Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread Stan Zaske 
Amazing, didn't know they were that close to releasing sets you don't 
need glasses for. Now that's what I call 3D. Still, the point made 
earlier about the lack of content is a good one. There will have to be a 
signifigant percentage of households that have 3D sets for that to 
change. Probably a lot more expensive to film too.



On 1/15/2010 10:32 AM, Robert Martin Jr. wrote:

The last E3 some of us went to had 3D TV that looked good without glasses and 
from angles up to about 40-45 degrees. It looked like the images were sticking 
out from the screen about 4-6 feet when viewed from about 15 feet away. I 
thought it was really cool and am not sure how they did that one.

lopaka





From: "tmse...@rlrnews.com"
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 7:41:02 AM
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

I think we're a long way from that.  I think the only time would be with 
specific bluerays as nothing is being put out over the air in true 1080p, let 
alone the enhanced bandwidth you'd need.


Sent via BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Anthony Q. Martin"
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:38:55
To:
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

I saw avatar...with the glasses.  Great movie.  However, I would not
want to have to wear glasses all the time to watch TV...if you can get
the 3D effect without glasses, then I'm all for 3D TV. But I ain't, as a
general rule, going to wear those stoopid glasses to stare at the idiot
boxhmmm...well, now that i put it that way... :)

On 1/15/2010 10:24 AM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:
   

Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
Sent via BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Stan Zaske
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32
To:
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have
glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.


On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:

 

yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.

I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
watch the screen head on.

Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
were battery powered with an on/off switch.

In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.


On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawjwrote:


   

Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
company for
>$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
>uncomfortable to
wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and


 

such


   

where
glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
trivia, you tend
to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
movies as props. ;)

Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
polarized glass
which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
be a happy
camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons


 

that


   

it sucks
for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
course I
refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!

On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:


 

This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so


   

what're


   

your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has


   

been


   

around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do


   

3d;


   

see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
<http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5274> &t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are


   

one


   

of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with
the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka
TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
<http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2&cat=1&page=1>
&cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while,


   

and


   

having it no

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread Stan Zaske 
Nope but I understand it's incredible 3D or no 3D. Not putting 3D down 
just saying it will be a long while before it matures. Getting rid of 
the necessity of wearing glasses will be a major step for those of us 
with prescription lens and no contacts. :-)



On 1/15/2010 9:24 AM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:

Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
Sent via BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Stan Zaske
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32
To:
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have
glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.


On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:
   

yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.

I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
watch the screen head on.

Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
were battery powered with an on/off switch.

In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.


On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj   wrote:

 

Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
company for
   >$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
   >uncomfortable to
wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and

   

such

 

where
glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
trivia, you tend
to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
movies as props. ;)

Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
polarized glass
which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
be a happy
camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons

   

that

 

it sucks
for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
course I
refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!

On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:

   

This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so

 

what're

 

your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has

 

been

 

around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do

 

3d;

 

see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
<http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5274>&t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are

 

one

 

of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with
the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka
TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
<http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2&cat=1&page=1>
&cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while,

 

and

 

having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last
couple
years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).


And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that
hard; I
played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.



Anyway, thoughts?




BINO

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread Anthony Q. Martin 
Ok...I can get on-board with that...thing is, no one on TV or new made 
any mention of this aspect of 3D TV...leaving the non-E3 person thinking 
it was just with glasses...and then when people mention wearing glasses, 
it just throws you back to dorky. I think what lopaka is talking about 
is way coolthough I'm not buying a new TV until my Samsung dies an 
ugly death.


On 1/15/2010 11:32 AM, Robert Martin Jr. wrote:

The last E3 some of us went to had 3D TV that looked good without glasses and 
from angles up to about 40-45 degrees. It looked like the images were sticking 
out from the screen about 4-6 feet when viewed from about 15 feet away. I 
thought it was really cool and am not sure how they did that one.

lopaka





From: "tmse...@rlrnews.com"
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 7:41:02 AM
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

I think we're a long way from that.  I think the only time would be with 
specific bluerays as nothing is being put out over the air in true 1080p, let 
alone the enhanced bandwidth you'd need.


