WARNING about Rollermod
  8 / 12    
Sorry roller,

How is CB any more native than 720p.

720p
1280*720 = 921600 pixels

1080p CB
1920*1080/2 = 1036800 pixels

1080p
1920*1080 = 2073600 pixels

I have skimmed the thread and think I have missed your argument.

(ignoring the fact that on a 720p display 720p is native)
Sorry roller,



How is CB any more native than 720p.



720p

1280*720 = 921600 pixels



1080p CB

1920*1080/2 = 1036800 pixels



1080p

1920*1080 = 2073600 pixels



I have skimmed the thread and think I have missed your argument.



(ignoring the fact that on a 720p display 720p is native)

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

Posted 01/28/2012 07:12 PM   
Flugan, thanks for taking the time and effort to illustrate the differences. It's great that we can have a very public (and technical) discussion about this whole thing but I for one think it's a shame it seems to have descended to a bit of a petty level.
I'm not a fool, or an educated idiot either, but simply put, some people benefit from the roller mod and some don't. Technical and personal discussions aside, does the rest really matter that much? Can we take the assumptions, guesswork and opinions over to avsforums instead?
World peace and all that :-)
Flugan, thanks for taking the time and effort to illustrate the differences. It's great that we can have a very public (and technical) discussion about this whole thing but I for one think it's a shame it seems to have descended to a bit of a petty level.

I'm not a fool, or an educated idiot either, but simply put, some people benefit from the roller mod and some don't. Technical and personal discussions aside, does the rest really matter that much? Can we take the assumptions, guesswork and opinions over to avsforums instead?

World peace and all that :-)

GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310

Posted 01/28/2012 07:14 PM   
While there are certainly fundamental differences in the various arguments being presented, I have noticed you guys do agree on certain things but are getting hung up on terminology and semantics. In a technical discussion like this semantics do matter, but making sure we're on the same page and not getting hung up on differences in terminology is key to understanding each other's viewpoints.

[indent][b]Native Resolution vs. Half Resolution:[/b] The problem here is the usual terminologies are simply inadequate for the problem described but everyone seems to agree on the underlying concepts. When CB proponents say "CB is native resolution" they inherently acknowledge CB only has half the pixel data/fidelity as "full-fidelity native resolution" but the resulting half-fidelity images are still mapped 1:1 to the native resolution pixel array. Maybe "half-fidelity native resolution" is the better term for checkerboard, as it satisfies both the half-data penalty and the native resolution merit of CB.

[b]Interpolation:[/b] There's various forms of interpolation but some are clearly better than others in some ways but deficient in others. Interpolation shouldn't automatically carry a negative connotation however, since many features we all love like AA are just forms of interpolation. The key distinction here is whether half-pixel data native resolution (1080 checkerboard, 1080i interleaved/SBS) interpolation is better than full-pixel data non-native resolution interpolation (720p upscaled FS or 720p framepacked). The pictures Lugan provided can help a user decide what they prefer, but I don't think its perfect example because it can't completely account for what the HDTV is doing with its imaging processing algorithms.[/indent]

What I would like to see is a definitive answer on how checkerboard is interpolating the missing pixels for each eye image. While I can't say for certain without knowing exactly how the image is reconstructed, I would imagine checkerboard would be clearly better compared to SBS or row/column interleaved because each blank pixel has 4 fully adjacent pixels to sample from. SBS or row/column would only have 2 pixels to sample from, either above/below or to the sides. I think the only way we are going to get the answer to this is a TI whitepaper on CB or the feedback from CB users about what they see in each eye, because Photoshop or any other program won't be able to simulate what the DLP panels are doing unless they know the exact sampling/interpolating algorithm being used.

Using similar illustration to what Grestorn provided, checkerboard would ideally look like for each pixel sampled, sampling for blank "y", you would have 4 adjacent data points to sample from:

CB:
x-[color="#FF0000"][s]x[/s][/color]-x-x-x
-[color="#FF0000"][s]x[/s][/color][color="#0000FF"][b]y[/b][/color][color="#FF0000"][s]x[/s][/color]-x-x-
x-[color="#FF0000"][s]x[/s][/color]-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-

SBS, interleaved would look like this sampling for blank "y" with only 2 adjacent data points to sample from:

SBS:
x-x-x-x-x
x-[color="#FF0000"][s]x[/s][/color][color="#0000FF"][b]y[/b][/color][color="#FF0000"][s]x[/s][/color]-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x

With regard to compositing the 3D image in your brain for passive interlaced. If we can agree that 2 full-fidelity native resolution images in 3D results in a double fidelity 3D image (similar to 2x1 SSAA), then we can agree that 2 half-fidelity native resolution images in 3D will result in roughly a single fidelity 3D image.

Finally, looking over Flugan's pictures (really enjoy what this brings to the discussion btw), I don't think the 720p quality is fully represented here. I believe you just did 720p upscaling as it would appear if someone used 720p FS output. However, with 720p framepacking over HDMI, the image is much worst. You literally squish the 2560x720 image down to 1920x1080 which results in some pretty bad blurring/interpolation artifacts. That's probably another key distinction that should be made btw, 720p FS interpolation vs. 720p FP interpolation. Having played with both (just check out Youtube HTML5 content) its VERY hard to defend 720p FP image quality.
While there are certainly fundamental differences in the various arguments being presented, I have noticed you guys do agree on certain things but are getting hung up on terminology and semantics. In a technical discussion like this semantics do matter, but making sure we're on the same page and not getting hung up on differences in terminology is key to understanding each other's viewpoints.



[indent]Native Resolution vs. Half Resolution: The problem here is the usual terminologies are simply inadequate for the problem described but everyone seems to agree on the underlying concepts. When CB proponents say "CB is native resolution" they inherently acknowledge CB only has half the pixel data/fidelity as "full-fidelity native resolution" but the resulting half-fidelity images are still mapped 1:1 to the native resolution pixel array. Maybe "half-fidelity native resolution" is the better term for checkerboard, as it satisfies both the half-data penalty and the native resolution merit of CB.



