roller,
1080p checkerboard is 1080p qua both eyes and scaled to 1080p, but it is not full 1080p per eye. It is half that vertical resolution per eye for a summation of 1080. That goes for any display that uses the checkerboard tech This is why Daniel said it is "half resolution" and why checkerboard, although has much less ghosting, is not technically equivalent to true 1080p as the dual link dvi lcd monitors.
For me, I partially agree with you regarding display size. I'd rather have the size+checkerboard vis-a-vis the 3d ready monitors. It's a fine trade off. On another note, the choice is a functional and logistic one. Hence, why some prefer to have their comp at their desk with a monitor.
1080p checkerboard is 1080p qua both eyes and scaled to 1080p, but it is not full 1080p per eye. It is half that vertical resolution per eye for a summation of 1080. That goes for any display that uses the checkerboard tech This is why Daniel said it is "half resolution" and why checkerboard, although has much less ghosting, is not technically equivalent to true 1080p as the dual link dvi lcd monitors.
For me, I partially agree with you regarding display size. I'd rather have the size+checkerboard vis-a-vis the 3d ready monitors. It's a fine trade off. On another note, the choice is a functional and logistic one. Hence, why some prefer to have their comp at their desk with a monitor.
[quote name='photios' date='29 March 2011 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1301441552' post='1215541']
roller,
I'd rather have the size+checkerboard vis-a-vis the 3d ready monitors. It's a fine trade off. On another note, the choice is a functional and logistic one. Hence, why some prefer to have their comp at their desk with a monitor.
-photios
[/quote]
Once you'll have 27' monitor (largest to be had as yet), I dont personally think there is any compromize as to what PC gamer is supposed to be having. on 24' acer I am pretty much "immersed" as I sit close to it, 27' will blow my mind. Anyhing else is a hybrid solution for PC gamer - PJ is great but 720p/noise/logistics makes it inferior, and dont even start on plasmas. Sony PS 3d games would be good on 130' screen but not PC titles. IMHO
[quote name='photios' date='29 March 2011 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1301441552' post='1215541']
roller,
I'd rather have the size+checkerboard vis-a-vis the 3d ready monitors. It's a fine trade off. On another note, the choice is a functional and logistic one. Hence, why some prefer to have their comp at their desk with a monitor.
-photios
Once you'll have 27' monitor (largest to be had as yet), I dont personally think there is any compromize as to what PC gamer is supposed to be having. on 24' acer I am pretty much "immersed" as I sit close to it, 27' will blow my mind. Anyhing else is a hybrid solution for PC gamer - PJ is great but 720p/noise/logistics makes it inferior, and dont even start on plasmas. Sony PS 3d games would be good on 130' screen but not PC titles. IMHO
Skarling,
I have the Mitsubishi DLP. and while I find them to be the best compromise for the money, I totally understand your reasoning for the 3D Vision Monitors.
I have the Mitsubishi DLP. and while I find them to be the best compromise for the money, I totally understand your reasoning for the 3D Vision Monitors.
Wow i didn't really want things to get feisty between you guys, and i appreciate the in-depth explanation; i guess i should have been a little more clear in what i need. I'll attach an image of where i need this monitor so you can an idea of the area. In reality i cannot use a projector because of how my bedroom is. I have a Samsung UN46C7000 in the living room, so this upgrade is for personal (in bedroom) use only for gaming, programming, some picture/video editing and the daily reading of websites and so forth. Resolution (desktop space) is pretty important so 1920x1080 is the bare minimum, specially coming from a 30" 2560x1600.
I did a little more reading and there's a discussion about dot pitch on this upcoming 27" monitor, but i don't know how that would affect if it would affect my experience at all. Some people exaggerate their beliefs in forums to an extent that makes me think twice, but in reality i'm just not sure at all how that would change things. Apparently this monitor will have close to .3mm dot pitch compared to the .265mm in the 23"-24" monitors.
Wow i didn't really want things to get feisty between you guys, and i appreciate the in-depth explanation; i guess i should have been a little more clear in what i need. I'll attach an image of where i need this monitor so you can an idea of the area. In reality i cannot use a projector because of how my bedroom is. I have a Samsung UN46C7000 in the living room, so this upgrade is for personal (in bedroom) use only for gaming, programming, some picture/video editing and the daily reading of websites and so forth. Resolution (desktop space) is pretty important so 1920x1080 is the bare minimum, specially coming from a 30" 2560x1600.
I did a little more reading and there's a discussion about dot pitch on this upcoming 27" monitor, but i don't know how that would affect if it would affect my experience at all. Some people exaggerate their beliefs in forums to an extent that makes me think twice, but in reality i'm just not sure at all how that would change things. Apparently this monitor will have close to .3mm dot pitch compared to the .265mm in the 23"-24" monitors.
[quote name='Kioto' date='30 March 2011 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1301450462' post='1215624']
In reality i cannot use a projector because of how my bedroom is. I have a Samsung UN46C7000 in the living room, so this upgrade is for personal (in bedroom) use only for gaming, programming, some picture/video editing and the daily reading of websites and so forth. Resolution (desktop space) is pretty important so 1920x1080 is the bare minimum, specially coming from a 30" 2560x1600.
[attachment=26515:photookt.jpg]
[/quote]
No brainer to me - wait for 27' Acer or Viewsonic (coming out in 2011). 24' for bedroom is up to requested resolution but aint "blowing your mind" device
[quote name='Kioto' date='30 March 2011 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1301450462' post='1215624']
In reality i cannot use a projector because of how my bedroom is. I have a Samsung UN46C7000 in the living room, so this upgrade is for personal (in bedroom) use only for gaming, programming, some picture/video editing and the daily reading of websites and so forth. Resolution (desktop space) is pretty important so 1920x1080 is the bare minimum, specially coming from a 30" 2560x1600.
[attachment=26515:photookt.jpg]
No brainer to me - wait for 27' Acer or Viewsonic (coming out in 2011). 24' for bedroom is up to requested resolution but aint "blowing your mind" device
[quote name='photios' date='28 March 2011 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1301362170' post='1214939']
Hi Daniel,
I haven't heard from you in a while on your dual boot configuration, I think now I know why. You've been busy playing Descent 3. I take it by your post, that you didn't have too many issues getting it running? That 7900 GTX is a real gem isn't it? You might go through hardware after hardware, but you'll be caring that one along with you so long as you want to play older games in 3D.
Shoot me an email sometime and I'll play some Descent 3 with you: photius @ sbcglobal dot net.
Best,
Daniel
[/quote]
thanks for all your help. your advise was spot on. i ended up scoring on two BFG 7900 oc versions for 60$! one is brand new- never run! im running the used one now. works great. I went with the acer PJ and dlp link glasses- and the drivers you recommended. no problems at all! im so stoked! i swear these old PC exclusive games are better the the new consuls ports. Thanks again!
[quote name='photios' date='28 March 2011 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1301362170' post='1214939']
Hi Daniel,
I haven't heard from you in a while on your dual boot configuration, I think now I know why. You've been busy playing Descent 3. I take it by your post, that you didn't have too many issues getting it running? That 7900 GTX is a real gem isn't it? You might go through hardware after hardware, but you'll be caring that one along with you so long as you want to play older games in 3D.
Shoot me an email sometime and I'll play some Descent 3 with you: photius @ sbcglobal dot net.
Best,
Daniel
thanks for all your help. your advise was spot on. i ended up scoring on two BFG 7900 oc versions for 60$! one is brand new- never run! im running the used one now. works great. I went with the acer PJ and dlp link glasses- and the drivers you recommended. no problems at all! im so stoked! i swear these old PC exclusive games are better the the new consuls ports. Thanks again!
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
[quote name='photios' date='29 March 2011 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1301441552' post='1215541']
roller,
1080p checkerboard is 1080p qua both eyes and scaled to 1080p, but it is not full 1080p per eye. It is half that vertical resolution per eye for a summation of 1080. That goes for any display that uses the checkerboard tech This is why Daniel said it is "half resolution" and why checkerboard, although has much less ghosting, is not technically equivalent to true 1080p as the dual link dvi lcd monitors.
[/quote]
Right, of course I understand all that. that's why I said 1920x1080P per frame, not per eye.
[quote name='photios' date='29 March 2011 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1301441552' post='1215541']
roller,
1080p checkerboard is 1080p qua both eyes and scaled to 1080p, but it is not full 1080p per eye. It is half that vertical resolution per eye for a summation of 1080. That goes for any display that uses the checkerboard tech This is why Daniel said it is "half resolution" and why checkerboard, although has much less ghosting, is not technically equivalent to true 1080p as the dual link dvi lcd monitors.
Right, of course I understand all that. that's why I said 1920x1080P per frame, not per eye.
Half the pixels?? You're getting all the pixels, 1920x1080 per frame.
[i]LOL! checkerboard is half rez 1080p. you are not watching full HD 3d- you are watching interlaced 1080- [/i]
I've had people shout "What's that? I can't hear you over the 13 fans in my watercooling case! And these people will swear their systems are 'quiet'. Of course we are talking in arbitrary terms, that why I made an objective, non-aribtrary comparison, a rear proj DLP vs a front proj DLP. Call a 5380 'quiet' if you will, it is 20x louder than a RP DLP, and that's not a subjective statement.
What???? Where are all these claims? Nobody is saying that in a side by side comparison, HDTVs are inferior in anyway to 720P projectors. People complain about bugs in the software, but they love their HDTVs.
[i]well- im sitting here typing with my sound off- and i can hear my pc and my projector. they are roughly the same sound level. I think the fans speed goes up with the projector when the temp does. i have a cool room- so maybe thats why i have better sound results than you. so to me the sound level is acceptable. you are right- the DLP RP is quieter. as to ghosting problems- go to any 3dblue ray site or AVS forums for an in depth complain fest. You will notice all the DLP users reporting no ghosting[/i]
yes you did, check your post.
[i]i did talk about DLP checkerboard. Its the exact same checkerboard you rave about on and on. its been out for4 years or so[/i]
Your post has two gigantic flaws:
1. checkerboard is full res native 1920x1080 per frame, not 'haf res'.
[i]wrong each frame is interlaced. im sorry to break this to you. i was bummed when i learned this too[/i]
2. You're commenting on checkerboard as it is on a DLP, not a HDTV. Granted CB on a DLP is significantly flawed, but not on a plasma/LED. So your comparison is invalid.
[i]i was commenting on the DLP HDTV in my signature. ive had this for many years- i just upgraded to the 720p for greater size- because IMO screen size makes the experience more fun- and im planning on a 3 projector set up someday for full rez 1080p 3d. How is a perfect 3d image from a DLP with zero ghosting flawed? It is common knowledge that Plasma - led suffer from serious flaw- AKA ghosting/ crosstalk. I even posted a link where you and other discuss how to minimize the issue. You never even answered my direct question about your set ghosting. no need to- i have read other peoples reviews on other sites. isnt it interesting that a four year old sub- 1000$ dlp still has better 3d than a 4000$ brand new HDTV? here is a link to the Curtin University of Technology that explains on page 7 why DLP has no cross talk and is there for the best for 3d: Curtin University of Technology[/i]
3. Your "quickly outdated" is doubly irrelevent.
a. You're doing 720P and you're saying 1920x1080P is outdated???? Gime a break!!
[i]]i have a checkerboard 1080p 3d set. I can confirm the 3d is better on the 720p due to the screen size-and my ability to run higher amounts of AA.i was really surprised when i found this out. i bought the acer to do a art project in at burning man. my mits is collecting dust now. think about it this way- you are losing 50 percent of the resolution with checkerboard 3d- you are basically getting a 50% performance hit with no benefit (a 1080p120hrz monitor has the same performance but you see all the pixels). you need a fast computer to render 1080p 3d but only get to see half of the pixels due to display tech not being up to par with PC tech. with 720p3d you render 720p and you display shows 100% of the pixels you rendered. And you only have 12% less pixels than 1080p checkerboard 3d. So for me- i have the choice between 1080p or 720p on the same pc. the reason 720p looks better is because i get higher frame rates with higher IQ settings (aa etc.) [/i]
b. This thread is about what we have today, not speculations about the future. Today, we have 1920x1080P checkerboard, the best compromise BY FAR. We can quible about whether it's a 1%, 5% or 10% IQ hit vs frame packing, but it's a 300% improvement in size over a 27" screen. Giving up 1% to gain 300% is one hell of a good trade off.
[i]what we have now is new 3d tech that is being touted as better- when in reality it performs worse than legacy DLP checkerboard. ghosting- AKA crosstalk is unacceptable for 3d. deny it all you want- but no dlp ghosts. everyone knows- all these new hdtv's have ghosting. i feel it is irresponsible to tell people to buy a 4000$ HDTV that will perform poorer in 3d than a 1000$ HDTV that has been out for years. It is a fact that DLP is still the best 3d tech due to the issue of ghosting and cross talk. Dont believe they hype that display manufactures and the review sites try to sell you.[/i]
Ghost free 3D on a front proj is a myth, there's no such thing. You get ghosting on all 3D displays, including FPs.
[i]only possible with glasses issues like interference or poorly designed glasses or rooms with light issues. once again- there is no ghosting with DLP and 3d vision or good DLP link glasses[/i]
LOL! You are using 'ghosting' in your search term and you're surprised you get 'ghosting' comments???
[i]search dlp ghosting. only problems you will find are with bad glasses. there is none with 3d vision. that was my point. i searched both terms. dude just face it. the new generation 3d plasmas and led's suffer from ghosting. i even showed a post where you and others were discussing how to minimize it. ghosting is why DLP is KING for 3d games and movies[/i]
I strongly agree with many of the points you make. 130" screen would be amazing for 3D, no doubt. Can't over do it when it comes to size. And no denying the cost factor, FP is a fabulous value. When I had my FPs, I was surprised at how good the IQ was considering it's low resolution. Not quite the detail of 1920x1080P checkerboard, but it was native res and that's what counts.
[i]we agree here! and i like you too. you are a smart and tenacious man. Its just wrong to assume that checkerboard half resolution 1080p is as good as true 1080p. It is very obvious when one switches from 2d to 3d that you lose half your resolution with checkerboard 1080p. everything becomes blurry. get up close and cycle off 2d and 3d and you will see what i mean. to me 720p and checkerboard are so close in IQ- lets do some math: 1920x1080/2= 1,036800 pixels in 3d per hrz (or frame). 1280x720= 921600 pixels per frame. the difference between checker board and 720p 120hrz native 3d is 115000 pixels- so checkerboard 3d has roughly 12.5 percent more pixels when in 3d mode than 720p 120hrz 3d (please forgive me if my math is wrong). sure in 2d you get "roughly" more than 50% more pixels- but we are talking about 3d right? so does checkerboard have 12.5 percent more pixels? Yes. But does that make it better? only on a DLP. And not compared to native 720 when you crank up the AA and the frame rate goes way up. A person needs factor in the ghosting issues on the new sets. this seriously hurts the image quality of a new HDTV. I loved my checkerboard 3d HDTV- however i am happier with a 10' screen. To me, the lack of 12% pixels is more than compensated for by the enormous screen[/i]
For me, a FP at 1920x1080P that makes no more noise than a plasma would be ideal. But there's no way that will ever happen with a DLP, the bulb generates too much heat in a too small space. If FPs are ever implemented in a non-DLP tech, I'll be the first to buy one.
[i]they have them- but guess what- they ghost too. DLP is still king unfortunately. I wish this was not true, ive been waiting years to upgrade.[/i]
[i]i agree that the poster should get the monitor for his computer setup. he has a size restriction and is going for a traditional pc setup. this was not totally clear in the first post. Im going more for the ultimate 3d gaming experience. i hope i did not derail the post too far- i just hate to see honest hard working people duped by HDTV manufactures. this round of TV should be avoided if you really want to have a great 3d gaming experience. BTW hear is a pic of my desktop with my wife in front of my projector. i sit 8 feet or so away. im still working on screen- but its roughly 130" over then feet. [/i][i][/i]
Half the pixels?? You're getting all the pixels, 1920x1080 per frame.
LOL! checkerboard is half rez 1080p. you are not watching full HD 3d- you are watching interlaced 1080-
I've had people shout "What's that? I can't hear you over the 13 fans in my watercooling case! And these people will swear their systems are 'quiet'. Of course we are talking in arbitrary terms, that why I made an objective, non-aribtrary comparison, a rear proj DLP vs a front proj DLP. Call a 5380 'quiet' if you will, it is 20x louder than a RP DLP, and that's not a subjective statement.
