WARNING about Rollermod
  9 / 12    
It is hard to do an apple to apple comparison.

My PC monitor shows the full 256 range of the 8-bit per color while video standard usually defines a range of 16-235 ish to be the range from blackest to whitest.

We are now discussing PC content on a non-PC display which might usually misinterpret the color range and truncate dark areas to black and bright areas too white.

DLP TVs still rely on shutter glasses but work in sub-frames so whether there are any black spots is still unclear.

If you look at the 2D frequency response you can see that rather than cutting the horizontal or vertical resolution by half CB creates a 45 degree rectangle for each eye.

That covers a larger area than SBS or TAB by being 0,7 times the original area and the quality reduction is thus less obvious and the areas missing are less common resulting in fewer artifacts.
It is hard to do an apple to apple comparison.



My PC monitor shows the full 256 range of the 8-bit per color while video standard usually defines a range of 16-235 ish to be the range from blackest to whitest.



We are now discussing PC content on a non-PC display which might usually misinterpret the color range and truncate dark areas to black and bright areas too white.



DLP TVs still rely on shutter glasses but work in sub-frames so whether there are any black spots is still unclear.



If you look at the 2D frequency response you can see that rather than cutting the horizontal or vertical resolution by half CB creates a 45 degree rectangle for each eye.



That covers a larger area than SBS or TAB by being 0,7 times the original area and the quality reduction is thus less obvious and the areas missing are less common resulting in fewer artifacts.

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

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

Posted 01/29/2012 12:38 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='29 January 2012 - 02:52 AM' timestamp='1327827150' post='1362134']
About the whitepaper:

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

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

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

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

Grestorn,
I think this is correct. Although, the whitepaper isn't about projectors at all, but rather the 2007 lineup of Mits (and Samsung) TVs, I looked through my Mits and all the pixels are field with one eye. So I think your interpretation as to the interpolation technique for CB active shutter stands.

Having said that, I think this kind of interpolation is more geometric, since it is dealing with fixed half data points of a true 1920x1080 left/right image for both. In other words, the interpolation attempts to fit the information 'in between' that was lost and hence why you do not have a stretched image and therefore better visuals than 720p60 FP.

photios
This gloss seems to
[quote name='Grestorn' date='29 January 2012 - 02:52 AM' timestamp='1327827150' post='1362134']

About the whitepaper:



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

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



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



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

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

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



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





Grestorn,

I think this is correct. Although, the whitepaper isn't about projectors at all, but rather the 2007 lineup of Mits (and Samsung) TVs, I looked through my Mits and all the pixels are field with one eye. So I think your interpretation as to the interpolation technique for CB active shutter stands.



Having said that, I think this kind of interpolation is more geometric, since it is dealing with fixed half data points of a true 1920x1080 left/right image for both. In other words, the interpolation attempts to fit the information 'in between' that was lost and hence why you do not have a stretched image and therefore better visuals than 720p60 FP.



photios

This gloss seems to

Posted 01/29/2012 02:42 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='29 January 2012 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1327829718' post='1362146']

The process you're describing would certainly lead to this bad picture quality. But I'd expect games to be rendered differently:
[list=1][*]They should render to 1280x720 in the first place, so no downscaling should be necessary.[*]Then you glew the two frames together, getting a 2560x720 pixel image. Still no quality loss.[*]You transfer them over HDMI 1.4a. Still no quality loss.[*]The display then separates these two images FIRST, getting two 1280x720 images. No quality loss yet, either.[*]And finally it stretches those two images to the native display resolution, ie. 1920x1080. There you finally have a quality loss.[/list]
So, in my point of view, 720p on a 3D display using HDMI 1.4a should look exactly like you set a game to run in 1280x720 on a normal 1920x1080 PC monitor. I can't see why there should be any difference.

