Projector question please! About to upgrade and have no clue... or half a clue maybe....
  2 / 4    
[quote="joker18"]Ragedeamon... you can see that even according to this graphic 720p is just to low for and very noticeable for a projector. 100" is a common size and 3.5m (11,5Ft) a common viewing distance and with this you are at the borderline of 1440p and above. Going today below a FullHD projector doesn't make any sense, who use the projector only for gaming? Of course you will watch movies on it. BTW: As you can see in the link you posted Full HD Quality 3D is possible on a 1080p Projector. PS: I don't fully agree with that graphic. According to it I could replace my 55" TV with a 720p and I would barely tell the difference. This is far far away from reality. [/quote] You are forgetting to take into account the fact that we are looking with two eyes. That carlton-bale graph is correct, but only for cyclops. In 3D, we are literally getting twice as much information in the frame, and even from a slightly different angle. At room seating differences, this translates to literally doubling the number of pixels we are seeing for a given 60 hz frame. This is why 1080p@60 TAB is only slightly better than 720p@120Hz. By the numbers it would seem to be huge, but in practice it's small. Noticeable, but small. For my H5360 at 10 feet, I can notice screen door in cyclops mode, but never in 3D. And, at least for me- I literally never watch movies and could care less. Hollywood lost me a very long time ago. Fast and the Furious 8? Seriously? Out of ideas, much? For a 55" TV being replaced by projector- if you keep the image size the same, you won't be able to see the difference. Your eyes are not different or higher resolution than anyone else's eyes. But if you increase the projector to what you'd want, 10 feet, 120 inches, then it would definitely be noticeable. For the same seating difference. If it takes up the same part of your field of view, same degrees, the graph is correct.
joker18 said:Ragedeamon... you can see that even according to this graphic 720p is just to low for and very noticeable for a projector. 100" is a common size and 3.5m (11,5Ft) a common viewing distance and with this you are at the borderline of 1440p and above.

Going today below a FullHD projector doesn't make any sense, who use the projector only for gaming? Of course you will watch movies on it.

BTW: As you can see in the link you posted Full HD Quality 3D is possible on a 1080p Projector.

PS: I don't fully agree with that graphic. According to it I could replace my 55" TV with a 720p and I would barely tell the difference. This is far far away from reality.

You are forgetting to take into account the fact that we are looking with two eyes. That carlton-bale graph is correct, but only for cyclops.

In 3D, we are literally getting twice as much information in the frame, and even from a slightly different angle. At room seating differences, this translates to literally doubling the number of pixels we are seeing for a given 60 hz frame.

This is why 1080p@60 TAB is only slightly better than 720p@120Hz. By the numbers it would seem to be huge, but in practice it's small. Noticeable, but small.


For my H5360 at 10 feet, I can notice screen door in cyclops mode, but never in 3D.

And, at least for me- I literally never watch movies and could care less. Hollywood lost me a very long time ago. Fast and the Furious 8? Seriously? Out of ideas, much?


For a 55" TV being replaced by projector- if you keep the image size the same, you won't be able to see the difference. Your eyes are not different or higher resolution than anyone else's eyes.

But if you increase the projector to what you'd want, 10 feet, 120 inches, then it would definitely be noticeable. For the same seating difference.

If it takes up the same part of your field of view, same degrees, the graph is correct.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#16
Posted 06/03/2017 08:48 PM   
[quote="D-Man11"][quote="RAGEdemon"]Here is an image I edited from another topic on the same issue: https://s11.postimg.org/dse6fzoc3/deformed_text.jpg[/quote]I'll say it again, Fonts are a piss poor example to use. Meshes and wireframes are not constrained like fonts that must be made to be readable. Images lose very little when scaling to a non native resolution on a DLP mirror array.[/quote] What happens here is that the fonts are scaling to the wrong resolution. Modern fonts are done the same as graphics like meshes and wireframes, using TrueType fonts. Basically spline based using curves. But, in this scenario, the drawing engine thinks it's drawing into a 1080p screen, so it uses the font representation that works best there. When the projector downscales that, it busts up fonts and other stuff, because of the inherent aliasing involved. Some pixels overlap and are lost. That also happens for graphics, it's just not as noticeable. But you'll see it on stuff like wires and fences, where pieces will graphically disappear if they are thin enough. A good compromise is to do what RageDemon suggests, which is run at exactly 2x 720p, 1440p, so that the downsample is direct and easy- and the font engine will draw for 1440p and then be halved. It's worth noting that this is the current VR solution- run high resolution, and scale down, in order to make text not totally suck. The SuperSampling is all about this. 1.5x SS is basically the same as doing the 1440p trick.
D-Man11 said:
RAGEdemon said:Here is an image I edited from another topic on the same issue:
https://s11.postimg.org/dse6fzoc3/deformed_text.jpg
I'll say it again, Fonts are a piss poor example to use.