What???? Where are all these claims? Nobody is saying that in a side by side comparison, HDTVs are inferior in anyway to 720P projectors. People complain about bugs in the software, but they love their HDTVs.
well- im sitting here typing with my sound off- and i can hear my pc and my projector. they are roughly the same sound level. I think the fans speed goes up with the projector when the temp does. i have a cool room- so maybe thats why i have better sound results than you. so to me the sound level is acceptable. you are right- the DLP RP is quieter. as to ghosting problems- go to any 3dblue ray site or AVS forums for an in depth complain fest. You will notice all the DLP users reporting no ghosting
yes you did, check your post.
i did talk about DLP checkerboard. Its the exact same checkerboard you rave about on and on. its been out for4 years or so
Your post has two gigantic flaws:
1. checkerboard is full res native 1920x1080 per frame, not 'haf res'.
wrong each frame is interlaced. im sorry to break this to you. i was bummed when i learned this too
2. You're commenting on checkerboard as it is on a DLP, not a HDTV. Granted CB on a DLP is significantly flawed, but not on a plasma/LED. So your comparison is invalid.
i was commenting on the DLP HDTV in my signature. ive had this for many years- i just upgraded to the 720p for greater size- because IMO screen size makes the experience more fun- and im planning on a 3 projector set up someday for full rez 1080p 3d. How is a perfect 3d image from a DLP with zero ghosting flawed? It is common knowledge that Plasma - led suffer from serious flaw- AKA ghosting/ crosstalk. I even posted a link where you and other discuss how to minimize the issue. You never even answered my direct question about your set ghosting. no need to- i have read other peoples reviews on other sites. isnt it interesting that a four year old sub- 1000$ dlp still has better 3d than a 4000$ brand new HDTV? here is a link to the Curtin University of Technology that explains on page 7 why DLP has no cross talk and is there for the best for 3d: Curtin University of Technology
3. Your "quickly outdated" is doubly irrelevent.
a. You're doing 720P and you're saying 1920x1080P is outdated???? Gime a break!!
]i have a checkerboard 1080p 3d set. I can confirm the 3d is better on the 720p due to the screen size-and my ability to run higher amounts of AA.i was really surprised when i found this out. i bought the acer to do a art project in at burning man. my mits is collecting dust now. think about it this way- you are losing 50 percent of the resolution with checkerboard 3d- you are basically getting a 50% performance hit with no benefit (a 1080p120hrz monitor has the same performance but you see all the pixels). you need a fast computer to render 1080p 3d but only get to see half of the pixels due to display tech not being up to par with PC tech. with 720p3d you render 720p and you display shows 100% of the pixels you rendered. And you only have 12% less pixels than 1080p checkerboard 3d. So for me- i have the choice between 1080p or 720p on the same pc. the reason 720p looks better is because i get higher frame rates with higher IQ settings (aa etc.)
b. This thread is about what we have today, not speculations about the future. Today, we have 1920x1080P checkerboard, the best compromise BY FAR. We can quible about whether it's a 1%, 5% or 10% IQ hit vs frame packing, but it's a 300% improvement in size over a 27" screen. Giving up 1% to gain 300% is one hell of a good trade off.
what we have now is new 3d tech that is being touted as better- when in reality it performs worse than legacy DLP checkerboard. ghosting- AKA crosstalk is unacceptable for 3d. deny it all you want- but no dlp ghosts. everyone knows- all these new hdtv's have ghosting. i feel it is irresponsible to tell people to buy a 4000$ HDTV that will perform poorer in 3d than a 1000$ HDTV that has been out for years. It is a fact that DLP is still the best 3d tech due to the issue of ghosting and cross talk. Dont believe they hype that display manufactures and the review sites try to sell you.
Ghost free 3D on a front proj is a myth, there's no such thing. You get ghosting on all 3D displays, including FPs.
only possible with glasses issues like interference or poorly designed glasses or rooms with light issues. once again- there is no ghosting with DLP and 3d vision or good DLP link glasses
LOL! You are using 'ghosting' in your search term and you're surprised you get 'ghosting' comments???
search dlp ghosting. only problems you will find are with bad glasses. there is none with 3d vision. that was my point. i searched both terms. dude just face it. the new generation 3d plasmas and led's suffer from ghosting. i even showed a post where you and others were discussing how to minimize it. ghosting is why DLP is KING for 3d games and movies
I strongly agree with many of the points you make. 130" screen would be amazing for 3D, no doubt. Can't over do it when it comes to size. And no denying the cost factor, FP is a fabulous value. When I had my FPs, I was surprised at how good the IQ was considering it's low resolution. Not quite the detail of 1920x1080P checkerboard, but it was native res and that's what counts.
we agree here! and i like you too. you are a smart and tenacious man. Its just wrong to assume that checkerboard half resolution 1080p is as good as true 1080p. It is very obvious when one switches from 2d to 3d that you lose half your resolution with checkerboard 1080p. everything becomes blurry. get up close and cycle off 2d and 3d and you will see what i mean. to me 720p and checkerboard are so close in IQ- lets do some math: 1920x1080/2= 1,036800 pixels in 3d per hrz (or frame). 1280x720= 921600 pixels per frame. the difference between checker board and 720p 120hrz native 3d is 115000 pixels- so checkerboard 3d has roughly 12.5 percent more pixels when in 3d mode than 720p 120hrz 3d (please forgive me if my math is wrong). sure in 2d you get "roughly" more than 50% more pixels- but we are talking about 3d right? so does checkerboard have 12.5 percent more pixels? Yes. But does that make it better? only on a DLP. And not compared to native 720 when you crank up the AA and the frame rate goes way up. A person needs factor in the ghosting issues on the new sets. this seriously hurts the image quality of a new HDTV. I loved my checkerboard 3d HDTV- however i am happier with a 10' screen. To me, the lack of 12% pixels is more than compensated for by the enormous screen
For me, a FP at 1920x1080P that makes no more noise than a plasma would be ideal. But there's no way that will ever happen with a DLP, the bulb generates too much heat in a too small space. If FPs are ever implemented in a non-DLP tech, I'll be the first to buy one.
they have them- but guess what- they ghost too. DLP is still king unfortunately. I wish this was not true, ive been waiting years to upgrade.
i agree that the poster should get the monitor for his computer setup. he has a size restriction and is going for a traditional pc setup. this was not totally clear in the first post. Im going more for the ultimate 3d gaming experience. i hope i did not derail the post too far- i just hate to see honest hard working people duped by HDTV manufactures. this round of TV should be avoided if you really want to have a great 3d gaming experience. BTW hear is a pic of my desktop with my wife in front of my projector. i sit 8 feet or so away. im still working on screen- but its roughly 130" over then feet. [i][/i]
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
[quote name='DanielJoy' date='29 March 2011 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1301463861' post='1215697']
checkerboard is half rez 1080p. you are not watching full HD 3d- you are watching interlaced 1080- [/quote]
Do you even know what interlaced means?? Obviously not. Checkerboard is 1920x1080 pixels per frame, NON- interlaced. I'm pressing this point to nulify your half truth because the OP wants useful information, not deception.
[quote]i did talk about DLP checkerboard.[/quote]
No, not on a 1.4 plasma...your exact words:
"you only have the choice of 1080p on a small computer monitor, or 1080p24 on new HDMI 1.4a tv's and projectors( i personally did not like the 24p frame rate at all, and using these tv's in 720p is a disappointment- plus they all have far more ghosting than DLP tv's or projectors) or you can get the mits dlp wich is 1080p checkerboard"
There is no mention of checkerboard on a HDMI1.4 HDTV Plasma/LED. Since CB on a HDMI1.4 plasma/LED this is BY FAR the best option, your convenient omission is crucial.
[quote]i was commenting on the DLP HDTV in my signature.[/quote]
Exactly. DLP != Plasma. You're admitting you have no first-hand knowledge of checkerboard on a Samsung 3D plasma, and yet you come to the conclusion that it's the worst of all worlds. Brilliant.
[quote]You never even answered my direct question about your set ghosting.[/quote]
You mean this question? "Can you honestly run 100% depth with no ghosting?" I purposely didn't answer cause I don't play the half-truth game. The half-truth truth is no, I can't on my Plasma. The whole truth is I can't on my Plasma, or my front projector DLP, or my rear projection DLP.
[quote]think about it this way- you are losing 50 percent of the resolution with checkerboard 3d- you are basically getting a 50% performance hit with no benefit[/quote]
No you're not! You get virtually NO image quality hit, certainly not a 50% hit on a checkerboard plasma. Your half-truths prove you have a very strong bias based on "some guy said" hearsay. But you take it too far by telling the OP that checkerboard is interlaced, that's just flat out wrong. Hopefully people will do further research to find the truth and not just take your word on this.
[quote]i feel it is irresponsible to tell people to buy a 4000$ HDTV[/quote]
You're telling people that checkerboard is interlaced, and you're saying *I'M* irresponsible? And in addition to half-truths, you saying that 55" LED TVs cost $4000? When they actually cost $1400?
[quote]Its just wrong to assume that checkerboard half resolution 1080p is as good as true 1080p.[/quote]
I'm assuming? You are the king of hypocricy. You admit you've never seen CB on a Plasma, and then say it looks terrible.
People praise me for giving them CB on their Samsung plasmas/Leds, 65000 hits on the thread. Why all the praise if I gave them "blurry"?
Given your bias, we will never agree on this. In fact, reading your comments is EXACTLY why I don't simple take the word of someone, you don't know his agenda or bias. I only hope that people will check this out for themselves and not believe your "CB is blurry" comments.
[quote name='DanielJoy' date='29 March 2011 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1301463861' post='1215697']
checkerboard is half rez 1080p. you are not watching full HD 3d- you are watching interlaced 1080-
Do you even know what interlaced means?? Obviously not. Checkerboard is 1920x1080 pixels per frame, NON- interlaced. I'm pressing this point to nulify your half truth because the OP wants useful information, not deception.
i did talk about DLP checkerboard.
No, not on a 1.4 plasma...your exact words:
"you only have the choice of 1080p on a small computer monitor, or 1080p24 on new HDMI 1.4a tv's and projectors( i personally did not like the 24p frame rate at all, and using these tv's in 720p is a disappointment- plus they all have far more ghosting than DLP tv's or projectors) or you can get the mits dlp wich is 1080p checkerboard"
There is no mention of checkerboard on a HDMI1.4 HDTV Plasma/LED. Since CB on a HDMI1.4 plasma/LED this is BY FAR the best option, your convenient omission is crucial.
i was commenting on the DLP HDTV in my signature.
Exactly. DLP != Plasma. You're admitting you have no first-hand knowledge of checkerboard on a Samsung 3D plasma, and yet you come to the conclusion that it's the worst of all worlds. Brilliant.
You never even answered my direct question about your set ghosting.
You mean this question? "Can you honestly run 100% depth with no ghosting?" I purposely didn't answer cause I don't play the half-truth game. The half-truth truth is no, I can't on my Plasma. The whole truth is I can't on my Plasma, or my front projector DLP, or my rear projection DLP.
think about it this way- you are losing 50 percent of the resolution with checkerboard 3d- you are basically getting a 50% performance hit with no benefit
No you're not! You get virtually NO image quality hit, certainly not a 50% hit on a checkerboard plasma. Your half-truths prove you have a very strong bias based on "some guy said" hearsay. But you take it too far by telling the OP that checkerboard is interlaced, that's just flat out wrong. Hopefully people will do further research to find the truth and not just take your word on this.
i feel it is irresponsible to tell people to buy a 4000$ HDTV
You're telling people that checkerboard is interlaced, and you're saying *I'M* irresponsible? And in addition to half-truths, you saying that 55" LED TVs cost $4000? When they actually cost $1400?
Its just wrong to assume that checkerboard half resolution 1080p is as good as true 1080p.
I'm assuming? You are the king of hypocricy. You admit you've never seen CB on a Plasma, and then say it looks terrible.
People praise me for giving them CB on their Samsung plasmas/Leds, 65000 hits on the thread. Why all the praise if I gave them "blurry"?
Given your bias, we will never agree on this. In fact, reading your comments is EXACTLY why I don't simple take the word of someone, you don't know his agenda or bias. I only hope that people will check this out for themselves and not believe your "CB is blurry" comments.
Do you even know what interlaced means?? Obviously not. Checkerboard is 1920x1080 pixels per frame, NON- interlaced. I'm pressing this point to nulify your half truth because the OP wants useful information, not deception.
[i]dude- checkerboard is a modern version of interlacing. a kind of frame packing that takes a signal the tv cannot display 1080p120 and halvs the resolution so that the tv can display it. its a trick to reduce the video bandwidth required by stereo 1080p120 signnal, and fit into the bandwidth of single-link DVI and HDMI 1.4a which can only handle 1080p60 (in this purpuse, it is similar to interlacing). As of now, the checkerboard pattern is a just packing format which allows transmitting 1080p stereo signal in 60 Hz bandwidth. After unpacking, the empty pixels in the checkerboard image need to be interpolated from the neighbors in a process known as quincunx sampling.[/i]
No, not on a 1.4 plasma...your exact words:
"you only have the choice of 1080p on a small computer monitor, or 1080p24 on new HDMI 1.4a tv's and projectors( i personally did not like the 24p frame rate at all, and using these tv's in 720p is a disappointment- plus they all have far more ghosting than DLP tv's or projectors) or you can get the mits dlp wich is 1080p checkerboard"
There is no mention of checkerboard on a HDMI1.4 HDTV Plasma/LED. Since CB on a HDMI1.4 plasma/LED this is BY FAR the best option, your convenient omission is crucial.
[i]this is where we differ. There is no ghosting on DLP. THere is on HDMI 1.4a HDTV's. GHosting ruins the stereo experience. and i see no point recommending display tech that is four times more expensive and performs poorer.[/i]
Exactly. DLP != Plasma. You're admitting you have no first-hand knowledge of checkerboard on a Samsung 3D plasma, and yet you come to the conclusion that it's the worst of all worlds. Brilliant.
[i]true- i did not try the Samsung plasma- because i when with the top of the line Panasonic- which scored higher in all the reviews. and it still ghosts. and i sent it back. I also remember how Samsung treated its customers who had legacy Samsung HDMI 1.3 DLP 3d tv's that had checkerboard. the issue is ghosting. and your not understanding how little of a IQ increase there is between native 720p120hrz and 1080p60 checkerboard.[/i]
You mean this question? "Can you honestly run 100% depth with no ghosting?" I purposely didn't answer cause I don't play the half-truth game. The half-truth truth is no, I can't on my Plasma. The whole truth is I can't on my Plasma, or my front projector DLP, or my rear projection DLP.
[i]I can run 100% depth on my DLP mitubishi and my DLP projector with zero ghosting during gaming and 3d blue rays (as long as the game is 3d visions ready with no rendering issues of course- but that is different than the display issue ghosting). So can everyone else who owns one. deny it all you want- but its still the truth. [/i]
No you're not! You get virtually NO image quality hit, certainly not a 50% hit on a checkerboard plasma. Your half-truths prove you have a very strong bias based on "some guy said" hearsay. But you take it too far by telling the OP that checkerboard is interlaced, that's just flat out wrong. Hopefully people will do further research to find the truth and not just take your word on this.
[i]im sorry once again- to tell you that checkerboard is half resolution 3d. you are losing image quality. period. i dont have to see every tv ever made- because i understand the technology. look for yourself in a game. turn on and off 3d. you will see less detail going from true 1080p to checkerboard 3d. and like i said earlier, checkerboard can be considered a modern form of interlacing.[/i]
You're telling people that checkerboard is interlaced, and you're saying *I'M* irresponsible? And in addition to half-truths, you saying that 55" LED TVs cost $4000? When they actually cost $1400?
[i]maybe i was not clear. i was comparing 65" 3d tv's with a quick google search. a 65 inch samsung is around $4000 when i searched. a DLP can be had for around 1000$. a projector can be had now for 500$[/i]
I'm assuming? You are the king of hypocricy. You admit you've never seen CB on a Plasma, and then say it looks terrible.
[i]do you think that Samsung reinvented checkerboard for the plasma? its the same checkerboard that was on Samsung DLP 3d tv's five years ago (and has no ghosting). the issue is not checkerboard. i like it. i admitted its got more pixels than 720p3d- but you cant get it in a projector yet- and im not sure i would when i could probably get 3 DLP's in surround mode for cheaper greater than 1080p resolution- and zero ghosting. the issue for this new generations of 3d tv's is ghosting. you admitted it. i enjoy the top of the line stuff- i when Panasonic. I have seen full resolution 1080p on this set (at 24hrz). and I sent it back due to ghosting. it has better iq in 2d- but im not interested in 2d performance for my HTPC- especially at that price [/i]
People praise me for giving them CB on their Samsung plasmas/Leds, 65000 hits on the thread. Why all the praise if I gave them "blurry"?
[i]im sure its better than 720p frame packing that gets down-scaled from 1080p. i would not run 720p on my checkerboard DLP either- it has 12.5% more pixels. but i brought up some valid points about higher frame rate and higher IQ compensating for 12.5% more pixels when being compared to the projectors. the bottom line is it is you who does not understand how checkerboard works and that is does half the resolution just like side by side and top/ bottom. why do you think you cant run 1080p120 on your tv? only 1080p24hrz. its the limit of the HDMI chipset- and thus why we require new forms of interlacing like checkerboard to pack the signal into a format the tv can support. would you run checkerboard over 1080p120 if your tv could do it? no of course not- buecause that is full HD 3d not half rez like checkerboard. [/i]
Given your bias, we will never agree on this. In fact, reading your comments is EXACTLY why I don't simple take the word of someone, you don't know his agenda or bias. I only hope that people will check this out for themselves and not believe your "CB is blurry" comments.
