Checkerboard support for Mitsubishi 92" DLP (WD-92840)
1 / 3
I remember asking Andrew months ago if Nvidia would add [b]checkerboard[/b] support (not 3D Play) for Mitsubishi new 92" DLP (WD-92840). I believe Nvidia was going to be supporting these new sets once they released. While I now see 3DPlay support BUT, I don't see anything on checkerboard. The 92" set will support checkerboard and you can set it manually if the 3d signal is not 1.4a native.
I remember asking Andrew months ago if Nvidia would add checkerboard support (not 3D Play) for Mitsubishi new 92" DLP (WD-92840). I believe Nvidia was going to be supporting these new sets once they released. While I now see 3DPlay support BUT, I don't see anything on checkerboard. The 92" set will support checkerboard and you can set it manually if the 3d signal is not 1.4a native.
Don't hold your breath. As of November 7th it appears nVidia hasn't even started on putting checkerboard support back into their product, 10 months after the issue first came to light.
Notice the date of the start of the thread. It's been 10 months. Shows you how important this is to them.
But then they already have our money, what's the rush.
Don't hold your breath. As of November 7th it appears nVidia hasn't even started on putting checkerboard support back into their product, 10 months after the issue first came to light.
Notice the date of the start of the thread. It's been 10 months. Shows you how important this is to them.
But then they already have our money, what's the rush.
[quote name='Bobeggy' date='15 November 2011 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1321403411' post='1327275']
Don't hold your breath. As of November 7th it appears nVidia hasn't even started on putting checkerboard support back into their product, 10 months after the issue first came to light.
Notice the date of the start of the thread. It's been 10 months. Shows you how important this is to them.
But then they already have our money, what's the rush.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=190688&st=147
[/quote]
If Nvidia had any intention of ever adding CB mode, they would have done so months ago.
The 'no user intervention' policy will be enforced as long as current managment is employed at nvidia, that's why no checkbox for eye reversal and no CB or SBS mode.
3D Vision/CB mode has been available to anyone who wants it since Jan. 20,2011. Adding SBS mode is vastly more necessary because it is not available at all and it would allow panasonic, toshiba, sharp, sony, phillips owners to begin enjoying full quality 3D gaming.
We need a first implementation of SBS, not a second implementation of CB.
[quote name='Bobeggy' date='15 November 2011 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1321403411' post='1327275']
Don't hold your breath. As of November 7th it appears nVidia hasn't even started on putting checkerboard support back into their product, 10 months after the issue first came to light.
Notice the date of the start of the thread. It's been 10 months. Shows you how important this is to them.
But then they already have our money, what's the rush.
If Nvidia had any intention of ever adding CB mode, they would have done so months ago.
The 'no user intervention' policy will be enforced as long as current managment is employed at nvidia, that's why no checkbox for eye reversal and no CB or SBS mode.
3D Vision/CB mode has been available to anyone who wants it since Jan. 20,2011. Adding SBS mode is vastly more necessary because it is not available at all and it would allow panasonic, toshiba, sharp, sony, phillips owners to begin enjoying full quality 3D gaming.
We need a first implementation of SBS, not a second implementation of CB.
[quote name='roller11' date='16 November 2011 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1321416144' post='1327361']
If Nvidia had any intention of ever adding CB mode, they would have done so months ago.
The 'no user intervention' policy will be enforced as long as current managment is employed at nvidia, that's why no checkbox for eye reversal and no CB or SBS mode.[/quote]
Actually, that statement made think, has nvidia added even one single feature that people have asked for in the entire past year?
I mean the eye reversal issue, although is hasn't affected me, is a big thing for some people, and I would guess it's probably another fairly easy piece of code to implement. That right there has made me realize that nvidia isn't responsive to their customers needs at all. I'm left with no choice other to conclude that nvidia sucks badly at customer service. Wow, I'd never thought I'd have to say that, but if it walks like a duck...