Sent via BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Anthony Q. Martin"
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:38:55
To:
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

I saw avatar...with the glasses.  Great movie.  However, I would not
want to have to wear glasses all the time to watch TV...if you can get
the 3D effect without glasses, then I'm all for 3D TV. But I ain't, as a
general rule, going to wear those stoopid glasses to stare at the idiot
boxhmmm...well, now that i put it that way... :)

On 1/15/2010 10:24 AM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:
   

Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
Sent via BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Stan Zaske
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32
To:
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have
glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.


On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:

 

yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.

I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
watch the screen head on.

Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
were battery powered with an on/off switch.

In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.


On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawjwrote:


   

Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
company for
>$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
>uncomfortable to
wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and


 

such


   

where
glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
trivia, you tend
to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
movies as props. ;)

Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
polarized glass
which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
be a happy
camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons


 

that


   

it sucks
for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
course I
refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!

On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:


 

This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so


   

what're


   

your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has


   

been


   

around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do


   

3d;


   

see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
<http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5274> &t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are


   

one


   

of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with
the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka
TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
<http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2&cat=1&page=1>
&cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while,

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread Robert Martin Jr. 
The last E3 some of us went to had 3D TV that looked good without glasses and 
from angles up to about 40-45 degrees. It looked like the images were sticking 
out from the screen about 4-6 feet when viewed from about 15 feet away. I 
thought it was really cool and am not sure how they did that one.

lopaka





From: "tmse...@rlrnews.com" 
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 7:41:02 AM
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

I think we're a long way from that.  I think the only time would be with 
specific bluerays as nothing is being put out over the air in true 1080p, let 
alone the enhanced bandwidth you'd need. 


Sent via BlackBerry 

-Original Message-
From: "Anthony Q. Martin" 
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:38:55 
To: 
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

I saw avatar...with the glasses.  Great movie.  However, I would not 
want to have to wear glasses all the time to watch TV...if you can get 
the 3D effect without glasses, then I'm all for 3D TV. But I ain't, as a 
general rule, going to wear those stoopid glasses to stare at the idiot 
boxhmmm...well, now that i put it that way... :)

On 1/15/2010 10:24 AM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:
> Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
> Sent via BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stan Zaske
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32
> To:
> Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?
>
> In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have
> glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.
>
>
> On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:
>
>> yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.
>>
>> I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
>> Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
>> the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
>> Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
>> watch the screen head on.
>>
>> Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
>> What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
>> were battery powered with an on/off switch.
>>
>> In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
>> gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
>> 3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj   wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
>>> company for
>>>>$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
>>>>uncomfortable to
>>> wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and
>>>
>>>
>> such
>>
>>  
>>> where
>>> glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
>>> trivia, you tend
>>> to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
>>> movies as props. ;)
>>>
>>> Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
>>> polarized glass
>>> which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
>>> be a happy
>>> camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons
>>>
>>>
>> that
>>
>>  
>>> it sucks
>>> for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
>>> course I
>>> refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so
>>>>
>>>>  
>> what're
>>
>>  
>>>> your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has
>>>>
>>>>  
>> been
>>
>>  
>>>> around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do
>>>>
>>>>  
>> 3d;
>>
>>  
>>>> see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
>>>> something I think I remember hearing about) :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3 
>>>> <http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread tmservo 
I'm aware of that. And the launch of espn3d.  Still, that's a drop in the 
bucket to airable content.  No studio has committed resources to any ota 
broadcasts.  

Which means no primetime or standard broadcasting or content.  