[i]i have no bias. i enjoy all this tech and as soon as something better shows up ill get it. my agenda is to help save people money on new tv sets that perform poorer in 3d than older cheaper tech like DLP. very few are able to try all this stuff out with 3d gaming in mind. im not the only one who will confirm that DLP does not ghost. everyone with it will. I dont understand you you are being dishonest about this fact. there are many other people who have posted the exact same findings on the net. Maybe its just hard for you to admit you bough something that is less good than old cheaper DLP but cost 4 times as much.[/i]
[i]honestly dude- im pissed off that im still stuck with 06 display tech. i want to upgrade and this new generation of 3d HDTV's are a horrible failure due to ghosting and lack of true HD 3d gaming modes[/i]
Do you even know what interlaced means?? Obviously not. Checkerboard is 1920x1080 pixels per frame, NON- interlaced. I'm pressing this point to nulify your half truth because the OP wants useful information, not deception.
dude- checkerboard is a modern version of interlacing. a kind of frame packing that takes a signal the tv cannot display 1080p120 and halvs the resolution so that the tv can display it. its a trick to reduce the video bandwidth required by stereo 1080p120 signnal, and fit into the bandwidth of single-link DVI and HDMI 1.4a which can only handle 1080p60 (in this purpuse, it is similar to interlacing). As of now, the checkerboard pattern is a just packing format which allows transmitting 1080p stereo signal in 60 Hz bandwidth. After unpacking, the empty pixels in the checkerboard image need to be interpolated from the neighbors in a process known as quincunx sampling.
No, not on a 1.4 plasma...your exact words:
"you only have the choice of 1080p on a small computer monitor, or 1080p24 on new HDMI 1.4a tv's and projectors( i personally did not like the 24p frame rate at all, and using these tv's in 720p is a disappointment- plus they all have far more ghosting than DLP tv's or projectors) or you can get the mits dlp wich is 1080p checkerboard"
There is no mention of checkerboard on a HDMI1.4 HDTV Plasma/LED. Since CB on a HDMI1.4 plasma/LED this is BY FAR the best option, your convenient omission is crucial.
this is where we differ. There is no ghosting on DLP. THere is on HDMI 1.4a HDTV's. GHosting ruins the stereo experience. and i see no point recommending display tech that is four times more expensive and performs poorer.
Exactly. DLP != Plasma. You're admitting you have no first-hand knowledge of checkerboard on a Samsung 3D plasma, and yet you come to the conclusion that it's the worst of all worlds. Brilliant.
true- i did not try the Samsung plasma- because i when with the top of the line Panasonic- which scored higher in all the reviews. and it still ghosts. and i sent it back. I also remember how Samsung treated its customers who had legacy Samsung HDMI 1.3 DLP 3d tv's that had checkerboard. the issue is ghosting. and your not understanding how little of a IQ increase there is between native 720p120hrz and 1080p60 checkerboard.
You mean this question? "Can you honestly run 100% depth with no ghosting?" I purposely didn't answer cause I don't play the half-truth game. The half-truth truth is no, I can't on my Plasma. The whole truth is I can't on my Plasma, or my front projector DLP, or my rear projection DLP.
I can run 100% depth on my DLP mitubishi and my DLP projector with zero ghosting during gaming and 3d blue rays (as long as the game is 3d visions ready with no rendering issues of course- but that is different than the display issue ghosting). So can everyone else who owns one. deny it all you want- but its still the truth.
No you're not! You get virtually NO image quality hit, certainly not a 50% hit on a checkerboard plasma. Your half-truths prove you have a very strong bias based on "some guy said" hearsay. But you take it too far by telling the OP that checkerboard is interlaced, that's just flat out wrong. Hopefully people will do further research to find the truth and not just take your word on this.
im sorry once again- to tell you that checkerboard is half resolution 3d. you are losing image quality. period. i dont have to see every tv ever made- because i understand the technology. look for yourself in a game. turn on and off 3d. you will see less detail going from true 1080p to checkerboard 3d. and like i said earlier, checkerboard can be considered a modern form of interlacing.
You're telling people that checkerboard is interlaced, and you're saying *I'M* irresponsible? And in addition to half-truths, you saying that 55" LED TVs cost $4000? When they actually cost $1400?
maybe i was not clear. i was comparing 65" 3d tv's with a quick google search. a 65 inch samsung is around $4000 when i searched. a DLP can be had for around 1000$. a projector can be had now for 500$
I'm assuming? You are the king of hypocricy. You admit you've never seen CB on a Plasma, and then say it looks terrible.
do you think that Samsung reinvented checkerboard for the plasma? its the same checkerboard that was on Samsung DLP 3d tv's five years ago (and has no ghosting). the issue is not checkerboard. i like it. i admitted its got more pixels than 720p3d- but you cant get it in a projector yet- and im not sure i would when i could probably get 3 DLP's in surround mode for cheaper greater than 1080p resolution- and zero ghosting. the issue for this new generations of 3d tv's is ghosting. you admitted it. i enjoy the top of the line stuff- i when Panasonic. I have seen full resolution 1080p on this set (at 24hrz). and I sent it back due to ghosting. it has better iq in 2d- but im not interested in 2d performance for my HTPC- especially at that price
People praise me for giving them CB on their Samsung plasmas/Leds, 65000 hits on the thread. Why all the praise if I gave them "blurry"?
im sure its better than 720p frame packing that gets down-scaled from 1080p. i would not run 720p on my checkerboard DLP either- it has 12.5% more pixels. but i brought up some valid points about higher frame rate and higher IQ compensating for 12.5% more pixels when being compared to the projectors. the bottom line is it is you who does not understand how checkerboard works and that is does half the resolution just like side by side and top/ bottom. why do you think you cant run 1080p120 on your tv? only 1080p24hrz. its the limit of the HDMI chipset- and thus why we require new forms of interlacing like checkerboard to pack the signal into a format the tv can support. would you run checkerboard over 1080p120 if your tv could do it? no of course not- buecause that is full HD 3d not half rez like checkerboard.
Given your bias, we will never agree on this. In fact, reading your comments is EXACTLY why I don't simple take the word of someone, you don't know his agenda or bias. I only hope that people will check this out for themselves and not believe your "CB is blurry" comments.
i have no bias. i enjoy all this tech and as soon as something better shows up ill get it. my agenda is to help save people money on new tv sets that perform poorer in 3d than older cheaper tech like DLP. very few are able to try all this stuff out with 3d gaming in mind. im not the only one who will confirm that DLP does not ghost. everyone with it will. I dont understand you you are being dishonest about this fact. there are many other people who have posted the exact same findings on the net. Maybe its just hard for you to admit you bough something that is less good than old cheaper DLP but cost 4 times as much.
honestly dude- im pissed off that im still stuck with 06 display tech. i want to upgrade and this new generation of 3d HDTV's are a horrible failure due to ghosting and lack of true HD 3d gaming modes
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
[quote name='DanielJoy' date='30 March 2011 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1301549984' post='1216485']
[/quote]
Until yesterday, I assumed your rant was innocent, you simply lack technical knowledge. But now I'm convinced that you have an irrational hatred of Plasma/LED 3D tech. Your post is filled with more outright lies, half truths, deceptions than a defense attorney defending OJ Simpson.
"1. checkerboard is in interlaced."
This is the most outrageous lie of all.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
Caught in a lie, you change your story to " CB is sorta like interlaced in only one way"
The fact that you backpedal every time I catch you in a lie proves you deliberately mislead people.
"2. non- DLP HDMI1.4 TVs cost $4000"
Average cost is $1800, most are under $1500
"3. I didn't leave out Plasma/LED tech"
I prove you did leave it out, so caught in a lie, you now admit your deception, that
you DID deliberately leave it out. What were you trying to hide?
"4. Everyone on Earth hates non-DLP 3D/checkerboard"
There are two threads in this forum with 65000+ hits that are nothing but post after post of
praise for the enabling of checkerboard mode in 3D Vision. Another thread is people PLEADING with
Andrew to implement checkerboard in 3DTV Play. The demand for checkerboard is so great, Andrew took
the unprecedented step of admitting that Nvidia made a mistake by omitting checkerboard, and assured
the thousands of complainers that nvidia will have CB in the next driver release.
"5. Checkerboard is half-res"
If CB is half res, 720P on a front proj is 4/9 res. This is one of your convenient half truths.
CB displays 124416000 pixels per frame. 720P on a Acer front proj displays 110592000 per frame
CB = 124416000 ... 720P = 110592000
The math says 720P is inferior to CB
See Daniel, I can play the 'deception by math' game too.
"6. Checkerboard is blurry"
See #4 above
"7. DLP has zero ghosting "
Caught in a lie, you change your story to "Ok, so DLP front proj does have ghosting in games, but it's
the games fault....or maybe it's nvidia's fault....whatever"
"8. checkerboard on DLP looks exactly the same as CB on a plasma"
You admit you have never seen CB on a Plasma, yet your post is filled with rants about how bad it looks.
If there was ever any doubt about your pathological obsession to make plasma checkerboard look bad, this settles it. Anyone who has seen CB on DLP and Plasma will testify that the are COMPLTELY different. Missing pixels are obvious in DLP, not in Plasma. On a Plasma/LED, CB is virtually indistinguishable from frame packing *VISUALLY*, so please spare us your deceiving "proof by math" deception.
The crazy thing is, you may be right in one way, front proj is possibly the best tech for certain people. I would be all over it were it not for the irritaing noise, even though it is low resolution. But your crazed, rabid-dog smear campaign designed to destroy Plasma/LED technology is more than I can stomach. You should try actually looking at the technology before ranting about how bad it looks.
[quote name='DanielJoy' date='30 March 2011 - 11:39 PM' timestamp='1301549984' post='1216485']
Until yesterday, I assumed your rant was innocent, you simply lack technical knowledge. But now I'm convinced that you have an irrational hatred of Plasma/LED 3D tech. Your post is filled with more outright lies, half truths, deceptions than a defense attorney defending OJ Simpson.
"1. checkerboard is in interlaced."
This is the most outrageous lie of all.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
Caught in a lie, you change your story to " CB is sorta like interlaced in only one way"
The fact that you backpedal every time I catch you in a lie proves you deliberately mislead people.
"2. non- DLP HDMI1.4 TVs cost $4000"
Average cost is $1800, most are under $1500
"3. I didn't leave out Plasma/LED tech"
I prove you did leave it out, so caught in a lie, you now admit your deception, that
you DID deliberately leave it out. What were you trying to hide?
"4. Everyone on Earth hates non-DLP 3D/checkerboard"
There are two threads in this forum with 65000+ hits that are nothing but post after post of
praise for the enabling of checkerboard mode in 3D Vision. Another thread is people PLEADING with
Andrew to implement checkerboard in 3DTV Play. The demand for checkerboard is so great, Andrew took
the unprecedented step of admitting that Nvidia made a mistake by omitting checkerboard, and assured
the thousands of complainers that nvidia will have CB in the next driver release.
"5. Checkerboard is half-res"
If CB is half res, 720P on a front proj is 4/9 res. This is one of your convenient half truths.
CB displays 124416000 pixels per frame. 720P on a Acer front proj displays 110592000 per frame
CB = 124416000 ... 720P = 110592000
The math says 720P is inferior to CB
See Daniel, I can play the 'deception by math' game too.
"6. Checkerboard is blurry"
See #4 above
"7. DLP has zero ghosting "
Caught in a lie, you change your story to "Ok, so DLP front proj does have ghosting in games, but it's
the games fault....or maybe it's nvidia's fault....whatever"
"8. checkerboard on DLP looks exactly the same as CB on a plasma"
You admit you have never seen CB on a Plasma, yet your post is filled with rants about how bad it looks.
If there was ever any doubt about your pathological obsession to make plasma checkerboard look bad, this settles it. Anyone who has seen CB on DLP and Plasma will testify that the are COMPLTELY different. Missing pixels are obvious in DLP, not in Plasma. On a Plasma/LED, CB is virtually indistinguishable from frame packing *VISUALLY*, so please spare us your deceiving "proof by math" deception.
The crazy thing is, you may be right in one way, front proj is possibly the best tech for certain people. I would be all over it were it not for the irritaing noise, even though it is low resolution. But your crazed, rabid-dog smear campaign designed to destroy Plasma/LED technology is more than I can stomach. You should try actually looking at the technology before ranting about how bad it looks.
[quote name='roller11' date='31 March 2011 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1301584526' post='1216728']
Until yesterday, I assumed your rant was innocent, you simply lack technical knowledge. But now I'm convinced that you have an irrational hatred of Plasma/LED 3D tech. Your post is filled with more outright lies, half truths, deceptions than a defense attorney defending OJ Simpson.
[i]i dont like it because its over priced and performs worse than DLP[/i]
"1. checkerboard is in interlaced."
This is the most outrageous lie of all.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
Caught in a lie, you change your story to " CB is sorta like interlaced in only one way"
The fact that you backpedal every time I catch you in a lie proves you deliberately mislead people.
[i]sigh- some people just dont get it. It is a modern version of interlacing- instead of scan line vertical it uses a checkerboard interlacing. here is some reading since you are so uninformed : why checkerboard is inferier to standard 3d: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2754&start=0
another one: explain checkerboard and interlaced 3d please: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5482
[/i]
"2. non- DLP HDMI1.4 TVs cost $4000"
Average cost is $1800, most are under $1500
[i]show me a plasma with checkerboard at 65 inches at that price? oh ya they cost 4000$ here is a 65" DLP for 830$ http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=65+DLP&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbs=shop:1&sa=X&ei=sAyVTYj9IIPgiALfzIydCQ&ved=0CGUQBSgA&q=mitsubishi+65+DLP&spell=1&biw=853&bih=378&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3104ec0eb20a5903
why do you say size definaly matters and then try to compaire 55" tv price to 65" tv prices? you are not being very logical. show me a 65" checkerboard plasma or LED for 1500$
[/i]
"3. I didn't leave out Plasma/LED tech"
I prove you did leave it out, so caught in a lie, you now admit your deception, that
you DID deliberately leave it out. What were you trying to hide?
[i]again- why would i reccomend tech that is overprices and performs poorer due to ghosting? [/i]
"4. Everyone on Earth hates non-DLP 3D/checkerboard"
There are two threads in this forum with 65000+ hits that are nothing but post after post of
praise for the enabling of checkerboard mode in 3D Vision. Another thread is people PLEADING with
Andrew to implement checkerboard in 3DTV Play. The demand for checkerboard is so great, Andrew took
the unprecedented step of admitting that Nvidia made a mistake by omitting checkerboard, and assured
the thousands of complainers that nvidia will have CB in the next driver release.
[i]i never said anyone hates checkerboard. but
it is not better than 720p with 16MSAA- because its half rez[/i]
"5. Checkerboard is half-res"
If CB is half res, 720P on a front proj is 4/9 res. This is one of your convenient half truths.
CB displays 124416000 pixels per frame. 720P on a Acer front proj displays 110592000 per frame
CB = 124416000 ... 720P = 110592000
The math says 720P is inferior to CB
See Daniel, I can play the 'deception by math' game too.
[i]you math is wrong. you did not factor in the resolution drop i proved with the above posts. here is another one. how about the HDMI specs i downloaded years ago; notice checkerboard is listed under the half resolution side by side and again later with the TI checkerboard is listed as half resolution. you can also download this from HDMI yourself. I studied this years ago because i learned long ago to never believe marketing hype. OFFICIAL HDMI 1.4a specification:
* Frame packing - a special top-bottom format that includes a blank space in between sub-frames, in addition to standard Vblank and Hblank
-- supports progressive and interlaced video
-- progressive (full-resolution) frame packing - best for 120 Hz frame sequential displays from Sony, Panasonic etc.
-- interlaced (half-resolution) frame packing -can be used with line-interleaved passive-polarized displays; less than optimal though
* Field alternative - a half-resolution format, supports interlaced video only; can be used with line-inteleaved passive polarized displays, too
-- very similar to interlaced frame packing, except for very minor implementation details; not sure what factors warrant this separate format
* Line alternative - a full-resolution line-interleaved format, best for dual-head passive setups
* Side-by-side (Full) - a full resolution side-by-side format, best for dual-head passive setups, too
* 2D + depth - Philips WOWvx format
* 2D + depth + graphics + graphics depth - Philips WOWvx Declipse format
* Side-by-side (Half) - half-resolution, side-by-side with horizontal sub-sampling
-- 8 possible subsampling combinations - starting sample Even/Odd , starting frame Left/Right , Quincunx samping On/Off
-- includes Real-D format (side-by-side checkerboard)
3D-capable devices should at least support the following mandatory stereo modes:
* frame packing at 1080p @ 23.98/24 Hz (Blu-ray 3D)
* frame packing at 720p @ 50 Hz or 59.94/60 Hz (stereo gaming); may also support both 50 Hz and 59.94/60 Hz
* HDMI Sinks must support both modes; HDMI Sources must support at least one
All other stereo formats and resolutions are optional, may include progressive video resolutions such as SDTV 480p @ 59.94/60 Hz or 576p @50 Hz, and HDTV 1080p @ 50/59.94/60 Hz; interlaced video 480i/576i and 1080i only supports frame packing and field alternative.
Stereo formats NOT included in HDMI 1.4:
* frame alternative (full) - frame packing formats suit frame sequential devices quite well
* checkerboard half-resolution format (TI)
* line alternative (half) (line interleaved) format (VREX, Xpol etc.)