Interpolation: There's various forms of interpolation but some are clearly better than others in some ways but deficient in others. Interpolation shouldn't automatically carry a negative connotation however, since many features we all love like AA are just forms of interpolation. The key distinction here is whether half-pixel data native resolution (1080 checkerboard, 1080i interleaved/SBS) interpolation is better than full-pixel data non-native resolution interpolation (720p upscaled FS or 720p framepacked). The pictures Lugan provided can help a user decide what they prefer, but I don't think its perfect example because it can't completely account for what the HDTV is doing with its imaging processing algorithms.[/indent]



What I would like to see is a definitive answer on how checkerboard is interpolating the missing pixels for each eye image. While I can't say for certain without knowing exactly how the image is reconstructed, I would imagine checkerboard would be clearly better compared to SBS or row/column interleaved because each blank pixel has 4 fully adjacent pixels to sample from. SBS or row/column would only have 2 pixels to sample from, either above/below or to the sides. I think the only way we are going to get the answer to this is a TI whitepaper on CB or the feedback from CB users about what they see in each eye, because Photoshop or any other program won't be able to simulate what the DLP panels are doing unless they know the exact sampling/interpolating algorithm being used.



Using similar illustration to what Grestorn provided, checkerboard would ideally look like for each pixel sampled, sampling for blank "y", you would have 4 adjacent data points to sample from:



CB:

x-x-x-x-x

-xyx-x-x-

x-x-x-x-x

-x-x-x-x-



SBS, interleaved would look like this sampling for blank "y" with only 2 adjacent data points to sample from:



SBS:

x-x-x-x-x

x-xyx-x-x

x-x-x-x-x

x-x-x-x-x



With regard to compositing the 3D image in your brain for passive interlaced. If we can agree that 2 full-fidelity native resolution images in 3D results in a double fidelity 3D image (similar to 2x1 SSAA), then we can agree that 2 half-fidelity native resolution images in 3D will result in roughly a single fidelity 3D image.



Finally, looking over Flugan's pictures (really enjoy what this brings to the discussion btw), I don't think the 720p quality is fully represented here. I believe you just did 720p upscaling as it would appear if someone used 720p FS output. However, with 720p framepacking over HDMI, the image is much worst. You literally squish the 2560x720 image down to 1920x1080 which results in some pretty bad blurring/interpolation artifacts. That's probably another key distinction that should be made btw, 720p FS interpolation vs. 720p FP interpolation. Having played with both (just check out Youtube HTML5 content) its VERY hard to defend 720p FP image quality.

-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings

Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W

Posted 01/28/2012 07:32 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='28 January 2012 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1327777160' post='1361927']
Lying about what the other guy said is Grestorn's way of "winning an argument". For example, he said that I claimed that CB is 'lossless', 'full 1080P'. I never made any such statements, nothing resembling that. In fact, I have never used the term 'lossless' in any post.
He's sticking with his "CB isn't native resolution" BS and there is no changing that, no matter what the damage.
[/quote]
What's the difference between "It is a native resolution" and "is lossless" in this context?

Using a native resolution has the advantage of being able to be projected lossless.
And a lossless projection is only possible if you use a native resolution.

So, why do you thing these terms are in any way different?
[quote name='roller11' date='28 January 2012 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1327777160' post='1361927']

Lying about what the other guy said is Grestorn's way of "winning an argument". For example, he said that I claimed that CB is 'lossless', 'full 1080P'. I never made any such statements, nothing resembling that. In fact, I have never used the term 'lossless' in any post.

He's sticking with his "CB isn't native resolution" BS and there is no changing that, no matter what the damage.



What's the difference between "It is a native resolution" and "is lossless" in this context?



Using a native resolution has the advantage of being able to be projected lossless.

And a lossless projection is only possible if you use a native resolution.



So, why do you thing these terms are in any way different?

Posted 01/28/2012 07:33 PM   
First of all, thanks for your well thought posting, chiz. Especially the misunderstanding about 'native resolution' you wrote about crossed my mind many times, and I actually wrote a lot of text to pinpoint that issue - and I always get the impression, that noone seems to read that. Maybe I'm just writing too much or not clearly enough.

[quote name='chiz' date='28 January 2012 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1327779131' post='1361943']What I would like to see is a definitive answer on how checkerboard is interpolating the missing pixels for each eye image. While I can't say for certain without knowing exactly how the image is reconstructed, I would imagine checkerboard would be clearly better compared to SBS or row/column interleaved because each blank pixel has 4 fully adjacent pixels to sample from. SBS or row/column would only have 2 pixels to sample from, either above/below or to the sides. I think the only way we are going to get the answer to this is a TI whitepaper on CB or the feedback from CB users about what they see in each eye, because Photoshop or any other program won't be able to simulate what the DLP panels are doing unless they know the exact sampling/interpolating algorithm being used.[/quote]

That's exactly why I think that CB might be better, but I guess that the difference really isn't that much. Even with SBS, you can use more than two pixels to interpolate, it's perfectly valid to use the neighbouring pixels of the line above and below as well.

In any case, I think the only place you'd see any difference at all would be some very delicate details. Especially if there are some vertical lines, where I think that SBS could be in a disadvantage over CB.

[quote name='chiz' date='28 January 2012 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1327779131' post='1361943']
Finally, looking over Flugan's pictures (really enjoy what this brings to the discussion btw), I don't think the 720p quality is fully represented here. I believe you just did 720p upscaling as it would appear if someone used 720p FS output. However, with 720p framepacking over HDMI, the image is much worst. You literally squish the 2560x720 image down to 1920x1080 which results in some pretty bad blurring/interpolation artifacts. That's probably another key distinction that should be made btw, 720p FS interpolation vs. 720p FP interpolation. Having played with both (just check out Youtube HTML5 content) its VERY hard to defend 720p FP image quality.
[/quote]
This I don't understand, at all. Why should 720p FP be any different than 720p FS? I can't believe they do some kind of scaling [i]before [/i]seprating the images and projecting them to the native grid.
The only reasonable way is to separate the two images first, then scaling each image up to 1080p. I just can't imagine that they do it any other way.

