Nivida 3DTV play software?
  46 / 58    
Actually gaming at 1080p in 24hz is quite acceptable if you have a high end rig. :)
Actually gaming at 1080p in 24hz is quite acceptable if you have a high end rig. :)

Posted 11/23/2010 05:57 PM   
Please don't get me started on Display Port, my Dell at work only has Display Port connectors (NVidia Quadro card) I have to se an active adapter to use my Dell 30 inch monitor.
At least once a day, something happens that causes the diplay to wig out (my guess would be the adapter) not only is it impossible to get the image back the machine locks up.
This isn't a bad adapter, video card or monitor because it happens to everyone in the building with the same configuration.

Display port might be a better standard, but until they can make it work reliably with existing monitors, I won't be buying card with connectors on it.
Please don't get me started on Display Port, my Dell at work only has Display Port connectors (NVidia Quadro card) I have to se an active adapter to use my Dell 30 inch monitor.

At least once a day, something happens that causes the diplay to wig out (my guess would be the adapter) not only is it impossible to get the image back the machine locks up.

This isn't a bad adapter, video card or monitor because it happens to everyone in the building with the same configuration.



Display port might be a better standard, but until they can make it work reliably with existing monitors, I won't be buying card with connectors on it.
Posted 11/23/2010 06:12 PM   
Please don't get me started on Display Port, my Dell at work only has Display Port connectors (NVidia Quadro card) I have to se an active adapter to use my Dell 30 inch monitor.
At least once a day, something happens that causes the diplay to wig out (my guess would be the adapter) not only is it impossible to get the image back the machine locks up.
This isn't a bad adapter, video card or monitor because it happens to everyone in the building with the same configuration.

Display port might be a better standard, but until they can make it work reliably with existing monitors, I won't be buying card with connectors on it.
Please don't get me started on Display Port, my Dell at work only has Display Port connectors (NVidia Quadro card) I have to se an active adapter to use my Dell 30 inch monitor.

At least once a day, something happens that causes the diplay to wig out (my guess would be the adapter) not only is it impossible to get the image back the machine locks up.

This isn't a bad adapter, video card or monitor because it happens to everyone in the building with the same configuration.



Display port might be a better standard, but until they can make it work reliably with existing monitors, I won't be buying card with connectors on it.
Posted 11/23/2010 06:12 PM   
It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.

I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.
It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.



I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.

Posted 11/24/2010 12:21 AM   
It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.

I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.
It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.



I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.

Posted 11/24/2010 12:21 AM   
Yes, to Nvidia supporting 1080p24 and 720p60 is just a piece of cake, its the problem of HDMI.

But why that piece of cake delayed again and again? Come on, its already late Nov. Even GT5, a 3D game for the technologically outdated PS3 is out, and Nvidia is still asking users to provide EDID?
Yes, to Nvidia supporting 1080p24 and 720p60 is just a piece of cake, its the problem of HDMI.



But why that piece of cake delayed again and again? Come on, its already late Nov. Even GT5, a 3D game for the technologically outdated PS3 is out, and Nvidia is still asking users to provide EDID?

Posted 11/24/2010 01:33 AM   
Yes, to Nvidia supporting 1080p24 and 720p60 is just a piece of cake, its the problem of HDMI.

But why that piece of cake delayed again and again? Come on, its already late Nov. Even GT5, a 3D game for the technologically outdated PS3 is out, and Nvidia is still asking users to provide EDID?
Yes, to Nvidia supporting 1080p24 and 720p60 is just a piece of cake, its the problem of HDMI.



But why that piece of cake delayed again and again? Come on, its already late Nov. Even GT5, a 3D game for the technologically outdated PS3 is out, and Nvidia is still asking users to provide EDID?

Posted 11/24/2010 01:33 AM   
[quote name='Hixbot' date='23 November 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1290558113' post='1150725']
It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.

I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.
[/quote]

Hi

The current 3D TVs only support 720p60 and 1080p24 maximum 3D modes for us to achieve the best quality 3D.
[quote name='Hixbot' date='23 November 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1290558113' post='1150725']

It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.



I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.





Hi



The current 3D TVs only support 720p60 and 1080p24 maximum 3D modes for us to achieve the best quality 3D.

Posted 11/24/2010 06:57 PM   
[quote name='Hixbot' date='23 November 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1290558113' post='1150725']
It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.

I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.
[/quote]

Hi

The current 3D TVs only support 720p60 and 1080p24 maximum 3D modes for us to achieve the best quality 3D.
[quote name='Hixbot' date='23 November 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1290558113' post='1150725']

It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.



I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.





Hi



The current 3D TVs only support 720p60 and 1080p24 maximum 3D modes for us to achieve the best quality 3D.

Posted 11/24/2010 06:57 PM   
[quote name='Hixbot' date='24 November 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1290558113' post='1150725']
It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.