Meshes and wireframes are not constrained like fonts that must be made to be readable.

Images lose very little when scaling to a non native resolution on a DLP mirror array.

What happens here is that the fonts are scaling to the wrong resolution. Modern fonts are done the same as graphics like meshes and wireframes, using TrueType fonts. Basically spline based using curves.

But, in this scenario, the drawing engine thinks it's drawing into a 1080p screen, so it uses the font representation that works best there. When the projector downscales that, it busts up fonts and other stuff, because of the inherent aliasing involved. Some pixels overlap and are lost.

That also happens for graphics, it's just not as noticeable. But you'll see it on stuff like wires and fences, where pieces will graphically disappear if they are thin enough.


A good compromise is to do what RageDemon suggests, which is run at exactly 2x 720p, 1440p, so that the downsample is direct and easy- and the font engine will draw for 1440p and then be halved.

It's worth noting that this is the current VR solution- run high resolution, and scale down, in order to make text not totally suck. The SuperSampling is all about this. 1.5x SS is basically the same as doing the 1440p trick.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#17
Posted 06/03/2017 08:58 PM   
+1 what bo3b says; he explains it more eloquently than I can. I tried searching for images to contrast the difference between native 720p vs 1080p downscaled to 720p, and this is as close as I can get. I hope I am being clear (no pun intended): [img]http://img1.lesnumeriques.com/test/68/6816/Sony_EX550_720p_1080p.jpg[/img] The above image shows 720p downscaled from 1080p on the left, and the original 1080p image on the right. This contrasts what happens when you downscale "meshes" to non uniform ratios (1080p:720p is 1.5:1 vertical and 1.5:1 horizontal, thus all the problems) And here is an actual image. Here, a 1080p scene has been downscaled to 900p and 720p. Note that the native 720p image (right most image) has been upscaled to 1080p for comparison purposes or it would have been literally half the size. As you can see, there is an enormous difference between 720p downscaled from 1080p (second last image) and native (albeit upscaled to 1080p -last image). [img]https://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/92/928801/2377387-2377078-5112003405-l5phw.png[/img] I concede that these are not perfect examples. Ideally, it would be great to find actual examples of images comparing 1080p downscaled to 720p vs 720p native, but my google-jutsu is not strong enough it would seem :)
+1 what bo3b says; he explains it more eloquently than I can.

I tried searching for images to contrast the difference between native 720p vs 1080p downscaled to 720p, and this is as close as I can get. I hope I am being clear (no pun intended):


Image
The above image shows 720p downscaled from 1080p on the left, and the original 1080p image on the right. This contrasts what happens when you downscale "meshes" to non uniform ratios (1080p:720p is 1.5:1 vertical and 1.5:1 horizontal, thus all the problems)

And here is an actual image. Here, a 1080p scene has been downscaled to 900p and 720p. Note that the native 720p image (right most image) has been upscaled to 1080p for comparison purposes or it would have been literally half the size. As you can see, there is an enormous difference between 720p downscaled from 1080p (second last image) and native (albeit upscaled to 1080p -last image).
Image

I concede that these are not perfect examples.

Ideally, it would be great to find actual examples of images comparing 1080p downscaled to 720p vs 720p native, but my google-jutsu is not strong enough it would seem :)

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#18
Posted 06/03/2017 09:54 PM   
Bo3b.. I don't know what to say.. I did change my TV once from 1080p to 4k and there is a very big difference from the same viewing distance in image quality both 2D & 3D. I choose to believe my eyes and not a graph. Another example.. (I know it's not the same thing as native resolution)... but If I play with the resolution scale in Battlefield 1, there is visible difference even between 1440p and 2160p and I'm sitting 3.2 meters away from my 55" TV. Ragedemon.. Due to the fact that the days got so long I switched gaming to my 3D TV but someday (soon I hope) I will provide you with real image of the image you posted to show how 720p really looks upscaled by the native 1080p projector. If you can please provide me with the image source, if not...I will find something similar. PS: I think the image with the gun is a really bad example. the 720p upscaled to 1080p has more detail than the native 1080p and this is impossible. Probably wrong labeling?
Bo3b.. I don't know what to say.. I did change my TV once from 1080p to 4k and there is a very big difference from the same viewing distance in image quality both 2D & 3D.
I choose to believe my eyes and not a graph.