[quote]
3D Vision/CB mode has been available to anyone who wants it since Jan. 20,2011.[/quote]
Now that's twice you've teased me with that. What happened on that date? Did they release a version that I missed? Or are you referring to one of the hacks?
[quote]Adding SBS mode is vastly more necessary because it is not available at all and it would allow panasonic, toshiba, sharp, sony, phillips owners to begin enjoying full quality 3D gaming.
We need a first implementation of SBS, not a second implementation of CB.[/quote]
Hmmm, my Samsung only supports checkerboard, as far as I can tell. So it wouldn't help everyone. But I agree that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one. And I would suspect there is no quality difference between them as they both do roughly the same thing.
[quote name='roller11' date='16 November 2011 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1321416144' post='1327361']
If Nvidia had any intention of ever adding CB mode, they would have done so months ago.
The 'no user intervention' policy will be enforced as long as current managment is employed at nvidia, that's why no checkbox for eye reversal and no CB or SBS mode.
Actually, that statement made think, has nvidia added even one single feature that people have asked for in the entire past year?
I mean the eye reversal issue, although is hasn't affected me, is a big thing for some people, and I would guess it's probably another fairly easy piece of code to implement. That right there has made me realize that nvidia isn't responsive to their customers needs at all. I'm left with no choice other to conclude that nvidia sucks badly at customer service. Wow, I'd never thought I'd have to say that, but if it walks like a duck...
3D Vision/CB mode has been available to anyone who wants it since Jan. 20,2011.
Now that's twice you've teased me with that. What happened on that date? Did they release a version that I missed? Or are you referring to one of the hacks?
Adding SBS mode is vastly more necessary because it is not available at all and it would allow panasonic, toshiba, sharp, sony, phillips owners to begin enjoying full quality 3D gaming.
We need a first implementation of SBS, not a second implementation of CB.
Hmmm, my Samsung only supports checkerboard, as far as I can tell. So it wouldn't help everyone. But I agree that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one. And I would suspect there is no quality difference between them as they both do roughly the same thing.
[quote name='Bobeggy' date='16 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321488055' post='1327904']
Now that's twice you've teased me with that. What happened on that date? [/quote]
1/20/2011 is the date samsung/Mits people were freed from dreaded ugly scaled low res 720P gaming in Video mode, and upgraded to native resolution 3D gaming in PC Graphics mode. Apparently, you somehow missed the thread that contains details of how to convert from 3DTV Play to 3D Vision.
The purpose of this forum is for users to help other users achieve the goal of the best 3D gaming experience possible, native resolution gaming. Steps to realization of that goal are merely implementation details.
[quote]Hmmm, my Samsung only supports checkerboard, as far as I can tell. So it wouldn't help everyone.[/quote]
No, SBS would help everyone, samsung and non-samsung alike.
SBS wouldn't help you only because you don't need help, you already have access to native resolution gaming with checkerboard.
[quote] But I agree that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one. And I would suspect there is no quality difference between them as they both do roughly the same thing.
[/quote]
Right, SBS and CB are indistinquishable from each other. If SBS mode were added, you'd be unaffected because you already have CB mode.
Your "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one" comment implies you think others would get the upgrade instead of you, definitely not the case. Adding SBS would bring the non-samsung people up to the level you've enjoyed since 1/20/2011.
Since you have a CB capable samsung, you can begin native resolution gaming right away. If interested, respond to this or send me a PM.
[quote name='Bobeggy' date='16 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321488055' post='1327904']
Now that's twice you've teased me with that. What happened on that date?
1/20/2011 is the date samsung/Mits people were freed from dreaded ugly scaled low res 720P gaming in Video mode, and upgraded to native resolution 3D gaming in PC Graphics mode. Apparently, you somehow missed the thread that contains details of how to convert from 3DTV Play to 3D Vision.
The purpose of this forum is for users to help other users achieve the goal of the best 3D gaming experience possible, native resolution gaming. Steps to realization of that goal are merely implementation details.
Hmmm, my Samsung only supports checkerboard, as far as I can tell. So it wouldn't help everyone.