Sent via BlackBerry 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Weeden 
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:52:21 
To: hardware
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

I think you should go back and check out what happened at CES last week.
DirectTV has announced they will be broadcasting 3D channels starting in
March via the new satellite they just launched:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/article.jsp?assetId=P666

Sony announced that the PS3 will be able to play 3D Blu Rays:

http://gizmodo.com/5442019/sonys-bravia-led-lcd-hdtv-lineup-xbr+lx900-and-xbr+hx900-go-3d-and-wi+fi-abounds

A roundup of a lot of the 3D technology shown at CES is here:

http://hdguru3d.com/

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM,  wrote:

> I think we're a long way from that.  I think the only time would be with
> specific bluerays as nothing is being put out over the air in true 1080p,
> let alone the enhanced bandwidth you'd need.
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Anthony Q. Martin" 
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:38:55
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?
>
> I saw avatar...with the glasses.  Great movie.  However, I would not
> want to have to wear glasses all the time to watch TV...if you can get
> the 3D effect without glasses, then I'm all for 3D TV. But I ain't, as a
> general rule, going to wear those stoopid glasses to stare at the idiot
> boxhmmm...well, now that i put it that way... :)
>
> On 1/15/2010 10:24 AM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:
> > Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
> > Sent via BlackBerry
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stan Zaske
> > Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?
> >
> > In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have
> > glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.
> >
> >
> > On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:
> >
> >> yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.
> >>
> >> I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
> >> Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was
> to
> >> the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
> >> Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
> >> watch the screen head on.
> >>
> >> Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
> >> What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
> >> were battery powered with an on/off switch.
> >>
> >> In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that
> its
> >> gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for
> its
> >> 3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with
> one.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now
> dead
> >>> company for
> >>>>$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
> >>>>uncomfortable to
> >>> wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and
> >>>
> >>>
> >> such
> >>
> >>
> >>> where
> >>> glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
> >>> trivia, you tend
> >>> to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
> >>> movies as props. ;)
> >>>
> >>> Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
> >>> polarized glass
> >>> which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and
> I'd
> >>> be a happy
> >>> camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons
> >>>
> >>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>
> >>> it sucks
> >>> for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target.
> Of
> &g

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread Brian Weeden 
I think you should go back and check out what happened at CES last week.
DirectTV has announced they will be broadcasting 3D channels starting in
March via the new satellite they just launched:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/article.jsp?assetId=P666

Sony announced that the PS3 will be able to play 3D Blu Rays:

http://gizmodo.com/5442019/sonys-bravia-led-lcd-hdtv-lineup-xbr+lx900-and-xbr+hx900-go-3d-and-wi+fi-abounds

A roundup of a lot of the 3D technology shown at CES is here:

http://hdguru3d.com/

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM,  wrote:

> I think we're a long way from that.  I think the only time would be with
> specific bluerays as nothing is being put out over the air in true 1080p,
> let alone the enhanced bandwidth you'd need.
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Anthony Q. Martin" 
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:38:55
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?
>
> I saw avatar...with the glasses.  Great movie.  However, I would not
> want to have to wear glasses all the time to watch TV...if you can get
> the 3D effect without glasses, then I'm all for 3D TV. But I ain't, as a
> general rule, going to wear those stoopid glasses to stare at the idiot
> boxhmmm...well, now that i put it that way... :)
>
> On 1/15/2010 10:24 AM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:
> > Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
> > Sent via BlackBerry
> >
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Stan Zaske
> > Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?
> >
> > In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have
> > glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.
> >
> >
> > On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:
> >
> >> yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.
> >>
> >> I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
> >> Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was
> to
> >> the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
> >> Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
> >> watch the screen head on.
> >>
> >> Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
> >> What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
> >> were battery powered with an on/off switch.
> >>
> >> In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that
> its
> >> gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for
> its
> >> 3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with
> one.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now
> dead
> >>> company for
> >>>>$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
> >>>>uncomfortable to
> >>> wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and
> >>>
> >>>
> >> such
> >>
> >>
> >>> where
> >>> glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
> >>> trivia, you tend
> >>> to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
> >>> movies as props. ;)
> >>>
> >>> Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
> >>> polarized glass
> >>> which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and
> I'd
> >>> be a happy
> >>> camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons
> >>>
> >>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>
> >>> it sucks
> >>> for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target.
> Of
> >>> course I
> >>> refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!
> >>>
> >>> On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> what're
> >

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread tmservo 
I think we're a long way from that.  I think the only time would be with 
specific bluerays as nothing is being put out over the air in true 1080p, let 
alone the enhanced bandwidth you'd need. 


