3D tv
hi ,i want to ask,i have a samsung LED 40D6600,is that supported with 3D NVIDIA
hi ,i want to ask,i have a samsung LED 40D6600,is that supported with 3D NVIDIA

#1
Posted 04/27/2011 11:31 AM   
For 3D gaming at native resolution, forget about nvidia. You must get either TriDef 3D drivers or iZ3D drivers and select side-by-side 3D mode. Nvidia choose to not support side-by-side mode, the universal standard for 3D gaming.
For 3D gaming at native resolution, forget about nvidia. You must get either TriDef 3D drivers or iZ3D drivers and select side-by-side 3D mode. Nvidia choose to not support side-by-side mode, the universal standard for 3D gaming.

#2
Posted 04/27/2011 03:23 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='27 April 2011 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1303917800' post='1230968']
For 3D gaming at native resolution, forget about nvidia. You must get either TriDef 3D drivers or iZ3D drivers and select side-by-side 3D mode. Nvidia choose to not support side-by-side mode, the universal standard for 3D gaming.
[/quote]

How is it a universal standard for 3D gaming? The PS3 does framepacking. The Xbox does side-by-side, and the PC side supports all kinds of different "modes," in which none of them would be considered a "standard." As it is, the closest thing to a universal standard that the TV manufacturers were inaugurating is framepacking by making it the "standard" on HDMI 1.4a TVs. There's your case for "standard."

What you are trying to do is a little different and is alchemical in nature: Define a mode that is well supported on different software packages and [i]create an opposition[/i] with what you recognize as the paramound supported product, i.e. Nvidia 3D Vision.

It's quite a clever philosophical tactic, but I don't think they are going to be impressed since they *know* the history of the development here. Nvidia was doing 3D publically when everybody else was playing Mario 64.

I think you're best bet would be to simply ASK them to support side-by-side for technical reasons that you are quite justified on, i.e. native resolution 3D gaming @1080p 60hz per eye. Garner enough support on your side as you did with "checkerboard" and I see no reason why they wouldn't listen to what you have to say. Andrew and said Team has been willing to implement and listen to whatever we've all been dreaming up on here.
[quote name='roller11' date='27 April 2011 - 10:23 AM' timestamp='1303917800' post='1230968']

For 3D gaming at native resolution, forget about nvidia. You must get either TriDef 3D drivers or iZ3D drivers and select side-by-side 3D mode. Nvidia choose to not support side-by-side mode, the universal standard for 3D gaming.





How is it a universal standard for 3D gaming? The PS3 does framepacking. The Xbox does side-by-side, and the PC side supports all kinds of different "modes," in which none of them would be considered a "standard." As it is, the closest thing to a universal standard that the TV manufacturers were inaugurating is framepacking by making it the "standard" on HDMI 1.4a TVs. There's your case for "standard."



What you are trying to do is a little different and is alchemical in nature: Define a mode that is well supported on different software packages and create an opposition with what you recognize as the paramound supported product, i.e. Nvidia 3D Vision.



It's quite a clever philosophical tactic, but I don't think they are going to be impressed since they *know* the history of the development here. Nvidia was doing 3D publically when everybody else was playing Mario 64.



I think you're best bet would be to simply ASK them to support side-by-side for technical reasons that you are quite justified on, i.e. native resolution 3D gaming @1080p 60hz per eye. Garner enough support on your side as you did with "checkerboard" and I see no reason why they wouldn't listen to what you have to say. Andrew and said Team has been willing to implement and listen to whatever we've all been dreaming up on here.

#3
Posted 04/27/2011 04:00 PM   
[quote name='photios' date='27 April 2011 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1303920042' post='1230989']
How is it [SBS mode] a universal standard for 3D gaming?[/quote]
You start with the proposition that gamers demand the best image quality possible in their gaming. It therefore follows that one must be in native resolution 1 to 1 pixel mapping. SBS is the only mode that
1. Does native resolution
2. Does so at full 60 fps
3. Is available on all current HDMI1.4 3DTVs.