* top-bottom half, half resolution vertical subsampling - will be added in revision 1.4a
* row alternative (half) (column interleaved)
[/i]
"6. Checkerboard is blurry"
See #4 above
[i]you are starting to put words in my mouth. I said its not full resolution 1080p 3d. and is not. no ammount of denying will ever change this fact. i feel for you. i was super proud of my DLP checkerboard until i researched it more and found out checkerboard is half resolution. I too was duped by marketing hype. like you[/i]
"7. DLP has zero ghosting "
Caught in a lie, you change your story to "Ok, so DLP front proj does have ghosting in games, but it's
the games fault....or maybe it's nvidia's fault....whatever"
[i]two clearly distinct issues. there is no ghostig on games that have been made to render in 3d. Some games were never made for 3d and have artifacts. no 3d display will ever get rid of these issues. its not possible because the game does not support 3d fully. Ghosting is a issue with display tech- like yours. artifacts and ghosting are not the same issue. come on you know this dont you? a 3d ready game does not ghost at all on DLP. period. neither does 3d blue ray. zero ghosting as long as the game was made right. dont twist the truth. crysis 1 will never play good on any 3d system due to the tricks companies use to make a game look 3d on a 2d monitor. however these tricks mess up true sterioscopic 3d games- that is what visual artifacts are. ghosting is a entirly different issue- that plasma- led and LCD are prone too. Once again- DLP is GHost FREE[/i]
"8. checkerboard on DLP looks exactly the same as CB on a plasma"
You admit you have never seen CB on a Plasma, yet your post is filled with rants about how bad it looks.
If there was ever any doubt about your pathological obsession to make plasma checkerboard look bad, this settles it. Anyone who has seen CB on DLP and Plasma will testify that the are COMPLTELY different. Missing pixels are obvious in DLP, not in Plasma. On a Plasma/LED, CB is virtually indistinguishable from frame packing *VISUALLY*, so please spare us your deceiving "proof by math" deception.
[i]not only have i shared the official specs- i have shown links where others explain how it works. if you choose to bury your head in the sand- thats fine. but it will not change that fact that you are not watching full HD 3d. whether i am wrong about checkerboard being a modern form of interlacing for 3d is a matter of opinion- and from my engineering background i would define it that way. i find it ironic someone who has a pathological obsession with checkerboard says i have something against plasma tech. i could care less about the tech- but find your misinformation unacceptable. [/i]
The crazy thing is, you may be right in one way, front proj is possibly the best tech for certain people. I would be all over it were it not for the irritaing noise, even though it is low resolution. But your crazed, rabid-dog smear campaign designed to destroy Plasma/LED technology is more than I can stomach. You should try actually looking at the technology before ranting about how bad it looks.
[/quote]
[i]you should try researching tech before you rant about it. like i said- despite your checkerboard obsession- 720p120 native on a 130" screen is the best looking 3d display currenlty avalible. due to the size, higher frame rate and higher levels of AA. it is obviouse by the number of sales of these New HDTV's that many do not understand the difference between half resolution 3d and native 720p. im really getting tired of this conversation. i have a feeling no ammont of white pages i dug up from manufactures off the internet will change your opinion in light of the facts. [/i]
[quote name='roller11' date='31 March 2011 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1301584526' post='1216728']
Until yesterday, I assumed your rant was innocent, you simply lack technical knowledge. But now I'm convinced that you have an irrational hatred of Plasma/LED 3D tech. Your post is filled with more outright lies, half truths, deceptions than a defense attorney defending OJ Simpson.
i dont like it because its over priced and performs worse than DLP
"1. checkerboard is in interlaced."
This is the most outrageous lie of all.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
Caught in a lie, you change your story to " CB is sorta like interlaced in only one way"
The fact that you backpedal every time I catch you in a lie proves you deliberately mislead people.
sigh- some people just dont get it. It is a modern version of interlacing- instead of scan line vertical it uses a checkerboard interlacing. here is some reading since you are so uninformed : why checkerboard is inferier to standard 3d: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2754&start=0
another one: explain checkerboard and interlaced 3d please: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5482
"2. non- DLP HDMI1.4 TVs cost $4000"
Average cost is $1800, most are under $1500
show me a plasma with checkerboard at 65 inches at that price? oh ya they cost 4000$ here is a 65" DLP for 830$ http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=65+DLP&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbs=shop:1&sa=X&ei=sAyVTYj9IIPgiALfzIydCQ&ved=0CGUQBSgA&q=mitsubishi+65+DLP&spell=1&biw=853&bih=378&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3104ec0eb20a5903
why do you say size definaly matters and then try to compaire 55" tv price to 65" tv prices? you are not being very logical. show me a 65" checkerboard plasma or LED for 1500$
"3. I didn't leave out Plasma/LED tech"
I prove you did leave it out, so caught in a lie, you now admit your deception, that
you DID deliberately leave it out. What were you trying to hide?
again- why would i reccomend tech that is overprices and performs poorer due to ghosting?
"4. Everyone on Earth hates non-DLP 3D/checkerboard"
There are two threads in this forum with 65000+ hits that are nothing but post after post of
praise for the enabling of checkerboard mode in 3D Vision. Another thread is people PLEADING with
Andrew to implement checkerboard in 3DTV Play. The demand for checkerboard is so great, Andrew took
the unprecedented step of admitting that Nvidia made a mistake by omitting checkerboard, and assured
the thousands of complainers that nvidia will have CB in the next driver release.
i never said anyone hates checkerboard. but
it is not better than 720p with 16MSAA- because its half rez
"5. Checkerboard is half-res"
If CB is half res, 720P on a front proj is 4/9 res. This is one of your convenient half truths.
CB displays 124416000 pixels per frame. 720P on a Acer front proj displays 110592000 per frame
CB = 124416000 ... 720P = 110592000
The math says 720P is inferior to CB
See Daniel, I can play the 'deception by math' game too.
you math is wrong. you did not factor in the resolution drop i proved with the above posts. here is another one. how about the HDMI specs i downloaded years ago; notice checkerboard is listed under the half resolution side by side and again later with the TI checkerboard is listed as half resolution. you can also download this from HDMI yourself. I studied this years ago because i learned long ago to never believe marketing hype. OFFICIAL HDMI 1.4a specification:
* Frame packing - a special top-bottom format that includes a blank space in between sub-frames, in addition to standard Vblank and Hblank
-- supports progressive and interlaced video
-- progressive (full-resolution) frame packing - best for 120 Hz frame sequential displays from Sony, Panasonic etc.
-- interlaced (half-resolution) frame packing -can be used with line-interleaved passive-polarized displays; less than optimal though
* Field alternative - a half-resolution format, supports interlaced video only; can be used with line-inteleaved passive polarized displays, too
-- very similar to interlaced frame packing, except for very minor implementation details; not sure what factors warrant this separate format
* Line alternative - a full-resolution line-interleaved format, best for dual-head passive setups
* Side-by-side (Full) - a full resolution side-by-side format, best for dual-head passive setups, too
-- includes Real-D format (side-by-side checkerboard)
3D-capable devices should at least support the following mandatory stereo modes:
* frame packing at 1080p @ 23.98/24 Hz (Blu-ray 3D)
* frame packing at 720p @ 50 Hz or 59.94/60 Hz (stereo gaming); may also support both 50 Hz and 59.94/60 Hz
* HDMI Sinks must support both modes; HDMI Sources must support at least one
All other stereo formats and resolutions are optional, may include progressive video resolutions such as SDTV 480p @ 59.94/60 Hz or 576p @50 Hz, and HDTV 1080p @ 50/59.94/60 Hz; interlaced video 480i/576i and 1080i only supports frame packing and field alternative.
Stereo formats NOT included in HDMI 1.4:
* frame alternative (full) - frame packing formats suit frame sequential devices quite well
* checkerboard half-resolution format (TI)
* line alternative (half) (line interleaved) format (VREX, Xpol etc.)
* top-bottom half, half resolution vertical subsampling - will be added in revision 1.4a
* row alternative (half) (column interleaved)
"6. Checkerboard is blurry"
See #4 above
you are starting to put words in my mouth. I said its not full resolution 1080p 3d. and is not. no ammount of denying will ever change this fact. i feel for you. i was super proud of my DLP checkerboard until i researched it more and found out checkerboard is half resolution. I too was duped by marketing hype. like you
"7. DLP has zero ghosting "
Caught in a lie, you change your story to "Ok, so DLP front proj does have ghosting in games, but it's
the games fault....or maybe it's nvidia's fault....whatever"
two clearly distinct issues. there is no ghostig on games that have been made to render in 3d. Some games were never made for 3d and have artifacts. no 3d display will ever get rid of these issues. its not possible because the game does not support 3d fully. Ghosting is a issue with display tech- like yours. artifacts and ghosting are not the same issue. come on you know this dont you? a 3d ready game does not ghost at all on DLP. period. neither does 3d blue ray. zero ghosting as long as the game was made right. dont twist the truth. crysis 1 will never play good on any 3d system due to the tricks companies use to make a game look 3d on a 2d monitor. however these tricks mess up true sterioscopic 3d games- that is what visual artifacts are. ghosting is a entirly different issue- that plasma- led and LCD are prone too. Once again- DLP is GHost FREE
"8. checkerboard on DLP looks exactly the same as CB on a plasma"
You admit you have never seen CB on a Plasma, yet your post is filled with rants about how bad it looks.
If there was ever any doubt about your pathological obsession to make plasma checkerboard look bad, this settles it. Anyone who has seen CB on DLP and Plasma will testify that the are COMPLTELY different. Missing pixels are obvious in DLP, not in Plasma. On a Plasma/LED, CB is virtually indistinguishable from frame packing *VISUALLY*, so please spare us your deceiving "proof by math" deception.
not only have i shared the official specs- i have shown links where others explain how it works. if you choose to bury your head in the sand- thats fine. but it will not change that fact that you are not watching full HD 3d. whether i am wrong about checkerboard being a modern form of interlacing for 3d is a matter of opinion- and from my engineering background i would define it that way. i find it ironic someone who has a pathological obsession with checkerboard says i have something against plasma tech. i could care less about the tech- but find your misinformation unacceptable.
The crazy thing is, you may be right in one way, front proj is possibly the best tech for certain people. I would be all over it were it not for the irritaing noise, even though it is low resolution. But your crazed, rabid-dog smear campaign designed to destroy Plasma/LED technology is more than I can stomach. You should try actually looking at the technology before ranting about how bad it looks.
you should try researching tech before you rant about it. like i said- despite your checkerboard obsession- 720p120 native on a 130" screen is the best looking 3d display currenlty avalible. due to the size, higher frame rate and higher levels of AA. it is obviouse by the number of sales of these New HDTV's that many do not understand the difference between half resolution 3d and native 720p. im really getting tired of this conversation. i have a feeling no ammont of white pages i dug up from manufactures off the internet will change your opinion in light of the facts.
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
roller11,
You seem to be imputing the worst type of motive to your interlocutor(s). For the sake of congenial dialogue you should give folks the benefit of the doubt. A little bit of collegiality can go a long way. At worst, Daniel is confused with using such terminology as interlaced, and at best is drawing on a conventional analogue to prove his point (which I think he does sufficiently). None of his statements fullfill the requirements of contributing a lie. Even if one fails to fulfill the truth claims on knowledge, it does not therefore mean that one defaults into a lie. Lying is the idea where a statement is at variance with the mind, or what the mind percieves to be the truth. Even if a man states a false statement, but in reality is in fact true, he lies if he [u]intends[/u] to say what is false. I can't see that he has done that here, and I doubt others would think so as well.
[quote]By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.[/quote]
You are correct here, but with one caviat: Interlacing does fulfill an analogous comparison between it and checkerboard 3D. Why? Because what you [b][u]percieve[/u][/b] with each eye IS only half the resolution, and what the eyes percieve is the point that Daniel is making. If one only considers what the output resolution is per refresh rate, that's great as far as it goes, but stopping there, one isn't making careful enough distinctions, and it is at this point that Daniel offers you a sufficient analogue. I can't for the life of me, after reading this back and forth dialogue, gather why you didn't latch onto his statement. Instead of offering a careful and tweaked rebuttal and building on the back of what he said, you dismissed it entirely with the worst polemic necessary and totally missed the truth of what he was attempting to say. It's easy to see that when Daniel speaks of "half rez," he is talking about what you are getting per eye, any charitable read of him bears that out. I offered this explanation to you briefly earlier in the thread that this is what he was trying to say to you. You agreed, but instead of reading him in that light, you hammered on a point that was essentially a [i]non sequitur[/i], even if his terminology is a bit muddled.
On a final note:
I have used BOTH DLP Checkerboard 3D AND the new HDMI 1.4a Samsung LED Checkerboard (I have not witnessed the Plasma in CB, but I assume it is roughly equivalent if not identical in performance to the LED). I built a comp for my nephew last summer in which we were going to opt for the Mitsubishi DLP initially and use 3D Vision but had to go with the new technology Samsung LED 3D because he had a depth requirement that the Mitsu DLP could not fulfill. Anyways, we did a comparison of CB using Avatar the Game and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D Checkerboard between the two sets. Since this was before 3DTV Play came out (and way before you came along with your very good .INF override), Avatar the Game has built in 3D support for checkerboard in which you don't need a 3D Vision driver that allowed us to compare the Mitsu DLP to the Samsung CB format. I will happily admit that the Samsung had the crisper and glossier feel that LCD/LED's naturally have over there DLP counterparts. Other than that, the picture quality was the same in 3D save for one fact: the Samsung had a tad more ghosting. It was negligible, but it was still THERE. Both of us witnessed it.
Should one opt for the Samsung over a Mitsu, even if the Mitsu is cheaper? Again, it all depends on one's requirements. You WILL get a better desktop on the Samsung over the Mits and a crisper 3D image, but you will pay a little more. It's all going to come down to a subjective approach to what one values. For me, I primarily use my big comp for gaming, so I could careless if the Sammy gave me a little better desktop, and I agree with Daniel that this present tech doesn't justify it's price (SIZE to SIZE mind you) vis-a-vis DLP tech. But again, that's MY opinion, I have no issue, whatsoever, for those who value spending on the HDMI 1.4a TV's and getting a couple of things that I don't have as I mentioned. To each his own here, they all have something to offer...
I take it as a virtue that Nvidia is supporting a WIDE variety of displays. This gives the user a ton of different options based on size, location, and cost.
You are very sharp guy and argue passionately, but you shouldn't let that passion turn the good things you have to say and offer into a rank ideology.
I can assure you that Daniel doesn't think that ever single person that's a PC gamer should opt for DLP PJ come hell or high water. I've found that he's been sensitive to the fact here and elsewhere that we each have our own requirements. If he seems to be attacking HDMI 1.4a displays to you, perhaps consider it is in opposition to your dead certainty (which the idea of certainty rarely involves any kind of truth claims, but is a psychological claim) that HDMI 1.4a displays are superior in every way to anything else. Period. Such is not my findings, or of others that have witnessed and have had first hand knowledge of other displays and what they have to offer.
[quote name='roller11' date='31 March 2011 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1301584526' post='1216728']
I'm gonna jump in here and give my adjudicatum.
roller11,
You seem to be imputing the worst type of motive to your interlocutor(s). For the sake of congenial dialogue you should give folks the benefit of the doubt. A little bit of collegiality can go a long way. At worst, Daniel is confused with using such terminology as interlaced, and at best is drawing on a conventional analogue to prove his point (which I think he does sufficiently). None of his statements fullfill the requirements of contributing a lie. Even if one fails to fulfill the truth claims on knowledge, it does not therefore mean that one defaults into a lie. Lying is the idea where a statement is at variance with the mind, or what the mind percieves to be the truth. Even if a man states a false statement, but in reality is in fact true, he lies if he intends to say what is false. I can't see that he has done that here, and I doubt others would think so as well.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
You are correct here, but with one caviat: Interlacing does fulfill an analogous comparison between it and checkerboard 3D. Why? Because what you percieve with each eye IS only half the resolution, and what the eyes percieve is the point that Daniel is making. If one only considers what the output resolution is per refresh rate, that's great as far as it goes, but stopping there, one isn't making careful enough distinctions, and it is at this point that Daniel offers you a sufficient analogue. I can't for the life of me, after reading this back and forth dialogue, gather why you didn't latch onto his statement. Instead of offering a careful and tweaked rebuttal and building on the back of what he said, you dismissed it entirely with the worst polemic necessary and totally missed the truth of what he was attempting to say. It's easy to see that when Daniel speaks of "half rez," he is talking about what you are getting per eye, any charitable read of him bears that out. I offered this explanation to you briefly earlier in the thread that this is what he was trying to say to you. You agreed, but instead of reading him in that light, you hammered on a point that was essentially a non sequitur, even if his terminology is a bit muddled.
On a final note:
I have used BOTH DLP Checkerboard 3D AND the new HDMI 1.4a Samsung LED Checkerboard (I have not witnessed the Plasma in CB, but I assume it is roughly equivalent if not identical in performance to the LED). I built a comp for my nephew last summer in which we were going to opt for the Mitsubishi DLP initially and use 3D Vision but had to go with the new technology Samsung LED 3D because he had a depth requirement that the Mitsu DLP could not fulfill. Anyways, we did a comparison of CB using Avatar the Game and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D Checkerboard between the two sets. Since this was before 3DTV Play came out (and way before you came along with your very good .INF override), Avatar the Game has built in 3D support for checkerboard in which you don't need a 3D Vision driver that allowed us to compare the Mitsu DLP to the Samsung CB format. I will happily admit that the Samsung had the crisper and glossier feel that LCD/LED's naturally have over there DLP counterparts. Other than that, the picture quality was the same in 3D save for one fact: the Samsung had a tad more ghosting. It was negligible, but it was still THERE. Both of us witnessed it.