Another example.. (I know it's not the same thing as native resolution)... but If I play with the resolution scale in Battlefield 1, there is visible difference even between 1440p and 2160p and I'm sitting 3.2 meters away from my 55" TV.

Ragedemon.. Due to the fact that the days got so long I switched gaming to my 3D TV but someday (soon I hope) I will provide you with real image of the image you posted to show how 720p really looks upscaled by the native 1080p projector. If you can please provide me with the image source, if not...I will find something similar.


PS: I think the image with the gun is a really bad example. the 720p upscaled to 1080p has more detail than the native 1080p and this is impossible. Probably wrong labeling?

Intel i7 8086K
Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Aorus Extreme
DDR4 2x8gb 3200mhz Cl14
TV LG OLED65E6V
Windows 10 64bits

#19
Posted 06/04/2017 05:31 AM   
[quote="RAGEdemon"]The above image shows 720p down-scaled from 1080p on the left, and the original 1080p image on the right. This contrasts what happens when you downscale "meshes" to non uniform ratios (1080p:720p is 1.5:1 vertical and 1.5:1 horizontal, thus all the problems)[/quote] We are not talking about a static 1080P image being down-scaled to 720P. We are talking about a dynamic image being rendered and delivered at 720P due to the PC being faked into thinking that it wants 720P. The image is then up-scaled by the projector. I don't know why you insist that it is horrible and ugly and that it is being down-scaled, when it isn't. The PC is doing it's thing, the projector is doing it's thing and according to my eyes, it looks good. So according to you, I must watch a DVD on a 720 X 480 Display, because that is what resolution they are recorded as. If I was to watch it on a 1080P display, God help me, because it would take a miracle to view and enjoy it because any up-scaling would ruin it. (excluding the letter boxing due to aspect ratio) The only "true" way to enjoy it would be one to one pixel mapping on an old TV. Damn shame that I gave away those old TVs, now my DVDs are worthless, what was I thinking? :(
RAGEdemon said:The above image shows 720p down-scaled from 1080p on the left, and the original 1080p image on the right. This contrasts what happens when you downscale "meshes" to non uniform ratios (1080p:720p is 1.5:1 vertical and 1.5:1 horizontal, thus all the problems)



We are not talking about a static 1080P image being down-scaled to 720P. We are talking about a dynamic image being rendered and delivered at 720P due to the PC being faked into thinking that it wants 720P. The image is then up-scaled by the projector.

I don't know why you insist that it is horrible and ugly and that it is being down-scaled, when it isn't. The PC is doing it's thing, the projector is doing it's thing and according to my eyes, it looks good.



So according to you, I must watch a DVD on a 720 X 480 Display, because that is what resolution they are recorded as. If I was to watch it on a 1080P display, God help me, because it would take a miracle to view and enjoy it because any up-scaling would ruin it. (excluding the letter boxing due to aspect ratio) The only "true" way to enjoy it would be one to one pixel mapping on an old TV.

Damn shame that I gave away those old TVs, now my DVDs are worthless, what was I thinking? :(

#20
Posted 06/04/2017 12:34 PM   
Unfortunately, your post is a fallacy known as a "straw man"; it's called a fallacy for a reason. Deliberately misinterpreting what someone has said while also misinterpreting and ignoring their proof; and not attempting to provide any proof of your own. A weak effort post attempting to 'win' some imagined argument on the internet, with confirmation bias 'defending' equipment which you own. I know you can do better than that mate! ;-)
Unfortunately, your post is a fallacy known as a "straw man"; it's called a fallacy for a reason. Deliberately misinterpreting what someone has said while also misinterpreting and ignoring their proof; and not attempting to provide any proof of your own. A weak effort post attempting to 'win' some imagined argument on the internet, with confirmation bias 'defending' equipment which you own.