But I trust that you did experience that. With every game or just with certain games?
First of all, thanks for your well thought posting, chiz. Especially the misunderstanding about 'native resolution' you wrote about crossed my mind many times, and I actually wrote a lot of text to pinpoint that issue - and I always get the impression, that noone seems to read that. Maybe I'm just writing too much or not clearly enough.



[quote name='chiz' date='28 January 2012 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1327779131' post='1361943']What I would like to see is a definitive answer on how checkerboard is interpolating the missing pixels for each eye image. While I can't say for certain without knowing exactly how the image is reconstructed, I would imagine checkerboard would be clearly better compared to SBS or row/column interleaved because each blank pixel has 4 fully adjacent pixels to sample from. SBS or row/column would only have 2 pixels to sample from, either above/below or to the sides. I think the only way we are going to get the answer to this is a TI whitepaper on CB or the feedback from CB users about what they see in each eye, because Photoshop or any other program won't be able to simulate what the DLP panels are doing unless they know the exact sampling/interpolating algorithm being used.



That's exactly why I think that CB might be better, but I guess that the difference really isn't that much. Even with SBS, you can use more than two pixels to interpolate, it's perfectly valid to use the neighbouring pixels of the line above and below as well.



In any case, I think the only place you'd see any difference at all would be some very delicate details. Especially if there are some vertical lines, where I think that SBS could be in a disadvantage over CB.



[quote name='chiz' date='28 January 2012 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1327779131' post='1361943']

Finally, looking over Flugan's pictures (really enjoy what this brings to the discussion btw), I don't think the 720p quality is fully represented here. I believe you just did 720p upscaling as it would appear if someone used 720p FS output. However, with 720p framepacking over HDMI, the image is much worst. You literally squish the 2560x720 image down to 1920x1080 which results in some pretty bad blurring/interpolation artifacts. That's probably another key distinction that should be made btw, 720p FS interpolation vs. 720p FP interpolation. Having played with both (just check out Youtube HTML5 content) its VERY hard to defend 720p FP image quality.



This I don't understand, at all. Why should 720p FP be any different than 720p FS? I can't believe they do some kind of scaling before seprating the images and projecting them to the native grid.

The only reasonable way is to separate the two images first, then scaling each image up to 1080p. I just can't imagine that they do it any other way.



But I trust that you did experience that. With every game or just with certain games?

Posted 01/28/2012 07:53 PM   
Adding another 3D Vision Ready game to the discussion.

This time the World of Warcraft:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ues6doh1swrr418

Obviously for CB on a TV you would probably use a larger GUI setting than this.

The lack of resolution at 720p is quite clear. In comparison CB is closer to the real 1080p native but with a lot of artifacts.

CB also depends on the TV used. I have read that rollermod on Samsung allows you to calibrate the input mode to PC.

If PC images rendered at full range 0-255 is framepacked and interpreted by the TV with incorrect range of 16-235 the result will be very bad.

I wouldn't believe that the actual scaling algorithm used when scaling from 720p to 1080p could be awful as it is also used for instance by PS3 and standard HDTV broadcast.

PC games are used to render to PC devices so there are many potential problems with color that are not directly connected to CB.

If rollermod is the only way to get correct colors it would win by default.

FP and CB should be compared in the same video mode or you are comparing apples and oranges.

So the question is if CB is the best as well as allowing PC mode or just the only way to get good colors.
Adding another 3D Vision Ready game to the discussion.



This time the World of Warcraft:

http://www.mediafire.com/?ues6doh1swrr418



Obviously for CB on a TV you would probably use a larger GUI setting than this.



The lack of resolution at 720p is quite clear. In comparison CB is closer to the real 1080p native but with a lot of artifacts.



CB also depends on the TV used. I have read that rollermod on Samsung allows you to calibrate the input mode to PC.



If PC images rendered at full range 0-255 is framepacked and interpreted by the TV with incorrect range of 16-235 the result will be very bad.



I wouldn't believe that the actual scaling algorithm used when scaling from 720p to 1080p could be awful as it is also used for instance by PS3 and standard HDTV broadcast.



PC games are used to render to PC devices so there are many potential problems with color that are not directly connected to CB.



If rollermod is the only way to get correct colors it would win by default.



FP and CB should be compared in the same video mode or you are comparing apples and oranges.



So the question is if CB is the best as well as allowing PC mode or just the only way to get good colors.

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

Posted 01/28/2012 08:07 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='28 January 2012 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1327779227' post='1361946']
What's the difference between "It is a native resolution" and "is lossless" in this context?

Using a native resolution has the advantage of being able to be projected lossless.
And a lossless projection is only possible if you use a native resolution.

So, why do you thing these terms are in any way different?
[/quote]
Your statements/questions underscore your appauling lack of understanding of video.
'Native resolution' refers to mapping of the pixels, scaling. 'Lossless' means no loss of information. The fact that you can't distinguish between these two concepts proves my point. CB mode is native resolution, period, there is no debate. I never made any comment as to whether or not CB is, in addition to being native resolution, 'lossless'. You said I did, but you can't find any reference to my imaginary statement.
All these formats are either scaled or they are native resolution. Therefore, saying that a format is not native resolution amounts to saying the format is scaled, which is what you keep telling us. CB mode is NOT scaled, but of course you wouldn't know about that since you keep telling us that you don't need to see CB to know what it looks like.
Your logical blunder amounts to this:
lossless format is native resolution.
CB is not lossless, therefore it is not native resolution.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='28 January 2012 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1327779227' post='1361946']

What's the difference between "It is a native resolution" and "is lossless" in this context?



Using a native resolution has the advantage of being able to be projected lossless.

And a lossless projection is only possible if you use a native resolution.



So, why do you thing these terms are in any way different?



Your statements/questions underscore your appauling lack of understanding of video.

'Native resolution' refers to mapping of the pixels, scaling. 'Lossless' means no loss of information. The fact that you can't distinguish between these two concepts proves my point. CB mode is native resolution, period, there is no debate. I never made any comment as to whether or not CB is, in addition to being native resolution, 'lossless'. You said I did, but you can't find any reference to my imaginary statement.