I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.
[/quote]

You're wrong pal, frame packing format has way better 3D quality compared to checkerboard, side-by-side or top/bottom format. Frame packing delivers 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080 per eye, while these other formats only support half the resolution per eye.
Believe, it's better to play games at 720p 60hz frame packing, rather than checkerboard 1080p 60hz.
Why do you think consoles are using frame packing and not side-by-side format?
These formats such as side-by-side and checkerboard can be achieved by the 3D TV, without the need of drivers, so it's no up to Nvidia to release games compatible with this format, it's up to the games developers. Avatar is an example of that, and you don't need any drivers, just a video card from Ati or Nvidia. I've played Avatar in checkerboard format, cause my Samsung 3D Plasma TV suports thsi format, it's OK, but it's not even close to 1080p 24hz frame packing. I do hate 24hz, it's to freaking slow for games, but the picture quality is way better. 720p is definatelly not the same thing as Full HD, but don't be fooled by 1080p 60hz side-by-side, it's about the same quality as 720p 60hz frame package format, cause it's only half resolution per eye.

The problem is the limitation of standard HDMI 1.4a, and until HDMI 1.5 comes out, we have to live with that, it's not Nvidia fault....
[quote name='Hixbot' date='24 November 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1290558113' post='1150725']

It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.



I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.





You're wrong pal, frame packing format has way better 3D quality compared to checkerboard, side-by-side or top/bottom format. Frame packing delivers 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080 per eye, while these other formats only support half the resolution per eye.

Believe, it's better to play games at 720p 60hz frame packing, rather than checkerboard 1080p 60hz.

Why do you think consoles are using frame packing and not side-by-side format?

These formats such as side-by-side and checkerboard can be achieved by the 3D TV, without the need of drivers, so it's no up to Nvidia to release games compatible with this format, it's up to the games developers. Avatar is an example of that, and you don't need any drivers, just a video card from Ati or Nvidia. I've played Avatar in checkerboard format, cause my Samsung 3D Plasma TV suports thsi format, it's OK, but it's not even close to 1080p 24hz frame packing. I do hate 24hz, it's to freaking slow for games, but the picture quality is way better. 720p is definatelly not the same thing as Full HD, but don't be fooled by 1080p 60hz side-by-side, it's about the same quality as 720p 60hz frame package format, cause it's only half resolution per eye.



The problem is the limitation of standard HDMI 1.4a, and until HDMI 1.5 comes out, we have to live with that, it's not Nvidia fault....

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD

Posted 11/24/2010 09:01 PM   
[quote name='Hixbot' date='24 November 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1290558113' post='1150725']
It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.

I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.
[/quote]

You're wrong pal, frame packing format has way better 3D quality compared to checkerboard, side-by-side or top/bottom format. Frame packing delivers 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080 per eye, while these other formats only support half the resolution per eye.
Believe, it's better to play games at 720p 60hz frame packing, rather than checkerboard 1080p 60hz.
Why do you think consoles are using frame packing and not side-by-side format?
These formats such as side-by-side and checkerboard can be achieved by the 3D TV, without the need of drivers, so it's no up to Nvidia to release games compatible with this format, it's up to the games developers. Avatar is an example of that, and you don't need any drivers, just a video card from Ati or Nvidia. I've played Avatar in checkerboard format, cause my Samsung 3D Plasma TV suports thsi format, it's OK, but it's not even close to 1080p 24hz frame packing. I do hate 24hz, it's to freaking slow for games, but the picture quality is way better. 720p is definatelly not the same thing as Full HD, but don't be fooled by 1080p 60hz side-by-side, it's about the same quality as 720p 60hz frame package format, cause it's only half resolution per eye.

The problem is the limitation of standard HDMI 1.4a, and until HDMI 1.5 comes out, we have to live with that, it's not Nvidia fault....
[quote name='Hixbot' date='24 November 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1290558113' post='1150725']

It's true that HDMI standards are holding 3DTV back, otherwise I'm sure Nvidia would support 1080p60 frampeacking.



I'm not sure why nvidia chose to only support 1080p24 and 720p60 frampacking. 1080p60 side by side, tob/bottom, or checkerboard are all superior to 720p60 framepacking, and they are supported by pre 1.4 HDMI.





You're wrong pal, frame packing format has way better 3D quality compared to checkerboard, side-by-side or top/bottom format. Frame packing delivers 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080 per eye, while these other formats only support half the resolution per eye.

Believe, it's better to play games at 720p 60hz frame packing, rather than checkerboard 1080p 60hz.

Why do you think consoles are using frame packing and not side-by-side format?

