Please add HDMI 2.0 Support to 3DTV Play...
  2 / 8    
[quote="Xizer"]The truth hurts. Don't get butthurt just because I tell it like it is. You're only punishing yourself if you don't take my advice to get your eyes checked. This is a common response every time I suggest someone may need to visit an optometrist when they say something ignorant ("The human eye can't even see 4K details!!!1" "This YIFY encode looks great to me!" "Pffft, console games look just fine, PC graphics are placebo!").[/quote] Anytime you want to actually argue the facts instead of personal opinion, I'm listening. I've had numerous people tell me they could hear the difference between FLAC and 320kb MP3s, and that was wrong too. I gave you my links. Let's take the CarltonBale graph. Tell me where it's wrong. Not just your opinion, find a link, anything that proves your point. I'm listening. [quote="Xizer"]Nothing seems to trigger the human defense response more than someone informing you that there is something wrong with you. The inability to take constructive criticism from your fellow human beings will be your downfall my friends. You should learn to accept others' advice if you want a happier life.[/quote] I suppose that taking your own advice is out of the question? [quote="Xizer"]I don't know how many times we have to go over this. 1) SLI does work.[/quote] I skimmed the tridef board, and all I see there are posts from people saying SLI does not work. Including excuses from tridef themselves as to why it cannot work. Except for you, repeatedly saying "it works for me". Please provide a link. Sorry for the off topic folks, I'm genuinely interested if Xizer has anything to offer other than his opinion. On the other hand, some free bumps for this thread- and damn I'd love to see them bring up HDMI 2.0.
Xizer said:The truth hurts. Don't get butthurt just because I tell it like it is. You're only punishing yourself if you don't take my advice to get your eyes checked.

This is a common response every time I suggest someone may need to visit an optometrist when they say something ignorant ("The human eye can't even see 4K details!!!1" "This YIFY encode looks great to me!" "Pffft, console games look just fine, PC graphics are placebo!").

Anytime you want to actually argue the facts instead of personal opinion, I'm listening. I've had numerous people tell me they could hear the difference between FLAC and 320kb MP3s, and that was wrong too.

I gave you my links. Let's take the CarltonBale graph. Tell me where it's wrong. Not just your opinion, find a link, anything that proves your point. I'm listening.


Xizer said:Nothing seems to trigger the human defense response more than someone informing you that there is something wrong with you. The inability to take constructive criticism from your fellow human beings will be your downfall my friends. You should learn to accept others' advice if you want a happier life.

I suppose that taking your own advice is out of the question?


Xizer said:I don't know how many times we have to go over this.

1) SLI does work.

I skimmed the tridef board, and all I see there are posts from people saying SLI does not work. Including excuses from tridef themselves as to why it cannot work. Except for you, repeatedly saying "it works for me".

Please provide a link.


Sorry for the off topic folks, I'm genuinely interested if Xizer has anything to offer other than his opinion. On the other hand, some free bumps for this thread- and damn I'd love to see them bring up HDMI 2.0.