The importance of SBS became paramount on March 26,2011 when Samsung effectively announced abandonment of checkerboard mode. Now we're left with the reality that nvidia is choosing to not support the only native rez mode that's available on every hdmi1.4 3DTV out there.
[quote]I think you're best bet would be to simply ASK them to support side-by-side. [/quote]
Where have you been? Have you not seen the hundreds of posts begging Nvidia to support SBS?
[quote]I see no reason why they wouldn't listen to what you have to say. Andrew and said Team has been willing to implement and listen to whatever we've all been dreaming up on here.[/quote]
To understand why nvidia has ignored requests to implement checkerboard and SBS in their drivers, one must understand their mindset:

Top #1 absolute priority: make it seamless. No user intervention. Strictly 'hands off'.
I gained insight when Andrew swore that nvidia will *never* have an eye reversal mechanism in their software. Why? Because it goes against the philosophy of "no user intervention" which trumps every other consideration, especially image quality.

What do side by side mode, eye reversal checkbox, and suppression of bogus red overlay messages have in common? They all require user intervention.
[quote name='photios' date='27 April 2011 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1303920042' post='1230989']

How is it [SBS mode] a universal standard for 3D gaming?

You start with the proposition that gamers demand the best image quality possible in their gaming. It therefore follows that one must be in native resolution 1 to 1 pixel mapping. SBS is the only mode that

1. Does native resolution

2. Does so at full 60 fps

3. Is available on all current HDMI1.4 3DTVs.



The importance of SBS became paramount on March 26,2011 when Samsung effectively announced abandonment of checkerboard mode. Now we're left with the reality that nvidia is choosing to not support the only native rez mode that's available on every hdmi1.4 3DTV out there.

I think you're best bet would be to simply ASK them to support side-by-side.


Where have you been? Have you not seen the hundreds of posts begging Nvidia to support SBS?

I see no reason why they wouldn't listen to what you have to say. Andrew and said Team has been willing to implement and listen to whatever we've all been dreaming up on here.


To understand why nvidia has ignored requests to implement checkerboard and SBS in their drivers, one must understand their mindset:



Top #1 absolute priority: make it seamless. No user intervention. Strictly 'hands off'.

I gained insight when Andrew swore that nvidia will *never* have an eye reversal mechanism in their software. Why? Because it goes against the philosophy of "no user intervention" which trumps every other consideration, especially image quality.



What do side by side mode, eye reversal checkbox, and suppression of bogus red overlay messages have in common? They all require user intervention.

#4
Posted 04/27/2011 06:12 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='27 April 2011 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1303927958' post='1231053']
You start with the proposition that gamers demand the best image quality possible in their gaming. It therefore follows that one must be in native resolution 1 to 1 pixel mapping. SBS is the only mode that
1. Does native resolution
2. Does so at full 60 fps
3. Is available on all current HDMI1.4 3DTVs.

The importance of SBS became paramount on March 26,2011 when Samsung effectively announced abandonment of checkerboard mode. Now we're left with the reality that nvidia is choosing to not support the only native rez mode that's available on every hdmi1.4 3DTV out there.

Where have you been? Have you not seen the hundreds of posts begging Nvidia to support SBS?

To understand why nvidia has ignored requests to implement checkerboard and SBS in their drivers, one must understand their mindset:

Top #1 absolute priority: make it seamless. No user intervention. Strictly 'hands off'.
I gained insight when Andrew swore that nvidia will *never* have an eye reversal mechanism in their software. Why? Because it goes against the philosophy of "no user intervention" which trumps every other consideration, especially image quality.

What do side by side mode, eye reversal checkbox, and suppression of bogus red overlay messages have in common? They all require user intervention.
[/quote]

First, we've never said no to side/side mode. We just need to discuss it.

Second eye reversal and suppressing red overlay messages indicate problems in the 3D. Having options to disable them just ignores the problems. Therefore, we need to fix those problems.
[quote name='roller11' date='27 April 2011 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1303927958' post='1231053']

You start with the proposition that gamers demand the best image quality possible in their gaming. It therefore follows that one must be in native resolution 1 to 1 pixel mapping. SBS is the only mode that

1. Does native resolution

2. Does so at full 60 fps

3. Is available on all current HDMI1.4 3DTVs.



The importance of SBS became paramount on March 26,2011 when Samsung effectively announced abandonment of checkerboard mode. Now we're left with the reality that nvidia is choosing to not support the only native rez mode that's available on every hdmi1.4 3DTV out there.



Where have you been? Have you not seen the hundreds of posts begging Nvidia to support SBS?



To understand why nvidia has ignored requests to implement checkerboard and SBS in their drivers, one must understand their mindset:



Top #1 absolute priority: make it seamless. No user intervention. Strictly 'hands off'.

I gained insight when Andrew swore that nvidia will *never* have an eye reversal mechanism in their software. Why? Because it goes against the philosophy of "no user intervention" which trumps every other consideration, especially image quality.



