e.g. the criteria mentioned above.




That said let me say something regarding the video you posted. I had to search because your link wasn't working (for me at least) but I found it. The guy in that video is pretty famous for pretending to be an expert - which he isn't. He messed up on a lot of occasions and I also disagree with his explanation here. In fact he messed up once again.

The 3:2 pulldown has a completely different origin. It's necessary to convert cinema material to the american television standard NTSC. Basically converting from 24 frames to 29,97 NTSC frames and preparing them for the line scan CRT screens of the past.
The problem is that this can't even be done on plasma, lcd and even modern 100hz CRT screens anymore as they use progressive images and can't display half images at all.
That said the method he eventually wanted to talk about is the 2:2 pull down.


That aside there is some truth to it. However, it's questionable at the core. The reason is simple: first of all you would have to raise the question of compatibility. For example PAL vs NTSC - pal uses 25 frames... and many sources are NTSC and PAL. Also keep in mind that only a fraction of the globe, literally only US, Mexico and Canada uses NTSC. Also there is SECAM although it dies out...

The fundamental issue however is that you don't need 120 hz :) All you need is a display that has a 24p mode. In other words: it SLOWS itself down to 24frames per second instead of 60 or even more. And honestly, you won't see any difference. The movie just can't get faster.

Further 3D would be basically pointless as you'd require 240 instead of 120hz. Otherwise you'd run into the same problem once again.

So, you see? There is more behind the curtain. Sadly it's really just a marketing gag until now.
- no value in gaming
- no value in 24p mode either as even 60hz displays can display that just fine
- inherits the "theoretical" (because you don't need to swap images with 60hz) problems of 60hz screens combined with the real problems of older CRT screens when in 3D mode

Also keep in mind that there are no IPS 120hz panels out there (at least non that I know of) so far.
So what's better then? A fake 120hz with mediocre colors or a great panel with awesome colors? I'm sold on the latter to be honest. :-P

Sorry for the lenghty post but it's very hard to explain the technical issues behind all this 120hz fuzz.

[r0bc]

If you were refering to Patrick yes I agree but Robert is a pretty smart guy. Disagree if you like and I think he mentioned 3:2 pulldown because we use NTSC .
The Anti-Judder and Motion Smoothing/motion interpolation on 120hz/240hz TV's works, it isn't perfect but I think the image for the most part has a smoother motion and certain content like racing looks amazing. If you don't agree...thats fine,some like it and some can't stand it, whatever.

On my PC just by dragging windows around my desktop from one monitor to the other I see the difference and its noticeable in games, everything looks more fluid but your trying to tell me it can't be.

In games everyone can see the differance between 30fps and 60fps and I'd bet money you would see the difference between 60 and 120.
I don't no what PC games your refering to that are frame locked...I can't think of any and I don't think many new titles are maxing the newest hardware, most games are crappy ports. I checked my Steam account. Only 1 out of the last 10 games I bought can't get 120fps(guess) and new hardware is just around the corner.

[Madfish]

I understand what you're saying but it is again a bit mixed up.

What you describe is a simple response time issue and has nothing to do with the hz at all.
You can simply prove that by setting a CRT screen to 60hz and do the comparison with an LCD screen. The CRT will ALWAYS be smoother and more direct at 60hz, or even lower, than any lcd / plasma technology out there, no matter if 60, 120 or 240 hz.
Yes, it flickers but it has no input lag! Input lags and panel response times are the most important factors and they are caused by internal electronics of the screens or the inheritance of the panel types itself. Hence we have all that overdrive etc. working so differently in many panels. Like I said, I agree that newer screens are often better but that's not because of 120 or 240hz - a CRT screen will beat any lcd/plasma out there even on 60hz when it comes to input lag.

The hz itself is just the theoretical capability of the controller if you will - that however doesn't change anything about the panels response time.
You can simply imagine that the panel is your screen and the controller is your GPU - meaning just because you have a 120hz screen doesn't mean it get's fed with 120fps. The same goes for the "display internal" affair and that is why so many people misunderstand the underlaying issue. It's also a reason why there aren't any PVA or IPS 240hz and eventually even 120hz displays out there because these panel types still fight a little with response time compared to TN panel types.