I know you can do better than that mate! ;-)

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#21
Posted 06/04/2017 06:26 PM   
lol you just don't get it also, misrepresented images do not further your cause
lol

you just don't get it

also, misrepresented images do not further your cause

#22
Posted 06/04/2017 06:33 PM   
LOLOLOL I can only laugh this is like Children At the sandbox argueing "my dad is the stongest and he is gonna kick your ass" ... no "my dad has laser beam eyes, he melts your dad before he can say a cat"
LOLOLOL

I can only laugh this is like Children At the sandbox argueing "my dad is the stongest and he is gonna kick your ass" ... no "my dad has laser beam eyes, he melts your dad before he can say a cat"

CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele

#23
Posted 06/04/2017 06:42 PM   
[quote="joker18"]Bo3b.. I don't know what to say.. I did change my TV once from 1080p to 4k and there is a very big difference from the same viewing distance in image quality both 2D & 3D. I choose to believe my eyes and not a graph. Another example.. (I know it's not the same thing as native resolution)... but If I play with the resolution scale in Battlefield 1, there is visible difference even between 1440p and 2160p and I'm sitting 3.2 meters away from my 55" TV. Ragedemon.. Due to the fact that the days got so long I switched gaming to my 3D TV but someday (soon I hope) I will provide you with real image of the image you posted to show how 720p really looks upscaled by the native 1080p projector. If you can please provide me with the image source, if not...I will find something similar. PS: I think the image with the gun is a really bad example. the 720p upscaled to 1080p has more detail than the native 1080p and this is impossible. Probably wrong labeling?[/quote] Most likely this is because the experiments were flawed. It's actually fairly hard to do legit 1:1 tests for stuff like this and requires a lot of attention to details. My best guess here is that you are comparing 4K material to 1080p material. With a 4K TV, you are not likely to be interested in looking at 1080p material on it, you want to see full resolution. Unless you are deliberately trying to do a high-quality test. If this might be the case, then what you are really seeing is DSR or SuperSampling, not the actual resolution of the device. The Carlton-Bale graph is not wrong, it's physics, and no one has eyes that resolve finer details. This is the 'retina' resolution that Apple made a big deal out of. It's true, but you have to be careful of the details. With SuperSampling, we of course get a better image, that's the entire point. Doing super-sampling from from a 1440p image to 720p will look a damn sight better, because the anti-aliasing used there will produce better results. The same is true in VR. Even though we can draw an image at native screen resolution, if we draw 2x larger and scale it down, we get a dramatically improved anti-aliasing. It costs in performance of course, but it can take text that is unreadable to readable, and is the most dramatic spot I've seen SuperSampling matter. Edit: I was curious enough about this, that I made a test app to experiment with different levels of SS and MSAA. If you have a VR headset, this is worth a look. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/5igd1e/supersampling_visual_quality_test_app/[/url] If you wanted to a solid experiment you would do, back to back, looking at 1080p material on the 4K screen. Then 4K material on both the 4K TV *and* on the 1080p screen. You would not be able to discern a difference between pixels in either case, because it's past the resolution of your retina at that distance. But I'd predict that you'd find the 4K material on a 1080p screen to be far superior to 1080p material on the same screen. Conversely, I don't think you would notice any difference if you look at 1080p material on a 4K screen. This assumes some other differences are not present, like different display tech. Projectors are not as bright, and colors are relatively washed out. Plasma screens have darker blacks than LCD. OLED are dramatically superior for color. None of that has anything to do with resolution.
joker18 said:Bo3b.. I don't know what to say.. I did change my TV once from 1080p to 4k and there is a very big difference from the same viewing distance in image quality both 2D & 3D.
I choose to believe my eyes and not a graph.

Another example.. (I know it's not the same thing as native resolution)... but If I play with the resolution scale in Battlefield 1, there is visible difference even between 1440p and 2160p and I'm sitting 3.2 meters away from my 55" TV.

Ragedemon.. Due to the fact that the days got so long I switched gaming to my 3D TV but someday (soon I hope) I will provide you with real image of the image you posted to show how 720p really looks upscaled by the native 1080p projector. If you can please provide me with the image source, if not...I will find something similar.


PS: I think the image with the gun is a really bad example. the 720p upscaled to 1080p has more detail than the native 1080p and this is impossible. Probably wrong labeling?

