Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

FFXIV and 3D MonitorsFollow

#1 Dec 14 2010 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
95 posts

Greetings friends!

I am about to buy myself a 3d monitor soon, with the eventual plan of getting 3d stereoscopic vision thing on the go for my gaming addiction, and I thought, hey will this also work for FFXIV? I remember they did a tech demo somewhere of the game in 3D but they weren't planning to release it with full 3D support.

However, if i'm not mistaken, putting stuff on a 3D monitor will automatically put certain things in 3D from what I have heard. I'm not 100% sure how it all works yet, as it's quite hard to find anyone who actually owns one yet, but I was hoping to get any feedback from personal experiences of players.

So if anyone has already taken the plunge and bought themselves a 3D TV or monitor, please post your findings :)

Thank you for your time.
#2 Dec 14 2010 at 6:49 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
257 posts
I havent bought a 3d monitor however i'm sure that things have to be shot in 3d inorder to see em in 3d, its all about how motion pictures give the 3d effect, it basicly blurs the edges of parts of the image to the naked eye, and inorder for your vision to be corrected to view 3d you have to wear the glasses. i cant remember exactly how it works but thats the jist of it.

For a 2d game to be viewed in 3d i would expect it would have to be altered with hardware in the same kind of way that blu ray players and ps3 can upscale SD movies to HD.

But i'm not 100% on this just thought i would share my little bit of knowlage about it.
____________________________
FFXI (Long since retired)
Delsus
Server: Cerberus

FFXIV
Delsus Highwind
Server: Ragnarok
#3 Dec 14 2010 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
595 posts
The quality will depend heavily on your computer hardware. Basically what a 3D monitor does is instead of rendering a game at 60 frames per second (60 as an example) it will render the game at 120 frames per second with the camera shifted in each alternating frame. The glasses sync up with the frames so that one eye only sees one view, and the other eye only sees the shifted view. Pretty much any 3D game compatible with the latest drivers for your video card will work with this. The downside is you'll need to have a computer powerful enough to render the game at 120 fps.
#4volta1, Posted: Dec 14 2010 at 7:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The human eye only processes at 24fps. Stereoscopic 48fps (24 alternating) should look just fine.
#5 Dec 14 2010 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
257 posts
DomfranciscoOfIfrit wrote:
The quality will depend heavily on your computer hardware. Basically what a 3D monitor does is instead of rendering a game at 60 frames per second (60 as an example) it will render the game at 120 frames per second with the camera shifted in each alternating frame. The glasses sync up with the frames so that one eye only sees one view, and the other eye only sees the shifted view. Pretty much any 3D game compatible with the latest drivers for your video card will work with this. The downside is you'll need to have a computer powerful enough to render the game at 120 fps.


I arent saying your wrong with this info, however the human eye can only regester 24-25 fps as movement, this has been tested alot.

so the 120 fps would be useless, all the glasses do is realign the image which is what i was trying to say but it came out really bad.

but some random info on frame rates, we can only regester 24-25fps as movement but a pigeon can regester 240fps as movement, so ffxiv would just be a slide show to them. randomness ftw
____________________________
FFXI (Long since retired)
Delsus
Server: Cerberus

FFXIV
Delsus Highwind
Server: Ragnarok
#6 Dec 14 2010 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
27 posts
NVIDIA list the game compatibly with 3D as "Not Recommend". I just tried it with 3D Discover (with red/cyan glasses), and there was no change at all. If this functionality ever does get implemented, I believe you have to run the game in full screen mode for it to work, so no minimising.

Domfrancis was correct about how stereoscopic 3D works on home PC monitors and TVs. However, even if you video card card can't handle 120 FPS, it will just scale it down, so in effect, the frame rate will appear to be half of what your card is capable of when using 3D.

As for 24 FPS being the most a human can register, I find that hard to believe, at least with monitors. Cinema is shot at 24 FPS, and home video is shot at 30-60 FPS, and there is definitely a clear difference to the feel of the video. I believe 24 FPS is the minimum level that a video will appear "smooth" to the human eye.

Edited, Dec 14th 2010 9:37pm by andywool

Edited, Dec 14th 2010 9:45pm by andywool
#7 Dec 14 2010 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
The human eye only processes at 24fps. Stereoscopic 48fps (24 alternating) should look just fine.

Faster framerates are detectable by the eye through secondary improvements to the image as a result of the increased number of frames in rendering an event. This should be patently obvious to any gamer, since the difference between a 30/sec game and a 60/sec game is immediately detectable.

And, before you come back with more facts about the human eye, go try it. Run FFXIV with a very high framerate then throttle it down to 20-something frames (turn off a core, or go into energy-saving mode or something) and see if you can notice a difference. In particular, try swinging the camera around quickly. The difference in frame rate between 60 and 30 is obvious.
#8 Dec 14 2010 at 10:17 PM Rating: Default
Sage
**
447 posts
Caesura wrote:
Quote:
The human eye only processes at 24fps. Stereoscopic 48fps (24 alternating) should look just fine.

Faster framerates are detectable by the eye through secondary improvements to the image as a result of the increased number of frames in rendering an event. This should be patently obvious to any gamer, since the difference between a 30/sec game and a 60/sec game is immediately detectable.

