3D Vision Blog

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

3D Vision Blog header image 2

AMD HD3D Technology in 60 Seconds on Video Using a 3D HDTV

March 10th, 2011 · 16 Comments · Other S3D Tech

AMD just released two short videos promoting their stereoscopic 3D solution, but interestingly enough the focus is only on 3D HDTV and not on monitors (there is actually only one supporting shutter glasses anyway and it is not very nice looking). In the first video AMD’s Shane Parfitt is setting up AMD HD3D gaming in 60 seconds on an AMD Radeon graphics card using DDD’s TriDef 3D middle-ware, but the video card is not the just announced Radeon 6990 though. The game used for the demonstration is Medal of Honor which BTW is not that great in stereo 3D mode.

On the second video AMD’s Shane Parfitt (the product manager also responsible for HD3D) shows how to enable 3D Blu-ray playback on an AMD Radeon graphics card using ArcSoft’s Total Media Theatre software for the actual Blu-ray 3D playback. With AMD being not very active on stereo 3D technology in general, these two videos are interesting and are at least showing that the company did not completely forget that it is also providing some support for that technology as well. However if you’ve read my recent post comparing the different solutions for gaming in stereo 3D mode, you should’ve seen that AMD’s middle-ware partners like DDD with the TriDef 3D software and iZ3D with their iZ3D Driver are also not very active in releasing improved and updated versions lately. And we can only hope that things will finally start moving a bit faster in regards to AMD’s HD3D technology…

Tags: ·······

16 responses so far ↓

  • 1 tritosine // Mar 10, 2011 at 16:24

    ‘not the just announced Radeon 6990 though’

    -maybe because crossfire wouldn’t even work?

  • 2 Bloody // Mar 10, 2011 at 17:01

    Can’t tell for sure, unless I get my hands on one of these to try out in stereo 3D mode… but that is a possibility, although the 6990 could be a great choice for stereo 3D gaming at 1920×1080 with 120Hz display… performance wise that is.

  • 3 BlackShark // Mar 10, 2011 at 18:35

    The 6990 would probably work but at the moment performance would be equivalent to a single non-crossfire card due to neither iZ3D or DDD drivers supporting multi-GPU.

    It’s nice to see AMD finally trying to communicate a little about their features. Now what I wish would be to see AMD going more into details on their official website. The guy on the video says everything is explained at hd3d website, but these 2 videos actually explains much better than anything on their website.

  • 4 ted // Mar 10, 2011 at 21:45

    these videos are misleading and inaccurate. anyone who is new to 3d is still going to be confused as all hell. you can’t just set it up in 60 seconds, that’t utter bs. also what the hell is with AMD not even using their own 3d software, but relying on IZ3d and Tridef??
    LAME !!! 3d Vision FTW!

  • 5 Bonom Denej // Mar 10, 2011 at 23:06

    Like Ted, I don’t really understand why AMD didn’t develop their own technology instead of relying on existing software which they don’t have fully control.

    And seeing this video, I don’t see anything that appears better than 3D Vision, and even NVidia’s solution seems much easier to use. You launch the game and it’s working, no need to launch an app before…

    I really don’t get what AMD is trying to do…

  • 6 BlackShark // Mar 11, 2011 at 00:42

    @ ted
    What exactly is inaccurate about this video ?
    If you’ve got an Hdmi 1.4 display, installation and usage is quite straightforward on AMD graphics cards with DDD drivers.
    It’s not much more complicated than how 3D Vision works (especially if you consider 3DTV play).

    I agree AMD would need much more information for beginners but the explanation in this video is only 60 seconds long, you can only explain so much in such a short amount of time.
    Try explaining 3D Vision with an hdmi1.4 TV in 60 seconds. I doubt you’ll do significantly better than these AMD guys.