Most likely this is because the experiments were flawed. It's actually fairly hard to do legit 1:1 tests for stuff like this and requires a lot of attention to details.

My best guess here is that you are comparing 4K material to 1080p material. With a 4K TV, you are not likely to be interested in looking at 1080p material on it, you want to see full resolution. Unless you are deliberately trying to do a high-quality test.

If this might be the case, then what you are really seeing is DSR or SuperSampling, not the actual resolution of the device. The Carlton-Bale graph is not wrong, it's physics, and no one has eyes that resolve finer details. This is the 'retina' resolution that Apple made a big deal out of. It's true, but you have to be careful of the details.


With SuperSampling, we of course get a better image, that's the entire point. Doing super-sampling from from a 1440p image to 720p will look a damn sight better, because the anti-aliasing used there will produce better results.

The same is true in VR. Even though we can draw an image at native screen resolution, if we draw 2x larger and scale it down, we get a dramatically improved anti-aliasing. It costs in performance of course, but it can take text that is unreadable to readable, and is the most dramatic spot I've seen SuperSampling matter.

Edit: I was curious enough about this, that I made a test app to experiment with different levels of SS and MSAA. If you have a VR headset, this is worth a look.
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/5igd1e/supersampling_visual_quality_test_app/


If you wanted to a solid experiment you would do, back to back, looking at 1080p material on the 4K screen. Then 4K material on both the 4K TV *and* on the 1080p screen.

You would not be able to discern a difference between pixels in either case, because it's past the resolution of your retina at that distance. But I'd predict that you'd find the 4K material on a 1080p screen to be far superior to 1080p material on the same screen. Conversely, I don't think you would notice any difference if you look at 1080p material on a 4K screen.

This assumes some other differences are not present, like different display tech. Projectors are not as bright, and colors are relatively washed out. Plasma screens have darker blacks than LCD. OLED are dramatically superior for color. None of that has anything to do with resolution.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#24
Posted 06/04/2017 07:05 PM   
Ragedeamon I made an effort and took some photos tonight to hopefully clear some things about this very poor quality when using 720p on 1080p projector. Please find below. There ore 3 images of each. As you might notice loss in quality due to use of 720p@120hz on a 1080p projector is not as dramatic as you are trying to suggest it is. First is 1080p [img]https://forums.geforce.com/cmd/default/download-comment-attachment/72892/[/img] Second is 720p On the whole screen, meaning upscalled [img]https://forums.geforce.com/cmd/default/download-comment-attachment/72888/[/img] Third is 720, real aspec ratio, no upscalling. [img]https://forums.geforce.com/cmd/default/download-comment-attachment/72887/[/img]
Ragedeamon I made an effort and took some photos tonight to hopefully clear some things about this very poor quality when using 720p on 1080p projector.
Please find below.

There ore 3 images of each. As you might notice loss in quality due to use of 720p@120hz on a 1080p projector is not as dramatic as you are trying to suggest it is.

First is 1080p
Image
Second is 720p On the whole screen, meaning upscalled
Image
Third is 720, real aspec ratio, no upscalling.
Image

Intel i7 8086K
Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Aorus Extreme
DDR4 2x8gb 3200mhz Cl14
TV LG OLED65E6V
Windows 10 64bits

#25
Posted 06/04/2017 07:31 PM   
I have been thinking about how to do a proper experiment, and here it is below: In the interest of "meshes": 1. I have taken a grid image from the internet at a resolution of 400x200 (to replicate 720p). 2. I have upsampled this image to 600x300 (Horizontal and vertical resolutions multiplied by 1.5 - to replicate the '720p' image being shown on a 1080p display). Now, of course a direct comparison isn't possible because one image is 1.5x1.5 as big as the other image. So, I have upsampled both images into a multiplier which satisfies both resolutions so there is no degradation in image quality due to sampling, i.e. converted both the 400x200 image (multiplied Hor/Ver by 3) and the 600x300 (multiplied Hor/Ver by 2) so that the resolution of both images is 1200x600. This gives us the perfect experimental results. I have then uploaded the images to a screenshot comparison website. Mouse cursor off = 720p content on 720p display. Mouse cursor on = 720p content on 1080p display. [url]http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/117498[/url] I have also uploaded the raw images onto dropbox at: [url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/fiicullqupp3wa7/3DVision%20upscaling%20test.zip?dl=0[/url] This proves conclusively the image degradation suffered when upscaling 720p content to 1080p display. Manufacturers know this, so they will add blurring into the scaler in an attempt to make the degraded image look acceptable using post processing. This results in fake FXAA type image where the image is now degraded AND blurred, to try to compensate for the degradation. Some scalers will then try to sharpen the entire image at 1080p. No matter what the scaler tries to do, the image will never look as good as the original image being shown in native resolution (or an exact multiplier i.e. 1280*2 x 720*2 = 2560x1440). On this hypothetical 2560x1440 native screen, 720p content will indeed look as good as on a native 720p screen, if not better due to less screen door effect. The simple fact is that you cannot adequately show a 2 pixel image scaled to a 3 pixel display.
I have been thinking about how to do a proper experiment, and here it is below:

In the interest of "meshes":

1. I have taken a grid image from the internet at a resolution of 400x200 (to replicate 720p).
2. I have upsampled this image to 600x300 (Horizontal and vertical resolutions multiplied by 1.5 - to replicate the '720p' image being shown on a 1080p display).

Now, of course a direct comparison isn't possible because one image is 1.5x1.5 as big as the other image.

So, I have upsampled both images into a multiplier which satisfies both resolutions so there is no degradation in image quality due to sampling, i.e. converted both the 400x200 image (multiplied Hor/Ver by 3) and the 600x300 (multiplied Hor/Ver by 2) so that the resolution of both images is 1200x600.

This gives us the perfect experimental results.

I have then uploaded the images to a screenshot comparison website.
Mouse cursor off = 720p content on 720p display.
Mouse cursor on = 720p content on 1080p display.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/117498

I have also uploaded the raw images onto dropbox at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fiicullqupp3wa7/3DVision%20upscaling%20test.zip?dl=0

This proves conclusively the image degradation suffered when upscaling 720p content to 1080p display.

Manufacturers know this, so they will add blurring into the scaler in an attempt to make the degraded image look acceptable using post processing. This results in fake FXAA type image where the image is now degraded AND blurred, to try to compensate for the degradation. Some scalers will then try to sharpen the entire image at 1080p.

No matter what the scaler tries to do, the image will never look as good as the original image being shown in native resolution (or an exact multiplier i.e. 1280*2 x 720*2 = 2560x1440). On this hypothetical 2560x1440 native screen, 720p content will indeed look as good as on a native 720p screen, if not better due to less screen door effect.

The simple fact is that you cannot adequately show a 2 pixel image scaled to a 3 pixel display.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#26
Posted 06/04/2017 07:40 PM   
[quote="bo3b"] Most likely this is because the experiments were flawed. It's actually fairly hard to do legit 1:1 tests for stuff like this and requires a lot of attention to details. My best guess here is that you are comparing 4K material to 1080p material. With a 4K TV, you are not likely to be interested in looking at 1080p material on it, you want to see full resolution. Unless you are deliberately trying to do a high-quality test. If this might be the case, then what you are really seeing is DSR or SuperSampling, not the actual resolution of the device. The Carlton-Bale graph is not wrong, it's physics, and no one has eyes that resolve finer details. This is the 'retina' resolution that Apple made a big deal out of. It's true, but you have to be careful of the details. With SuperSampling, we of course get a better image, that's the entire point. Doing super-sampling from from a 1440p image to 720p will look a damn sight better, because the anti-aliasing used there will produce better results. The same is true in VR. Even though we can draw an image at native screen resolution, if we draw 2x larger and scale it down, we get a dramatically improved anti-aliasing. It costs in performance of course, but it can take text that is unreadable to readable, and is the most dramatic spot I've seen SuperSampling matter. If you wanted to a solid experiment you would do, back to back, looking at 1080p material on the 4K screen. Then 4K material on both the 4K TV *and* on the 1080p screen. You would not be able to discern a difference between pixels in either case, because it's past the resolution of your retina at that distance. But I'd predict that you'd find the 4K material on a 1080p screen to be far superior to 1080p material on the same screen. Conversely, I don't think you would notice any difference if you look at 1080p material on a 4K screen. This assumes some other differences are not present, like different display tech. Projectors are not as bright, and colors are relatively washed out. Plasma screens have darker blacks than LCD. OLED are dramatically superior for color. None of that has anything to do with resolution.[/quote] Bo3b of course I'm compairing different resolution, this is what we are talking about if it is worth or not to use 4k on a 55" TV that is placed 3.2m away. Because the gaph said at this distance 720p and 4k are equal to my eyes. Comparison is of course done with games and movies, the material we are watching. I'm not planning or willing to do an experiment because I don't see the purpose. I do understand your point but it is not what I am interested to do. I was just stating that the graph is at least misleading.
bo3b said:
Most likely this is because the experiments were flawed. It's actually fairly hard to do legit 1:1 tests for stuff like this and requires a lot of attention to details.