Also, as I pointed out, 3:2 pd has nothing to do with NTSC at all. The method does not work with lcd, plasma and 100hz CRT screens. He simply messed up (or rather his team as he's probably just a host.
Also please keep in mind that only a fraction of the consumed media is 24p. Most of it is being recorded at completely different frame rates. Even if it's compiled to 24p in production it doesn't change that problem. This goes for 99% of all online media e.g. and probably the largest majority of all TV.

What I'm trying so say is that most people compare apples and bananas. They mix different panel types, refresh rates, frame rates, input lag and other variables. That's not an opinion but merely a technological fact at this point.

120hz 3D introduces the same issues CRT had about 15 years ago, which is flickering. 240hz resolves that a bit but currently it means having a mediocre display in terms of colors etc.
However, that has nothing to do with the smoothness of an image itself and especially the lag issues you describe.

As for games you still confuse this. Yes, there is a difference between a 30fps and 60fps game, I never said otherwise. The issue is most confuse FPS with input lag. Also from 60fps it's only a marginal effect and more of a myth than truth.
In gaming the most problematic issue are sustained frames without ANY negative spikes, lags or stuttering. The human eye is literally incapable of responding much faster than 30"fps".
The issue most people have is that your pc can e.g. deliver 66 fps and is MAXED OUT doing so it will obviously lead to problems because it's under full load! If you now lock the FPS at 60 it means the pc doesn't need to render the extra 6 frames and makes headroom for smoother inputs e.g. etc. So of course, the lower the fps are on a system that doesn't lock the frames it means it will always be maxed out.
The same goes for switching to a computer that is capable of displaying 240 frames per second. It's obvious that this machine is maxed out as well but has more headroom for the overall system functions. Thus you have reduced lags from the components.

It's like driving your car at the most extreme - you can't do that while running your air conditioner e.g. Yes, it doesn't take away MUCH but it's still measurable. And the same issue is with computers and their input / output operation performance. But the effect of air conditioning is less pronounced on a 1200hp machine than on a 20hp machine. It's simple physics.

I do agree that eventually the general technology will progress towards 120 and 240 frame environments but to be honest from 120hz on it's complete nonsense. 60 is already a pretty good buffer, visually, but from 120 on it's just a marketing gag. Unless you want true 3d. Also it'd mean we need MUCH more capable GPU's while also lowering the progress of most games. Maybe some dedicated freaks tune their machines to play even the newest games with more than 120fps but I doubt it's possible. Just think of Crysis - NO ONE was able to max out the game at the time of release. And it's not because of a shitty engine. :-P

That is why I say that:
- For true 3D you don't want 120hz: You want 240. Not only because of the 60/60 but because the constant image swapping is actually worse than just a fluid image.
- Currently you need to sacrifice a great deal of image quality, being colors and the visual angle stability, as there are no PVA and IPS type panels that support 120 and 240 hz!

So right now I wouldn't recommend anyone getting these displays unless he plans to use them in a low quality environment, e.g. a status display or whatever. It's just not worth it, only if you want to support the companies poor design attempts until they get proper panel types with true usable 240fps out there.
At least in my opinion one has to be aware of the fact that you're getting a low quality display with more theoretical numbers than real world performance for a much higher price and they will be outdated soon again anyways.

[DrSanchez]

@Madfish

"Smoothness" doesn't have anything to do with response time or input lag (which are different things alltogether).

It is very possible for a 120hz display to look smoother than a 60hz display when the source material (game) is running at, say, 50fps. Consider that the 120hz display has twice the update resolution of a 60hz display and therefore the display can grab the contents of the framebuffer at a more accurate time. Of course this does not matter so much if the source material is a movie since the time between frame updates does not change and your media player is likely performing a 3:2 pulldown on the material anyway.

Regarding 3:2 pulldown. This is absolutely applicable to NTSC and yes it does work with LCD and plasma displays and has nothing to do with displaying half frames. In fact most modern LCD displays ONLY operate at 60fps regardless of the input source. try and plug a PAL ps2 into your tasty new LCD and you will see this in action. Most displays on the market will do the pulldown internally rather than switch to a true 50hz (PAL) mode. Not an ideal situation if you like old games like me.