Should one opt for the Samsung over a Mitsu, even if the Mitsu is cheaper? Again, it all depends on one's requirements. You WILL get a better desktop on the Samsung over the Mits and a crisper 3D image, but you will pay a little more. It's all going to come down to a subjective approach to what one values. For me, I primarily use my big comp for gaming, so I could careless if the Sammy gave me a little better desktop, and I agree with Daniel that this present tech doesn't justify it's price (SIZE to SIZE mind you) vis-a-vis DLP tech. But again, that's MY opinion, I have no issue, whatsoever, for those who value spending on the HDMI 1.4a TV's and getting a couple of things that I don't have as I mentioned. To each his own here, they all have something to offer...
I take it as a virtue that Nvidia is supporting a WIDE variety of displays. This gives the user a ton of different options based on size, location, and cost.
You are very sharp guy and argue passionately, but you shouldn't let that passion turn the good things you have to say and offer into a rank ideology.
I can assure you that Daniel doesn't think that ever single person that's a PC gamer should opt for DLP PJ come hell or high water. I've found that he's been sensitive to the fact here and elsewhere that we each have our own requirements. If he seems to be attacking HDMI 1.4a displays to you, perhaps consider it is in opposition to your dead certainty (which the idea of certainty rarely involves any kind of truth claims, but is a psychological claim) that HDMI 1.4a displays are superior in every way to anything else. Period. Such is not my findings, or of others that have witnessed and have had first hand knowledge of other displays and what they have to offer.
1080p checkerboard is 1080p qua both eyes and scaled to 1080p, but it is not full 1080p per eye. It is half that vertical resolution per eye for a summation of 1080. That goes for any display that uses the checkerboard tech This is why Daniel said it is "half resolution" and why checkerboard, although has much less ghosting, is not technically equivalent to true 1080p as the dual link dvi lcd monitors.
For me, I partially agree with you regarding display size. I'd rather have the size+checkerboard vis-a-vis the 3d ready monitors. It's a fine trade off. On another note, the choice is a functional and logistic one. Hence, why some prefer to have their comp at their desk with a monitor.
-photios
1080p checkerboard is 1080p qua both eyes and scaled to 1080p, but it is not full 1080p per eye. It is half that vertical resolution per eye for a summation of 1080. That goes for any display that uses the checkerboard tech This is why Daniel said it is "half resolution" and why checkerboard, although has much less ghosting, is not technically equivalent to true 1080p as the dual link dvi lcd monitors.
For me, I partially agree with you regarding display size. I'd rather have the size+checkerboard vis-a-vis the 3d ready monitors. It's a fine trade off. On another note, the choice is a functional and logistic one. Hence, why some prefer to have their comp at their desk with a monitor.
-photios
roller,
I'd rather have the size+checkerboard vis-a-vis the 3d ready monitors. It's a fine trade off. On another note, the choice is a functional and logistic one. Hence, why some prefer to have their comp at their desk with a monitor.
-photios
[/quote]
Once you'll have 27' monitor (largest to be had as yet), I dont personally think there is any compromize as to what PC gamer is supposed to be having. on 24' acer I am pretty much "immersed" as I sit close to it, 27' will blow my mind. Anyhing else is a hybrid solution for PC gamer - PJ is great but 720p/noise/logistics makes it inferior, and dont even start on plasmas. Sony PS 3d games would be good on 130' screen but not PC titles. IMHO
roller,
I'd rather have the size+checkerboard vis-a-vis the 3d ready monitors. It's a fine trade off. On another note, the choice is a functional and logistic one. Hence, why some prefer to have their comp at their desk with a monitor.
-photios
Once you'll have 27' monitor (largest to be had as yet), I dont personally think there is any compromize as to what PC gamer is supposed to be having. on 24' acer I am pretty much "immersed" as I sit close to it, 27' will blow my mind. Anyhing else is a hybrid solution for PC gamer - PJ is great but 720p/noise/logistics makes it inferior, and dont even start on plasmas. Sony PS 3d games would be good on 130' screen but not PC titles. IMHO
I have the Mitsubishi DLP. and while I find them to be the best compromise for the money, I totally understand your reasoning for the 3D Vision Monitors.
Best,
photios
I have the Mitsubishi DLP. and while I find them to be the best compromise for the money, I totally understand your reasoning for the 3D Vision Monitors.
Best,
photios
I did a little more reading and there's a discussion about dot pitch on this upcoming 27" monitor, but i don't know how that would affect if it would affect my experience at all. Some people exaggerate their beliefs in forums to an extent that makes me think twice, but in reality i'm just not sure at all how that would change things. Apparently this monitor will have close to .3mm dot pitch compared to the .265mm in the 23"-24" monitors.
[attachment=20410:photookt.jpg]
I did a little more reading and there's a discussion about dot pitch on this upcoming 27" monitor, but i don't know how that would affect if it would affect my experience at all. Some people exaggerate their beliefs in forums to an extent that makes me think twice, but in reality i'm just not sure at all how that would change things. Apparently this monitor will have close to .3mm dot pitch compared to the .265mm in the 23"-24" monitors.
[attachment=20410:photookt.jpg]
In reality i cannot use a projector because of how my bedroom is. I have a Samsung UN46C7000 in the living room, so this upgrade is for personal (in bedroom) use only for gaming, programming, some picture/video editing and the daily reading of websites and so forth. Resolution (desktop space) is pretty important so 1920x1080 is the bare minimum, specially coming from a 30" 2560x1600.
[attachment=26515:photookt.jpg]
[/quote]
No brainer to me - wait for 27' Acer or Viewsonic (coming out in 2011). 24' for bedroom is up to requested resolution but aint "blowing your mind" device
In reality i cannot use a projector because of how my bedroom is. I have a Samsung UN46C7000 in the living room, so this upgrade is for personal (in bedroom) use only for gaming, programming, some picture/video editing and the daily reading of websites and so forth. Resolution (desktop space) is pretty important so 1920x1080 is the bare minimum, specially coming from a 30" 2560x1600.
[attachment=26515:photookt.jpg]
No brainer to me - wait for 27' Acer or Viewsonic (coming out in 2011). 24' for bedroom is up to requested resolution but aint "blowing your mind" device
Hi Daniel,
I haven't heard from you in a while on your dual boot configuration, I think now I know why. You've been busy playing Descent 3. I take it by your post, that you didn't have too many issues getting it running? That 7900 GTX is a real gem isn't it? You might go through hardware after hardware, but you'll be caring that one along with you so long as you want to play older games in 3D.
Shoot me an email sometime and I'll play some Descent 3 with you: photius @ sbcglobal dot net.
Best,
Daniel
[/quote]
thanks for all your help. your advise was spot on. i ended up scoring on two BFG 7900 oc versions for 60$! one is brand new- never run! im running the used one now. works great. I went with the acer PJ and dlp link glasses- and the drivers you recommended. no problems at all! im so stoked! i swear these old PC exclusive games are better the the new consuls ports. Thanks again!
Hi Daniel,
I haven't heard from you in a while on your dual boot configuration, I think now I know why. You've been busy playing Descent 3. I take it by your post, that you didn't have too many issues getting it running? That 7900 GTX is a real gem isn't it? You might go through hardware after hardware, but you'll be caring that one along with you so long as you want to play older games in 3D.
Shoot me an email sometime and I'll play some Descent 3 with you: photius @ sbcglobal dot net.
Best,
Daniel
thanks for all your help. your advise was spot on. i ended up scoring on two BFG 7900 oc versions for 60$! one is brand new- never run! im running the used one now. works great. I went with the acer PJ and dlp link glasses- and the drivers you recommended. no problems at all! im so stoked! i swear these old PC exclusive games are better the the new consuls ports. Thanks again!
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
Samsung 65D8000
roller,
1080p checkerboard is 1080p qua both eyes and scaled to 1080p, but it is not full 1080p per eye. It is half that vertical resolution per eye for a summation of 1080. That goes for any display that uses the checkerboard tech This is why Daniel said it is "half resolution" and why checkerboard, although has much less ghosting, is not technically equivalent to true 1080p as the dual link dvi lcd monitors.
[/quote]
Right, of course I understand all that. that's why I said 1920x1080P per frame, not per eye.
roller,
1080p checkerboard is 1080p qua both eyes and scaled to 1080p, but it is not full 1080p per eye. It is half that vertical resolution per eye for a summation of 1080. That goes for any display that uses the checkerboard tech This is why Daniel said it is "half resolution" and why checkerboard, although has much less ghosting, is not technically equivalent to true 1080p as the dual link dvi lcd monitors.
Right, of course I understand all that. that's why I said 1920x1080P per frame, not per eye.
[i]LOL! checkerboard is half rez 1080p. you are not watching full HD 3d- you are watching interlaced 1080- [/i]
I've had people shout "What's that? I can't hear you over the 13 fans in my watercooling case! And these people will swear their systems are 'quiet'. Of course we are talking in arbitrary terms, that why I made an objective, non-aribtrary comparison, a rear proj DLP vs a front proj DLP. Call a 5380 'quiet' if you will, it is 20x louder than a RP DLP, and that's not a subjective statement.
What???? Where are all these claims? Nobody is saying that in a side by side comparison, HDTVs are inferior in anyway to 720P projectors. People complain about bugs in the software, but they love their HDTVs.
[i]well- im sitting here typing with my sound off- and i can hear my pc and my projector. they are roughly the same sound level. I think the fans speed goes up with the projector when the temp does. i have a cool room- so maybe thats why i have better sound results than you. so to me the sound level is acceptable. you are right- the DLP RP is quieter. as to ghosting problems- go to any 3dblue ray site or AVS forums for an in depth complain fest. You will notice all the DLP users reporting no ghosting[/i]
yes you did, check your post.
[i]i did talk about DLP checkerboard. Its the exact same checkerboard you rave about on and on. its been out for4 years or so[/i]
Your post has two gigantic flaws:
1. checkerboard is full res native 1920x1080 per frame, not 'haf res'.
[i]wrong each frame is interlaced. im sorry to break this to you. i was bummed when i learned this too[/i]
2. You're commenting on checkerboard as it is on a DLP, not a HDTV. Granted CB on a DLP is significantly flawed, but not on a plasma/LED. So your comparison is invalid.
[i]i was commenting on the DLP HDTV in my signature. ive had this for many years- i just upgraded to the 720p for greater size- because IMO screen size makes the experience more fun- and im planning on a 3 projector set up someday for full rez 1080p 3d. How is a perfect 3d image from a DLP with zero ghosting flawed? It is common knowledge that Plasma - led suffer from serious flaw- AKA ghosting/ crosstalk. I even posted a link where you and other discuss how to minimize the issue. You never even answered my direct question about your set ghosting. no need to- i have read other peoples reviews on other sites. isnt it interesting that a four year old sub- 1000$ dlp still has better 3d than a 4000$ brand new HDTV? here is a link to the Curtin University of Technology that explains on page 7 why DLP has no cross talk and is there for the best for 3d: Curtin University of Technology[/i]
3. Your "quickly outdated" is doubly irrelevent.
a. You're doing 720P and you're saying 1920x1080P is outdated???? Gime a break!!
[i]]i have a checkerboard 1080p 3d set. I can confirm the 3d is better on the 720p due to the screen size-and my ability to run higher amounts of AA.i was really surprised when i found this out. i bought the acer to do a art project in at burning man. my mits is collecting dust now. think about it this way- you are losing 50 percent of the resolution with checkerboard 3d- you are basically getting a 50% performance hit with no benefit (a 1080p120hrz monitor has the same performance but you see all the pixels). you need a fast computer to render 1080p 3d but only get to see half of the pixels due to display tech not being up to par with PC tech. with 720p3d you render 720p and you display shows 100% of the pixels you rendered. And you only have 12% less pixels than 1080p checkerboard 3d. So for me- i have the choice between 1080p or 720p on the same pc. the reason 720p looks better is because i get higher frame rates with higher IQ settings (aa etc.) [/i]
b. This thread is about what we have today, not speculations about the future. Today, we have 1920x1080P checkerboard, the best compromise BY FAR. We can quible about whether it's a 1%, 5% or 10% IQ hit vs frame packing, but it's a 300% improvement in size over a 27" screen. Giving up 1% to gain 300% is one hell of a good trade off.
[i]what we have now is new 3d tech that is being touted as better- when in reality it performs worse than legacy DLP checkerboard. ghosting- AKA crosstalk is unacceptable for 3d. deny it all you want- but no dlp ghosts. everyone knows- all these new hdtv's have ghosting. i feel it is irresponsible to tell people to buy a 4000$ HDTV that will perform poorer in 3d than a 1000$ HDTV that has been out for years. It is a fact that DLP is still the best 3d tech due to the issue of ghosting and cross talk. Dont believe they hype that display manufactures and the review sites try to sell you.[/i]
Ghost free 3D on a front proj is a myth, there's no such thing. You get ghosting on all 3D displays, including FPs.
[i]only possible with glasses issues like interference or poorly designed glasses or rooms with light issues. once again- there is no ghosting with DLP and 3d vision or good DLP link glasses[/i]
LOL! You are using 'ghosting' in your search term and you're surprised you get 'ghosting' comments???
[i]search dlp ghosting. only problems you will find are with bad glasses. there is none with 3d vision. that was my point. i searched both terms. dude just face it. the new generation 3d plasmas and led's suffer from ghosting. i even showed a post where you and others were discussing how to minimize it. ghosting is why DLP is KING for 3d games and movies[/i]
I strongly agree with many of the points you make. 130" screen would be amazing for 3D, no doubt. Can't over do it when it comes to size. And no denying the cost factor, FP is a fabulous value. When I had my FPs, I was surprised at how good the IQ was considering it's low resolution. Not quite the detail of 1920x1080P checkerboard, but it was native res and that's what counts.
[i]we agree here! and i like you too. you are a smart and tenacious man. Its just wrong to assume that checkerboard half resolution 1080p is as good as true 1080p. It is very obvious when one switches from 2d to 3d that you lose half your resolution with checkerboard 1080p. everything becomes blurry. get up close and cycle off 2d and 3d and you will see what i mean. to me 720p and checkerboard are so close in IQ- lets do some math: 1920x1080/2= 1,036800 pixels in 3d per hrz (or frame). 1280x720= 921600 pixels per frame. the difference between checker board and 720p 120hrz native 3d is 115000 pixels- so checkerboard 3d has roughly 12.5 percent more pixels when in 3d mode than 720p 120hrz 3d (please forgive me if my math is wrong). sure in 2d you get "roughly" more than 50% more pixels- but we are talking about 3d right? so does checkerboard have 12.5 percent more pixels? Yes. But does that make it better? only on a DLP. And not compared to native 720 when you crank up the AA and the frame rate goes way up. A person needs factor in the ghosting issues on the new sets. this seriously hurts the image quality of a new HDTV. I loved my checkerboard 3d HDTV- however i am happier with a 10' screen. To me, the lack of 12% pixels is more than compensated for by the enormous screen[/i]
For me, a FP at 1920x1080P that makes no more noise than a plasma would be ideal. But there's no way that will ever happen with a DLP, the bulb generates too much heat in a too small space. If FPs are ever implemented in a non-DLP tech, I'll be the first to buy one.
[i]they have them- but guess what- they ghost too. DLP is still king unfortunately. I wish this was not true, ive been waiting years to upgrade.[/i]
[i]i agree that the poster should get the monitor for his computer setup. he has a size restriction and is going for a traditional pc setup. this was not totally clear in the first post. Im going more for the ultimate 3d gaming experience. i hope i did not derail the post too far- i just hate to see honest hard working people duped by HDTV manufactures. this round of TV should be avoided if you really want to have a great 3d gaming experience. BTW hear is a pic of my desktop with my wife in front of my projector. i sit 8 feet or so away. im still working on screen- but its roughly 130" over then feet. [/i][i][/i]
LOL! checkerboard is half rez 1080p. you are not watching full HD 3d- you are watching interlaced 1080-
I've had people shout "What's that? I can't hear you over the 13 fans in my watercooling case! And these people will swear their systems are 'quiet'. Of course we are talking in arbitrary terms, that why I made an objective, non-aribtrary comparison, a rear proj DLP vs a front proj DLP. Call a 5380 'quiet' if you will, it is 20x louder than a RP DLP, and that's not a subjective statement.
What???? Where are all these claims? Nobody is saying that in a side by side comparison, HDTVs are inferior in anyway to 720P projectors. People complain about bugs in the software, but they love their HDTVs.
well- im sitting here typing with my sound off- and i can hear my pc and my projector. they are roughly the same sound level. I think the fans speed goes up with the projector when the temp does. i have a cool room- so maybe thats why i have better sound results than you. so to me the sound level is acceptable. you are right- the DLP RP is quieter. as to ghosting problems- go to any 3dblue ray site or AVS forums for an in depth complain fest. You will notice all the DLP users reporting no ghosting
yes you did, check your post.
i did talk about DLP checkerboard. Its the exact same checkerboard you rave about on and on. its been out for4 years or so
Your post has two gigantic flaws:
1. checkerboard is full res native 1920x1080 per frame, not 'haf res'.
wrong each frame is interlaced. im sorry to break this to you. i was bummed when i learned this too
2. You're commenting on checkerboard as it is on a DLP, not a HDTV. Granted CB on a DLP is significantly flawed, but not on a plasma/LED. So your comparison is invalid.
i was commenting on the DLP HDTV in my signature. ive had this for many years- i just upgraded to the 720p for greater size- because IMO screen size makes the experience more fun- and im planning on a 3 projector set up someday for full rez 1080p 3d. How is a perfect 3d image from a DLP with zero ghosting flawed? It is common knowledge that Plasma - led suffer from serious flaw- AKA ghosting/ crosstalk. I even posted a link where you and other discuss how to minimize the issue. You never even answered my direct question about your set ghosting. no need to- i have read other peoples reviews on other sites. isnt it interesting that a four year old sub- 1000$ dlp still has better 3d than a 4000$ brand new HDTV? here is a link to the Curtin University of Technology that explains on page 7 why DLP has no cross talk and is there for the best for 3d: Curtin University of Technology
3. Your "quickly outdated" is doubly irrelevent.
a. You're doing 720P and you're saying 1920x1080P is outdated???? Gime a break!!
