Hello,
So i'm brand new to this stuff.
I ain't ready for 3d gaming, since i guess it requires a vr headset and not just glasses, am i right or not?
So, to introduce myself to stereoscopy at home, i'd like start with movies
I see online that there are tons of compatibilities and incompatibilities between hardware and software and also between hardware and other hardware
So, i'd like to know where to start exactly, and first of all, with the hardware I already own
Here's the specs of my pc
Rtx 3060ti
Cpu i7 11700k
Ram 32gb
My monitor is a 1080p 240hz
I heard that to get maximum resolution, i need active glasses, as passive will halve the resolution
That's what i'd like to get. I saw on amazon.ca that they aren't very expansive and are in my budget
Does that exist? Glasses that you can connect to your pc (usb wire or bluetooth) so it can sync to your movie?
If so, which software do i need? And more importantly, where can i buy those?
Talk to me like someone who begins in that domain. I'd like to know everyrhing i need to know before buying anything i don't have yet
Thanks
Nvidia 3D Vision used to be a thing, but isn't supported in newer drivers anymore.
So there aren't really a lot of options for 3D. VR is probably your best bet, TBH.
Passive 3D is not such a bad thing, since at 4K that still results in a very high resolution image.
But there aren't many 4K displays that also support 3D, and you do need a display that specifically supports it.
Some early 4K TVs support 3D, if you can find one of those used. Active and passive 3D both have their advantages and disadvantages. Active 3D reduces brightness a lot, and some people can't handle the flickering of the shutter glasses. There also tends to be more ghosting. Active 3D will also make the lights in the room flicker noticeably and if you try to look at a different screen (for example your phone) while you're wearing the glasses it also flickers. Passive 3D reduces the resolution, but at 4K it's not really an issue as said. Also reduces brightness a little but not nearly as bad as active 3D which reduces brightness by half. No flickering issues. And the glasses are a fraction of the price and don't need battery power. I would say passive 3D is the far superior tech of the two, but both have a lot of drawbacks.
Getting movies to work on such a TV is no problem, as they support half-SBS and half-OU formats which many movies are already available in and there are specific players like TriDef 3D to output other 3D movie formats as half-SBS and half-OU.
There are even ways to get games working in half-SBS and half-OU mode which will work with those TVs.
None of this requires Nvidia 3D Vision.
But if you want to play movies/games at full instead of half resolution (regardless of whether you use active or passive 3D), you need to use one of the frame-packed 3D display modes, which it seems do not work on newer Nvidia driver versions, same as 3D Vision.
There are hacky ways to enable 3D Vision in newer Nvidia drivers which would allow you to use 3D Vision compatible monitors, keep in mind you also need the pricy 3D Vision transmitter and glasses which were sold separately from the monitor. This would also enable frame-packed 3D display modes for 3D TVs. A 3D TV is by far the cheaper (and likely better) option, as there is a bigger selection of them, the glasses are cheaper (especially for passive 3D as any cheap polarized 3D glasses will work, and they also don't need battery power like active 3D), and you can find 4K ones, whereas 3D Vision monitors pretty much maxed out at 1080p, or maybe 1440p.
All this to get a 3D experience that is not that good. The 3D experience is more apparent the bigger the screen is, if you're using 3D on a monitor the effect is barely noticeable. Even on a large TV, while the effect can be decent, it's nothing compared to a large projector screen. This is the main reason why 3D was always better in cinemas.
And both active and passive 3D suffer from some pretty major drawbacks.
VR simulates having a huge cinema screen, so the experience is very similar to cinemas (the 3D audio is also excellent, much better than conventional surround speakers!)
And it doesn't have any of the drawbacks that conventional 3D display tech does.
Of course, VR is not perfect either. But you can use it not only to watch 3D movies and play desktop PC games in 3D but also to experience VR games that could not be experienced any other way. It's a much better purchase than buying an older 3D monitor or TV used, which only has limited use nowadays, very few 3D movies are still being made, most of the 3D movies that have been released in the past are 2D to 3D conversions that don't look good, there are really only a handful of good 3D movies that aren't animation, and forcing desktop PC games to run in 3D is hit and miss how well it works. And even when it works well, it's nothing mind blowing like VR is, in part because the games weren't really designed for it, so the depth effect is pretty minor and isn't being taken advantage of to make certain elements pop the way 3D movies did (which many people find gimmicky, and it absolutely is, but it was cool when movies used it properly, like Avatar), but there is so much more to VR than just 3D.