YouTube is certainly not a good comparison, because you are limited by what you can do within the YouTube restrictions.
[/quote]
Yes I agree I can't be certain 3DTV Play compresses and resizes the image this way, but everything I've seen leads me in that direction. I know 1.4 FP is [i]supposed[/i] to allow 2560x720 SBS or 1280x1440 TB over HDMI but we know TB is not supported by 3DTV Play at all (as of now). But my conclusion is based on the following:

1) The [i]extreme[/i] prejudice and disdain for 3DTV Play 720p @60Hz framepacking. While the message can sometimes be distorted by the histrionics and hyperbole involved when discussing 3DTV Play vs. other formats, the underlying message from the overwhelming majority of users is: they are not satisfied with the image quality and want better formats. This makes me think there is something else going on with the image processing before transmission and once the HDTV splits the image beyond the expected 1.5x scaling of 720p to fit a 1080p pixel matrix. I guess the easiest test here would be to just take a native 720p still image and have a 720p 3DTV user display that image in 3D and see if their actual 3D clarity is similar, or worst.

2) Youtube 3D will not correctly process 2560x720p images at 16:9. It will actually letterbox the output like a super-wide movie as it thinks 32:9 is the correct aspect ratio. Youtube natively supports 4K/2K so accepting and processing the image should not be an issue. When I looked into it further, I found Youtube 3D HTML5 requires a specific 1080p framepacked input to maintain 720p max resolution aspect at higher than 24 frames. However, re-sizing to 1080p but maintaining aspect ratio still does not work, you have to specifically defeat the aspect ratio checks in the encoding software (unchecking them) so that the image is squished to 16:9. Once you do all this, Youtube will happily convert the image to stereo and display two 720p images at 16:9. I can't be sure this is the exact same input/output method as 3DTV Play, but again, I know these formats try to be as uniform/standard as possible.

3) When trying to play 720p framepacked content, if you view it in 2D it will still be a single 1080p image smushed together. However, if you encode a 2560x720p image down to 1920x1080 but keep the aspect ratio markers in place, the 2D image will automatically resize the image back to 2560x720p (32:9). I believe this method is similar to what occurs with SBS-half at 1080i where instead of smushing the image down to non-native aspect while compressing, it throws out every other line and then reconstructs it using the half the data points on the natively mapped pixel array.

But I agree, what I've seen is mostly conjecture and I can't be sure on any of this because I don't know of any accurate way of checking the 720p 3DTV Play output or what the HDTVs are doing with that signal to process it. What I do know is the reactions from people who use 3DTV Play 720p are much worst than what you would expect if the 720p framepacking/unpacking process were just a simple 720p to 1080p scaling issue at 1.5x, as I think most anyone will agree still looks very good, if that makes sense.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='29 January 2012 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1327829718' post='1362146']



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

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

    Yes I agree I can't be certain 3DTV Play compresses and resizes the image this way, but everything I've seen leads me in that direction. I know 1.4 FP is supposed to allow 2560x720 SBS or 1280x1440 TB over HDMI but we know TB is not supported by 3DTV Play at all (as of now). But my conclusion is based on the following:



    1) The extreme prejudice and disdain for 3DTV Play 720p @60Hz framepacking. While the message can sometimes be distorted by the histrionics and hyperbole involved when discussing 3DTV Play vs. other formats, the underlying message from the overwhelming majority of users is: they are not satisfied with the image quality and want better formats. This makes me think there is something else going on with the image processing before transmission and once the HDTV splits the image beyond the expected 1.5x scaling of 720p to fit a 1080p pixel matrix. I guess the easiest test here would be to just take a native 720p still image and have a 720p 3DTV user display that image in 3D and see if their actual 3D clarity is similar, or worst.