All these formats are either scaled or they are native resolution. Therefore, saying that a format is not native resolution amounts to saying the format is scaled, which is what you keep telling us. CB mode is NOT scaled, but of course you wouldn't know about that since you keep telling us that you don't need to see CB to know what it looks like.

Your logical blunder amounts to this:

lossless format is native resolution.

CB is not lossless, therefore it is not native resolution.

Posted 01/28/2012 09:39 PM   
CB transmits a native 2D image which contains half the pixels of the image being tranfered to each eye.

3D requires one native image per eye to to be native.

There exists 24hz 30hz 50hz 55hz and 60hz 3D native 1080p display modes.

1080p CB is not 3D native but appears to be pretty good and running at 60hz.

I want to differenciate between "3D Native" and native.

720p can be native but most devices are probably 1080p.
Projectors are a common exception.
CB transmits a native 2D image which contains half the pixels of the image being tranfered to each eye.



3D requires one native image per eye to to be native.



There exists 24hz 30hz 50hz 55hz and 60hz 3D native 1080p display modes.



1080p CB is not 3D native but appears to be pretty good and running at 60hz.



I want to differenciate between "3D Native" and native.



720p can be native but most devices are probably 1080p.

Projectors are a common exception.

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

Posted 01/28/2012 09:53 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='28 January 2012 - 03:23 AM' timestamp='1327742611' post='1361741']
I think there is a very basic misconception here.

It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye.

What's happening is that the TV is using the pixels it has and interpolates a full res, 1080p image out of them and shows that to one eye. Then it takes the other pixels, does its interpolating and scaling and shows it to the other eye.

For both checkerboard and side-by-side, you have to a downscaling before transmitting, cutting the resolution in half. You could do that just by cutting out half of the pixels, but that would certainly be suboptimal. Usually, there's at least some bilinear filtering involved, I'm pretty sure they're using a more elaborare algorithm for that.

I don't think that there is any visual difference between SBS or CB. The only slight difference that I can imagine might be caused by the fact, that for checkerboard you alternate the missing pixels for each line, while for SBS you'll lose the same pixel in each line.

If there were no intelligent downsampling, ie. if they would just drop the pixels they can't transmit, the following illustration would represent which pixels of the original image would be transmitted (x : Pixel transferred, - : lost pixel):

SBS:
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x

CB:
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-

But, again, I don't think that this difference makes any visual difference in the end result, because of the intelligent filtering when downscaling. You lose half the resolution using either SBS or CB anyway.

And that the other eye is also seeing the same scene (from a slightly different viewpoint), which is also shown using half the resolution, doesn't somehow make up for it. Even if both eyes would see exactly the same image (which is usually not the case in a 3D scene), each being half the resolution, you wouldn't somehow regain the lost resolution, just because the left eye sees the pixels that were skipped for the right eye. The brain doesn't work like this. And the whole downsampling and upsampling process doesn't reconstruct exact pixels anyway.

Summary:
[list][*]1080p in either 2D, frame sequential or frame packed results in the best and full resolution image quality on the screen.[/list][list][*]1080p used to transfer two [i][b]different[/b][/i] images (one for each eye), either using checkerboard, side-by-side, interleaved or any other technique is resulting in a visibly reduced resolution. There is just no doubt about that.[/list][list][*]I don't think that there is any visible difference, however, between using checkerboard or side-by-side. Interleaved/Interlaced will be looking slightly differnt, however, because here the resolution is cut vertically instead of horizontally. If that's actually better or worse than CB/SBS is mostly a matter of taste, I think.[/list][list][*]720p 3D is usually resulting in a worse image quality than 1080p CB or SBS, because the resolution is even lower. But, on the other hand, the image looks exactly like the game is rendering it, since there is no need for downscaling after the game has rendered the scene. That doesn't make any difference for most games, especially modern games also targetted for consoles.[/list][list][*]There are some games, however, where there are some fine, one pixel wide details (like texts or HUD details). Those are rendered using the full resolution available to the game, ie. the text is readable well enough, if you can actually see all 1920x1080 pixels. But because of the downscaling of the the rendered image (for CB resp. SBS), some of these details ARE lost, making the text harder to read and giving the HUD an overall blurred look.[/list][list][*]For those games it MIGHT be better to use 720p, because then the game renders the HUD and the texts matching for that resolution (using bigger text and HUD elements). There is no downscaling done for 720p images in 3D, so everything the game intends to render is visible on the screen in full detail.[/list]

That was my point from the beginning of this discussion. Not more and not less.
[/quote]

Grestorn,
I would invite you to look at the whitepaper from TI on DLP 3D Checkerboard noting especially figure 1 and figure 3. There can't be an interpolation for the 'other' pixel, because the pixels that are displayed for either eye, are always indexed to either the decimated left or right image. Hence, what is viewed per eye is only those pixels designated for that eye and never the pixels for the other eye, and this is because there is only ONE single checkerboard array image that is displayed. Any interpolation is ipso facto done in your head. That data loss in between doesn't really matter though because the checkerboard array per eye sees the basic topology of the 3D scene of the full 1080p, this is why checkerboard 3D is only slightly 'degraded' in reference to full 1080p frame sequential (SBS may be the same quality, I dunno, I don't comment on something unless I have viewed it, apriori arguments only have so much traction).

http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducing%20DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Whitepaper.pdf

photios
[quote name='Grestorn' date='28 January 2012 - 03:23 AM' timestamp='1327742611' post='1361741']

I think there is a very basic misconception here.



It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye.



What's happening is that the TV is using the pixels it has and interpolates a full res, 1080p image out of them and shows that to one eye. Then it takes the other pixels, does its interpolating and scaling and shows it to the other eye.



For both checkerboard and side-by-side, you have to a downscaling before transmitting, cutting the resolution in half. You could do that just by cutting out half of the pixels, but that would certainly be suboptimal. Usually, there's at least some bilinear filtering involved, I'm pretty sure they're using a more elaborare algorithm for that.



I don't think that there is any visual difference between SBS or CB. The only slight difference that I can imagine might be caused by the fact, that for checkerboard you alternate the missing pixels for each line, while for SBS you'll lose the same pixel in each line.



