3D Vision Blog

A normal user's look into the world of 3D Stereo Technologies

3D Vision Blog header image 4

Entries Tagged as 'GeForce 3D Vision'

How About Playing Crysis 3 in Stereoscopic 3D Mode With 3D Vision

March 4th, 2013 · 12 Comments · GeForce 3D Vision

crysis-3-logo-red


The game Crysis 3 has been available for some time already and I took it for a spin to see how well it works on my stereo 3D setup with 3D Vision and do some benchmarks using the game of course. I should start with the fact that like its predecessor Crysis 2 the new Crysis 3 also uses 2D + Depth rendering method (Screen Space Re-Projection Stereo or SSRS in short) for its stereoscopic 3D output, regardless of what kind of stereo 3D display device you are using. This apparently has proven to be a good compromise between stereoscopic 3D quality and performance requirements and thus allowing the game to run in stereo 3D mode on the current generation of game consoles in stereo 3D mode as well. The fact that the 2D + Depth method is used also in the PC version of the game instead of providing two full stereoscopic 3D rendered views for each of the eyes on the PC as well has been criticized, but seeing how demanding the new Crysis 3 is it is no wonder that the developers did not provide us with full stereoscopic 3D rendering. The side effect from 2D + Depth rendering method is that it may not look as good as “true” stereo 3D rendering and there could be some additional artifacts (look at the halo around your gun), so it is not perfect, but it also takes up very little performance hit, something like just 5% decrease in performance as compared to about 40% or more for the alternative full dual view rendering. After playing the game for a while I suspect that it will yet again turn out to be more of a reference benchmark than a highly liked game by many, though it can be fun to play for a while and I do plan to finish the story when I have the time for that. But now let us take a look at some benchmark results…


crysis-3-stereo-3d-benchmarks


The results above were achieved in stereo 3D mode in an open environment inside the game and are the average FPS achieved inside the game on a system equipped with single GeForce GTX 580 and two GTX 580 cards running in SLI with an Intel Core i5 2500K quad-core CPU (3.3 GHz) and 8GB system Memory under Windows 8 OS. All of the hardware was running in stock frequencies and was not overclocked, as you can see from the results the GTX 580 is either outdated already or more likely the new Crysis 3 game is way too heavy. Of course these results are in stereoscopic 3D mode, but the framerate increase you’d get switching back to 2D mode is minimal because of the performance optimized stereo 3D rendering mode that the game uses. Even with two GeForce GTX 580 cards in SLI the game is not comfortably playable in stereo 3D mode at Very High detail levels with no AA filtering enabled. And an average framerate of 60 FPS is not achievable even with the SLI setup at Low level of details, and no, the Crysis 3 is not a demanding game… it is a very demanding one.


Stereo 3D mode using Dual GTX 580 in SLI with AA:

– Very High, 8x MSAA – 21 fps
– Very High, 4x MSAA – 29 fps
– Very High, 2x MSAA – 31 fps
– Very High, SMAA mGPU (2x) – 31 fps
– Very High, SMAA Low (1x) – 31 fps
– Very High, FXAA – 31 fps
– Very High, no AA – 32 fps

Here is the situation when using the various AA filtering modes available in the game, as you can see apart form the high MSAA modes the situation does not change much in terms of average framerate achieved when using two GTX 580 cards in SLI.


How will overclocking affect performance:

– CPU + 1GHz @ 4.3GHz: Very High, no AA – 34 fps
– GPUs + 100MHz @ 872MHz: Very High, no AA – 34 fps
– GPU and CPU overclocked: Very High, no AA – 39 fps

It seems that Crysis 3 can push not only the GPU, but also the CPU and having more performance squeezed from either of them by overclocking does help in getting a few FPS more in the game. This however is an exception as still not many games can push the limit of multi-core CPUs as well as multiple GPUs running at 100% load and even pushing the video memory to the maximum. It turns out that with high AA levels Crysis 3 in stereo 3D mode can reach levels of video memory usage very close to the 1.5GB available on the GTX 580.