    2) Youtube 3D will not correctly process 2560x720p images at 16:9. It will actually letterbox the output like a super-wide movie as it thinks 32:9 is the correct aspect ratio. Youtube natively supports 4K/2K so accepting and processing the image should not be an issue. When I looked into it further, I found Youtube 3D HTML5 requires a specific 1080p framepacked input to maintain 720p max resolution aspect at higher than 24 frames. However, re-sizing to 1080p but maintaining aspect ratio still does not work, you have to specifically defeat the aspect ratio checks in the encoding software (unchecking them) so that the image is squished to 16:9. Once you do all this, Youtube will happily convert the image to stereo and display two 720p images at 16:9. I can't be sure this is the exact same input/output method as 3DTV Play, but again, I know these formats try to be as uniform/standard as possible.



    3) When trying to play 720p framepacked content, if you view it in 2D it will still be a single 1080p image smushed together. However, if you encode a 2560x720p image down to 1920x1080 but keep the aspect ratio markers in place, the 2D image will automatically resize the image back to 2560x720p (32:9). I believe this method is similar to what occurs with SBS-half at 1080i where instead of smushing the image down to non-native aspect while compressing, it throws out every other line and then reconstructs it using the half the data points on the natively mapped pixel array.



    But I agree, what I've seen is mostly conjecture and I can't be sure on any of this because I don't know of any accurate way of checking the 720p 3DTV Play output or what the HDTVs are doing with that signal to process it. What I do know is the reactions from people who use 3DTV Play 720p are much worst than what you would expect if the 720p framepacking/unpacking process were just a simple 720p to 1080p scaling issue at 1.5x, as I think most anyone will agree still looks very good, if that makes sense.

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

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

    Posted 01/29/2012 04:41 PM   
    [quote name='photios' date='29 January 2012 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1327848176' post='1362210']
    Grestorn,
    I think this is correct. Although, the whitepaper isn't about projectors at all, but rather the 2007 lineup of Mits (and Samsung) TVs, I looked through my Mits and all the pixels are field with one eye. So I think your interpretation as to the interpolation technique for CB active shutter stands.

    Having said that, I think this kind of interpolation is more geometric, since it is dealing with fixed half data points of a true 1920x1080 left/right image for both. In other words, the interpolation attempts to fit the information 'in between' that was lost and hence why you do not have a stretched image and therefore better visuals than 720p60 FP.

    photios
    This gloss seems to
    [/quote]
    Thanks for the clarification photios, I was a bit concerned here because if it didn't interpolate those missing pixels again and left them blank, I would probably lean the other way based only on conceptual principles ofc.
    [quote name='photios' date='29 January 2012 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1327848176' post='1362210']

    Grestorn,

    I think this is correct. Although, the whitepaper isn't about projectors at all, but rather the 2007 lineup of Mits (and Samsung) TVs, I looked through my Mits and all the pixels are field with one eye. So I think your interpretation as to the interpolation technique for CB active shutter stands.



    Having said that, I think this kind of interpolation is more geometric, since it is dealing with fixed half data points of a true 1920x1080 left/right image for both. In other words, the interpolation attempts to fit the information 'in between' that was lost and hence why you do not have a stretched image and therefore better visuals than 720p60 FP.



    photios

    This gloss seems to



    Thanks for the clarification photios, I was a bit concerned here because if it didn't interpolate those missing pixels again and left them blank, I would probably lean the other way based only on conceptual principles ofc.

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

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

    Posted 01/29/2012 04:47 PM   
    Did a quick 720p scaling test from my Xbox cropping out the same sharp part of the main menu.

    http://www.mediafire.com/?pvce0pr7ad13u97

    playing in 720p native (1:1 pixels) on a 1080p display makes for a lot of unused black area around the image.
    Did a quick 720p scaling test from my Xbox cropping out the same sharp part of the main menu.



    http://www.mediafire.com/?pvce0pr7ad13u97



    playing in 720p native (1:1 pixels) on a 1080p display makes for a lot of unused black area around the image.

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

    donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

    Posted 01/29/2012 06:35 PM   
    So is checkerboard as blurry as that screenshot of Flugans or what?
    So is checkerboard as blurry as that screenshot of Flugans or what?