If there were no intelligent downsampling, ie. if they would just drop the pixels they can't transmit, the following illustration would represent which pixels of the original image would be transmitted (x : Pixel transferred, - : lost pixel):



SBS:

x-x-x-x-x

x-x-x-x-x

x-x-x-x-x

x-x-x-x-x



CB:

x-x-x-x-x

-x-x-x-x-

x-x-x-x-x

-x-x-x-x-



But, again, I don't think that this difference makes any visual difference in the end result, because of the intelligent filtering when downscaling. You lose half the resolution using either SBS or CB anyway.



And that the other eye is also seeing the same scene (from a slightly different viewpoint), which is also shown using half the resolution, doesn't somehow make up for it. Even if both eyes would see exactly the same image (which is usually not the case in a 3D scene), each being half the resolution, you wouldn't somehow regain the lost resolution, just because the left eye sees the pixels that were skipped for the right eye. The brain doesn't work like this. And the whole downsampling and upsampling process doesn't reconstruct exact pixels anyway.



Summary:

  • 1080p in either 2D, frame sequential or frame packed results in the best and full resolution image quality on the screen.
  • 1080p used to transfer two different images (one for each eye), either using checkerboard, side-by-side, interleaved or any other technique is resulting in a visibly reduced resolution. There is just no doubt about that.
  • I don't think that there is any visible difference, however, between using checkerboard or side-by-side. Interleaved/Interlaced will be looking slightly differnt, however, because here the resolution is cut vertically instead of horizontally. If that's actually better or worse than CB/SBS is mostly a matter of taste, I think.
  • 720p 3D is usually resulting in a worse image quality than 1080p CB or SBS, because the resolution is even lower. But, on the other hand, the image looks exactly like the game is rendering it, since there is no need for downscaling after the game has rendered the scene. That doesn't make any difference for most games, especially modern games also targetted for consoles.
  • There are some games, however, where there are some fine, one pixel wide details (like texts or HUD details). Those are rendered using the full resolution available to the game, ie. the text is readable well enough, if you can actually see all 1920x1080 pixels. But because of the downscaling of the the rendered image (for CB resp. SBS), some of these details ARE lost, making the text harder to read and giving the HUD an overall blurred look.
  • For those games it MIGHT be better to use 720p, because then the game renders the HUD and the texts matching for that resolution (using bigger text and HUD elements). There is no downscaling done for 720p images in 3D, so everything the game intends to render is visible on the screen in full detail.

That was my point from the beginning of this discussion. Not more and not less.

Grestorn,
I would invite you to look at the whitepaper from TI on DLP 3D Checkerboard noting especially figure 1 and figure 3. There can't be an interpolation for the 'other' pixel, because the pixels that are displayed for either eye, are always indexed to either the decimated left or right image. Hence, what is viewed per eye is only those pixels designated for that eye and never the pixels for the other eye, and this is because there is only ONE single checkerboard array image that is displayed. Any interpolation is ipso facto done in your head. That data loss in between doesn't really matter though because the checkerboard array per eye sees the basic topology of the 3D scene of the full 1080p, this is why checkerboard 3D is only slightly 'degraded' in reference to full 1080p frame sequential (SBS may be the same quality, I dunno, I don't comment on something unless I have viewed it, apriori arguments only have so much traction).



http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducing%20DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Whitepaper.pdf



photios

Posted 01/28/2012 10:28 PM   
Could anyone with CB hardware confirm if the missing pixels are shown as black when looking with a single eye at very close range.
If not the missing pixels have been interpolated with a better experience following.

If I would create an image where the missing pixels are rendered as black it would not look pretty.
Could anyone with CB hardware confirm if the missing pixels are shown as black when looking with a single eye at very close range.

If not the missing pixels have been interpolated with a better experience following.



If I would create an image where the missing pixels are rendered as black it would not look pretty.

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

Posted 01/28/2012 11:04 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='28 January 2012 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1327780438' post='1361957']
First of all, thanks for your well thought posting, chiz. Especially the misunderstanding about 'native resolution' you wrote about crossed my mind many times, and I actually wrote a lot of text to pinpoint that issue - and I always get the impression, that noone seems to read that. Maybe I'm just writing too much or not clearly enough. [/quote]
Yeah I think it just comes down to terminology and semantics or holding each other to to arguments based on different interpretations of the same words. Language differences might be a small part of it but its hard to tell because you, Nobsi and some of our other non-native English speakers are so fluent. :)


[quote]That's exactly why I think that CB might be better, but I guess that the difference really isn't that much. Even with SBS, you can use more than two pixels to interpolate, it's perfectly valid to use the neighbouring pixels of the line above and below as well.

In any case, I think the only place you'd see any difference at all would be some very delicate details. Especially if there are some vertical lines, where I think that SBS could be in a disadvantage over CB. [/quote]
Yeah it sounds like I may be wrong about this though, need more clarification. But in the case of checkerboard it should still have the advantage with line primitives over other interleaved methods as the only lines it would be really susceptible to are 45 degrees. Interleaved and SBS would still be vulnerable to vertical lines or in the case of row interleaved, horizontal lines.


[quote]This I don't understand, at all. Why should 720p FP be any different than 720p FS? I can't believe they do some kind of scaling [i]before [/i]seprating the images and projecting them to the native grid.
The only reasonable way is to separate the two images first, then scaling each image up to 1080p. I just can't imagine that they do it any other way.

But I trust that you did experience that. With every game or just with certain games?
[/quote]
My experience with this wasn't in actual games, but if you try to compress and upload content to Youtube you have to manually perform these transformations and the difference in picture quality becomes clearly evident.

It may be easier for you to see yourself however, using the same steps involved as encoding video from FRAPs to 1080p framepacked. This should also mimic the kind of scaling that occurs during the framepacking process, using similar technique as Flugan has provided.