  • 7 artox // Mar 11, 2011 at 11:35

    I really don’t get what all 3d vision supporters are complaining about. S-3d was never AMD’s primary focus, but it was DDD’s and Iz3d’s. It was only logical that AMD would use third party software for s-3d since:
    1.) it works
    2.) it’s cheaper and less time consuming than developing their own from scratch
    3.) costs less than 3dtv play and they don’t have to lift a finger (they don’t deal with support past the “it works” stage and may even sell more gpus as a plus)
    The other choice for AMD was to buyout DDD or iz3d and offer their software under the AMD brand, which let’s face it is pretty pointless unless you want to feed a whole new dev team or simply run two companies out of business for the sake of it. Also DDD and Iz3d support Nvidia GPUs as well and what happens to the people who bought them and will be lacking it if AMD simply decided to discontinue this support.
    And let’s check out what Nvidia does, for a change. They “reinvent” an old tech, which I personally have been using ever since the first Nvidia s-3d drivers more than a decade ago, then they sell it for a hefty price, without support for dx7 and OGL, which were part of the original drivers and finally they forced their users to buy additional software if they want to use a Nvidia GPU with an s-3d HDTV. I was a supporter of Nvidia s-3d long before Ati had any intentions of integrating it, but stopping their support when lcds came into fashion forced other companies such as iz3d to do something about it. The MTBS community was shaped and started moving the industry. And this was not Nvidia’s doing.
    Currently the only benefits I see for using a Nvidia GPU for s-3d gaming are related to performance optimizations, which of course is not a small feat, but Nvidia can afford to finance game developers and include optimizations for games and s-3d. They were and have been a very profit oriented company. Physx comes to prove this. I have nothing against them as a driver of the industry as far as s-3d goes, but I don’t understand why do you have to bash against other s-3d solutions, which only complement it. If DDD and Iz3d were to join forces under AMD’s roof I bet they could provide much better support then Nvidia ever could with their constrained s-3d options, limited to newbies.

  • 8 ArcSoft_Jason // Mar 11, 2011 at 22:10

    AMD is interested in, as much as feasible, supporting open standards with their architecture. S3D and OpenCL would be examples. They aren’t really as interested in building, controling and supporting proprietary solutions the way NVIDIA has been, though some functionality still demands it. There are pros and cons for both, and it’s nice that customers have the choice from the two largest vendors of discreet graphics solutions.

  • 9 tritosine // Mar 12, 2011 at 02:35

    “constrained s-3d options, limited to newbies.”

    ah! Maybe you should look at some 3d projectors with 50.000 Eur price tag… Sure you’d think though, they want you to spend 2x 50.000 that’s why they are using an active solution…

    -so that’s how constrained you are with 120hz. ( aka. ‘flickerfree’ )

  • 10 tritosine // Mar 12, 2011 at 03:32

    And Im so tired of this crossed polarizer crap. Nvidia please make better glasses so the polarizer crowd can leave us alone.

  • 11 tritosine // Mar 12, 2011 at 12:49

    …if you wanted time parallel so bad, how’s that 20 of you can’t hire someone to develop hardware? It’s not like FPGA hardware is expensive ya’ know, you don’t even have to get chips manufactured.

  • 12 artox // Mar 12, 2011 at 19:29

    @tritosine, I was referring to the drivers and maybe if you’d given more than 10 seconds to read what I wrote you would have seen this. I don’t particularly care for Nvidia glasses, since playing on a monitor in 3d to me is kind of pointless (too small), but I am using a shutter solution and have nothing against the tech or flicker. I mainly noted that they haven’t innovated on it and yet they paraded around as if they’ve just made a great discovery.
    Compared to DDD and Iz3d, Nivida offers the most limited software of the three, with DDD being the top in my list, enabling to configure convergence for 3 focal points.
    So next time you may want to check out what someone is actually wring about, before you pick a fight on a completely different playing field.

  • 13 rob // Mar 14, 2011 at 07:22

    DDD could be best. Software is best however little to no support + no developer support.

  • 14 artox // Mar 14, 2011 at 12:35

    Yes, although DDD’s drivers offer more options than iz3d, iz3d’s support is better and the probability of out of the box functionality higher.

  • 15 Mathew Orman // Mar 14, 2011 at 13:44

    Total fraud. Microsoft have an exclusive agreement with nVidia and the DirectX stereoscopic output is blocked for AMD and any other competitor.
    Instead AMD claims open but does not provide hardware output for glasses synchronization. Hackware based or as they politely call middle-ware only operation. Meaning crippled performance and invoking any 3D application trough middle ware or hackware.
    Cheap gimmick by AMD to get quick jump on 3D band wagon.

    Mathew Orman

  • 16 Frédéric Lopez // Mar 18, 2011 at 01:17

    @Mathew Orman : the inner workings of S3D are not at the Directx level but at the driver level in kernel space. Anyone can render the two required views to offscreen buffers, DirectX is not even aware of what’s happening in this case. Then you need to do hardware page flipping and that’s done with GPU registers in the video driver. Glasses synchronisation is another problem in its own, it’s not needed for DLP-Link for example but AMD evidently can’t support 3D Vision glasses.

Leave a Comment