]i have a checkerboard 1080p 3d set. I can confirm the 3d is better on the 720p due to the screen size-and my ability to run higher amounts of AA.i was really surprised when i found this out. i bought the acer to do a art project in at burning man. my mits is collecting dust now. think about it this way- you are losing 50 percent of the resolution with checkerboard 3d- you are basically getting a 50% performance hit with no benefit (a 1080p120hrz monitor has the same performance but you see all the pixels). you need a fast computer to render 1080p 3d but only get to see half of the pixels due to display tech not being up to par with PC tech. with 720p3d you render 720p and you display shows 100% of the pixels you rendered. And you only have 12% less pixels than 1080p checkerboard 3d. So for me- i have the choice between 1080p or 720p on the same pc. the reason 720p looks better is because i get higher frame rates with higher IQ settings (aa etc.)
b. This thread is about what we have today, not speculations about the future. Today, we have 1920x1080P checkerboard, the best compromise BY FAR. We can quible about whether it's a 1%, 5% or 10% IQ hit vs frame packing, but it's a 300% improvement in size over a 27" screen. Giving up 1% to gain 300% is one hell of a good trade off.
what we have now is new 3d tech that is being touted as better- when in reality it performs worse than legacy DLP checkerboard. ghosting- AKA crosstalk is unacceptable for 3d. deny it all you want- but no dlp ghosts. everyone knows- all these new hdtv's have ghosting. i feel it is irresponsible to tell people to buy a 4000$ HDTV that will perform poorer in 3d than a 1000$ HDTV that has been out for years. It is a fact that DLP is still the best 3d tech due to the issue of ghosting and cross talk. Dont believe they hype that display manufactures and the review sites try to sell you.
Ghost free 3D on a front proj is a myth, there's no such thing. You get ghosting on all 3D displays, including FPs.
only possible with glasses issues like interference or poorly designed glasses or rooms with light issues. once again- there is no ghosting with DLP and 3d vision or good DLP link glasses
LOL! You are using 'ghosting' in your search term and you're surprised you get 'ghosting' comments???
search dlp ghosting. only problems you will find are with bad glasses. there is none with 3d vision. that was my point. i searched both terms. dude just face it. the new generation 3d plasmas and led's suffer from ghosting. i even showed a post where you and others were discussing how to minimize it. ghosting is why DLP is KING for 3d games and movies
I strongly agree with many of the points you make. 130" screen would be amazing for 3D, no doubt. Can't over do it when it comes to size. And no denying the cost factor, FP is a fabulous value. When I had my FPs, I was surprised at how good the IQ was considering it's low resolution. Not quite the detail of 1920x1080P checkerboard, but it was native res and that's what counts.
we agree here! and i like you too. you are a smart and tenacious man. Its just wrong to assume that checkerboard half resolution 1080p is as good as true 1080p. It is very obvious when one switches from 2d to 3d that you lose half your resolution with checkerboard 1080p. everything becomes blurry. get up close and cycle off 2d and 3d and you will see what i mean. to me 720p and checkerboard are so close in IQ- lets do some math: 1920x1080/2= 1,036800 pixels in 3d per hrz (or frame). 1280x720= 921600 pixels per frame. the difference between checker board and 720p 120hrz native 3d is 115000 pixels- so checkerboard 3d has roughly 12.5 percent more pixels when in 3d mode than 720p 120hrz 3d (please forgive me if my math is wrong). sure in 2d you get "roughly" more than 50% more pixels- but we are talking about 3d right? so does checkerboard have 12.5 percent more pixels? Yes. But does that make it better? only on a DLP. And not compared to native 720 when you crank up the AA and the frame rate goes way up. A person needs factor in the ghosting issues on the new sets. this seriously hurts the image quality of a new HDTV. I loved my checkerboard 3d HDTV- however i am happier with a 10' screen. To me, the lack of 12% pixels is more than compensated for by the enormous screen
For me, a FP at 1920x1080P that makes no more noise than a plasma would be ideal. But there's no way that will ever happen with a DLP, the bulb generates too much heat in a too small space. If FPs are ever implemented in a non-DLP tech, I'll be the first to buy one.
they have them- but guess what- they ghost too. DLP is still king unfortunately. I wish this was not true, ive been waiting years to upgrade.
i agree that the poster should get the monitor for his computer setup. he has a size restriction and is going for a traditional pc setup. this was not totally clear in the first post. Im going more for the ultimate 3d gaming experience. i hope i did not derail the post too far- i just hate to see honest hard working people duped by HDTV manufactures. this round of TV should be avoided if you really want to have a great 3d gaming experience. BTW hear is a pic of my desktop with my wife in front of my projector. i sit 8 feet or so away. im still working on screen- but its roughly 130" over then feet. [i][/i]
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
Samsung 65D8000
checkerboard is half rez 1080p. you are not watching full HD 3d- you are watching interlaced 1080- [/quote]
Do you even know what interlaced means?? Obviously not. Checkerboard is 1920x1080 pixels per frame, NON- interlaced. I'm pressing this point to nulify your half truth because the OP wants useful information, not deception.
[quote]i did talk about DLP checkerboard.[/quote]
No, not on a 1.4 plasma...your exact words:
"you only have the choice of 1080p on a small computer monitor, or 1080p24 on new HDMI 1.4a tv's and projectors( i personally did not like the 24p frame rate at all, and using these tv's in 720p is a disappointment- plus they all have far more ghosting than DLP tv's or projectors) or you can get the mits dlp wich is 1080p checkerboard"
There is no mention of checkerboard on a HDMI1.4 HDTV Plasma/LED. Since CB on a HDMI1.4 plasma/LED this is BY FAR the best option, your convenient omission is crucial.
[quote]i was commenting on the DLP HDTV in my signature.[/quote]
Exactly. DLP != Plasma. You're admitting you have no first-hand knowledge of checkerboard on a Samsung 3D plasma, and yet you come to the conclusion that it's the worst of all worlds. Brilliant.
[quote]You never even answered my direct question about your set ghosting.[/quote]
You mean this question? "Can you honestly run 100% depth with no ghosting?" I purposely didn't answer cause I don't play the half-truth game. The half-truth truth is no, I can't on my Plasma. The whole truth is I can't on my Plasma, or my front projector DLP, or my rear projection DLP.
[quote]think about it this way- you are losing 50 percent of the resolution with checkerboard 3d- you are basically getting a 50% performance hit with no benefit[/quote]
No you're not! You get virtually NO image quality hit, certainly not a 50% hit on a checkerboard plasma. Your half-truths prove you have a very strong bias based on "some guy said" hearsay. But you take it too far by telling the OP that checkerboard is interlaced, that's just flat out wrong. Hopefully people will do further research to find the truth and not just take your word on this.
[quote]i feel it is irresponsible to tell people to buy a 4000$ HDTV[/quote]
You're telling people that checkerboard is interlaced, and you're saying *I'M* irresponsible? And in addition to half-truths, you saying that 55" LED TVs cost $4000? When they actually cost $1400?
[quote]Its just wrong to assume that checkerboard half resolution 1080p is as good as true 1080p.[/quote]
I'm assuming? You are the king of hypocricy. You admit you've never seen CB on a Plasma, and then say it looks terrible.
People praise me for giving them CB on their Samsung plasmas/Leds, 65000 hits on the thread. Why all the praise if I gave them "blurry"?
Given your bias, we will never agree on this. In fact, reading your comments is EXACTLY why I don't simple take the word of someone, you don't know his agenda or bias. I only hope that people will check this out for themselves and not believe your "CB is blurry" comments.
checkerboard is half rez 1080p. you are not watching full HD 3d- you are watching interlaced 1080-
Do you even know what interlaced means?? Obviously not. Checkerboard is 1920x1080 pixels per frame, NON- interlaced. I'm pressing this point to nulify your half truth because the OP wants useful information, not deception.
No, not on a 1.4 plasma...your exact words:
"you only have the choice of 1080p on a small computer monitor, or 1080p24 on new HDMI 1.4a tv's and projectors( i personally did not like the 24p frame rate at all, and using these tv's in 720p is a disappointment- plus they all have far more ghosting than DLP tv's or projectors) or you can get the mits dlp wich is 1080p checkerboard"
There is no mention of checkerboard on a HDMI1.4 HDTV Plasma/LED. Since CB on a HDMI1.4 plasma/LED this is BY FAR the best option, your convenient omission is crucial.
Exactly. DLP != Plasma. You're admitting you have no first-hand knowledge of checkerboard on a Samsung 3D plasma, and yet you come to the conclusion that it's the worst of all worlds. Brilliant.
You mean this question? "Can you honestly run 100% depth with no ghosting?" I purposely didn't answer cause I don't play the half-truth game. The half-truth truth is no, I can't on my Plasma. The whole truth is I can't on my Plasma, or my front projector DLP, or my rear projection DLP.
No you're not! You get virtually NO image quality hit, certainly not a 50% hit on a checkerboard plasma. Your half-truths prove you have a very strong bias based on "some guy said" hearsay. But you take it too far by telling the OP that checkerboard is interlaced, that's just flat out wrong. Hopefully people will do further research to find the truth and not just take your word on this.
You're telling people that checkerboard is interlaced, and you're saying *I'M* irresponsible? And in addition to half-truths, you saying that 55" LED TVs cost $4000? When they actually cost $1400?
I'm assuming? You are the king of hypocricy. You admit you've never seen CB on a Plasma, and then say it looks terrible.
People praise me for giving them CB on their Samsung plasmas/Leds, 65000 hits on the thread. Why all the praise if I gave them "blurry"?
Given your bias, we will never agree on this. In fact, reading your comments is EXACTLY why I don't simple take the word of someone, you don't know his agenda or bias. I only hope that people will check this out for themselves and not believe your "CB is blurry" comments.
[i]dude- checkerboard is a modern version of interlacing. a kind of frame packing that takes a signal the tv cannot display 1080p120 and halvs the resolution so that the tv can display it. its a trick to reduce the video bandwidth required by stereo 1080p120 signnal, and fit into the bandwidth of single-link DVI and HDMI 1.4a which can only handle 1080p60 (in this purpuse, it is similar to interlacing). As of now, the checkerboard pattern is a just packing format which allows transmitting 1080p stereo signal in 60 Hz bandwidth. After unpacking, the empty pixels in the checkerboard image need to be interpolated from the neighbors in a process known as quincunx sampling.[/i]
No, not on a 1.4 plasma...your exact words:
"you only have the choice of 1080p on a small computer monitor, or 1080p24 on new HDMI 1.4a tv's and projectors( i personally did not like the 24p frame rate at all, and using these tv's in 720p is a disappointment- plus they all have far more ghosting than DLP tv's or projectors) or you can get the mits dlp wich is 1080p checkerboard"
There is no mention of checkerboard on a HDMI1.4 HDTV Plasma/LED. Since CB on a HDMI1.4 plasma/LED this is BY FAR the best option, your convenient omission is crucial.
[i]this is where we differ. There is no ghosting on DLP. THere is on HDMI 1.4a HDTV's. GHosting ruins the stereo experience. and i see no point recommending display tech that is four times more expensive and performs poorer.[/i]
Exactly. DLP != Plasma. You're admitting you have no first-hand knowledge of checkerboard on a Samsung 3D plasma, and yet you come to the conclusion that it's the worst of all worlds. Brilliant.
[i]true- i did not try the Samsung plasma- because i when with the top of the line Panasonic- which scored higher in all the reviews. and it still ghosts. and i sent it back. I also remember how Samsung treated its customers who had legacy Samsung HDMI 1.3 DLP 3d tv's that had checkerboard. the issue is ghosting. and your not understanding how little of a IQ increase there is between native 720p120hrz and 1080p60 checkerboard.[/i]
You mean this question? "Can you honestly run 100% depth with no ghosting?" I purposely didn't answer cause I don't play the half-truth game. The half-truth truth is no, I can't on my Plasma. The whole truth is I can't on my Plasma, or my front projector DLP, or my rear projection DLP.
[i]I can run 100% depth on my DLP mitubishi and my DLP projector with zero ghosting during gaming and 3d blue rays (as long as the game is 3d visions ready with no rendering issues of course- but that is different than the display issue ghosting). So can everyone else who owns one. deny it all you want- but its still the truth. [/i]
No you're not! You get virtually NO image quality hit, certainly not a 50% hit on a checkerboard plasma. Your half-truths prove you have a very strong bias based on "some guy said" hearsay. But you take it too far by telling the OP that checkerboard is interlaced, that's just flat out wrong. Hopefully people will do further research to find the truth and not just take your word on this.
[i]im sorry once again- to tell you that checkerboard is half resolution 3d. you are losing image quality. period. i dont have to see every tv ever made- because i understand the technology. look for yourself in a game. turn on and off 3d. you will see less detail going from true 1080p to checkerboard 3d. and like i said earlier, checkerboard can be considered a modern form of interlacing.[/i]
You're telling people that checkerboard is interlaced, and you're saying *I'M* irresponsible? And in addition to half-truths, you saying that 55" LED TVs cost $4000? When they actually cost $1400?
[i]maybe i was not clear. i was comparing 65" 3d tv's with a quick google search. a 65 inch samsung is around $4000 when i searched. a DLP can be had for around 1000$. a projector can be had now for 500$[/i]
I'm assuming? You are the king of hypocricy. You admit you've never seen CB on a Plasma, and then say it looks terrible.
[i]do you think that Samsung reinvented checkerboard for the plasma? its the same checkerboard that was on Samsung DLP 3d tv's five years ago (and has no ghosting). the issue is not checkerboard. i like it. i admitted its got more pixels than 720p3d- but you cant get it in a projector yet- and im not sure i would when i could probably get 3 DLP's in surround mode for cheaper greater than 1080p resolution- and zero ghosting. the issue for this new generations of 3d tv's is ghosting. you admitted it. i enjoy the top of the line stuff- i when Panasonic. I have seen full resolution 1080p on this set (at 24hrz). and I sent it back due to ghosting. it has better iq in 2d- but im not interested in 2d performance for my HTPC- especially at that price [/i]
People praise me for giving them CB on their Samsung plasmas/Leds, 65000 hits on the thread. Why all the praise if I gave them "blurry"?
[i]im sure its better than 720p frame packing that gets down-scaled from 1080p. i would not run 720p on my checkerboard DLP either- it has 12.5% more pixels. but i brought up some valid points about higher frame rate and higher IQ compensating for 12.5% more pixels when being compared to the projectors. the bottom line is it is you who does not understand how checkerboard works and that is does half the resolution just like side by side and top/ bottom. why do you think you cant run 1080p120 on your tv? only 1080p24hrz. its the limit of the HDMI chipset- and thus why we require new forms of interlacing like checkerboard to pack the signal into a format the tv can support. would you run checkerboard over 1080p120 if your tv could do it? no of course not- buecause that is full HD 3d not half rez like checkerboard. [/i]
Given your bias, we will never agree on this. In fact, reading your comments is EXACTLY why I don't simple take the word of someone, you don't know his agenda or bias. I only hope that people will check this out for themselves and not believe your "CB is blurry" comments.
[i]i have no bias. i enjoy all this tech and as soon as something better shows up ill get it. my agenda is to help save people money on new tv sets that perform poorer in 3d than older cheaper tech like DLP. very few are able to try all this stuff out with 3d gaming in mind. im not the only one who will confirm that DLP does not ghost. everyone with it will. I dont understand you you are being dishonest about this fact. there are many other people who have posted the exact same findings on the net. Maybe its just hard for you to admit you bough something that is less good than old cheaper DLP but cost 4 times as much.[/i]
[i]honestly dude- im pissed off that im still stuck with 06 display tech. i want to upgrade and this new generation of 3d HDTV's are a horrible failure due to ghosting and lack of true HD 3d gaming modes[/i]
dude- checkerboard is a modern version of interlacing. a kind of frame packing that takes a signal the tv cannot display 1080p120 and halvs the resolution so that the tv can display it. its a trick to reduce the video bandwidth required by stereo 1080p120 signnal, and fit into the bandwidth of single-link DVI and HDMI 1.4a which can only handle 1080p60 (in this purpuse, it is similar to interlacing). As of now, the checkerboard pattern is a just packing format which allows transmitting 1080p stereo signal in 60 Hz bandwidth. After unpacking, the empty pixels in the checkerboard image need to be interpolated from the neighbors in a process known as quincunx sampling.
No, not on a 1.4 plasma...your exact words:
"you only have the choice of 1080p on a small computer monitor, or 1080p24 on new HDMI 1.4a tv's and projectors( i personally did not like the 24p frame rate at all, and using these tv's in 720p is a disappointment- plus they all have far more ghosting than DLP tv's or projectors) or you can get the mits dlp wich is 1080p checkerboard"
There is no mention of checkerboard on a HDMI1.4 HDTV Plasma/LED. Since CB on a HDMI1.4 plasma/LED this is BY FAR the best option, your convenient omission is crucial.
this is where we differ. There is no ghosting on DLP. THere is on HDMI 1.4a HDTV's. GHosting ruins the stereo experience. and i see no point recommending display tech that is four times more expensive and performs poorer.