No, SBS would help everyone, samsung and non-samsung alike.
SBS wouldn't help you only because you don't need help, you already have access to native resolution gaming with checkerboard.
But I agree that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one. And I would suspect there is no quality difference between them as they both do roughly the same thing.
Right, SBS and CB are indistinquishable from each other. If SBS mode were added, you'd be unaffected because you already have CB mode.
Your "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one" comment implies you think others would get the upgrade instead of you, definitely not the case. Adding SBS would bring the non-samsung people up to the level you've enjoyed since 1/20/2011.
Since you have a CB capable samsung, you can begin native resolution gaming right away. If interested, respond to this or send me a PM.
[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1321571302' post='1328526']
1/20/2011 is the date samsung/Mits people were freed from dreaded ugly scaled low res 720P gaming in Video mode, and upgraded to native resolution 3D gaming in PC Graphics mode. Apparently, you somehow missed the thread that contains details of how to convert from 3DTV Play to 3D Vision.
The purpose of this forum is for users to help other users achieve the goal of the best 3D gaming experience possible, native resolution gaming. Steps to realization of that goal are merely implementation details.[/quote]
[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1321571302' post='1328526']
1/20/2011 is the date samsung/Mits people were freed from dreaded ugly scaled low res 720P gaming in Video mode, and upgraded to native resolution 3D gaming in PC Graphics mode. Apparently, you somehow missed the thread that contains details of how to convert from 3DTV Play to 3D Vision.
The purpose of this forum is for users to help other users achieve the goal of the best 3D gaming experience possible, native resolution gaming. Steps to realization of that goal are merely implementation details.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1321600306' post='1328739']
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
[/quote]
Well it's both. It is and it isn't. What roller is saying is that the PC will display in checkerboard the native resolution of the display *per frame.* You're correct, it's not full resolution if this means seeing 1080p per eye per frame. But he's correct though in one significant regard, displaying at native resolution 1080p per frame, half resolution per eye looks better and crisper than playing at 720p per frame, per eye and then upscaled to the TV's native resolution. It's the upscaling factor and the *video mode* he talks about that degrades the image quality on 3D gaming via framepacking. A console gamer would probably push on and not really care, but a PC gamer usually will have a problem with it. Ultimately it comes down to the user and what they want. A more casual gamer or a person that doesn't really want to have to mess with menu's and settings would probably be happy with 720p framepacking, a more hardcore gamer will probably want the capacity to tweak it to their desire.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1321600306' post='1328739']
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
Well it's both. It is and it isn't. What roller is saying is that the PC will display in checkerboard the native resolution of the display *per frame.* You're correct, it's not full resolution if this means seeing 1080p per eye per frame. But he's correct though in one significant regard, displaying at native resolution 1080p per frame, half resolution per eye looks better and crisper than playing at 720p per frame, per eye and then upscaled to the TV's native resolution. It's the upscaling factor and the *video mode* he talks about that degrades the image quality on 3D gaming via framepacking. A console gamer would probably push on and not really care, but a PC gamer usually will have a problem with it. Ultimately it comes down to the user and what they want. A more casual gamer or a person that doesn't really want to have to mess with menu's and settings would probably be happy with 720p framepacking, a more hardcore gamer will probably want the capacity to tweak it to their desire.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1321600306' post='1328739']
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
[/quote]
Of course it isn't, I never said it was. "Full" resolution is the highest resolution possible, 2x 1920x1080 which is either framepacking or frame sequential. Checkerboard is native resolution 1920x1080, 1 to 1 pixel mapped.
The highest quality is frame sequential 2x 1920x1080 then checkerboard....framepacking is worst because it forces the TV out of desireable PC Graphics processing mode and into broadcast Video mode, overriding the users settings. This is why I hope that when we get HDMI1.5, VESA will provide for 2x1920x1080/ 120 Hz frame sequential and not just framepacking. If we get 2x 1920x1080 fp and not 2x 1920x1080 frame sequential, then HDMI 1.5 will be a step backwards.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1321600306' post='1328739']
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
Of course it isn't, I never said it was. "Full" resolution is the highest resolution possible, 2x 1920x1080 which is either framepacking or frame sequential. Checkerboard is native resolution 1920x1080, 1 to 1 pixel mapped.