Sent via BlackBerry 

-Original Message-
From: "Anthony Q. Martin" 
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:38:55 
To: 
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

I saw avatar...with the glasses.  Great movie.  However, I would not 
want to have to wear glasses all the time to watch TV...if you can get 
the 3D effect without glasses, then I'm all for 3D TV. But I ain't, as a 
general rule, going to wear those stoopid glasses to stare at the idiot 
boxhmmm...well, now that i put it that way... :)

On 1/15/2010 10:24 AM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:
> Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
> Sent via BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stan Zaske
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32
> To:
> Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?
>
> In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have
> glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.
>
>
> On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:
>
>> yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.
>>
>> I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
>> Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
>> the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
>> Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
>> watch the screen head on.
>>
>> Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
>> What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
>> were battery powered with an on/off switch.
>>
>> In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
>> gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
>> 3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj   wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
>>> company for
>>>>$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
>>>>uncomfortable to
>>> wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and
>>>
>>>
>> such
>>
>>  
>>> where
>>> glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
>>> trivia, you tend
>>> to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
>>> movies as props. ;)
>>>
>>> Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
>>> polarized glass
>>> which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
>>> be a happy
>>> camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons
>>>
>>>
>> that
>>
>>  
>>> it sucks
>>> for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
>>> course I
>>> refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so
>>>>
>>>>  
>> what're
>>
>>  
>>>> your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has
>>>>
>>>>  
>> been
>>
>>  
>>>> around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do
>>>>
>>>>  
>> 3d;
>>
>>  
>>>> see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
>>>> something I think I remember hearing about) :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
>>>> <http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5274>&t=5274
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are
>>>>
>>>>  
>> one
>>
>>  
>>>> of
>>>> the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with
>>>> the
>>>> addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka
>>>> TriDef at

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread Anthony Q. Martin 
I saw avatar...with the glasses.  Great movie.  However, I would not 
want to have to wear glasses all the time to watch TV...if you can get 
the 3D effect without glasses, then I'm all for 3D TV. But I ain't, as a 
general rule, going to wear those stoopid glasses to stare at the idiot 
boxhmmm...well, now that i put it that way... :)


On 1/15/2010 10:24 AM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote:

Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
Sent via BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Stan Zaske
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32
To:
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have
glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.


On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:
   

yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.

I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
watch the screen head on.

Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
were battery powered with an on/off switch.

In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.


On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj   wrote:

 

Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
company for
   >$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
   >uncomfortable to
wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and

   

such

 

where
glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
trivia, you tend
to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
movies as props. ;)

Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
polarized glass
which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
be a happy
camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons

   

that

 

it sucks
for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
course I
refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!

On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:

   

This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so

 

what're

 

your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has

 

been

 

around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do

 

3d;

 

see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
<http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5274>&t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are

 

one

 

of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with
the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka
TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
<http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2&cat=1&page=1>
&cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while,

 

and

 

having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last
couple
years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).


And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that
hard; I
played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.



Anyway, thoughts?




BINO





 


 




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 
02:35:00

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread tmservo 
Have you seen avatar yet, you know, with the glasses?  :)
Sent via BlackBerry 

-Original Message-
From: Stan Zaske 
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:19:32 
To: 
Subject: Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have 
glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.