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 02/09/2015 11:15 PM   
Once again, it seems to me like he is trolling husky. Anyway, I used to have a Optoma HD33 which is a 1080p dlp 3d projector (color wheel blew after 5 years). So it was decision time. Do I stick with DLP or try something new (because I do other things besides game on it) however, 3D gaming is what I happen to do the most. Anyway, I decided to get a Sony HW40ES, I have come to realize that a lot of it has to do with the technology in the display. I was hell bent on 1080p 3D, however, after seeing what this sony can do at 720p 3D with reality creation I honestly just don't care anymore. this projector looks better @ 720p than my dlp did @ 1080p, way better, I mean it's boarding on the absurd. I am so pleased I don't even know what to do with myself. Epson has the exact same technology for the most part but theirs is called super resolution. At any rate I think it all comes down to the end user and like Bob said, distance from screen and how big all come into play. Yes, it would be nice to have some of the newer features like SBS and HDMI 2.0 with full support but I sure wasn't going to wait around for anything to hit the market, been waiting for like 5 years already. Like I said, there is some really good tech out there and with the fixes that this community puts out (god bless you guys) I just don't care about 1080p 3d anymore, would it be nice? Sure, but now I can wait comfortably. I say all this and I am also a tridef owner, have been for about 4 years now, I can count on 2 fingers how many times I have used it over 3dtvplay. and no, sli doesn't scale at all with tridef, sure you can have it on, but it just doesn't freakin work! oh yeah, I almost forgot, no recent game support on tridef either. So I really have to thank this community once again, without you guys I would be really really unhappy....
Once again, it seems to me like he is trolling husky. Anyway, I used to have a Optoma HD33 which is a 1080p dlp 3d projector (color wheel blew after 5 years). So it was decision time. Do I stick with DLP or try something new (because I do other things besides game on it) however, 3D gaming is what I happen to do the most. Anyway, I decided to get a Sony HW40ES, I have come to realize that a lot of it has to do with the technology in the display. I was hell bent on 1080p 3D, however, after seeing what this sony can do at 720p 3D with reality creation I honestly just don't care anymore.

this projector looks better @ 720p than my dlp did @ 1080p, way better, I mean it's boarding on the absurd. I am so pleased I don't even know what to do with myself. Epson has the exact same technology for the most part but theirs is called super resolution. At any rate I think it all comes down to the end user and like Bob said, distance from screen and how big all come into play.

Yes, it would be nice to have some of the newer features like SBS and HDMI 2.0 with full support but I sure wasn't going to wait around for anything to hit the market, been waiting for like 5 years already. Like I said, there is some really good tech out there and with the fixes that this community puts out (god bless you guys) I just don't care about 1080p 3d anymore, would it be nice? Sure, but now I can wait comfortably.

I say all this and I am also a tridef owner, have been for about 4 years now, I can count on 2 fingers how many times I have used it over 3dtvplay. and no, sli doesn't scale at all with tridef, sure you can have it on, but it just doesn't freakin work! oh yeah, I almost forgot, no recent game support on tridef either. So I really have to thank this community once again, without you guys I would be really really unhappy....

Intel 7700k @ 4.2Ghz / 32GB @ 3200
Asus Z270 / 2 x Evga 1070
4 x Samsung 840 Raid 0
4 x Samsung 850 Pro Raid 0
Samsung 950 Pro
Epson 5040UB 3DTVPlay

#17
Posted 02/10/2015 03:38 AM   
Oh, I almost forgot, 40/20 vision here.
Oh, I almost forgot, 40/20 vision here.

Intel 7700k @ 4.2Ghz / 32GB @ 3200
Asus Z270 / 2 x Evga 1070
4 x Samsung 840 Raid 0
4 x Samsung 850 Pro Raid 0
Samsung 950 Pro
Epson 5040UB 3DTVPlay

#18
Posted 02/10/2015 03:47 AM   
I am surprised that people with Surround configurations are not more interested in 4K 3D gaming (HDMI 2.0). Admittedly, the Surround configuration is more efficient (everything computed is displayed), but the landscape orientation is not ideal for many games (besides driving/flying simulation). The 4K 16:9 aspect ratio fills more of the eye's visual field, especially when viewing at the display's minimum 3D viewing distance - around 4 ft for my LG. 3D capable HDMI 2.0 UTVs offer double the 1080p resolution, while unfortunately requiring 4X the computation - but future GTX products will mitigate this. By the way, I tried to implement a portrait-oriented Eyefinity configuration some time ago (see http://www.tridef.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1862&start=20), only to discover a hardware limitation in AMD's HDMI HD3D Eyefinity support - its active glasses shutter sync.
I am surprised that people with Surround configurations are not more interested in 4K 3D gaming (HDMI 2.0). Admittedly, the Surround configuration is more efficient (everything computed is displayed), but the landscape orientation is not ideal for many games (besides driving/flying simulation). The 4K 16:9 aspect ratio fills more of the eye's visual field, especially when viewing at the display's minimum 3D viewing distance - around 4 ft for my LG. 3D capable HDMI 2.0 UTVs offer double the 1080p resolution, while unfortunately requiring 4X the computation - but future GTX products will mitigate this.