Easiest to use a program like Photoshop, or for a nice free app that is functional but limited Paint.net: http://paint.net/

[list=1]

[*]Take a stereo screenshot you've taken and rename it .JPG instead of .JPS. This will allow Photo/paint to open it. PNS/PNG would be better for exact comparisons but for our purposes its not fully necessary.
[*]Open the stereo image and you will see the full 32:9 aspect double image at 3840x1080. This is [b]ACB 3840x1080p native.jps [/b]in my download bundle.
[*]Choose Image > Resize. Make sure "maintain aspect ratio" checkbox is off, we'll control that manually. Resize the 3840x1080 image to 2560x720. Then "Save As" to a different file name. This is [b]ACB 2560x720p scaled.jps[/b] in my download bundle. This is the equivalent of what you would see with just 720p FS, as the image is still excellent with slight scaling issues on a 1080p native screen. For even better accuracy, you could capture your screen at 720p and start at this step.
[*]Choose Image > Resize again and resize to 1920x1080. This is the part of framepacking that destroys image quality because not only are you losing pixel data by scaling the image down to a lower resolution, you're also breaking aspect ratio. This is named [b]ACB 1920x1080p framepacked [/b]and you can view it with any photo viewer (non-stereo). Originally I believe framepacking was supposed to keep aspect for 720p60, but for whatever reason, 720p framepacking always comes in a 1080p wrapper and squished (you can see this in virtually any youtube content or if you view framepacked content with a non-stereo viewer).
[*]Finally, Choose Image > Resize and resize the image back to 2560x720 and "Save As" to a different file name. This is [b]ACB 2560x720p unpacked.jps[/b] in my download bundle, and the equivalent of what you would see with 3DTV Play framepacking. Again, might not be as bad if the image processing on the TVs is a bit better or you started off with a PNS, but clearly a significant downgrade in image quality because of the framepacking/unpacking process. This step simulates the HDTV taking the 1080p image, splitting it, and resizing it to 16:9 aspect and outputting to 720p.

[/list]
You can flip through the different steps quickly in the "History" window and you can see the significant image degradation. When you're done, just rename the files to JPS and then view them in stereo photo viewer.

Here's the pictures I made featuring Helix's amazing ACB fixes ofc :D https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=1a21782f49102306&resid=1A21782F49102306!630&parid=root
[quote name='Grestorn' date='28 January 2012 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1327780438' post='1361957']

First of all, thanks for your well thought posting, chiz. Especially the misunderstanding about 'native resolution' you wrote about crossed my mind many times, and I actually wrote a lot of text to pinpoint that issue - and I always get the impression, that noone seems to read that. Maybe I'm just writing too much or not clearly enough.

Yeah I think it just comes down to terminology and semantics or holding each other to to arguments based on different interpretations of the same words. Language differences might be a small part of it but its hard to tell because you, Nobsi and some of our other non-native English speakers are so fluent. :)





That's exactly why I think that CB might be better, but I guess that the difference really isn't that much. Even with SBS, you can use more than two pixels to interpolate, it's perfectly valid to use the neighbouring pixels of the line above and below as well.



In any case, I think the only place you'd see any difference at all would be some very delicate details. Especially if there are some vertical lines, where I think that SBS could be in a disadvantage over CB.


Yeah it sounds like I may be wrong about this though, need more clarification. But in the case of checkerboard it should still have the advantage with line primitives over other interleaved methods as the only lines it would be really susceptible to are 45 degrees. Interleaved and SBS would still be vulnerable to vertical lines or in the case of row interleaved, horizontal lines.





This I don't understand, at all. Why should 720p FP be any different than 720p FS? I can't believe they do some kind of scaling before seprating the images and projecting them to the native grid.

The only reasonable way is to separate the two images first, then scaling each image up to 1080p. I just can't imagine that they do it any other way.



But I trust that you did experience that. With every game or just with certain games?



My experience with this wasn't in actual games, but if you try to compress and upload content to Youtube you have to manually perform these transformations and the difference in picture quality becomes clearly evident.



It may be easier for you to see yourself however, using the same steps involved as encoding video from FRAPs to 1080p framepacked. This should also mimic the kind of scaling that occurs during the framepacking process, using similar technique as Flugan has provided.



Easiest to use a program like Photoshop, or for a nice free app that is functional but limited Paint.net: http://paint.net/



[list=1]



  • Take a stereo screenshot you've taken and rename it .JPG instead of .JPS. This will allow Photo/paint to open it. PNS/PNG would be better for exact comparisons but for our purposes its not fully necessary.
  • Open the stereo image and you will see the full 32:9 aspect double image at 3840x1080. This is ACB 3840x1080p native.jps in my download bundle.
  • Choose Image > Resize. Make sure "maintain aspect ratio" checkbox is off, we'll control that manually. Resize the 3840x1080 image to 2560x720. Then "Save As" to a different file name. This is ACB 2560x720p scaled.jps in my download bundle. This is the equivalent of what you would see with just 720p FS, as the image is still excellent with slight scaling issues on a 1080p native screen. For even better accuracy, you could capture your screen at 720p and start at this step.
  • Choose Image > Resize again and resize to 1920x1080. This is the part of framepacking that destroys image quality because not only are you losing pixel data by scaling the image down to a lower resolution, you're also breaking aspect ratio. This is named ACB 1920x1080p framepacked and you can view it with any photo viewer (non-stereo). Originally I believe framepacking was supposed to keep aspect for 720p60, but for whatever reason, 720p framepacking always comes in a 1080p wrapper and squished (you can see this in virtually any youtube content or if you view framepacked content with a non-stereo viewer).
  • Finally, Choose Image > Resize and resize the image back to 2560x720 and "Save As" to a different file name. This is ACB 2560x720p unpacked.jps in my download bundle, and the equivalent of what you would see with 3DTV Play framepacking. Again, might not be as bad if the image processing on the TVs is a bit better or you started off with a PNS, but clearly a significant downgrade in image quality because of the framepacking/unpacking process. This step simulates the HDTV taking the 1080p image, splitting it, and resizing it to 16:9 aspect and outputting to 720p.

  • [/list]

    You can flip through the different steps quickly in the "History" window and you can see the significant image degradation. When you're done, just rename the files to JPS and then view them in stereo photo viewer.