The highest quality is frame sequential 2x 1920x1080 then checkerboard....framepacking is worst because it forces the TV out of desireable PC Graphics processing mode and into broadcast Video mode, overriding the users settings. This is why I hope that when we get HDMI1.5, VESA will provide for 2x1920x1080/ 120 Hz frame sequential and not just framepacking. If we get 2x 1920x1080 fp and not 2x 1920x1080 frame sequential, then HDMI 1.5 will be a step backwards.
The end result is the same, whether you use interleaved or checkerboard: The visible 3D image is only half the resolution, ie. [b][i]not[/i][/b] 1920x1080.
Technically, frame packing is just the same as what you call frame sequential, the only difference is that frame packing is defined for HDMI 1.4 and is using half the bandwith than Dual-Link DVI with sequential frames. Therefor you only get 24p (ie. 24fps max), while Dual-Link DVI still allows for 60 Hz. But the image quality is identical for both techniques.
However, checkerboard AND interleaved will allow to use 60Hz even with HDMI 1.4 (or single-link DVI) but only at the cost of half the resolution.
The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI (since the only difference between HDMI and DVI is the connector anyway), and you cannot transfer more data using HDMI no matter what.
The end result is the same, whether you use interleaved or checkerboard: The visible 3D image is only half the resolution, ie. not 1920x1080.
Technically, frame packing is just the same as what you call frame sequential, the only difference is that frame packing is defined for HDMI 1.4 and is using half the bandwith than Dual-Link DVI with sequential frames. Therefor you only get 24p (ie. 24fps max), while Dual-Link DVI still allows for 60 Hz. But the image quality is identical for both techniques.
However, checkerboard AND interleaved will allow to use 60Hz even with HDMI 1.4 (or single-link DVI) but only at the cost of half the resolution.
The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI (since the only difference between HDMI and DVI is the connector anyway), and you cannot transfer more data using HDMI no matter what.
Grestorn,
There are some careful distinctions that you're missing to truth track roller's argument. I'm not defending *him* per se, but noting simply the [i]argument[/i].
Those distinctions are as follows:
1) The Image Quality of 1080p Native resolution of checkerboard (per frame) vs. upscaled 720p HDMI 1.4a framepacking.
2) PC graphics processing mode that one obtains by using 1080p SBS and CB vs. 720p framepacked video processing mode.
It matters not the issue of bandwidth here to solve the above two points. I repeat, making the bandwidth appeal does not *touch* the argument of those two points. So to say "The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI" does not differentiate the "image" quality of those distinct modes.
There are some careful distinctions that you're missing to truth track roller's argument. I'm not defending *him* per se, but noting simply the argument.
Those distinctions are as follows:
1) The Image Quality of 1080p Native resolution of checkerboard (per frame) vs. upscaled 720p HDMI 1.4a framepacking.
2) PC graphics processing mode that one obtains by using 1080p SBS and CB vs. 720p framepacked video processing mode.
It matters not the issue of bandwidth here to solve the above two points. I repeat, making the bandwidth appeal does not *touch* the argument of those two points. So to say "The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI" does not differentiate the "image" quality of those distinct modes.
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
1) The Image Quality of 1080p Native resolution of checkerboard (per frame) vs. upscaled 720p HDMI 1.4a framepacking.[/quote]
720p is 1280x720, ie. 921600 pixels. Checkerboard/Interleaved is 1920x1080/2, ie. 1036800 pixels.
So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to see the difference. But I don't deny that there is one.
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
2) PC graphics processing mode that one obtains by using 1080p SBS and CB vs. 720p framepacked video processing mode.[/quote]
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
It matters not the issue of bandwidth here to solve the above two points. I repeat, making the bandwidth appeal does not *touch* the argument of those two points. So to say "The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI" does not differentiate the "image" quality of those distinct modes.