By the way, I tried to implement a portrait-oriented Eyefinity configuration some time ago (see http://www.tridef.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1862&start=20), only to discover a hardware limitation in AMD's HDMI HD3D Eyefinity support - its active glasses shutter sync.

#19
Posted 02/10/2015 03:36 PM   
I certainly would like it. Think it would be awesome for passive 4K sets. Kind of made peace with the fact it's abandonware though. I think if they had any passing interest in even faking their commitment to 3D, they would have gone for the low lying fruit of supporting HDMI 2.0. I mean, really, how difficult would it have been. It's either abadonware, or maybe their Pro 3D Vision supports higher resolutions and they don't want to destroy a lucrative market for something they consider trivial.
I certainly would like it. Think it would be awesome for passive 4K sets. Kind of made peace with the fact it's abandonware though. I think if they had any passing interest in even faking their commitment to 3D, they would have gone for the low lying fruit of supporting HDMI 2.0. I mean, really, how difficult would it have been. It's either abadonware, or maybe their Pro 3D Vision supports higher resolutions and they don't want to destroy a lucrative market for something they consider trivial.

#20
Posted 02/10/2015 03:49 PM   
The NVIDIA Customer Care representative I spoke with indicated that this thread information had been forwarded to the appropriate area within NVIDIA. I encourage anyone interested in 1080p 60 fps gaming via HDMI (the only connector type on many new UTVs) to similarly contact Customer Care to express interest (email, phone, web reference links...). In my experimentation with my new GTX card and 3DTV Play, I discovered that some games (like Lords of the Fallen) are frame locked at 60 fps, so 3DTV Play will NOT let me use my preferred 1080p24 display mode. I am forced to use [b]720p60[/b], if I want to play the game - on a display that is capable of interleaved 3840x1080 60 fps display. AMD's Catalyst and Ignition do not have this unnecessary limitation! I hope NVIDIA embraces current gen HDMI capabilities soon.
The NVIDIA Customer Care representative I spoke with indicated that this thread information had been forwarded to the appropriate area within NVIDIA. I encourage anyone interested in 1080p 60 fps gaming via HDMI (the only connector type on many new UTVs) to similarly contact Customer Care to express interest (email, phone, web reference links...).


In my experimentation with my new GTX card and 3DTV Play, I discovered that some games (like Lords of the Fallen) are frame locked at 60 fps, so 3DTV Play will NOT let me use my preferred 1080p24 display mode. I am forced to use 720p60, if I want to play the game - on a display that is capable of interleaved 3840x1080 60 fps display. AMD's Catalyst and Ignition do not have this unnecessary limitation! I hope NVIDIA embraces current gen HDMI capabilities soon.

#21
Posted 02/11/2015 03:20 PM   
@whyme66 In the mean time do you tried forcefix.exe version 1.2 this may lock the screen to 1080P @ 24HZ
@whyme66

In the mean time do you tried forcefix.exe version 1.2 this may lock the screen to 1080P @ 24HZ

Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55

#22
Posted 02/11/2015 05:01 PM   
That video of Watch Dogs is NOT running in S3D, it's Power 3D (faux 3D). How many times do we have to point this out? Pretty ironic with you claiming people need to have their vision checked.
That video of Watch Dogs is NOT running in S3D, it's Power 3D (faux 3D). How many times do we have to point this out? Pretty ironic with you claiming people need to have their vision checked.

4K 55" LG 55EF9500 3D OLED TV for sale! Pickup ONLY in Philadelphia, PA. PM for details.