Now, considering that the above results in stereoscopic 3D mode were achieved using the 2D + Depth rendering, getting something like 40% lower framerate if full dual view stereoscopic 3D rendering was used the FPS would get even more disappointing. So yet again, I’m expecting that Crysis 3 will be used more for benchmarking hardware than being played for fun, something that we’ve seen happening with previous version of the game as well.

→ 12 CommentsTags:······

About the Optimum Viewing Distance of Passive 3D Monitors

February 25th, 2013 · 5 Comments · GeForce 3D Vision

passive-3d-monitor-optimum-viewing-positions


There has been a lot of information what works best and various different recommendations what are the optimum viewing positions of passive 3D monitors, but still a lot of people are having hard time properly adjusting these displays for best stereoscopic 3D experience. There is also a lot of controversy going on around the half vertical resolution you get in stereo 3D mode and the end visual results you get. But with all the recommendations and suggestion what works and what not I ended up doing some testing of my own and decided to present what works best for me when viewing a passive 3D monitor and share this information so it might help others as well. I’ll be using a 23-inch FPR 3D monitor to illustrate this example and that monitor is the Philips 236G3DHSB that I’ve recently reviewed here on the blog. What you should be well aware of is that passive 3D monitors have a very narrow vertical viewing angle when in stereoscopic 3D mode, this angle is usually 5 to 7 degrees up and down, so a total of 10-14 degrees total. Also that when 3D mode is active you get half of the vertical number of lines composing what each eye sees from the total resolution of the display, hence the half vertical resolution of the display. The fact that the the perceived sharpness of the image displayed with half horizontal resolution per eye on a passive 3D display might look better than on a full resolution per eye active 3D display when using Full HD monitors does not necessary mean that both solutions offer the same display resolution in stereoscopic 3D mode. There are many factors that affect how we perceive sharpness of display resolution, but now we are not going to debate these here.

Let us start with a quick look on what various manufacturers of passive 3D (FPR 3D) monitors are recommending as optimum viewing angles and distance for achieving the best experience when using their products in stereo 3D mode. All of the information below is taken form the user manuals of various 23-inch Full HD passive 3D monitors, these are models that the manufacturers decided to publish such information as some manuals do not contain any recommendations at all.

AOC e2352Phz
Sit at a position at least 70 mm (they made a mistake and probably meant 70 cm, not mm!) away from the display unit. Keep the line of sight horizontal to the display unit as far as possible (with the upper and lower angle of view within 10 degrees).

HP 2311gt
For optimal 3D viewing, you should be approximately 60 to 70 centimeters (24 to 28 inches) from the computer display. Depending on the viewing angle, the operational distance from the display can vary.

LG D2342P
The optimal viewing angle of the monitor is 12° in vertical direction while 80° in horizontal direction; the optimal viewing distance is between 50 cm to 90 cm from the monitor. When you view 3D images outside the optimal viewing angle or viewing distance, the images may look overlapped or not be displayed properly in 3D.

Philips 236G3DHSB
For an optimal 3D viewing experience, we recommend that you: Sit at a distance that is at least 55cm; Watch the monitor away from direct sunlight as it may interfere with the 3D experience.

There are no surprises about the viewing angles at all here, we already know they are quite limited and this limit is not affected by the LCD panel type used in the monitor, even an IPS panel won’t help, the limit is caused by the polarizing filter applied over the LCD panel that separates the left and right eye images for stereoscopic 3D use. As for the minimum recommended distance from the 3D monitor we see different numbers from 50 centimeters to 70 centimeters (about 20-28 inches) and as for the maximum recommended distance only LG recommends up to 90 centimeters (about 35 inches). So what works best for me, neither of these recommendations are actually good for me…

A person with normal vision not wearing glasses or wearing the right diopter glasses to correct his vision achieving the same level as what is considered as normal vision would need to sit at about 90-95 centimeters away from a 23-inch passive 3D display (about 35-37 inches) or about 1.5 times the diagonal of the monitor. This minimum distance is required in order for the viewer not to be bothered by the increased distance between the vertical lines that build the image for each eye for stereo 3D content. If your vision is nt good enough to be considered “normal vision” and you wear prescription glasses with 1 diopter you might be able to reduce that minimum comfortable distance to about 75 centimeters (about 30 inches) if you are not wearing your glasses in order not to be bothered by the lines.