My best guess here is that you are comparing 4K material to 1080p material. With a 4K TV, you are not likely to be interested in looking at 1080p material on it, you want to see full resolution. Unless you are deliberately trying to do a high-quality test.

If this might be the case, then what you are really seeing is DSR or SuperSampling, not the actual resolution of the device. The Carlton-Bale graph is not wrong, it's physics, and no one has eyes that resolve finer details. This is the 'retina' resolution that Apple made a big deal out of. It's true, but you have to be careful of the details.


With SuperSampling, we of course get a better image, that's the entire point. Doing super-sampling from from a 1440p image to 720p will look a damn sight better, because the anti-aliasing used there will produce better results.

The same is true in VR. Even though we can draw an image at native screen resolution, if we draw 2x larger and scale it down, we get a dramatically improved anti-aliasing. It costs in performance of course, but it can take text that is unreadable to readable, and is the most dramatic spot I've seen SuperSampling matter.


If you wanted to a solid experiment you would do, back to back, looking at 1080p material on the 4K screen. Then 4K material on both the 4K TV *and* on the 1080p screen.

You would not be able to discern a difference between pixels in either case, because it's past the resolution of your retina at that distance. But I'd predict that you'd find the 4K material on a 1080p screen to be far superior to 1080p material on the same screen. Conversely, I don't think you would notice any difference if you look at 1080p material on a 4K screen.

This assumes some other differences are not present, like different display tech. Projectors are not as bright, and colors are relatively washed out. Plasma screens have darker blacks than LCD. OLED are dramatically superior for color. None of that has anything to do with resolution.


Bo3b of course I'm compairing different resolution, this is what we are talking about if it is worth or not to use 4k on a 55" TV that is placed 3.2m away. Because the gaph said at this distance 720p and 4k are equal to my eyes.
Comparison is of course done with games and movies, the material we are watching. I'm not planning or willing to do an experiment because I don't see the purpose.

I do understand your point but it is not what I am interested to do. I was just stating that the graph is at least misleading.

Intel i7 8086K
Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Aorus Extreme
DDR4 2x8gb 3200mhz Cl14
TV LG OLED65E6V
Windows 10 64bits

#27
Posted 06/04/2017 07:46 PM   
[quote]The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. - Neil deGrasse Tyson[/quote] But, let's be also clear that [i]science is hard[/i]. [url]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/[/url] Unlike normal humans, I've always been keen to learn new things, pretty much no matter what. I also don't shy away from questioning my assumptions, in case they have proven to be wrong. In this case, the resolution of the human eye versus the TV is not really in question. If someone has good data, I'm all ears. If someone just has opinions, I'm not interested. For me though, it's also tied directly to the "is it worth it?" Everyone has their own money, and if they want to spend it on something that makes no difference, that's their call. For me it's the other way around- it has to be dramatically better, not marginally better, in order to spend money. I don't have money to burn. And at some point, I think everyone has to agree there are going to be diminishing returns. The only real question is where that point lies. There is another idea that has come up in the comments section of Carlton-Bale's article, which is worth considering. That idea is Acutance. This is how you can use calipers and measure something you can't normally measure. It's possibly related to an improved image on higher resolution screens. [url]http://awildduck.com/?p=2755[/url] This guy, Ellery, changed his opinion from agreeing with Carlton-Bale to disagreeing. It's worth a read, but the upshot is that Carlton-Bale's graph is still correct, it's just that 4K is so cheap it's now more of a "why not?" argument. For gaming, that should be tempered by the incredible cost to actually push 4K pixels. A counter argument to the counter argument is that Carlton-Bale revisited the topic: [url]http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/[/url] and still concluded there is not any rational difference. If we split hairs, he is saying it's past diminishing returns. It's also worth noting that THX certification, and Sony do not think there is any difference either. I hope you guys can decide on whether 1080p is worth it for a projector or not, my H5360 isn't going to last forever. (Already fixed it once with new color wheel and DLP) For general use, it seems like 1080p projector using TAB for 3D gaming is the best combo, today. For cheap and better support of old games, a 720p projector is probably better. For VR, I can easily see the pixels and mild screen-door, so we definitely need more resolution. Based on my VR experiments, I also concluded that it was worth spending on an upgraded video card, so that I could drive SuperSampling/DSR.
The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