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

    Posted 02/02/2012 02:47 AM   
    This thread has 124 to many posts. Cant we let this die?
    This is just a series of people who use 1080 checkerboard and enjoy it saying its good.
    And people who haven't bothered to try it saying its bad.

    Its just insulting to people who like rollermod and everyone who put effort into getting this to work and helping community. If you have questions about it 1080 checkerboard please start a new thread.

    No I do not use/ have tried 1080 checkerboard.
    I am sorry if I sound like a jerk but this thread makes me mad. This thread originally started by some noob to 3d who couldn't get rollermod to work and turned into a rant off.
    This thread has 124 to many posts. Cant we let this die?

    This is just a series of people who use 1080 checkerboard and enjoy it saying its good.

    And people who haven't bothered to try it saying its bad.



    Its just insulting to people who like rollermod and everyone who put effort into getting this to work and helping community. If you have questions about it 1080 checkerboard please start a new thread.



    No I do not use/ have tried 1080 checkerboard.

    I am sorry if I sound like a jerk but this thread makes me mad. This thread originally started by some noob to 3d who couldn't get rollermod to work and turned into a rant off.

    Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

    If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

    Posted 02/02/2012 02:55 AM   
    I didn't really read the beginning of the thread, or much of it, but the title of the thread is "warning about ...", non "rollermod is a horrible piece of @#$". I don't really see the problem. If CB is as blurry as that screenshot, it is worthless imo, and i'd like to know. If its not, i'd like to know that also.
    I didn't really read the beginning of the thread, or much of it, but the title of the thread is "warning about ...", non "rollermod is a horrible piece of @#$". I don't really see the problem. If CB is as blurry as that screenshot, it is worthless imo, and i'd like to know. If its not, i'd like to know that also.

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

    Posted 02/02/2012 03:28 AM   
    One day you might have a chance to see CB and see if you like it, just don't assume things. CB is not worthless. It's not as good as 1080p full resolution per eye, but definatelly way better than 720p FP.
    BTW, that picture is pure geek non sense, I usually play games at least 7 feet away from my TV, not 1 inche. If I press my face against the TV screen I might see some blurried pixels, but as I'm a normal PC gamer, I don't play games that close to the screen.

    And I totally agree with Eqzitara, this thread has become to popular without any purpose at all. Seeing is believing, stop this pixel by pixel, mapping, technical explanation, this is really a pure non sense, totally "NERD" method of justifying that CB is not a good 3D mode. Such a waste of thread, really...

    Sorry If I have ofended others, but I prefer practical testing over theory. Just my opinion though
    One day you might have a chance to see CB and see if you like it, just don't assume things. CB is not worthless. It's not as good as 1080p full resolution per eye, but definatelly way better than 720p FP.

    BTW, that picture is pure geek non sense, I usually play games at least 7 feet away from my TV, not 1 inche. If I press my face against the TV screen I might see some blurried pixels, but as I'm a normal PC gamer, I don't play games that close to the screen.



    And I totally agree with Eqzitara, this thread has become to popular without any purpose at all. Seeing is believing, stop this pixel by pixel, mapping, technical explanation, this is really a pure non sense, totally "NERD" method of justifying that CB is not a good 3D mode. Such a waste of thread, really...



    Sorry If I have ofended others, but I prefer practical testing over theory. Just my opinion though

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

    Posted 02/02/2012 02:14 PM   
    I follow this thread now since the beginning. A lot overheated words here but no comparable screenshots. I was asking me: How does checkerboard look like and is it better than framepacked 720p ?

    1280 x 720 = 921600 pixels
    960 x 1080 = 1036800 pixels
    That means 115200 pixels more on the checkerboard side.

    I know how checkerboard theoretically works but I don't have a checkerboard-able 3DTV, so I tried to simulate checkerboard with 3D-Vision. Outputting onto my HDTV forced the driver into Generic-DLP-TV-Checkerboard-mode. So I could see how checkerboard looks like. The Nvidia-Driver renders two images and discards the half of the pixels for CB. No 960x1080 rendering as someone here believed to know. Doing a JPS-shot in this mode still saves a 1080p-JPS.
    A painting program helped me to simulate the checkerboard from a 1080p JPS.