#23
Posted 02/12/2015 12:33 AM   
Give me 1080p - 1440p at a stable 60fps at max graphic settings anyday of the week over 4k where most hardware will struggle to keep a good framerate. It's really a case of diminishing returns when it comes to 4k and for gaming its far to overhyped. I can see the need in things like CCTV (for zoom) and Photography, not so much in video games. Contrary to what the console fanbois and microsoft are tyring to push the difference between 720p and 1080 is huge, but once you start getting up over that you really need to decide, do you want 3D? and nice graphics settings or push it up to 4k and need to compromise. I know my choice... 4k is overrated and not worth the performance requirements at this time imo especially with lack of decent 3D support which just compounds the issue anyway.
Give me 1080p - 1440p at a stable 60fps at max graphic settings anyday of the week over 4k where most hardware will struggle to keep a good framerate.

It's really a case of diminishing returns when it comes to 4k and for gaming its far to overhyped. I can see the need in things like CCTV (for zoom) and Photography, not so much in video games.

Contrary to what the console fanbois and microsoft are tyring to push the difference between 720p and 1080 is huge, but once you start getting up over that you really need to decide, do you want 3D? and nice graphics settings or push it up to 4k and need to compromise.

I know my choice... 4k is overrated and not worth the performance requirements at this time imo especially with lack of decent 3D support which just compounds the issue anyway.

i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
EVGA 1080TI SLI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS
3D Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)

#24
Posted 02/12/2015 05:02 AM   
Yeah, I didn't really expect Xizer to come back with anything of substance, but I want to always try to remain open-minded enough to look at ideas that conflict. The thing about 4K (and all resolution discussions actually) is the viewing distance. This is also why Oculus Rift looks so bad, because the effective viewing distance is too close with too few pixels. low pixel-arc-seconds. Here is that carlton-bale graph again: [img]http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png[/img] It's worth noting from that graph that even at projector distance, since the screen is so large, that 4K is starting to be noticeably better, and 1080 is clearly better. This is why 3D matters here, because the 2*1280*720= 1.8Mp, and 1080p= 2.1Mp. So half-SxS 1080 is roughly the same pixels as 720@120Hz, and we are in that middle zone. 4K is interesting, but only if it supports true-3D. Hell we are are still waiting for enough 1080p@120Hz, let alone 4K for 3D. I predict that 4K will languish like 3D did in the TV realm. It's just not something that is going to catch the fancy of the public at large. @sammy123: Really appreciate your comments regarding your experience, since you had all three to compare.
Yeah, I didn't really expect Xizer to come back with anything of substance, but I want to always try to remain open-minded enough to look at ideas that conflict.

The thing about 4K (and all resolution discussions actually) is the viewing distance. This is also why Oculus Rift looks so bad, because the effective viewing distance is too close with too few pixels. low pixel-arc-seconds.

Here is that carlton-bale graph again:

Image


It's worth noting from that graph that even at projector distance, since the screen is so large, that 4K is starting to be noticeably better, and 1080 is clearly better. This is why 3D matters here, because the 2*1280*720= 1.8Mp, and 1080p= 2.1Mp. So half-SxS 1080 is roughly the same pixels as 720@120Hz, and we are in that middle zone.

4K is interesting, but only if it supports true-3D. Hell we are are still waiting for enough 1080p@120Hz, let alone 4K for 3D. I predict that 4K will languish like 3D did in the TV realm. It's just not something that is going to catch the fancy of the public at large.


@sammy123: Really appreciate your comments regarding your experience, since you had all three to compare.

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

#25
Posted 02/12/2015 09:14 AM   
4k is idiotic for TVs. It's a marketing gimmick. The average 50 inch TV from 10 - 15 feet away, is pointless. And worse, 1080p content is already not getting as much bandwidth as you'd like. So it's just making the issue worse (which I suspect is why Netflix 4k content looks better (supposing it actually does). Because of the extra bandwidth they're giving it. Give that same extra bandwidth to a 1080p stream and that'll look a lot better too.) That said, it does have a couple purposes where it is SUPERIOR. Large projectors. And the more natural, since content doesn't have to be recorded/streamed at 4k, is passive 3D. That, to me, is the one worthwhile element of 4k. It allows 1080p 3D to not have it's resolution cut in half. Of course, the 3D sales "gimmick" has been abandoned by TV makers. And 4k is their new sales gimmick. The fact that their new gimmick makes their old gimmick actually worthwhile... I'm guessing that's *whooshing* right over their head. So I doubt they'll really exploit this fact. Despite the fact it actually makes 3D worthwhile and sellable.
4k is idiotic for TVs. It's a marketing gimmick. The average 50 inch TV from 10 - 15 feet away, is pointless. And worse, 1080p content is already not getting as much bandwidth as you'd like. So it's just making the issue worse (which I suspect is why Netflix 4k content looks better (supposing it actually does). Because of the extra bandwidth they're giving it. Give that same extra bandwidth to a 1080p stream and that'll look a lot better too.)