Moving up to about just 55 centimeters away from the 23-inch passive 3D displays you will find that this is a the about absolute minimum at which you can get into the correct vertical viewing angle limit and be able to properly perceive volume, but at that distance you will be bothered by the vertical lines building the image you will see. So manufacturers may be right that this is about the recommended minimum, but it is more like the absolute minimum distance and not the most comfortable. Actually the farther you are from the monitor the easier it is to get into the very narrow vertical angle for best results when using the display in stereo 3D mode, but there is a limit to that as well. Going to further away from the monitor will lead to the 3D image starting to look flat thus loosing the stereoscopic 3D effect and the sense of realism provided by the displayed 3D image will further diminish because of the very low FOV coverage your vision will have. Going past about 150 centimeters (about 60 inches) you will start to loose the perception of volume and the image on the screen will start to look flat, not to mention that the immersion factor won’t be that good either because of the screen covering a small part of the vision, but at least it is much easier to get in the vertical viewing angle (at the cost of the reduced perception of sharpness and thus resolution).

The optimal viewing distance of a 23-inch passive 3D monitor for me personally is around 90-100 centimeters (about 35-40 inches), a distance at which I’m not bothered with the vertical lines and the image I perceive is still sharp. At that distance the stereoscopic 3D effect (the sense of volume) is still quite good for various 3D content, and the only drawback that remains is that the feeling of immersion is not that good due to smaller part of the vision covered by the display. And at that distance from the display it is easier to stay withing the optimal vertical viewing angle when you’ve setup the display correctly even with some normal head movements. As a reference to use for a comparison I usually use a 27-inch active 3D monitor in stereoscopic 3D mode at a distance of about 60-70 centimeters for optimal sense of immersion.

If you are using a passive 3D monitor feel welcome to share what works best for you in terms of optimum viewing distance in the comments below.

→ 5 CommentsTags:····

GeForce GTX Titan 3D Vision Gaming Review From Linus Tech Tips

February 21st, 2013 · 3 Comments · GeForce 3D Vision


Today the benchmark results from the new Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan video card started hitting the web, but most reviewrs that got the card to test seem to use just one monitor – 1080p, 1440p or 1600p. We even get to see dual or tripple SLI setups with GeForce GTX Titan and only a few get to test on multi-monitor surround setups in 2D mode. But can you get the maximum from a GeForce GTX Titan on a single monitor in 2D mode, seems most of the press thinks so, but what about multi-monitor and stereo 3D gaming when using the Titan? Fortunately there is at least some benchmark results that cover stereoscopic 3D gaming, you can see the short video review with benchmarks from Linus Tech Tips embedded above. Interestingly enough a dual GeForce GTX 660 Ti video card setup in SLI ($600-$700 USD) seem to outperform the GTX Titan ($999 USD) in 1080p stereo 3D mode, other reviews show that the same 660 Ti SLi setup gives better results than the Titan in 2D mode as well. This means that for 2/3 of the price of the Nvidia GeFoce Titan you can get more FPS with a 660 Ti setup, this suddenly makes the Titan not seem so powerful, or maybe just the GeForce GTX 660 Ti is just too good especially if you couple two of these.

Before seeing the first reviews I was actually thinking about replacing my two trustworthy water-cooled GeForce GTX 580 video cards running in SLI with a single GeForce GTX Titan, but now I’m not so sure about that now. I’ll wait for more benchmarks and hopefully more in stereoscopic 3D mode using 3D Vision and 3D Vision Surround, and so should you if you are considering upgrading to a GTX Titan or something newer as graphics hardware than what you already have, but suddenly going for two GeForce GTX 660 Ti cards in SLI instead does sound like a very attractive idea…

→ 3 CommentsTags:······