    The first JPS shows the scene rendered in 720p.
    [URL=http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/387/01stormgame14720pjps.jpg][IMG]http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/387/01stormgame14720pjps.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

    This picture shows simulated Checkerboard - The odd pixels on one view blacked out and the even pixels on the other view.
    It clearly shows the advantage of CB when it is mapped 1:1 . A crisp image but a bit dark caused by the black pixels.
    [URL=http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7906/02stormgame15checkerboa.jpg][IMG]http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7906/02stormgame15checkerboa.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

    This picture shows the scene rendered in 1080p. Best quality. It was the base for my CB images.
    [URL=http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/6622/03stormgame151080pjps.jpg][IMG]http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/6622/03stormgame151080pjps.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

    Now here starts my guessing: CB with simply average interpolated pixels between. A bit blurry compared to the native CB. I don't know if 3DTVs interpolate CB in such or a similar way.
    But still this cheap interpolation has an advantage over the 720p image.
    [URL=http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4782/04stormgame15checkerboa.jpg][IMG]http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4782/04stormgame15checkerboa.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

    My conclusion is that CB offers a better quality than 720p-FP . CB-Quality is not as good as 1080p but that should be clear from the start. CB has these cross-pixelation-artifacts(maybe the main reason why some people are disappointed with CB), but it still looks better than the 720p blur. Just look at the cactus-spikes.
    Using odd and even pixels for the 2 views has a psychologic effect - pixel-resolution seems to be bigger as it is. Maybe thats the biggest advantage compared to 720p.
    If I will buy a 3DTV, I would look for a CB-able model.

    Use whatever you want, but don't rant on other people because of 115200 pixels. Everyone has another perception and feeling. So its a natural way that some people prefer 720p over CP.
    I follow this thread now since the beginning. A lot overheated words here but no comparable screenshots. I was asking me: How does checkerboard look like and is it better than framepacked 720p ?



    1280 x 720 = 921600 pixels

    960 x 1080 = 1036800 pixels

    That means 115200 pixels more on the checkerboard side.



    I know how checkerboard theoretically works but I don't have a checkerboard-able 3DTV, so I tried to simulate checkerboard with 3D-Vision. Outputting onto my HDTV forced the driver into Generic-DLP-TV-Checkerboard-mode. So I could see how checkerboard looks like. The Nvidia-Driver renders two images and discards the half of the pixels for CB. No 960x1080 rendering as someone here believed to know. Doing a JPS-shot in this mode still saves a 1080p-JPS.

    A painting program helped me to simulate the checkerboard from a 1080p JPS.



    The first JPS shows the scene rendered in 720p.

    Image



    This picture shows simulated Checkerboard - The odd pixels on one view blacked out and the even pixels on the other view.

    It clearly shows the advantage of CB when it is mapped 1:1 . A crisp image but a bit dark caused by the black pixels.

    Image



    This picture shows the scene rendered in 1080p. Best quality. It was the base for my CB images.

    Image



    Now here starts my guessing: CB with simply average interpolated pixels between. A bit blurry compared to the native CB. I don't know if 3DTVs interpolate CB in such or a similar way.

    But still this cheap interpolation has an advantage over the 720p image.

    Image



    My conclusion is that CB offers a better quality than 720p-FP . CB-Quality is not as good as 1080p but that should be clear from the start. CB has these cross-pixelation-artifacts(maybe the main reason why some people are disappointed with CB), but it still looks better than the 720p blur. Just look at the cactus-spikes.

    Using odd and even pixels for the 2 views has a psychologic effect - pixel-resolution seems to be bigger as it is. Maybe thats the biggest advantage compared to 720p.

    If I will buy a 3DTV, I would look for a CB-able model.