Exactly. DLP != Plasma. You're admitting you have no first-hand knowledge of checkerboard on a Samsung 3D plasma, and yet you come to the conclusion that it's the worst of all worlds. Brilliant.
true- i did not try the Samsung plasma- because i when with the top of the line Panasonic- which scored higher in all the reviews. and it still ghosts. and i sent it back. I also remember how Samsung treated its customers who had legacy Samsung HDMI 1.3 DLP 3d tv's that had checkerboard. the issue is ghosting. and your not understanding how little of a IQ increase there is between native 720p120hrz and 1080p60 checkerboard.
You mean this question? "Can you honestly run 100% depth with no ghosting?" I purposely didn't answer cause I don't play the half-truth game. The half-truth truth is no, I can't on my Plasma. The whole truth is I can't on my Plasma, or my front projector DLP, or my rear projection DLP.
I can run 100% depth on my DLP mitubishi and my DLP projector with zero ghosting during gaming and 3d blue rays (as long as the game is 3d visions ready with no rendering issues of course- but that is different than the display issue ghosting). So can everyone else who owns one. deny it all you want- but its still the truth.
No you're not! You get virtually NO image quality hit, certainly not a 50% hit on a checkerboard plasma. Your half-truths prove you have a very strong bias based on "some guy said" hearsay. But you take it too far by telling the OP that checkerboard is interlaced, that's just flat out wrong. Hopefully people will do further research to find the truth and not just take your word on this.
im sorry once again- to tell you that checkerboard is half resolution 3d. you are losing image quality. period. i dont have to see every tv ever made- because i understand the technology. look for yourself in a game. turn on and off 3d. you will see less detail going from true 1080p to checkerboard 3d. and like i said earlier, checkerboard can be considered a modern form of interlacing.
You're telling people that checkerboard is interlaced, and you're saying *I'M* irresponsible? And in addition to half-truths, you saying that 55" LED TVs cost $4000? When they actually cost $1400?
maybe i was not clear. i was comparing 65" 3d tv's with a quick google search. a 65 inch samsung is around $4000 when i searched. a DLP can be had for around 1000$. a projector can be had now for 500$
I'm assuming? You are the king of hypocricy. You admit you've never seen CB on a Plasma, and then say it looks terrible.
do you think that Samsung reinvented checkerboard for the plasma? its the same checkerboard that was on Samsung DLP 3d tv's five years ago (and has no ghosting). the issue is not checkerboard. i like it. i admitted its got more pixels than 720p3d- but you cant get it in a projector yet- and im not sure i would when i could probably get 3 DLP's in surround mode for cheaper greater than 1080p resolution- and zero ghosting. the issue for this new generations of 3d tv's is ghosting. you admitted it. i enjoy the top of the line stuff- i when Panasonic. I have seen full resolution 1080p on this set (at 24hrz). and I sent it back due to ghosting. it has better iq in 2d- but im not interested in 2d performance for my HTPC- especially at that price
People praise me for giving them CB on their Samsung plasmas/Leds, 65000 hits on the thread. Why all the praise if I gave them "blurry"?
im sure its better than 720p frame packing that gets down-scaled from 1080p. i would not run 720p on my checkerboard DLP either- it has 12.5% more pixels. but i brought up some valid points about higher frame rate and higher IQ compensating for 12.5% more pixels when being compared to the projectors. the bottom line is it is you who does not understand how checkerboard works and that is does half the resolution just like side by side and top/ bottom. why do you think you cant run 1080p120 on your tv? only 1080p24hrz. its the limit of the HDMI chipset- and thus why we require new forms of interlacing like checkerboard to pack the signal into a format the tv can support. would you run checkerboard over 1080p120 if your tv could do it? no of course not- buecause that is full HD 3d not half rez like checkerboard.
Given your bias, we will never agree on this. In fact, reading your comments is EXACTLY why I don't simple take the word of someone, you don't know his agenda or bias. I only hope that people will check this out for themselves and not believe your "CB is blurry" comments.
i have no bias. i enjoy all this tech and as soon as something better shows up ill get it. my agenda is to help save people money on new tv sets that perform poorer in 3d than older cheaper tech like DLP. very few are able to try all this stuff out with 3d gaming in mind. im not the only one who will confirm that DLP does not ghost. everyone with it will. I dont understand you you are being dishonest about this fact. there are many other people who have posted the exact same findings on the net. Maybe its just hard for you to admit you bough something that is less good than old cheaper DLP but cost 4 times as much.
honestly dude- im pissed off that im still stuck with 06 display tech. i want to upgrade and this new generation of 3d HDTV's are a horrible failure due to ghosting and lack of true HD 3d gaming modes
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
Samsung 65D8000
[/quote]
Until yesterday, I assumed your rant was innocent, you simply lack technical knowledge. But now I'm convinced that you have an irrational hatred of Plasma/LED 3D tech. Your post is filled with more outright lies, half truths, deceptions than a defense attorney defending OJ Simpson.
"1. checkerboard is in interlaced."
This is the most outrageous lie of all.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
Caught in a lie, you change your story to " CB is sorta like interlaced in only one way"
The fact that you backpedal every time I catch you in a lie proves you deliberately mislead people.
"2. non- DLP HDMI1.4 TVs cost $4000"
Average cost is $1800, most are under $1500
"3. I didn't leave out Plasma/LED tech"
I prove you did leave it out, so caught in a lie, you now admit your deception, that
you DID deliberately leave it out. What were you trying to hide?
"4. Everyone on Earth hates non-DLP 3D/checkerboard"
There are two threads in this forum with 65000+ hits that are nothing but post after post of
praise for the enabling of checkerboard mode in 3D Vision. Another thread is people PLEADING with
Andrew to implement checkerboard in 3DTV Play. The demand for checkerboard is so great, Andrew took
the unprecedented step of admitting that Nvidia made a mistake by omitting checkerboard, and assured
the thousands of complainers that nvidia will have CB in the next driver release.
"5. Checkerboard is half-res"
If CB is half res, 720P on a front proj is 4/9 res. This is one of your convenient half truths.
CB displays 124416000 pixels per frame. 720P on a Acer front proj displays 110592000 per frame
CB = 124416000 ... 720P = 110592000
The math says 720P is inferior to CB
See Daniel, I can play the 'deception by math' game too.
"6. Checkerboard is blurry"
See #4 above
"7. DLP has zero ghosting "
Caught in a lie, you change your story to "Ok, so DLP front proj does have ghosting in games, but it's
the games fault....or maybe it's nvidia's fault....whatever"
"8. checkerboard on DLP looks exactly the same as CB on a plasma"
You admit you have never seen CB on a Plasma, yet your post is filled with rants about how bad it looks.
If there was ever any doubt about your pathological obsession to make plasma checkerboard look bad, this settles it. Anyone who has seen CB on DLP and Plasma will testify that the are COMPLTELY different. Missing pixels are obvious in DLP, not in Plasma. On a Plasma/LED, CB is virtually indistinguishable from frame packing *VISUALLY*, so please spare us your deceiving "proof by math" deception.
The crazy thing is, you may be right in one way, front proj is possibly the best tech for certain people. I would be all over it were it not for the irritaing noise, even though it is low resolution. But your crazed, rabid-dog smear campaign designed to destroy Plasma/LED technology is more than I can stomach. You should try actually looking at the technology before ranting about how bad it looks.
Until yesterday, I assumed your rant was innocent, you simply lack technical knowledge. But now I'm convinced that you have an irrational hatred of Plasma/LED 3D tech. Your post is filled with more outright lies, half truths, deceptions than a defense attorney defending OJ Simpson.
"1. checkerboard is in interlaced."
This is the most outrageous lie of all.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
Caught in a lie, you change your story to " CB is sorta like interlaced in only one way"
The fact that you backpedal every time I catch you in a lie proves you deliberately mislead people.
"2. non- DLP HDMI1.4 TVs cost $4000"
Average cost is $1800, most are under $1500
"3. I didn't leave out Plasma/LED tech"
I prove you did leave it out, so caught in a lie, you now admit your deception, that
you DID deliberately leave it out. What were you trying to hide?
"4. Everyone on Earth hates non-DLP 3D/checkerboard"
There are two threads in this forum with 65000+ hits that are nothing but post after post of
praise for the enabling of checkerboard mode in 3D Vision. Another thread is people PLEADING with
Andrew to implement checkerboard in 3DTV Play. The demand for checkerboard is so great, Andrew took
the unprecedented step of admitting that Nvidia made a mistake by omitting checkerboard, and assured
the thousands of complainers that nvidia will have CB in the next driver release.
"5. Checkerboard is half-res"
If CB is half res, 720P on a front proj is 4/9 res. This is one of your convenient half truths.
CB displays 124416000 pixels per frame. 720P on a Acer front proj displays 110592000 per frame
CB = 124416000 ... 720P = 110592000
The math says 720P is inferior to CB
See Daniel, I can play the 'deception by math' game too.
"6. Checkerboard is blurry"
See #4 above
"7. DLP has zero ghosting "
Caught in a lie, you change your story to "Ok, so DLP front proj does have ghosting in games, but it's
the games fault....or maybe it's nvidia's fault....whatever"
"8. checkerboard on DLP looks exactly the same as CB on a plasma"
You admit you have never seen CB on a Plasma, yet your post is filled with rants about how bad it looks.
If there was ever any doubt about your pathological obsession to make plasma checkerboard look bad, this settles it. Anyone who has seen CB on DLP and Plasma will testify that the are COMPLTELY different. Missing pixels are obvious in DLP, not in Plasma. On a Plasma/LED, CB is virtually indistinguishable from frame packing *VISUALLY*, so please spare us your deceiving "proof by math" deception.
The crazy thing is, you may be right in one way, front proj is possibly the best tech for certain people. I would be all over it were it not for the irritaing noise, even though it is low resolution. But your crazed, rabid-dog smear campaign designed to destroy Plasma/LED technology is more than I can stomach. You should try actually looking at the technology before ranting about how bad it looks.
Until yesterday, I assumed your rant was innocent, you simply lack technical knowledge. But now I'm convinced that you have an irrational hatred of Plasma/LED 3D tech. Your post is filled with more outright lies, half truths, deceptions than a defense attorney defending OJ Simpson.
[i]i dont like it because its over priced and performs worse than DLP[/i]
"1. checkerboard is in interlaced."
This is the most outrageous lie of all.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
Caught in a lie, you change your story to " CB is sorta like interlaced in only one way"
The fact that you backpedal every time I catch you in a lie proves you deliberately mislead people.
[i]sigh- some people just dont get it. It is a modern version of interlacing- instead of scan line vertical it uses a checkerboard interlacing. here is some reading since you are so uninformed : why checkerboard is inferier to standard 3d: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2754&start=0
another one: explain checkerboard and interlaced 3d please: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5482
[/i]
"2. non- DLP HDMI1.4 TVs cost $4000"
Average cost is $1800, most are under $1500
[i]show me a plasma with checkerboard at 65 inches at that price? oh ya they cost 4000$ here is a 65" DLP for 830$ http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=65+DLP&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbs=shop:1&sa=X&ei=sAyVTYj9IIPgiALfzIydCQ&ved=0CGUQBSgA&q=mitsubishi+65+DLP&spell=1&biw=853&bih=378&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3104ec0eb20a5903
why do you say size definaly matters and then try to compaire 55" tv price to 65" tv prices? you are not being very logical. show me a 65" checkerboard plasma or LED for 1500$
[/i]
"3. I didn't leave out Plasma/LED tech"
I prove you did leave it out, so caught in a lie, you now admit your deception, that
you DID deliberately leave it out. What were you trying to hide?
[i]again- why would i reccomend tech that is overprices and performs poorer due to ghosting? [/i]
"4. Everyone on Earth hates non-DLP 3D/checkerboard"
There are two threads in this forum with 65000+ hits that are nothing but post after post of
praise for the enabling of checkerboard mode in 3D Vision. Another thread is people PLEADING with
Andrew to implement checkerboard in 3DTV Play. The demand for checkerboard is so great, Andrew took
the unprecedented step of admitting that Nvidia made a mistake by omitting checkerboard, and assured
the thousands of complainers that nvidia will have CB in the next driver release.
[i]i never said anyone hates checkerboard. but
it is not better than 720p with 16MSAA- because its half rez[/i]
"5. Checkerboard is half-res"
If CB is half res, 720P on a front proj is 4/9 res. This is one of your convenient half truths.
CB displays 124416000 pixels per frame. 720P on a Acer front proj displays 110592000 per frame
CB = 124416000 ... 720P = 110592000
The math says 720P is inferior to CB
See Daniel, I can play the 'deception by math' game too.
[i]you math is wrong. you did not factor in the resolution drop i proved with the above posts. here is another one. how about the HDMI specs i downloaded years ago; notice checkerboard is listed under the half resolution side by side and again later with the TI checkerboard is listed as half resolution. you can also download this from HDMI yourself. I studied this years ago because i learned long ago to never believe marketing hype. OFFICIAL HDMI 1.4a specification:
* Frame packing - a special top-bottom format that includes a blank space in between sub-frames, in addition to standard Vblank and Hblank
-- supports progressive and interlaced video
-- progressive (full-resolution) frame packing - best for 120 Hz frame sequential displays from Sony, Panasonic etc.
-- interlaced (half-resolution) frame packing -can be used with line-interleaved passive-polarized displays; less than optimal though
* Field alternative - a half-resolution format, supports interlaced video only; can be used with line-inteleaved passive polarized displays, too
-- very similar to interlaced frame packing, except for very minor implementation details; not sure what factors warrant this separate format
* Line alternative - a full-resolution line-interleaved format, best for dual-head passive setups
* Side-by-side (Full) - a full resolution side-by-side format, best for dual-head passive setups, too
* 2D + depth - Philips WOWvx format
* 2D + depth + graphics + graphics depth - Philips WOWvx Declipse format
* Side-by-side (Half) - half-resolution, side-by-side with horizontal sub-sampling
-- 8 possible subsampling combinations - starting sample Even/Odd , starting frame Left/Right , Quincunx samping On/Off
-- includes Real-D format (side-by-side checkerboard)
3D-capable devices should at least support the following mandatory stereo modes:
* frame packing at 1080p @ 23.98/24 Hz (Blu-ray 3D)
* frame packing at 720p @ 50 Hz or 59.94/60 Hz (stereo gaming); may also support both 50 Hz and 59.94/60 Hz
* HDMI Sinks must support both modes; HDMI Sources must support at least one
All other stereo formats and resolutions are optional, may include progressive video resolutions such as SDTV 480p @ 59.94/60 Hz or 576p @50 Hz, and HDTV 1080p @ 50/59.94/60 Hz; interlaced video 480i/576i and 1080i only supports frame packing and field alternative.
Stereo formats NOT included in HDMI 1.4:
* frame alternative (full) - frame packing formats suit frame sequential devices quite well
* checkerboard half-resolution format (TI)
* line alternative (half) (line interleaved) format (VREX, Xpol etc.)
* top-bottom half, half resolution vertical subsampling - will be added in revision 1.4a
* row alternative (half) (column interleaved)
[/i]
"6. Checkerboard is blurry"
See #4 above
[i]you are starting to put words in my mouth. I said its not full resolution 1080p 3d. and is not. no ammount of denying will ever change this fact. i feel for you. i was super proud of my DLP checkerboard until i researched it more and found out checkerboard is half resolution. I too was duped by marketing hype. like you[/i]
"7. DLP has zero ghosting "
Caught in a lie, you change your story to "Ok, so DLP front proj does have ghosting in games, but it's
the games fault....or maybe it's nvidia's fault....whatever"
[i]two clearly distinct issues. there is no ghostig on games that have been made to render in 3d. Some games were never made for 3d and have artifacts. no 3d display will ever get rid of these issues. its not possible because the game does not support 3d fully. Ghosting is a issue with display tech- like yours. artifacts and ghosting are not the same issue. come on you know this dont you? a 3d ready game does not ghost at all on DLP. period. neither does 3d blue ray. zero ghosting as long as the game was made right. dont twist the truth. crysis 1 will never play good on any 3d system due to the tricks companies use to make a game look 3d on a 2d monitor. however these tricks mess up true sterioscopic 3d games- that is what visual artifacts are. ghosting is a entirly different issue- that plasma- led and LCD are prone too. Once again- DLP is GHost FREE[/i]
"8. checkerboard on DLP looks exactly the same as CB on a plasma"
You admit you have never seen CB on a Plasma, yet your post is filled with rants about how bad it looks.
If there was ever any doubt about your pathological obsession to make plasma checkerboard look bad, this settles it. Anyone who has seen CB on DLP and Plasma will testify that the are COMPLTELY different. Missing pixels are obvious in DLP, not in Plasma. On a Plasma/LED, CB is virtually indistinguishable from frame packing *VISUALLY*, so please spare us your deceiving "proof by math" deception.
[i]not only have i shared the official specs- i have shown links where others explain how it works. if you choose to bury your head in the sand- thats fine. but it will not change that fact that you are not watching full HD 3d. whether i am wrong about checkerboard being a modern form of interlacing for 3d is a matter of opinion- and from my engineering background i would define it that way. i find it ironic someone who has a pathological obsession with checkerboard says i have something against plasma tech. i could care less about the tech- but find your misinformation unacceptable. [/i]
The crazy thing is, you may be right in one way, front proj is possibly the best tech for certain people. I would be all over it were it not for the irritaing noise, even though it is low resolution. But your crazed, rabid-dog smear campaign designed to destroy Plasma/LED technology is more than I can stomach. You should try actually looking at the technology before ranting about how bad it looks.