What do side by side mode, eye reversal checkbox, and suppression of bogus red overlay messages have in common? They all require user intervention.





First, we've never said no to side/side mode. We just need to discuss it.



Second eye reversal and suppressing red overlay messages indicate problems in the 3D. Having options to disable them just ignores the problems. Therefore, we need to fix those problems.

#5
Posted 04/27/2011 06:26 PM   
[quote name='andrewf@nvidia' date='27 April 2011 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1303928793' post='1231061']
First, we've never said no to side/side mode. We just need to discuss it.
[/quote]

What about top/down?
Especially for passive 3DTVs would it spare fillrate without further resolution loss.
[quote name='andrewf@nvidia' date='27 April 2011 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1303928793' post='1231061']

First, we've never said no to side/side mode. We just need to discuss it.





What about top/down?

Especially for passive 3DTVs would it spare fillrate without further resolution loss.

#6
Posted 04/28/2011 02:38 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='27 April 2011 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1303927958' post='1231053']
You start with the proposition that gamers demand the best image quality possible in their gaming. It therefore follows that one must be in native resolution 1 to 1 pixel mapping. SBS is the only mode that
1. Does native resolution
2. Does so at full 60 fps
3. Is available on all current HDMI1.4 3DTVs.
[/quote]

How is SBS 3D done at a native resolution?
2 images sent to the TV at the native resolution, then scaled up and shown one after the other to each eye doesn't sound like 3D at native resolution per eye.
[quote name='roller11' date='27 April 2011 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1303927958' post='1231053']

You start with the proposition that gamers demand the best image quality possible in their gaming. It therefore follows that one must be in native resolution 1 to 1 pixel mapping. SBS is the only mode that

1. Does native resolution

2. Does so at full 60 fps

3. Is available on all current HDMI1.4 3DTVs.





How is SBS 3D done at a native resolution?

2 images sent to the TV at the native resolution, then scaled up and shown one after the other to each eye doesn't sound like 3D at native resolution per eye.

#7
Posted 04/28/2011 02:49 PM   
[quote name='disolitude' date='28 April 2011 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1304002194' post='1231297']
How is SBS 3D done at a native resolution?[/quote]
First field, every other column (0,2,4...) of left eye pixels is correctly mapped to it's position on the screen's 1920x1080 grid. Next field, repeat with right eye pixels, only with columns 1,3,5... The composite frame is a 1 to 1 mapped 1920x1080 3D image on a 1920x1080 grid aka 'native resolution'.
[quote]2 images sent to the TV at the native resolution, then scaled up and shown one after the other to each eye doesn't sound like 3D at native resolution per eye.[/quote]
Exactly right. In your scaled up example, it would not be native resolution. That's why side by side is used since there's no scaling involved.
[quote name='disolitude' date='28 April 2011 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1304002194' post='1231297']

How is SBS 3D done at a native resolution?

First field, every other column (0,2,4...) of left eye pixels is correctly mapped to it's position on the screen's 1920x1080 grid. Next field, repeat with right eye pixels, only with columns 1,3,5... The composite frame is a 1 to 1 mapped 1920x1080 3D image on a 1920x1080 grid aka 'native resolution'.

2 images sent to the TV at the native resolution, then scaled up and shown one after the other to each eye doesn't sound like 3D at native resolution per eye.


Exactly right. In your scaled up example, it would not be native resolution. That's why side by side is used since there's no scaling involved.

#8
Posted 04/28/2011 03:28 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='28 April 2011 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1304004490' post='1231308']
First field, every other column (0,2,4...) of left eye pixels is correctly mapped to it's position on the screen's 1920x1080 grid. Next field, repeat with right eye pixels, only with columns 1,3,5... The composite frame is a 1 to 1 mapped 1920x1080 3D image on a 1920x1080 grid aka 'native resolution'.
[/quote]

This doesn't sound like side by side 3D at all...

Taken from... http://www.best-3dtvs.com/what-is-side-by-side-3d/

"As you might have already noticed, side-by-side 3D results in a halving of the horizontal resolution of each frame intended for the left and right eye. When the 3D ready TV receives this side-by-side 3D signal, it splits each frame to extract the frame for each eye, [b][u]and then rescales these individual frames to a full HD resolution using upscaling algorithms.[/u][/b]"

As far as I know, the only 3D methods which map pixels 1:1 to a 1080p display are checkerboard, 120hz frame sequential and 1080p frame packing.
[quote name='roller11' date='28 April 2011 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1304004490' post='1231308']

First field, every other column (0,2,4...) of left eye pixels is correctly mapped to it's position on the screen's 1920x1080 grid. Next field, repeat with right eye pixels, only with columns 1,3,5... The composite frame is a 1 to 1 mapped 1920x1080 3D image on a 1920x1080 grid aka 'native resolution'.