And, before you come back with more facts about the human eye, go try it. Run FFXIV with a very high framerate then throttle it down to 20-something frames (turn off a core, or go into energy-saving mode or something) and see if you can notice a difference. In particular, try swinging the camera around quickly. The difference in frame rate between 60 and 30 is obvious.



Personally, I can't tell the difference between 60fps (according to Fraps) in an unpopulated area in the wild versus 30fps in a populated city. Granted, Fraps may be reporting inaccurate info because I'm running SLI, I'll give you that. In any case, there are many studies that show that the eye cannot detect the difference in colored motion blur at 25fps versus 100fps. High contrast (black+white) is a different story, where 30 vs 60 fps is detectable.

When it comes to stereoscopic display for 3D, the effect should be no different. Logically one can conclude that the 'motion blur' effect would actually be compounded in such an environment. You go try it. I actually have at work where we study HD 3D displays. Any 1080p bluray film is 48fps stereoscopic. Look it up. Go watch Avatar or any other film on Bluray in 3D and tell me if you think it looks choppy. Let me save you the trouble: it doesn't.
____________________________
Djigga, please. Highland Hyurs can't jump.

#9 Dec 15 2010 at 12:39 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
I actually have at work where we study HD 3D displays. Any 1080p bluray film is 48fps stereoscopic. Look it up. Go watch Avatar or any other film on Bluray in 3D and tell me if you think it looks choppy. Let me save you the trouble: it doesn't.

Since you apparently work with high-end displays, let me ask you something. Why do you think all major networks broadcast their HD signals in 720p60, that is, at 60 frames per second? They could easily chop that down to 720p30, but they don't. Why do you think that is?

Incidentally, there is perhaps a better test for you if you have access to 3d displays, since FFXIV may not be frantic enough to easily demonstrate a frame-rate difference (although swinging the camera quickly usually does it for me). Plug in a PS3 and play Wipeout. Wipeout in 3d plays at only 30 frames per second, but without the 3d it runs at 60. Ignoring the issue of why a major game-design house would waste system resources on an undetectably high frame-rate, try playing the game both ways. If you honestly can't see the difference, then I don't know what to say to you, but just about everyone else can.

*edit* Apparently some networks broadcast their HD channels in 1080i60 instead. I don't think that changes my point, though.

Edited, Dec 15th 2010 3:03am by Caesura
#10 Dec 15 2010 at 3:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
494 posts
pretty sure the 3d tech demo was the PS3 version of the game and not the PC version. And good chance an update will convert the game to 3d-compatible when the PS3 version comes out. If not, plug your ps3 into your monitor. :]
#11 Dec 15 2010 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
5 posts
I'm using iZ3D polarized monitor. It doesn't work, cause the program to crash using iZ3D drivers. I'm going to try a 3D-DLP system w/ Nvidia driver in about a week, however fairly certain it's not going to work anyhow.
#12 Dec 15 2010 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
37 posts

I personally have this monitor-
http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=au&l=en&s=dhs&cs=audhs1&sku=230-11305
I read the reviews of half dozen top rated monitors, and it came down to the Alienware or the Acer.
It was a close decision, but Im happy I decided on the Alienware. Its a truly excellent monitor, I now use this as my primary instead of my 72" DLP. If you call up Dell and speak over the phone you can talk them down to $400.

I also use the Nvidea 3d vision glasses-
http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-main.html
Overall they are pretty good, but the compatibility with games still isn't as nice as I would like.
Personally I only play with them from time to time, and its rarely for more than an hour before I go back to a traditional view. My only real beef is the loss of vibrancy, but that's due to viewing them through glasses.
When you do find a game they work with, they work really well, and BLOW AWAY anything you have ever seen in a theater.

Also FFXIV does not work with 3d vision. I tried to force it, but it still wont run in 3d mode.
I see folks who claim they can get it to work, but I cant. Ive tried the steps they claimed worked, but I personally think they are full of BS.
#13 Dec 15 2010 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
37 posts
scrish wrote:

I arent saying your wrong with this info, however the human eye can only regester 24-25 fps as movement, this has been tested alot.

so the 120 fps would be useless, all the glasses do is realign the image which is what i was trying to say but it came out really bad.

but some random info on frame rates, we can only regester 24-25fps as movement but a pigeon can regester 240fps as movement, so ffxiv would just be a slide show to them. randomness ftw


Maybe you need to go to best buy and watch a TV running at 120hz. You most certainly can register well past 25fps.
I get flustered when my game dips below 40fps. I honestly am always shooting for no less than 50 in my games, thats seems to be the sweet spot for me visually where any more is really unnoticeable.

Traditional signal is broadcast at 24 hz because that is all that is needed to appear fluid due to the way films are shot.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm:
How many frames per second can the human eye see?
This is a tricky question. And much confusion about it is related to the fact, that this question is NOT the same as:

How many frames per second do I have to have to make motions look fluid?

And it's not the same as
How many frames per second makes the movie stop flickering?
And it's not the same as
What is the shortest frame a human eye would notice?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The human eye does not see in "Framerate". It simply registers light in continuous flow. Also known as the "flicker fusion point". 60hz is the inconsistent average, but some people can go as high as 70hz. That is why you see a major difference between standard and 120hz TV's, but no difference when you watch a 240hz signal.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 20 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (20)