    Here's the pictures I made featuring Helix's amazing ACB fixes ofc :D https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=1a21782f49102306&resid=1A21782F49102306!630&parid=root

    -=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
    My 3D Vision Games List Ratings

    Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
    Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
    Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
    Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
    Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W

    Posted 01/29/2012 04:09 AM   
    [quote name='photios' date='28 January 2012 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1327789686' post='1362005']
    Grestorn,
    I would invite you to look at the whitepaper from TI on DLP 3D Checkerboard noting especially figure 1 and figure 3. There can't be an interpolation for the 'other' pixel, because the pixels that are displayed for either eye, are always indexed to either the decimated left or right image. Hence, what is viewed per eye is only those pixels designated for that eye and never the pixels for the other eye, and this is because there is only ONE single checkerboard array image that is displayed. Any interpolation is ipso facto done in your head. That data loss in between doesn't really matter though because the checkerboard array per eye sees the basic topology of the 3D scene of the full 1080p, this is why checkerboard 3D is only slightly 'degraded' in reference to full 1080p frame sequential (SBS may be the same quality, I dunno, I don't comment on something unless I have viewed it, apriori arguments only have so much traction).

    http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducing%20DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Whitepaper.pdf

    photios
    [/quote]
    Hmm the whitepaper seems to indicate the blank remains a blank when the image is split and the missing pixels aren't resampled/reconstituted. So if you look through only one eye, you do see the checkerboarding pattern and the blanked pixels?

    [quote name='Flugan' date='28 January 2012 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1327791840' post='1362017']
    Could anyone with CB hardware confirm if the missing pixels are shown as black when looking with a single eye at very close range.
    If not the missing pixels have been interpolated with a better experience following.

    If I would create an image where the missing pixels are rendered as black it would not look pretty.
    [/quote]
    I agree, more clarification on this would be great. Nobsi seemed to indicate the images for each eye were interpolated so all the blank pixels were replaced. If the blanks remained blank with a black pixel, you'd almost risk an aliasing issue always and a high probability of ghosting anytime a bright pixel in one eye overlapped a blank black pixel in the other.
    [quote name='photios' date='28 January 2012 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1327789686' post='1362005']

    Grestorn,

    I would invite you to look at the whitepaper from TI on DLP 3D Checkerboard noting especially figure 1 and figure 3. There can't be an interpolation for the 'other' pixel, because the pixels that are displayed for either eye, are always indexed to either the decimated left or right image. Hence, what is viewed per eye is only those pixels designated for that eye and never the pixels for the other eye, and this is because there is only ONE single checkerboard array image that is displayed. Any interpolation is ipso facto done in your head. That data loss in between doesn't really matter though because the checkerboard array per eye sees the basic topology of the 3D scene of the full 1080p, this is why checkerboard 3D is only slightly 'degraded' in reference to full 1080p frame sequential (SBS may be the same quality, I dunno, I don't comment on something unless I have viewed it, apriori arguments only have so much traction).



    http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducing%20DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Whitepaper.pdf



    photios



    Hmm the whitepaper seems to indicate the blank remains a blank when the image is split and the missing pixels aren't resampled/reconstituted. So if you look through only one eye, you do see the checkerboarding pattern and the blanked pixels?



    [quote name='Flugan' date='28 January 2012 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1327791840' post='1362017']

    Could anyone with CB hardware confirm if the missing pixels are shown as black when looking with a single eye at very close range.

    If not the missing pixels have been interpolated with a better experience following.



    If I would create an image where the missing pixels are rendered as black it would not look pretty.



    I agree, more clarification on this would be great. Nobsi seemed to indicate the images for each eye were interpolated so all the blank pixels were replaced. If the blanks remained blank with a black pixel, you'd almost risk an aliasing issue always and a high probability of ghosting anytime a bright pixel in one eye overlapped a blank black pixel in the other.

    -=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
    My 3D Vision Games List Ratings

    Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
    Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
    Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
    Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
    Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W

    Posted 01/29/2012 04:15 AM   
    photographs please...

    @Flugan, what is the difference between the two 720p screenshots you uploaded? I downloaded the Trine 2 demo and to me the first photo is most like what i see. I do not have the blurriness of the "unscaled" photo. Are those misnamed?

    Whats weird to me is the CB shot is a blurry mess on my display. It looks far worse than 720p. I thought maybe my Sony TV, which is designed for TV just processed 720p really well, but SBS mode does not blur it that much either. So im guessing the blur technique was too much?
    photographs please...



    @Flugan, what is the difference between the two 720p screenshots you uploaded? I downloaded the Trine 2 demo and to me the first photo is most like what i see. I do not have the blurriness of the "unscaled" photo. Are those misnamed?



    Whats weird to me is the CB shot is a blurry mess on my display. It looks far worse than 720p. I thought maybe my Sony TV, which is designed for TV just processed 720p really well, but SBS mode does not blur it that much either. So im guessing the blur technique was too much?

    46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530

    Posted 01/29/2012 08:19 AM   
    [quote name='photios' date='28 January 2012 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1327789686' post='1362005']
    Grestorn,
    I would invite you to look at the whitepaper from TI on DLP 3D Checkerboard noting especially figure 1 and figure 3. There can't be an interpolation for the 'other' pixel, because the pixels that are displayed for either eye, are always indexed to either the decimated left or right image.
    [/quote]
    About the whitepaper:

    It's for a DLP projector. As I understand it, the DLP projector actually projects both images at the same time and uses a pair of passive glasses to separate them.
    So, for these kinds of DLP projectors you're actually right, because it's working very similar like a passive 3D TV, only that it can use a checkerboard pattern instead of a line pattern.

    So again we have an additional source for confusion in this discussion:

    - When talking about an active 3D TV, it has to interpolate, no matter whether the signal is using SBS, interleaved or CB.
    - When talking about a passive 3D TV, it can use interleaved and show the two pictures at the same time (it doesn't have to alternate between them). But each eye sees only half of the lines, resulting in more or less visible black lines and a reduced resolution.
    - When talking about a passive DLP projector, it can do the same thing, but with individual pixels. So it also can display a checkerboard pattern, simultaneously showing one pixel to the left and the next pixel to the right eye and so on. Each eye, however, will still see the one pixel wide "holes". Which are probably much to small to be seen at any reasonable distance. The resolution, however, is still halved, even in this scenario. There is no way around that. Still, I think that's the best way to project an image using HDMI 1.4, the subjective quality should be close to the optimum.