These formats such as side-by-side and checkerboard can be achieved by the 3D TV, without the need of drivers, so it's no up to Nvidia to release games compatible with this format, it's up to the games developers. Avatar is an example of that, and you don't need any drivers, just a video card from Ati or Nvidia. I've played Avatar in checkerboard format, cause my Samsung 3D Plasma TV suports thsi format, it's OK, but it's not even close to 1080p 24hz frame packing. I do hate 24hz, it's to freaking slow for games, but the picture quality is way better. 720p is definatelly not the same thing as Full HD, but don't be fooled by 1080p 60hz side-by-side, it's about the same quality as 720p 60hz frame package format, cause it's only half resolution per eye.



The problem is the limitation of standard HDMI 1.4a, and until HDMI 1.5 comes out, we have to live with that, it's not Nvidia fault....

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD

Posted 11/24/2010 09:01 PM   
I agree it is not Nvidia's fault.

It's just unfortunate they apparently had no influence whatsoever in the HDMI 1.4a format.

Interesting to hear displayport still has problems. I'm sure the problems can eventually be worked out. I haven't read too many other complaints like that but then again, probably not many people are actually using displayport. A bunch of people using the palit gtx 470 with their mac monitors seem to think it works well on newegg. Maybe mac implemented displayport better in their monitors.

Oh well. Thinking a bit more, I realized 2 x Dual Link DVI is essential on all video cards currently so I was wrong about that in my rant.

But how come not a single TV manufacturer can't simply put a DUAL LINK DVI input on their TVs? That would make nvidias 3D solution work.
Or would there be too much lag from the TV and the whole system would break? I guess we'll never know because:
Sony/Samsung/Panasonic/Toshiba/Sharp/LG all refused to put a single dual link DVI input on their 32" or larger TVs.

If any of them simply added a dual link DVI input, wouldn't a bunch of PC 3D gamers get that "special" TV? It seems like a nice distinguishing factor which would make a particular model stand out. And it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Certainly it is something that would attract a lot of attention from the 3D PC community and whatever company chose to support nvidia would break new ground. I'm sure Nvidia would give them some free advertising as well. But all the corrupt TV manufactures are in bed together on the crappy HDMI 1.4a implementation. They all want to resell their "obsolete" TVs again in a couple years. Shame on all of them.

I'm sure Nvidia was not terribly happy about HDMI 1.4a when they already did figure out the best 3D solution. Nvidia does deserve a lot of credit for actually pushing quality 3D gaming again. ATI certainly didn't care at all for the longest time.

Maybe I'll just wait for the 27" 3D monitors next year and go with 3D Vision. Or just settle for a normal 3D TV and accept the 1080p 24 which dreamingawake said wasn't that bad. Somehow, I want to boycott all of those TV manufactures.

I'm sure in another 2 or 3 years, this will all be worked out when Playstation 4 and HDMI 1.5 get released so the console players get their higher quality games.
I agree it is not Nvidia's fault.



It's just unfortunate they apparently had no influence whatsoever in the HDMI 1.4a format.



Interesting to hear displayport still has problems. I'm sure the problems can eventually be worked out. I haven't read too many other complaints like that but then again, probably not many people are actually using displayport. A bunch of people using the palit gtx 470 with their mac monitors seem to think it works well on newegg. Maybe mac implemented displayport better in their monitors.



Oh well. Thinking a bit more, I realized 2 x Dual Link DVI is essential on all video cards currently so I was wrong about that in my rant.



But how come not a single TV manufacturer can't simply put a DUAL LINK DVI input on their TVs? That would make nvidias 3D solution work.

Or would there be too much lag from the TV and the whole system would break? I guess we'll never know because:

Sony/Samsung/Panasonic/Toshiba/Sharp/LG all refused to put a single dual link DVI input on their 32" or larger TVs.



If any of them simply added a dual link DVI input, wouldn't a bunch of PC 3D gamers get that "special" TV? It seems like a nice distinguishing factor which would make a particular model stand out. And it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Certainly it is something that would attract a lot of attention from the 3D PC community and whatever company chose to support nvidia would break new ground. I'm sure Nvidia would give them some free advertising as well. But all the corrupt TV manufactures are in bed together on the crappy HDMI 1.4a implementation. They all want to resell their "obsolete" TVs again in a couple years. Shame on all of them.



I'm sure Nvidia was not terribly happy about HDMI 1.4a when they already did figure out the best 3D solution. Nvidia does deserve a lot of credit for actually pushing quality 3D gaming again. ATI certainly didn't care at all for the longest time.



Maybe I'll just wait for the 27" 3D monitors next year and go with 3D Vision. Or just settle for a normal 3D TV and accept the 1080p 24 which dreamingawake said wasn't that bad. Somehow, I want to boycott all of those TV manufactures.



I'm sure in another 2 or 3 years, this will all be worked out when Playstation 4 and HDMI 1.5 get released so the console players get their higher quality games.