This doesn't sound like side by side 3D at all...



Taken from... http://www.best-3dtvs.com/what-is-side-by-side-3d/



"As you might have already noticed, side-by-side 3D results in a halving of the horizontal resolution of each frame intended for the left and right eye. When the 3D ready TV receives this side-by-side 3D signal, it splits each frame to extract the frame for each eye, and then rescales these individual frames to a full HD resolution using upscaling algorithms."



As far as I know, the only 3D methods which map pixels 1:1 to a 1080p display are checkerboard, 120hz frame sequential and 1080p frame packing.

#9
Posted 04/28/2011 04:56 PM   
The "rescaling" is actually "reordering". The first field is created in continuous columns 0,1,2,3.... The "rescaling" done by the TV is moving the 0,1,2,3.... columns to 0,2,4,6.... Ditto the second field.
If scaling was involved, then there would have to be a mismatch between the number and position of the generated pixels per frame vs the final placed pixels on the fixed grid. But the resolution is 1920x1080 for the frame, so no "scaling" in the context of pixel placement.
That's why when you see a SBS frame in 2D you see two elongated images side by side. All the 1920 columns are present, but in the wrong order. When you put it in 3D, the order is changed from 0,2,4,6..1918,1,3,5,7..1919 to 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7....

It's the same principle as checkerboard, only instead of interleaved pixels both horizontally and vertically, pixels are interleaved only horizontally. The implementation details are different, but final frame is the same, a 1920x1080 grid with no interpolation of pixels. That's why when you eyewitness both CB and SBS using either iZ3D or TriDef 3d, they are indistinguishable from each other.
The "rescaling" is actually "reordering". The first field is created in continuous columns 0,1,2,3.... The "rescaling" done by the TV is moving the 0,1,2,3.... columns to 0,2,4,6.... Ditto the second field.

If scaling was involved, then there would have to be a mismatch between the number and position of the generated pixels per frame vs the final placed pixels on the fixed grid. But the resolution is 1920x1080 for the frame, so no "scaling" in the context of pixel placement.

That's why when you see a SBS frame in 2D you see two elongated images side by side. All the 1920 columns are present, but in the wrong order. When you put it in 3D, the order is changed from 0,2,4,6..1918,1,3,5,7..1919 to 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7....



It's the same principle as checkerboard, only instead of interleaved pixels both horizontally and vertically, pixels are interleaved only horizontally. The implementation details are different, but final frame is the same, a 1920x1080 grid with no interpolation of pixels. That's why when you eyewitness both CB and SBS using either iZ3D or TriDef 3d, they are indistinguishable from each other.

#10
Posted 04/28/2011 05:26 PM   
OOh man this post makes me so glad i didn't just jump into the 3d game. I can't believe we are all still talking about four year old half resolution checkerboard and modern equivelents. Keep buying that junk boys!
OOh man this post makes me so glad i didn't just jump into the 3d game. I can't believe we are all still talking about four year old half resolution checkerboard and modern equivelents. Keep buying that junk boys!

System:

Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz

Asus Rampage Extreme II

2 Ge-force 480 in SLI

GTX 295 PhysX Card

12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram

Intel SSD in RAID 0

BR RW

1000w Sony surround sound

NVIDIA 3D Vision



3d displays tested:



Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)

Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)

Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)

23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)

Samsung 65D8000

#11
Posted 04/29/2011 05:00 AM   
1920x1080 resolution per frame vs 1280x720 resolution per frame.
1920x1080 resolution per frame vs 1280x720 resolution per frame.

#12
Posted 04/29/2011 03:08 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='28 April 2011 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1304011592' post='1231354']
The "rescaling" is actually "reordering". The first field is created in continuous columns 0,1,2,3.... The "rescaling" done by the TV is moving the 0,1,2,3.... columns to 0,2,4,6.... Ditto the second field.
If scaling was involved, then there would have to be a mismatch between the number and position of the generated pixels per frame vs the final placed pixels on the fixed grid. But the resolution is 1920x1080 for the frame, so no "scaling" in the context of pixel placement.
That's why when you see a SBS frame in 2D you see two elongated images side by side. All the 1920 columns are present, but in the wrong order. When you put it in 3D, the order is changed from 0,2,4,6..1918,1,3,5,7..1919 to 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7....