    Use whatever you want, but don't rant on other people because of 115200 pixels. Everyone has another perception and feeling. So its a natural way that some people prefer 720p over CP.

    Desktop-PC

    i7 870 @ 3.8GHz + MSI GTX1070 Gaming X + 16GB RAM + Win10 64Bit Home + AW2310+3D-Vision

    Posted 02/02/2012 02:35 PM   
    [quote name='Libertine' date='01 February 2012 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1328150852' post='1363952']
    So is checkerboard as blurry as that screenshot of Flugans or what?
    [/quote]

    No 1080p checkerboard is not blurry. The only time it stands to be blurry is when you are dealing with small "text" type chat like you see in Counter-Strike or other types of games. Some games where chat is larger like Battlefield 3, there is not as much of a dent in image degradation.

    For those who feel disgusted with the thread, look, I'm simply trying to give a rational case for why checkerboard has better image quality then 720p60 FP. I have a Mitsubishi DLP (which CB isn't as good as LCD and LED CB IMO, but good bang for the buck) and I agree that there is alot to be said about experiential knowledge. Here, it's a matter of giving quantification (and qualification) to what you have all experienced about CB. Since we all don't have CB, a rational case is the best I can give until a doubter attempts to plug it in and see for themselves. If you feel that my deployment of argumentation was out of bounds, forgive me, but hopefully I was no less charitable than that 'obnoxious' Socrates.
    [quote name='Libertine' date='01 February 2012 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1328150852' post='1363952']

    So is checkerboard as blurry as that screenshot of Flugans or what?





    No 1080p checkerboard is not blurry. The only time it stands to be blurry is when you are dealing with small "text" type chat like you see in Counter-Strike or other types of games. Some games where chat is larger like Battlefield 3, there is not as much of a dent in image degradation.



    For those who feel disgusted with the thread, look, I'm simply trying to give a rational case for why checkerboard has better image quality then 720p60 FP. I have a Mitsubishi DLP (which CB isn't as good as LCD and LED CB IMO, but good bang for the buck) and I agree that there is alot to be said about experiential knowledge. Here, it's a matter of giving quantification (and qualification) to what you have all experienced about CB. Since we all don't have CB, a rational case is the best I can give until a doubter attempts to plug it in and see for themselves. If you feel that my deployment of argumentation was out of bounds, forgive me, but hopefully I was no less charitable than that 'obnoxious' Socrates.

    Posted 02/02/2012 03:00 PM   
    Thank you photios for clarifying the situation.

    Without owning a CB display I tried to simulate one to get an impression as well.

    outside extreme test cases there is hardly any noticable difference between CB 60hz and true 1080p 60hz which is really great to say the least.

    From all the accounts I've read it appears that 720p is often severly degraded more than necessary which might explude the option completely.

    If comparing to 720p then CB could never be blurry as 720p can never be sharp after being scaled to 1080p resolution.

    1080p60hz is obviously better than CB but usually with a pretty slim margin.
    Thank you photios for clarifying the situation.



    Without owning a CB display I tried to simulate one to get an impression as well.



    outside extreme test cases there is hardly any noticable difference between CB 60hz and true 1080p 60hz which is really great to say the least.



    From all the accounts I've read it appears that 720p is often severly degraded more than necessary which might explude the option completely.



    If comparing to 720p then CB could never be blurry as 720p can never be sharp after being scaled to 1080p resolution.



    1080p60hz is obviously better than CB but usually with a pretty slim margin.

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

    donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

    Posted 02/02/2012 03:52 PM   
    [quote name='francomg' date='02 February 2012 - 06:14 AM' timestamp='1328192080' post='1364133']
    One day you might have a chance to see CB and see if you like it, just don't assume things.[/quote]
    I wasn't assuming things, hence the question. I hear way too many varied opinions to just take one guys opinion at face value, and forming my opinion by consensus isn't ideal because of that either. I am interested in IQ increases at the moment and am making buying decisions, sooner hopefully rather than later.