But, let's be also clear that science is hard. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/


Unlike normal humans, I've always been keen to learn new things, pretty much no matter what. I also don't shy away from questioning my assumptions, in case they have proven to be wrong.

In this case, the resolution of the human eye versus the TV is not really in question. If someone has good data, I'm all ears. If someone just has opinions, I'm not interested.


For me though, it's also tied directly to the "is it worth it?" Everyone has their own money, and if they want to spend it on something that makes no difference, that's their call.

For me it's the other way around- it has to be dramatically better, not marginally better, in order to spend money. I don't have money to burn.

And at some point, I think everyone has to agree there are going to be diminishing returns. The only real question is where that point lies.


There is another idea that has come up in the comments section of Carlton-Bale's article, which is worth considering. That idea is Acutance. This is how you can use calipers and measure something you can't normally measure. It's possibly related to an improved image on higher resolution screens.

http://awildduck.com/?p=2755

This guy, Ellery, changed his opinion from agreeing with Carlton-Bale to disagreeing. It's worth a read, but the upshot is that Carlton-Bale's graph is still correct, it's just that 4K is so cheap it's now more of a "why not?" argument. For gaming, that should be tempered by the incredible cost to actually push 4K pixels.


A counter argument to the counter argument is that Carlton-Bale revisited the topic: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/ and still concluded there is not any rational difference. If we split hairs, he is saying it's past diminishing returns.

It's also worth noting that THX certification, and Sony do not think there is any difference either.


I hope you guys can decide on whether 1080p is worth it for a projector or not, my H5360 isn't going to last forever. (Already fixed it once with new color wheel and DLP)

For general use, it seems like 1080p projector using TAB for 3D gaming is the best combo, today. For cheap and better support of old games, a 720p projector is probably better.

For VR, I can easily see the pixels and mild screen-door, so we definitely need more resolution.

Based on my VR experiments, I also concluded that it was worth spending on an upgraded video card, so that I could drive SuperSampling/DSR.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#28
Posted 06/04/2017 09:18 PM   
As you guys might have noticed 720p upscaling on 1080p projector is quite good, It is indeed a bit softer than the 720p real and of course less detailed than 1080p but a very good compromise. Another very important thing to keep in mind when deciding if to buy a 1080p or a 720p projector is the no of pixels. For 720P you will have about less than half of the pixels for the same screen size compared to 1080p. I think it is not the same thing to have a 110" image formed form 921.600 pixels or 2.073.600 pixels.
As you guys might have noticed 720p upscaling on 1080p projector is quite good, It is indeed a bit softer than the 720p real and of course less detailed than 1080p but a very good compromise.
Another very important thing to keep in mind when deciding if to buy a 1080p or a 720p projector is the no of pixels. For 720P you will have about less than half of the pixels for the same screen size compared to 1080p.
I think it is not the same thing to have a 110" image formed form 921.600 pixels or 2.073.600 pixels.

Intel i7 8086K
Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Aorus Extreme
DDR4 2x8gb 3200mhz Cl14
TV LG OLED65E6V
Windows 10 64bits

#29
Posted 06/05/2017 06:05 AM   
Does the discussion allow speaking about solutions above 1000$ ? I've been doing using stereo projection at full resolution 1080p60 per eye for almost 6 years. Dual-projector stereo is expensive, off the table for most people, but when I see how much money high end gamers can spend for their PCs, it's not that far off.
Does the discussion allow speaking about solutions above 1000$ ?

I've been doing using stereo projection at full resolution 1080p60 per eye for almost 6 years.
Dual-projector stereo is expensive, off the table for most people, but when I see how much money high end gamers can spend for their PCs, it's not that far off.

Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter

#30
Posted 06/05/2017 10:12 AM   
  2 / 4    
Scroll To Top