    The optimum being, btw, using two projectors both projecting a full res 1920x1080 pixel image, one for the left and one for the right eye. That's done in cinemas, by the way (with higher resolution even). But for now, HDMI 1.4a doesn't allow this, because there is no specification for that yet.
    [quote name='photios' date='28 January 2012 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1327789686' post='1362005']

    Grestorn,

    I would invite you to look at the whitepaper from TI on DLP 3D Checkerboard noting especially figure 1 and figure 3. There can't be an interpolation for the 'other' pixel, because the pixels that are displayed for either eye, are always indexed to either the decimated left or right image.



    About the whitepaper:



    It's for a DLP projector. As I understand it, the DLP projector actually projects both images at the same time and uses a pair of passive glasses to separate them.

    So, for these kinds of DLP projectors you're actually right, because it's working very similar like a passive 3D TV, only that it can use a checkerboard pattern instead of a line pattern.



    So again we have an additional source for confusion in this discussion:



    - When talking about an active 3D TV, it has to interpolate, no matter whether the signal is using SBS, interleaved or CB.

    - When talking about a passive 3D TV, it can use interleaved and show the two pictures at the same time (it doesn't have to alternate between them). But each eye sees only half of the lines, resulting in more or less visible black lines and a reduced resolution.

    - When talking about a passive DLP projector, it can do the same thing, but with individual pixels. So it also can display a checkerboard pattern, simultaneously showing one pixel to the left and the next pixel to the right eye and so on. Each eye, however, will still see the one pixel wide "holes". Which are probably much to small to be seen at any reasonable distance. The resolution, however, is still halved, even in this scenario. There is no way around that. Still, I think that's the best way to project an image using HDMI 1.4, the subjective quality should be close to the optimum.



    The optimum being, btw, using two projectors both projecting a full res 1920x1080 pixel image, one for the left and one for the right eye. That's done in cinemas, by the way (with higher resolution even). But for now, HDMI 1.4a doesn't allow this, because there is no specification for that yet.

    Posted 01/29/2012 08:52 AM   
    [quote name='chiz' date='29 January 2012 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1327810172' post='1362085']
    Yeah I think it just comes down to terminology and semantics or holding each other to to arguments based on different interpretations of the same words. Language differences might be a small part of it but its hard to tell because you, Nobsi and some of our other non-native English speakers are so fluent. :) [/quote]Thanks... However, I was hoping that me being german wouldn't be so obvious :)

    [quote name='chiz' date='29 January 2012 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1327810172' post='1362085']
    Yeah it sounds like I may be wrong about this though, need more clarification. But in the case of checkerboard it should still have the advantage with line primitives over other interleaved methods as the only lines it would be really susceptible to are 45 degrees. Interleaved and SBS would still be vulnerable to vertical lines or in the case of row interleaved, horizontal lines. [/quote]Yes, exactly my understanding as well.

    [quote name='chiz' date='29 January 2012 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1327810172' post='1362085']
    My experience with this wasn't in actual games, but if you try to compress and upload content to Youtube you have to manually perform these transformations and the difference in picture quality becomes clearly evident.
    [/quote]
    The process you're describing would certainly lead to this bad picture quality. But I'd expect games to be rendered differently:
    [list=1][*]They should render to 1280x720 in the first place, so no downscaling should be necessary.[*]Then you glew the two frames together, getting a 2560x720 pixel image. Still no quality loss.[*]You transfer them over HDMI 1.4a. Still no quality loss.[*]The display then separates these two images FIRST, getting two 1280x720 images. No quality loss yet, either.[*]And finally it stretches those two images to the native display resolution, ie. 1920x1080. There you finally have a quality loss.[/list]
    So, in my point of view, 720p on a 3D display using HDMI 1.4a should look exactly like you set a game to run in 1280x720 on a normal 1920x1080 PC monitor. I can't see why there should be any difference.

    YouTube is certainly not a good comparison, because you are limited by what you can do within the YouTube restrictions.
    [quote name='chiz' date='29 January 2012 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1327810172' post='1362085']

    Yeah I think it just comes down to terminology and semantics or holding each other to to arguments based on different interpretations of the same words. Language differences might be a small part of it but its hard to tell because you, Nobsi and some of our other non-native English speakers are so fluent. :) Thanks... However, I was hoping that me being german wouldn't be so obvious :)



    [quote name='chiz' date='29 January 2012 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1327810172' post='1362085']

    Yeah it sounds like I may be wrong about this though, need more clarification. But in the case of checkerboard it should still have the advantage with line primitives over other interleaved methods as the only lines it would be really susceptible to are 45 degrees. Interleaved and SBS would still be vulnerable to vertical lines or in the case of row interleaved, horizontal lines. Yes, exactly my understanding as well.



    [quote name='chiz' date='29 January 2012 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1327810172' post='1362085']

    My experience with this wasn't in actual games, but if you try to compress and upload content to Youtube you have to manually perform these transformations and the difference in picture quality becomes clearly evident.



    The process you're describing would certainly lead to this bad picture quality. But I'd expect games to be rendered differently:

    [list=1]
  • They should render to 1280x720 in the first place, so no downscaling should be necessary.
  • Then you glew the two frames together, getting a 2560x720 pixel image. Still no quality loss.
  • You transfer them over HDMI 1.4a. Still no quality loss.[*]The display then separates these two images FIRST, getting two 1280x720 images. No quality loss yet, either.[*]And finally it stretches those two images to the native display resolution, ie. 1920x1080. There you finally have a quality loss.[/list]
  • So, in my point of view, 720p on a 3D display using HDMI 1.4a should look exactly like you set a game to run in 1280x720 on a normal 1920x1080 PC monitor. I can't see why there should be any difference.
    YouTube is certainly not a good comparison, because you are limited by what you can do within the YouTube restrictions.

    Posted 01/29/2012 09:35 AM   
      8 / 12    
    Scroll To Top