On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:
> yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.
>
> I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
> Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
> the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
> Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
> watch the screen head on.
>
> Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
> What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
> were battery powered with an on/off switch.
>
> In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
> gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
> 3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj  wrote:
>
>> Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
>> company for
>>   >$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
>>   >uncomfortable to
>> wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and
>>  
> such
>
>> where
>> glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
>> trivia, you tend
>> to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
>> movies as props. ;)
>>
>> Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
>> polarized glass
>> which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
>> be a happy
>> camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons
>>  
> that
>
>> it sucks
>> for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
>> course I
>> refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!
>>
>> On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:
>>  
>>> This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so
>>>
> what're
>
>>> your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has
>>>
> been
>
>>> around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do
>>>
> 3d;
>
>>> see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
>>> something I think I remember hearing about) :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
>>> <http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5274>   &t=5274
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are
>>>
> one
>
>>> of
>>> the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with
>>> the
>>> addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka
>>> TriDef at
>>> http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
>>> <http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2&cat=1&page=1>
>>> &cat=1&page=1
>>> ).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while,
>>>
> and
>
>>> having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last
>>> couple
>>> years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).
>>>
>>>
>>> And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that
>>> hard; I
>>> played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
>>> headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
>>> Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BINO
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread Stan Zaske 
In other words, it's still not ready for prime time. If you have to have 
glasses for the 3D effect then the tech is still too immature IMHO.



On 1/15/2010 4:31 AM, Alex wrote:

yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.

I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
watch the screen head on.

Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours.
What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
were battery powered with an on/off switch.

In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.


On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj  wrote:
   

Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
company for
  >$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
  >uncomfortable to
wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and
 

such
   

where
glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
trivia, you tend
to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
movies as props. ;)

Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
polarized glass
which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
be a happy
camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons
 

that
   

it sucks
for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
course I
refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!

On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:
 

This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so
   

what're
   

your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has
   

been
   

around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do
   

3d;
   

see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
   &t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are
   

one
   

of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with
the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka
TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2

&cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while,
   

and
   

having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last
couple
years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).


And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that
hard; I
played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.



Anyway, thoughts?




BINO

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread Alex 

yea, 3D was the big thing at CES this year, couldn't get away from it.

I took the time to check out all the offerings from the major players.
Besides the quirky pop-up effect, what struck me was how limited it was to
the exact screen size, no more.  So it's not exactly like the IMAX 3D
Avatar experience you had in the cinema. You get the 3D-ness only if you
watch the screen head on.

Another thing is your eyes will adjust to the 3D after a couple hours. 
What's the point of wearing the dorky glasses after that?  Most glasses
were battery powered with an on/off switch.

In any case, they appear to be pushing it hard but my opinion is that its
gimmicky.  better to invest in a better TV screen than to pick one for its
3D qualities.  Those glasses arent cheap and most units only ship with one.


On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:16:47 -0800, maccrawj  wrote:
> Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead
> company for 
>  >$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really
>  >uncomfortable to
> wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and
such
> where 
> glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny
> trivia, you tend 
> to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi
> movies as props. ;)
> 
> Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's
> polarized glass 
> which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd
> be a happy 
> camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons
that
> it sucks 
> for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of
> course I 
> refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!
> 
> On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:
>> This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so
what're
>> your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has
been
>> around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do
3d;
>> see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
>> something I think I remember hearing about) :
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
>>   &t=5274
>>
>>
>>
>> Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are
one
>> of
>> the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with
>> the
>> addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka
>> TriDef at
>> http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
>>  
>> &cat=1&page=1
>> ).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while,
and
>> having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last
>> couple
>> years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).
>>
>>
>> And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that
>> hard; I
>> played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
>> headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
>> Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BINO
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-15 Thread maccrawj 
Years back I had my store order one of the "gamer" HMD's from a now dead company for 
>$300. Visually it was very "3d" but hideous resolution and really uncomfortable to 
wear. The head tracking feature worked real well for flight sims and such where 
glancing was needed. Never liked the result with Quake at all. Funny trivia, you tend 
to see this defunct co's liquidated hardware used in low-budget scifi movies as props. ;)


Of the current tech the only experience I've had was with IMAX 3D's polarized glass 
which was very good IMHO. Bring that home as 1080P/120Hz per eye and I'd be a happy 
camper! Personally I don't think 60Hz/eye is enough for same reasons that it sucks 
for mono-vision and really would "see" 240Hz or better as the target. Of course I 
refer mostly to gaming but real 3D movies have appeal to me also!