[/quote]
[i]you should try researching tech before you rant about it. like i said- despite your checkerboard obsession- 720p120 native on a 130" screen is the best looking 3d display currenlty avalible. due to the size, higher frame rate and higher levels of AA. it is obviouse by the number of sales of these New HDTV's that many do not understand the difference between half resolution 3d and native 720p. im really getting tired of this conversation. i have a feeling no ammont of white pages i dug up from manufactures off the internet will change your opinion in light of the facts. [/i]
Until yesterday, I assumed your rant was innocent, you simply lack technical knowledge. But now I'm convinced that you have an irrational hatred of Plasma/LED 3D tech. Your post is filled with more outright lies, half truths, deceptions than a defense attorney defending OJ Simpson.
i dont like it because its over priced and performs worse than DLP
"1. checkerboard is in interlaced."
This is the most outrageous lie of all.
By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.
Caught in a lie, you change your story to " CB is sorta like interlaced in only one way"
The fact that you backpedal every time I catch you in a lie proves you deliberately mislead people.
sigh- some people just dont get it. It is a modern version of interlacing- instead of scan line vertical it uses a checkerboard interlacing. here is some reading since you are so uninformed : why checkerboard is inferier to standard 3d: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2754&start=0
another one: explain checkerboard and interlaced 3d please: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5482
"2. non- DLP HDMI1.4 TVs cost $4000"
Average cost is $1800, most are under $1500
show me a plasma with checkerboard at 65 inches at that price? oh ya they cost 4000$ here is a 65" DLP for 830$ http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=65+DLP&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbs=shop:1&sa=X&ei=sAyVTYj9IIPgiALfzIydCQ&ved=0CGUQBSgA&q=mitsubishi+65+DLP&spell=1&biw=853&bih=378&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3104ec0eb20a5903
why do you say size definaly matters and then try to compaire 55" tv price to 65" tv prices? you are not being very logical. show me a 65" checkerboard plasma or LED for 1500$
"3. I didn't leave out Plasma/LED tech"
I prove you did leave it out, so caught in a lie, you now admit your deception, that
you DID deliberately leave it out. What were you trying to hide?
again- why would i reccomend tech that is overprices and performs poorer due to ghosting?
"4. Everyone on Earth hates non-DLP 3D/checkerboard"
There are two threads in this forum with 65000+ hits that are nothing but post after post of
praise for the enabling of checkerboard mode in 3D Vision. Another thread is people PLEADING with
Andrew to implement checkerboard in 3DTV Play. The demand for checkerboard is so great, Andrew took
the unprecedented step of admitting that Nvidia made a mistake by omitting checkerboard, and assured
the thousands of complainers that nvidia will have CB in the next driver release.
i never said anyone hates checkerboard. but
it is not better than 720p with 16MSAA- because its half rez
"5. Checkerboard is half-res"
If CB is half res, 720P on a front proj is 4/9 res. This is one of your convenient half truths.
CB displays 124416000 pixels per frame. 720P on a Acer front proj displays 110592000 per frame
CB = 124416000 ... 720P = 110592000
The math says 720P is inferior to CB
See Daniel, I can play the 'deception by math' game too.
you math is wrong. you did not factor in the resolution drop i proved with the above posts. here is another one. how about the HDMI specs i downloaded years ago; notice checkerboard is listed under the half resolution side by side and again later with the TI checkerboard is listed as half resolution. you can also download this from HDMI yourself. I studied this years ago because i learned long ago to never believe marketing hype. OFFICIAL HDMI 1.4a specification:
* Frame packing - a special top-bottom format that includes a blank space in between sub-frames, in addition to standard Vblank and Hblank
-- supports progressive and interlaced video
-- progressive (full-resolution) frame packing - best for 120 Hz frame sequential displays from Sony, Panasonic etc.
-- interlaced (half-resolution) frame packing -can be used with line-interleaved passive-polarized displays; less than optimal though
* Field alternative - a half-resolution format, supports interlaced video only; can be used with line-inteleaved passive polarized displays, too
-- very similar to interlaced frame packing, except for very minor implementation details; not sure what factors warrant this separate format
* Line alternative - a full-resolution line-interleaved format, best for dual-head passive setups
* Side-by-side (Full) - a full resolution side-by-side format, best for dual-head passive setups, too
* 2D + depth - Philips WOWvx format
* 2D + depth + graphics + graphics depth - Philips WOWvx Declipse format
* Side-by-side (Half) - half-resolution, side-by-side with horizontal sub-sampling
-- 8 possible subsampling combinations - starting sample Even/Odd , starting frame Left/Right , Quincunx samping On/Off
-- includes Real-D format (side-by-side checkerboard)
3D-capable devices should at least support the following mandatory stereo modes:
* frame packing at 1080p @ 23.98/24 Hz (Blu-ray 3D)
* frame packing at 720p @ 50 Hz or 59.94/60 Hz (stereo gaming); may also support both 50 Hz and 59.94/60 Hz
* HDMI Sinks must support both modes; HDMI Sources must support at least one
All other stereo formats and resolutions are optional, may include progressive video resolutions such as SDTV 480p @ 59.94/60 Hz or 576p @50 Hz, and HDTV 1080p @ 50/59.94/60 Hz; interlaced video 480i/576i and 1080i only supports frame packing and field alternative.
Stereo formats NOT included in HDMI 1.4:
* frame alternative (full) - frame packing formats suit frame sequential devices quite well
* checkerboard half-resolution format (TI)
* line alternative (half) (line interleaved) format (VREX, Xpol etc.)
* top-bottom half, half resolution vertical subsampling - will be added in revision 1.4a
* row alternative (half) (column interleaved)
"6. Checkerboard is blurry"
See #4 above
you are starting to put words in my mouth. I said its not full resolution 1080p 3d. and is not. no ammount of denying will ever change this fact. i feel for you. i was super proud of my DLP checkerboard until i researched it more and found out checkerboard is half resolution. I too was duped by marketing hype. like you
"7. DLP has zero ghosting "
Caught in a lie, you change your story to "Ok, so DLP front proj does have ghosting in games, but it's
the games fault....or maybe it's nvidia's fault....whatever"
two clearly distinct issues. there is no ghostig on games that have been made to render in 3d. Some games were never made for 3d and have artifacts. no 3d display will ever get rid of these issues. its not possible because the game does not support 3d fully. Ghosting is a issue with display tech- like yours. artifacts and ghosting are not the same issue. come on you know this dont you? a 3d ready game does not ghost at all on DLP. period. neither does 3d blue ray. zero ghosting as long as the game was made right. dont twist the truth. crysis 1 will never play good on any 3d system due to the tricks companies use to make a game look 3d on a 2d monitor. however these tricks mess up true sterioscopic 3d games- that is what visual artifacts are. ghosting is a entirly different issue- that plasma- led and LCD are prone too. Once again- DLP is GHost FREE
"8. checkerboard on DLP looks exactly the same as CB on a plasma"
You admit you have never seen CB on a Plasma, yet your post is filled with rants about how bad it looks.
If there was ever any doubt about your pathological obsession to make plasma checkerboard look bad, this settles it. Anyone who has seen CB on DLP and Plasma will testify that the are COMPLTELY different. Missing pixels are obvious in DLP, not in Plasma. On a Plasma/LED, CB is virtually indistinguishable from frame packing *VISUALLY*, so please spare us your deceiving "proof by math" deception.
not only have i shared the official specs- i have shown links where others explain how it works. if you choose to bury your head in the sand- thats fine. but it will not change that fact that you are not watching full HD 3d. whether i am wrong about checkerboard being a modern form of interlacing for 3d is a matter of opinion- and from my engineering background i would define it that way. i find it ironic someone who has a pathological obsession with checkerboard says i have something against plasma tech. i could care less about the tech- but find your misinformation unacceptable.
The crazy thing is, you may be right in one way, front proj is possibly the best tech for certain people. I would be all over it were it not for the irritaing noise, even though it is low resolution. But your crazed, rabid-dog smear campaign designed to destroy Plasma/LED technology is more than I can stomach. You should try actually looking at the technology before ranting about how bad it looks.
you should try researching tech before you rant about it. like i said- despite your checkerboard obsession- 720p120 native on a 130" screen is the best looking 3d display currenlty avalible. due to the size, higher frame rate and higher levels of AA. it is obviouse by the number of sales of these New HDTV's that many do not understand the difference between half resolution 3d and native 720p. im really getting tired of this conversation. i have a feeling no ammont of white pages i dug up from manufactures off the internet will change your opinion in light of the facts.
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
Samsung 65D8000
[/quote]
I'm gonna jump in here and give my adjudicatum.
roller11,
You seem to be imputing the worst type of motive to your interlocutor(s). For the sake of congenial dialogue you should give folks the benefit of the doubt. A little bit of collegiality can go a long way. At worst, Daniel is confused with using such terminology as interlaced, and at best is drawing on a conventional analogue to prove his point (which I think he does sufficiently). None of his statements fullfill the requirements of contributing a lie. Even if one fails to fulfill the truth claims on knowledge, it does not therefore mean that one defaults into a lie. Lying is the idea where a statement is at variance with the mind, or what the mind percieves to be the truth. Even if a man states a false statement, but in reality is in fact true, he lies if he [u]intends[/u] to say what is false. I can't see that he has done that here, and I doubt others would think so as well.
[quote]By definintion, interlacing displays half the scan lines per vertical refresh.
Checkerboard displays every scan line per vertical refresh cycle. Checkerboard in distinctly NOT interlaced.[/quote]
You are correct here, but with one caviat: Interlacing does fulfill an analogous comparison between it and checkerboard 3D. Why? Because what you [b][u]percieve[/u][/b] with each eye IS only half the resolution, and what the eyes percieve is the point that Daniel is making. If one only considers what the output resolution is per refresh rate, that's great as far as it goes, but stopping there, one isn't making careful enough distinctions, and it is at this point that Daniel offers you a sufficient analogue. I can't for the life of me, after reading this back and forth dialogue, gather why you didn't latch onto his statement. Instead of offering a careful and tweaked rebuttal and building on the back of what he said, you dismissed it entirely with the worst polemic necessary and totally missed the truth of what he was attempting to say. It's easy to see that when Daniel speaks of "half rez," he is talking about what you are getting per eye, any charitable read of him bears that out. I offered this explanation to you briefly earlier in the thread that this is what he was trying to say to you. You agreed, but instead of reading him in that light, you hammered on a point that was essentially a [i]non sequitur[/i], even if his terminology is a bit muddled.
On a final note:
I have used BOTH DLP Checkerboard 3D AND the new HDMI 1.4a Samsung LED Checkerboard (I have not witnessed the Plasma in CB, but I assume it is roughly equivalent if not identical in performance to the LED). I built a comp for my nephew last summer in which we were going to opt for the Mitsubishi DLP initially and use 3D Vision but had to go with the new technology Samsung LED 3D because he had a depth requirement that the Mitsu DLP could not fulfill. Anyways, we did a comparison of CB using Avatar the Game and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D Checkerboard between the two sets. Since this was before 3DTV Play came out (and way before you came along with your very good .INF override), Avatar the Game has built in 3D support for checkerboard in which you don't need a 3D Vision driver that allowed us to compare the Mitsu DLP to the Samsung CB format. I will happily admit that the Samsung had the crisper and glossier feel that LCD/LED's naturally have over there DLP counterparts. Other than that, the picture quality was the same in 3D save for one fact: the Samsung had a tad more ghosting. It was negligible, but it was still THERE. Both of us witnessed it.
Should one opt for the Samsung over a Mitsu, even if the Mitsu is cheaper? Again, it all depends on one's requirements. You WILL get a better desktop on the Samsung over the Mits and a crisper 3D image, but you will pay a little more. It's all going to come down to a subjective approach to what one values. For me, I primarily use my big comp for gaming, so I could careless if the Sammy gave me a little better desktop, and I agree with Daniel that this present tech doesn't justify it's price (SIZE to SIZE mind you) vis-a-vis DLP tech. But again, that's MY opinion, I have no issue, whatsoever, for those who value spending on the HDMI 1.4a TV's and getting a couple of things that I don't have as I mentioned. To each his own here, they all have something to offer...
I take it as a virtue that Nvidia is supporting a WIDE variety of displays. This gives the user a ton of different options based on size, location, and cost.
You are very sharp guy and argue passionately, but you shouldn't let that passion turn the good things you have to say and offer into a rank ideology.
I can assure you that Daniel doesn't think that ever single person that's a PC gamer should opt for DLP PJ come hell or high water. I've found that he's been sensitive to the fact here and elsewhere that we each have our own requirements. If he seems to be attacking HDMI 1.4a displays to you, perhaps consider it is in opposition to your dead certainty (which the idea of certainty rarely involves any kind of truth claims, but is a psychological claim) that HDMI 1.4a displays are superior in every way to anything else. Period. Such is not my findings, or of others that have witnessed and have had first hand knowledge of other displays and what they have to offer.
Best,
photios
I'm gonna jump in here and give my adjudicatum.
roller11,
You seem to be imputing the worst type of motive to your interlocutor(s). For the sake of congenial dialogue you should give folks the benefit of the doubt. A little bit of collegiality can go a long way. At worst, Daniel is confused with using such terminology as interlaced, and at best is drawing on a conventional analogue to prove his point (which I think he does sufficiently). None of his statements fullfill the requirements of contributing a lie. Even if one fails to fulfill the truth claims on knowledge, it does not therefore mean that one defaults into a lie. Lying is the idea where a statement is at variance with the mind, or what the mind percieves to be the truth. Even if a man states a false statement, but in reality is in fact true, he lies if he intends to say what is false. I can't see that he has done that here, and I doubt others would think so as well.
You are correct here, but with one caviat: Interlacing does fulfill an analogous comparison between it and checkerboard 3D. Why? Because what you percieve with each eye IS only half the resolution, and what the eyes percieve is the point that Daniel is making. If one only considers what the output resolution is per refresh rate, that's great as far as it goes, but stopping there, one isn't making careful enough distinctions, and it is at this point that Daniel offers you a sufficient analogue. I can't for the life of me, after reading this back and forth dialogue, gather why you didn't latch onto his statement. Instead of offering a careful and tweaked rebuttal and building on the back of what he said, you dismissed it entirely with the worst polemic necessary and totally missed the truth of what he was attempting to say. It's easy to see that when Daniel speaks of "half rez," he is talking about what you are getting per eye, any charitable read of him bears that out. I offered this explanation to you briefly earlier in the thread that this is what he was trying to say to you. You agreed, but instead of reading him in that light, you hammered on a point that was essentially a non sequitur, even if his terminology is a bit muddled.
On a final note:
I have used BOTH DLP Checkerboard 3D AND the new HDMI 1.4a Samsung LED Checkerboard (I have not witnessed the Plasma in CB, but I assume it is roughly equivalent if not identical in performance to the LED). I built a comp for my nephew last summer in which we were going to opt for the Mitsubishi DLP initially and use 3D Vision but had to go with the new technology Samsung LED 3D because he had a depth requirement that the Mitsu DLP could not fulfill. Anyways, we did a comparison of CB using Avatar the Game and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D Checkerboard between the two sets. Since this was before 3DTV Play came out (and way before you came along with your very good .INF override), Avatar the Game has built in 3D support for checkerboard in which you don't need a 3D Vision driver that allowed us to compare the Mitsu DLP to the Samsung CB format. I will happily admit that the Samsung had the crisper and glossier feel that LCD/LED's naturally have over there DLP counterparts. Other than that, the picture quality was the same in 3D save for one fact: the Samsung had a tad more ghosting. It was negligible, but it was still THERE. Both of us witnessed it.
Should one opt for the Samsung over a Mitsu, even if the Mitsu is cheaper? Again, it all depends on one's requirements. You WILL get a better desktop on the Samsung over the Mits and a crisper 3D image, but you will pay a little more. It's all going to come down to a subjective approach to what one values. For me, I primarily use my big comp for gaming, so I could careless if the Sammy gave me a little better desktop, and I agree with Daniel that this present tech doesn't justify it's price (SIZE to SIZE mind you) vis-a-vis DLP tech. But again, that's MY opinion, I have no issue, whatsoever, for those who value spending on the HDMI 1.4a TV's and getting a couple of things that I don't have as I mentioned. To each his own here, they all have something to offer...
I take it as a virtue that Nvidia is supporting a WIDE variety of displays. This gives the user a ton of different options based on size, location, and cost.
You are very sharp guy and argue passionately, but you shouldn't let that passion turn the good things you have to say and offer into a rank ideology.
I can assure you that Daniel doesn't think that ever single person that's a PC gamer should opt for DLP PJ come hell or high water. I've found that he's been sensitive to the fact here and elsewhere that we each have our own requirements. If he seems to be attacking HDMI 1.4a displays to you, perhaps consider it is in opposition to your dead certainty (which the idea of certainty rarely involves any kind of truth claims, but is a psychological claim) that HDMI 1.4a displays are superior in every way to anything else. Period. Such is not my findings, or of others that have witnessed and have had first hand knowledge of other displays and what they have to offer.
Best,
photios