That said, it does have a couple purposes where it is SUPERIOR. Large projectors. And the more natural, since content doesn't have to be recorded/streamed at 4k, is passive 3D. That, to me, is the one worthwhile element of 4k. It allows 1080p 3D to not have it's resolution cut in half.

Of course, the 3D sales "gimmick" has been abandoned by TV makers. And 4k is their new sales gimmick. The fact that their new gimmick makes their old gimmick actually worthwhile... I'm guessing that's *whooshing* right over their head. So I doubt they'll really exploit this fact. Despite the fact it actually makes 3D worthwhile and sellable.

#26
Posted 02/12/2015 04:20 PM   
[quote="zig11727"]@whyme66 In the mean time do you tried forcefix.exe version 1.2 this may lock the screen to 1080P @ 24HZ [/quote] Unfortunately, forcefix does not override the native Lords of the Fallen fps setting. Priority for 3DTV Play update: 1. HDMI 1.4b - full-frame 3D 1080p, 60 fps!!! 2. HDMI 1.4b 3. HDMI 1.4b 4. HDMI 2.0 With respect to 4K and HDMI 2.0, devices like the iPhone, with its Retinal Display, have slowly moved consumer interest in displays that more approach the eye's acuity limits. As bo3b indicates, a key factor is viewing distance from the display, which increases or decreases a display's FOV within the eye. This FOV consideration is the reason I game using my display's minimum viewing distance (unfortunately, LG's minimum viewing distance, around 4 ft, is more than my older VT25's 3 ft viewing distance). As shown in the following somewhat dated table, from MF Deering's "The Limits of Human Vision", another key factor is the display's native resolution. Interesting to note that Column 6 (Pixels: 0.47 min limit) computes the pixels required to match the eye's center vision field acuity for each device, at the distance viewed (other Columns consider variable resolution, matching the eye's resolution drop at the edge of the vision field - very complex to implement). Table 1 - see http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.465.874%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=X9_cVI3iCYauogSuo4HwAg&usg=AFQjCNHAutmS9oeGlsCELLIoSbTwMNluOA&bvm=bv.85970519,d.cGU. Much like the 1080p SBS 60 fps (smooth motion) vs full-frame 24 fps (higher resolution) discussion, the utility of 4K (and appropriate viewing distance) is ultimately a matter of personal preference. I suggest looking at something like Netflix' House of Cards, which offers streaming 4K resolution, to make your own decisions, using real content. Note that the utility of this resolution can be quite scene dependent, also.
zig11727 said:@whyme66

In the mean time do you tried forcefix.exe version 1.2 this may lock the screen to 1080P @ 24HZ


Unfortunately, forcefix does not override the native Lords of the Fallen fps setting.

Priority for 3DTV Play update:

1. HDMI 1.4b - full-frame 3D 1080p, 60 fps!!!
2. HDMI 1.4b
3. HDMI 1.4b
4. HDMI 2.0

With respect to 4K and HDMI 2.0, devices like the iPhone, with its Retinal Display, have slowly moved consumer interest in displays that more approach the eye's acuity limits. As bo3b indicates, a key factor is viewing distance from the display, which increases or decreases a display's FOV within the eye. This FOV consideration is the reason I game using my display's minimum viewing distance (unfortunately, LG's minimum viewing distance, around 4 ft, is more than my older VT25's 3 ft viewing distance). As shown in the following somewhat dated table, from MF Deering's "The Limits of Human Vision", another key factor is the display's native resolution. Interesting to note that Column 6 (Pixels: 0.47 min limit) computes the pixels required to match the eye's center vision field acuity for each device, at the distance viewed (other Columns consider variable resolution, matching the eye's resolution drop at the edge of the vision field - very complex to implement).