On 1/14/2010 5:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:

This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so what're
your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has been
around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do 3d;
see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
  &t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are one of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
  &cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while, and
having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last couple
years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).


And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that hard; I
played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.



Anyway, thoughts?




BINO

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-14 Thread Stan Zaske 
I very much see the point. I had an experience many many years ago at 6 
Flags over Texas at a theater called "The Chevy Theater". Don't know to 
this day if it was affiliated with Chevrolet or not. Like I said I was 
very young and my senses were very alive. Anyway, it showed a film shot 
in 70mm running at 60 frames per second (no glasses mind you) that 
started out in a small air plane flying low over the desert which then 
hit the rim of the Grand Canyon. It was so realistic that my stomach 
felt like it dropped out of my body and every time the plane banked my 
body felt like it was leaning. I can't convey how incredibly realistic 
it was but I was into it big time. Another thing was that the screen was 
much wider than normal and concave shaped to fill your field of view 
almost completely. It was housed in an out door tent and we sat on 
backless benches that were placed very close. Primitive accommodations 
but the tech was awesome. Never seen anything like it since but that's 
the future of TV IMHO.



On 1/14/2010 8:39 PM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:

I think we have the same tv, though maybe not the same size.

Still, I just don't see the point in 3D TVwho wants to wear 
stoopid classes all the timeand I don't see it for sports 
either...perhaps gamers though...they are a different bred...


On 1/14/2010 8:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:
This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so 
what're
your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has 
been
around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do 
3d;

see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
 &t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are 
one of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) 
with the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka 
TriDef at

http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
 
&cat=1&page=1

).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while, and
having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last 
couple

years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).


And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that 
hard; I

played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.



Anyway, thoughts?




BINO





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.141/2622 - Release Date: 
01/14/10 14:35:00

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-14 Thread Stan Zaske 
Wow, that would be a serious gaming setup. Big screen, 120 Hz and 
3D.Gonna be a very long time before that comes down to my price range.



On 1/14/2010 7:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:

This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so what're
your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has been
around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do 3d;
see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
  &t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are one of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
  &cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while, and
having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last couple
years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).


And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that hard; I
played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.



Anyway, thoughts?




BINO

Re: [H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-14 Thread Anthony Q. Martin 

I think we have the same tv, though maybe not the same size.

Still, I just don't see the point in 3D TVwho wants to wear stoopid 
classes all the timeand I don't see it for sports either...perhaps 
gamers though...they are a different bred...


On 1/14/2010 8:36 PM, Bino Gopal wrote:

This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so what're
your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has been
around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do 3d;
see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :



http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
  &t=5274



Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are one of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
  &cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while, and
having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last couple
years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).


And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that hard; I
played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.



Anyway, thoughts?




BINO


   




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.141/2622 - Release Date: 01/14/10 
14:35:00

[H] 3D gaming or tv?

2010-01-14 Thread Bino Gopal 
This being the HWG I can't believe no one here has gone there, so what're
your thoughts/experiences with 3D TV and/or gaming?   The gaming has been
around longer, b/c I assume it was easier to get computer games to do 3d;
see this thread (someone references playing the FIRST Descent in 3D;
something I think I remember hearing about) :

 

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3
 &t=5274

 

Turns out that Samsung DLP I got last year supports 3D (and DLPs are one of
the few tvs out there that will, having a true 120Hz refresh rate) with the
addition of an extra kit for $150 ($200 for 2 glasses from DDD aka TriDef at
http://www.ddd.com/cart/product.php?productid=2
 &cat=1&page=1
).  Considering it since the tech isn't going to settle for a while, and
having it now would be cool (people have been doing it for the last couple
years apparently with earlier Samsung/Mitsu DLPs).


And it doesn't sound like getting a gaming rig setup with 3D is that hard; I
played Left4Dead in 3D at a tech event last year with the glasses and
headphone/mic and it was pretty cool; forgot about it until the whole
Avatar/3D thing at CES this year and now I'm looking into getting it.

 

Anyway, thoughts?

 

 
BINO