Posted 11/25/2010 09:14 AM   
I agree it is not Nvidia's fault.

It's just unfortunate they apparently had no influence whatsoever in the HDMI 1.4a format.

Interesting to hear displayport still has problems. I'm sure the problems can eventually be worked out. I haven't read too many other complaints like that but then again, probably not many people are actually using displayport. A bunch of people using the palit gtx 470 with their mac monitors seem to think it works well on newegg. Maybe mac implemented displayport better in their monitors.

Oh well. Thinking a bit more, I realized 2 x Dual Link DVI is essential on all video cards currently so I was wrong about that in my rant.

But how come not a single TV manufacturer can't simply put a DUAL LINK DVI input on their TVs? That would make nvidias 3D solution work.
Or would there be too much lag from the TV and the whole system would break? I guess we'll never know because:
Sony/Samsung/Panasonic/Toshiba/Sharp/LG all refused to put a single dual link DVI input on their 32" or larger TVs.

If any of them simply added a dual link DVI input, wouldn't a bunch of PC 3D gamers get that "special" TV? It seems like a nice distinguishing factor which would make a particular model stand out. And it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Certainly it is something that would attract a lot of attention from the 3D PC community and whatever company chose to support nvidia would break new ground. I'm sure Nvidia would give them some free advertising as well. But all the corrupt TV manufactures are in bed together on the crappy HDMI 1.4a implementation. They all want to resell their "obsolete" TVs again in a couple years. Shame on all of them.

I'm sure Nvidia was not terribly happy about HDMI 1.4a when they already did figure out the best 3D solution. Nvidia does deserve a lot of credit for actually pushing quality 3D gaming again. ATI certainly didn't care at all for the longest time.

Maybe I'll just wait for the 27" 3D monitors next year and go with 3D Vision. Or just settle for a normal 3D TV and accept the 1080p 24 which dreamingawake said wasn't that bad. Somehow, I want to boycott all of those TV manufactures.

I'm sure in another 2 or 3 years, this will all be worked out when Playstation 4 and HDMI 1.5 get released so the console players get their higher quality games.
I agree it is not Nvidia's fault.



It's just unfortunate they apparently had no influence whatsoever in the HDMI 1.4a format.



Interesting to hear displayport still has problems. I'm sure the problems can eventually be worked out. I haven't read too many other complaints like that but then again, probably not many people are actually using displayport. A bunch of people using the palit gtx 470 with their mac monitors seem to think it works well on newegg. Maybe mac implemented displayport better in their monitors.



Oh well. Thinking a bit more, I realized 2 x Dual Link DVI is essential on all video cards currently so I was wrong about that in my rant.



But how come not a single TV manufacturer can't simply put a DUAL LINK DVI input on their TVs? That would make nvidias 3D solution work.

Or would there be too much lag from the TV and the whole system would break? I guess we'll never know because:

Sony/Samsung/Panasonic/Toshiba/Sharp/LG all refused to put a single dual link DVI input on their 32" or larger TVs.



If any of them simply added a dual link DVI input, wouldn't a bunch of PC 3D gamers get that "special" TV? It seems like a nice distinguishing factor which would make a particular model stand out. And it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Certainly it is something that would attract a lot of attention from the 3D PC community and whatever company chose to support nvidia would break new ground. I'm sure Nvidia would give them some free advertising as well. But all the corrupt TV manufactures are in bed together on the crappy HDMI 1.4a implementation. They all want to resell their "obsolete" TVs again in a couple years. Shame on all of them.



I'm sure Nvidia was not terribly happy about HDMI 1.4a when they already did figure out the best 3D solution. Nvidia does deserve a lot of credit for actually pushing quality 3D gaming again. ATI certainly didn't care at all for the longest time.



Maybe I'll just wait for the 27" 3D monitors next year and go with 3D Vision. Or just settle for a normal 3D TV and accept the 1080p 24 which dreamingawake said wasn't that bad. Somehow, I want to boycott all of those TV manufactures.



I'm sure in another 2 or 3 years, this will all be worked out when Playstation 4 and HDMI 1.5 get released so the console players get their higher quality games.

Posted 11/25/2010 09:14 AM   
November 26th and still waiting for 3DTV PLAY. This is getting as disapointing as video games when they come out with release dates and Almost never release on those dates lol
November 26th and still waiting for 3DTV PLAY. This is getting as disapointing as video games when they come out with release dates and Almost never release on those dates lol

Posted 11/26/2010 12:32 PM   
November 26th and still waiting for 3DTV PLAY. This is getting as disapointing as video games when they come out with release dates and Almost never release on those dates lol
November 26th and still waiting for 3DTV PLAY. This is getting as disapointing as video games when they come out with release dates and Almost never release on those dates lol

Posted 11/26/2010 12:32 PM   
  46 / 58    
Scroll To Top