    [quote]And I totally agree with Eqzitara, this thread has become to popular without any purpose at all. Seeing is believing, stop this pixel by pixel, mapping, technical explanation, this is really a pure non sense, totally "NERD" method of justifying that CB is not a good 3D mode. Such a waste of thread, really... Sorry If I have ofended others, but I prefer practical testing over theory. Just my opinion though
    [/quote]

    People are just trying to figure it out because no CB users can be bothered to pull out a camera and take some comparison photos despite all the interest. I don't see the problem with it unless people's ego's are attached to their 3D mode of choice, talk about NERDs. This is about getting it straight as to how CB looks, we just happen to be doing it [again] in this thread. This thread now contains some screenshots of supposedly of how CB might look and despite the fact that people are obviously interested, we haven't heard one CB user comment analyzing or comparing them to his own experience. That is really unbelievable to me.

    Perhaps we could start here:
    @ CB users:

    Dear CB users,

    Does the CB image [last image down] in Flint Eastwood's thread look exactly like CB, if not exactly, how is it different? Does CB have the tiny "teeth" that i see on my display? If CB has the "teeth", is it that bad, or not as bad?
    [quote name='francomg' date='02 February 2012 - 06:14 AM' timestamp='1328192080' post='1364133']

    One day you might have a chance to see CB and see if you like it, just don't assume things.

    I wasn't assuming things, hence the question. I hear way too many varied opinions to just take one guys opinion at face value, and forming my opinion by consensus isn't ideal because of that either. I am interested in IQ increases at the moment and am making buying decisions, sooner hopefully rather than later.



    And I totally agree with Eqzitara, this thread has become to popular without any purpose at all. Seeing is believing, stop this pixel by pixel, mapping, technical explanation, this is really a pure non sense, totally "NERD" method of justifying that CB is not a good 3D mode. Such a waste of thread, really... Sorry If I have ofended others, but I prefer practical testing over theory. Just my opinion though





    People are just trying to figure it out because no CB users can be bothered to pull out a camera and take some comparison photos despite all the interest. I don't see the problem with it unless people's ego's are attached to their 3D mode of choice, talk about NERDs. This is about getting it straight as to how CB looks, we just happen to be doing it [again] in this thread. This thread now contains some screenshots of supposedly of how CB might look and despite the fact that people are obviously interested, we haven't heard one CB user comment analyzing or comparing them to his own experience. That is really unbelievable to me.



    Perhaps we could start here:

    @ CB users:



    Dear CB users,



    Does the CB image [last image down] in Flint Eastwood's thread look exactly like CB, if not exactly, how is it different? Does CB have the tiny "teeth" that i see on my display? If CB has the "teeth", is it that bad, or not as bad?

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

    Posted 02/02/2012 04:06 PM   
    [b]@eqzitara and francomg[/b]: I disagree about this thread being pointless. There's a lot of great discussion here if you filter out all the emotional noise. Who cares how a thread started if it was the stimulus for meaningful discourse? If you don't like it, stop posting in it. Some people do prefer to try and understand what they're seeing and reconciling it to the theory behind it, so all this "nerd" talk is welcome imo. Just as some people like to understand how different AA modes or methods work and why one looks better than others, the only way to understand is to analyze the details. I'm personally trying to reconcile the vast difference in opinions between the two main formats being discussed here: 720p FP and 1080 checkerboard and the discussion in this thread has contributed greatly to that effect. So no, I don't think its pointless to have the discussion.

    [b]@Flint Eastwood][/b]: Thanks for the pics, I think Flugan has already provided similar by trying to simulate using photoshop or similar program, however, I don't think we can use these as fully accurate representations because we don't know exactly how the image is processed after it leaves the GPU's framebuffer and is finally displayed in L/R stereo images. We can only go on what actual users are reporting with their own eyes, and much of that conflicts with what we are seeing in the simulated pictures.

