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

[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 with TrackIR....

or these Vuzix VR 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]

Originally Posted by r0bc

...
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SuperHD or whatever they'll call it) is definitely coming and any monitor or projector you can afford now will soon be superceded.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/showthr...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.

[r0bc]

Madfish I totally understand what your saying but just watch this

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfh...20hz-hdtv_tech

Originally Posted by Madfish

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.

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.