Table 1 - see http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.465.874%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=X9_cVI3iCYauogSuo4HwAg&usg=AFQjCNHAutmS9oeGlsCELLIoSbTwMNluOA&bvm=bv.85970519,d.cGU.

Much like the 1080p SBS 60 fps (smooth motion) vs full-frame 24 fps (higher resolution) discussion, the utility of 4K (and appropriate viewing distance) is ultimately a matter of personal preference. I suggest looking at something like Netflix' House of Cards, which offers streaming 4K resolution, to make your own decisions, using real content. Note that the utility of this resolution can be quite scene dependent, also.

#27
Posted 02/12/2015 08:10 PM   
If Nvidia are actually monitoring this thread, I'll drop my name in the hat. If by the time I get a 4K screen this year, I'm able to fire up Unreal Tournament 3 with HDMI 2.0 augmented 3DTV Play, I'll be grinning from ear to ear
If Nvidia are actually monitoring this thread, I'll drop my name in the hat.
If by the time I get a 4K screen this year, I'm able to fire up Unreal Tournament 3 with HDMI 2.0 augmented 3DTV Play, I'll be grinning from ear to ear

#28
Posted 02/13/2015 03:18 AM   
They aren't really monitoring these threads. I started a similar one months ago when the 900 series came out. Definitely do as Conan suggests and contact nvidia support. The more ppl that do, the better.
They aren't really monitoring these threads. I started a similar one months ago when the 900 series came out. Definitely do as Conan suggests and contact nvidia support. The more ppl that do, the better.

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

#29
Posted 02/13/2015 11:22 AM   
Another reason for 3DTV Play migration to at least HDMI 1.4b (60 fps): improved control response lag! HDTV and UTV displays, even though generally providing superior picture quality, often have larger input lag values than standard desktop monitors, even when set in their fastest performance mode - Gaming mode. So, any additional delay can tip overall gaming performance into unacceptable areas. Ignition, when gaming using HDMI 1080p24 mode, has a [b]noticeably[/b] smaller input control lag (average around 1/48-1/120 sec or 13 msec faster), since Ignition allows the Desktop (and game) to run at 60 fps, with display limit imposed solely by display's native capabilities. Therefore, games like Lords of the Fallen work with Ignition (no good S3D, however), and the overall time from game control change to visible display is shorter with than 3DTV Play - even though display frames are processed in both 3D apps at the same 24 fps rate. As everyone who uses 1080p24 gaming mode is painfully aware, 3DTV Play unnecessarily forces the Desktop to 24 fps - creating additional, noticeable control lag! Please update 3DTV Play!
Another reason for 3DTV Play migration to at least HDMI 1.4b (60 fps): improved control response lag!

HDTV and UTV displays, even though generally providing superior picture quality, often have larger input lag values than standard desktop monitors, even when set in their fastest performance mode - Gaming mode. So, any additional delay can tip overall gaming performance into unacceptable areas.

Ignition, when gaming using HDMI 1080p24 mode, has a noticeably smaller input control lag (average around 1/48-1/120 sec or 13 msec faster), since Ignition allows the Desktop (and game) to run at 60 fps, with display limit imposed solely by display's native capabilities. Therefore, games like Lords of the Fallen work with Ignition (no good S3D, however), and the overall time from game control change to visible display is shorter with than 3DTV Play - even though display frames are processed in both 3D apps at the same 24 fps rate. As everyone who uses 1080p24 gaming mode is painfully aware, 3DTV Play unnecessarily forces the Desktop to 24 fps - creating additional, noticeable control lag! Please update 3DTV Play!

#30
Posted 02/13/2015 07:23 PM   
  2 / 8    
Scroll To Top