It's the same principle as checkerboard, only instead of interleaved pixels both horizontally and vertically, pixels are interleaved only horizontally. The implementation details are different, but final frame is the same, a 1920x1080 grid with no interpolation of pixels. That's why when you eyewitness both CB and SBS using either iZ3D or TriDef 3d, they are indistinguishable from each other.
[/quote]
I see. So so side to side is basically 1080i 3D per eye correct?... like interlaced 1080p. If thats the case, checkerboard should still look better than SBS, since it hides the lack of pixels much better with its checkerboard pattern right?
[quote name='roller11' date='28 April 2011 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1304011592' post='1231354']

The "rescaling" is actually "reordering". The first field is created in continuous columns 0,1,2,3.... The "rescaling" done by the TV is moving the 0,1,2,3.... columns to 0,2,4,6.... Ditto the second field.

If scaling was involved, then there would have to be a mismatch between the number and position of the generated pixels per frame vs the final placed pixels on the fixed grid. But the resolution is 1920x1080 for the frame, so no "scaling" in the context of pixel placement.

That's why when you see a SBS frame in 2D you see two elongated images side by side. All the 1920 columns are present, but in the wrong order. When you put it in 3D, the order is changed from 0,2,4,6..1918,1,3,5,7..1919 to 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7....



It's the same principle as checkerboard, only instead of interleaved pixels both horizontally and vertically, pixels are interleaved only horizontally. The implementation details are different, but final frame is the same, a 1920x1080 grid with no interpolation of pixels. That's why when you eyewitness both CB and SBS using either iZ3D or TriDef 3d, they are indistinguishable from each other.



I see. So so side to side is basically 1080i 3D per eye correct?... like interlaced 1080p. If thats the case, checkerboard should still look better than SBS, since it hides the lack of pixels much better with its checkerboard pattern right?

#13
Posted 05/02/2011 01:14 AM   
[quote name='disolitude' date='01 May 2011 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1304298895' post='1232468']
I see. So so side to side is basically 1080i 3D per eye correct?... like interlaced 1080p. If thats the case, checkerboard should still look better than SBS, since it hides the lack of pixels much better with its checkerboard pattern right?
[/quote]
Top/bottom is more like 1080i, SBS shows every scan line every refresh, even number columns one refresh, odd columns the next.
In testing with iZ3D and TriDef 3D, CB and SBS look exactly the same. With Samsung dropping CB this year, people will have to look to older 2010 Samsungs for native resolution 3D gaming since Nvidia refuses to offer SBS, the universal 3D standard.
[quote name='disolitude' date='01 May 2011 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1304298895' post='1232468']

I see. So so side to side is basically 1080i 3D per eye correct?... like interlaced 1080p. If thats the case, checkerboard should still look better than SBS, since it hides the lack of pixels much better with its checkerboard pattern right?



Top/bottom is more like 1080i, SBS shows every scan line every refresh, even number columns one refresh, odd columns the next.

In testing with iZ3D and TriDef 3D, CB and SBS look exactly the same. With Samsung dropping CB this year, people will have to look to older 2010 Samsungs for native resolution 3D gaming since Nvidia refuses to offer SBS, the universal 3D standard.

#14
Posted 05/02/2011 02:00 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='02 May 2011 - 09:00 AM' timestamp='1304344800' post='1232616']
Top/bottom is more like 1080i, SBS shows every scan line every refresh, even number columns one refresh, odd columns the next.
In testing with iZ3D and TriDef 3D, CB and SBS look exactly the same. With Samsung dropping CB this year, people will have to look to older 2010 Samsungs for native resolution 3D gaming since Nvidia refuses to offer SBS, the universal 3D standard.
[/quote]

Again, we never refused it, we are exploring it.
[quote name='roller11' date='02 May 2011 - 09:00 AM' timestamp='1304344800' post='1232616']

Top/bottom is more like 1080i, SBS shows every scan line every refresh, even number columns one refresh, odd columns the next.

In testing with iZ3D and TriDef 3D, CB and SBS look exactly the same. With Samsung dropping CB this year, people will have to look to older 2010 Samsungs for native resolution 3D gaming since Nvidia refuses to offer SBS, the universal 3D standard.





Again, we never refused it, we are exploring it.

#15
Posted 05/02/2011 09:02 PM   
Scroll To Top