[/quote]
Can we agree that checkerboard and interleaved has the same result in image quality? Because that's what I thought he was challenging.
And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved. So I can understand that nVidia sees no real reason to support it where it's not really the only way, because frame packaging is not supported.
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
1) The Image Quality of 1080p Native resolution of checkerboard (per frame) vs. upscaled 720p HDMI 1.4a framepacking.
720p is 1280x720, ie. 921600 pixels. Checkerboard/Interleaved is 1920x1080/2, ie. 1036800 pixels.
So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to see the difference. But I don't deny that there is one.
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
2) PC graphics processing mode that one obtains by using 1080p SBS and CB vs. 720p framepacked video processing mode.
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
It matters not the issue of bandwidth here to solve the above two points. I repeat, making the bandwidth appeal does not *touch* the argument of those two points. So to say "The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI" does not differentiate the "image" quality of those distinct modes.
Can we agree that checkerboard and interleaved has the same result in image quality? Because that's what I thought he was challenging.
And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved. So I can understand that nVidia sees no real reason to support it where it's not really the only way, because frame packaging is not supported.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1321634675' post='1328912']
720p is 1280x720, ie. 921600 pixels. Checkerboard/Interleaved is 1920x1080/2, ie. 1036800 pixels.
So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to see the difference. But I don't deny that there is one.
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?
Can we agree that checkerboard and interleaved has the same result in image quality? Because that's what I thought he was challenging.
And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved. So I can understand that nVidia sees no real reason to support it where it's not really the only way, because frame packaging is not supported.
[/quote]
Grestron,
I'll let someone else argue what is going on with "PC mode" vs. "Video Mode" as the display assigns the two different modes depending on source and type. All I can say is that I have witnessed the difference empirically even at a given datum resolution for 2D. I cannot say technically what the display is doing, only that I know that it is doing something different. This is not a problem on my Mitsubishi DLP, as it treats them all the same. I can only say that I've noticed the difference on LED/LCD 3D TVs I've installed and configured. On 3D Plasma's, I cannot comment.
You are equivocating on pixel count. You cannot simply add up the pixel count and allocate the value, and base your analysis solely on that count and come to a conlclusion. If that was the basis of analysis, then yes, I would agree the argument would be pretty much a wash. However, there are two distinctions here that are missed if one goes about it that way: 1) native resolution per frame and 2) native resolution per eye. Checkerboard is full 1080p per frame and only half rez per eye. 720p60 is 720p for both and both non-native. The image quality distinction is differentiated most noteably because of these points, Checkerboard is displayed at the displays native resolution, therefore no upscaling required to display the image fullscreen. 720p60 Framepacking on the other hand loses quality because it is not being rendered at the displays native resolution, and that's the rub...There's an easy test case for this: take a 1080p 24in Monitor (any of them) with it's native res as 1920x1080 and then change your desktop resolution for 2D to something like 1280x720 or 1600x900. YOu will notice a distinctly degraded desktop. This is exactly the argument that roller is saying except he is applying it to the gaming environment. In this example you are displaying an internal resolution of 1600x900 on a 1920x1080p display and the quality is less than desirable. As far as *best* image quality is concerned, native resolution per frame per eye is the peak. Frame sequential and/or Framepacking *native res 1080p* offers the best image quality, checkerboard-side by side 1080p native is next, and non-native resolution gaming is third.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1321634675' post='1328912']
720p is 1280x720, ie. 921600 pixels. Checkerboard/Interleaved is 1920x1080/2, ie. 1036800 pixels.
So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to see the difference. But I don't deny that there is one.
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?
Can we agree that checkerboard and interleaved has the same result in image quality? Because that's what I thought he was challenging.
And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved. So I can understand that nVidia sees no real reason to support it where it's not really the only way, because frame packaging is not supported.