    1) 720p - Your picture would most likely represent 720p frame sequential, not 720p frame packing. As I detailed a bit earlier, I think 720p goes through more processing that ultimately degrades the image, but I have no direct proof of this other than what I provided. The main driving force behind my conclusion is the extreme disdain users have for 720p FP using 3DTV Play, while 720p FS is quite playable imo if I had to do so on my 1080p panel.

    2) Simulated Checkerboard - I would instantly reject this as being the case as reliable sources I trust like Photios have already said the image does not look like this in one eye with a distinct checkeboard pattern. Honestly, to me the aliasing there is extremely evident and almost looks like a Crysis-esque texture on everything. If that were the image checkerboard users actually saw, I doubt they would be singing its praises.

    3) 1080p - no disagreements from me or anyone else. I think this is clearly the best and the target everyone is shooting for. Similarly I do believe 3DTV Play users with 1080p@24Hz see this as well, which is why many are willing to sacrifice the FPS but are also are also demanding 1080p CB, 1080p@30hz and 1080i SBS-half support from Nvidia.

    4) Interpolated Checkerboard - I'd agree this is probably the closest to what users are seeing, but we can't say for certain this is the exact interpolation method used as we don't know what the HDTV image processor is doing on its end to interpolate the missing pixels. If anything I think this pic and Flugan's especially over-blur the CB image, again, based on feedback from users I trust.
    @eqzitara and francomg: I disagree about this thread being pointless. There's a lot of great discussion here if you filter out all the emotional noise. Who cares how a thread started if it was the stimulus for meaningful discourse? If you don't like it, stop posting in it. Some people do prefer to try and understand what they're seeing and reconciling it to the theory behind it, so all this "nerd" talk is welcome imo. Just as some people like to understand how different AA modes or methods work and why one looks better than others, the only way to understand is to analyze the details. I'm personally trying to reconcile the vast difference in opinions between the two main formats being discussed here: 720p FP and 1080 checkerboard and the discussion in this thread has contributed greatly to that effect. So no, I don't think its pointless to have the discussion.



    @Flint Eastwood]: Thanks for the pics, I think Flugan has already provided similar by trying to simulate using photoshop or similar program, however, I don't think we can use these as fully accurate representations because we don't know exactly how the image is processed after it leaves the GPU's framebuffer and is finally displayed in L/R stereo images. We can only go on what actual users are reporting with their own eyes, and much of that conflicts with what we are seeing in the simulated pictures.



    1) 720p - Your picture would most likely represent 720p frame sequential, not 720p frame packing. As I detailed a bit earlier, I think 720p goes through more processing that ultimately degrades the image, but I have no direct proof of this other than what I provided. The main driving force behind my conclusion is the extreme disdain users have for 720p FP using 3DTV Play, while 720p FS is quite playable imo if I had to do so on my 1080p panel.



    2) Simulated Checkerboard - I would instantly reject this as being the case as reliable sources I trust like Photios have already said the image does not look like this in one eye with a distinct checkeboard pattern. Honestly, to me the aliasing there is extremely evident and almost looks like a Crysis-esque texture on everything. If that were the image checkerboard users actually saw, I doubt they would be singing its praises.



    3) 1080p - no disagreements from me or anyone else. I think this is clearly the best and the target everyone is shooting for. Similarly I do believe 3DTV Play users with 1080p@24Hz see this as well, which is why many are willing to sacrifice the FPS but are also are also demanding 1080p CB, 1080p@30hz and 1080i SBS-half support from Nvidia.



    4) Interpolated Checkerboard - I'd agree this is probably the closest to what users are seeing, but we can't say for certain this is the exact interpolation method used as we don't know what the HDTV image processor is doing on its end to interpolate the missing pixels. If anything I think this pic and Flugan's especially over-blur the CB image, again, based on feedback from users I trust.

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

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

    Posted 02/02/2012 04:11 PM   
    k
    k

    Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

    If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

    Posted 02/02/2012 04:30 PM   
      9 / 12    
    Scroll To Top