Grestron,
I'll let someone else argue what is going on with "PC mode" vs. "Video Mode" as the display assigns the two different modes depending on source and type. All I can say is that I have witnessed the difference empirically even at a given datum resolution for 2D. I cannot say technically what the display is doing, only that I know that it is doing something different. This is not a problem on my Mitsubishi DLP, as it treats them all the same. I can only say that I've noticed the difference on LED/LCD 3D TVs I've installed and configured. On 3D Plasma's, I cannot comment.
You are equivocating on pixel count. You cannot simply add up the pixel count and allocate the value, and base your analysis solely on that count and come to a conlclusion. If that was the basis of analysis, then yes, I would agree the argument would be pretty much a wash. However, there are two distinctions here that are missed if one goes about it that way: 1) native resolution per frame and 2) native resolution per eye. Checkerboard is full 1080p per frame and only half rez per eye. 720p60 is 720p for both and both non-native. The image quality distinction is differentiated most noteably because of these points, Checkerboard is displayed at the displays native resolution, therefore no upscaling required to display the image fullscreen. 720p60 Framepacking on the other hand loses quality because it is not being rendered at the displays native resolution, and that's the rub...There's an easy test case for this: take a 1080p 24in Monitor (any of them) with it's native res as 1920x1080 and then change your desktop resolution for 2D to something like 1280x720 or 1600x900. YOu will notice a distinctly degraded desktop. This is exactly the argument that roller is saying except he is applying it to the gaming environment. In this example you are displaying an internal resolution of 1600x900 on a 1920x1080p display and the quality is less than desirable. As far as *best* image quality is concerned, native resolution per frame per eye is the peak. Frame sequential and/or Framepacking *native res 1080p* offers the best image quality, checkerboard-side by side 1080p native is next, and non-native resolution gaming is third.
For the OP, I don't know if it matters if you use 3DTVPlay or 3D Vision for this TV, as this TV takes a framepacked signal and converts it to 1080p checkerboard, since the TV can only dispaly checkerboard. I have not verified it for myself. I have a Mits 3DA-1 Adapter which does the same thing. I could try it out and give it a go.
For the OP, I don't know if it matters if you use 3DTVPlay or 3D Vision for this TV, as this TV takes a framepacked signal and converts it to 1080p checkerboard, since the TV can only dispaly checkerboard. I have not verified it for myself. I have a Mits 3DA-1 Adapter which does the same thing. I could try it out and give it a go.
Thanks
Todd
Thanks
Todd
Notice the date of the start of the thread. It's been 10 months. Shows you how important this is to them.
But then they already have our money, what's the rush.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=190688&st=147
Notice the date of the start of the thread. It's been 10 months. Shows you how important this is to them.
But then they already have our money, what's the rush.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=190688&st=147
Don't hold your breath. As of November 7th it appears nVidia hasn't even started on putting checkerboard support back into their product, 10 months after the issue first came to light.
Notice the date of the start of the thread. It's been 10 months. Shows you how important this is to them.
But then they already have our money, what's the rush.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=190688&st=147
[/quote]
If Nvidia had any intention of ever adding CB mode, they would have done so months ago.
The 'no user intervention' policy will be enforced as long as current managment is employed at nvidia, that's why no checkbox for eye reversal and no CB or SBS mode.
3D Vision/CB mode has been available to anyone who wants it since Jan. 20,2011. Adding SBS mode is vastly more necessary because it is not available at all and it would allow panasonic, toshiba, sharp, sony, phillips owners to begin enjoying full quality 3D gaming.
We need a first implementation of SBS, not a second implementation of CB.
Don't hold your breath. As of November 7th it appears nVidia hasn't even started on putting checkerboard support back into their product, 10 months after the issue first came to light.
Notice the date of the start of the thread. It's been 10 months. Shows you how important this is to them.
But then they already have our money, what's the rush.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=190688&st=147
If Nvidia had any intention of ever adding CB mode, they would have done so months ago.
The 'no user intervention' policy will be enforced as long as current managment is employed at nvidia, that's why no checkbox for eye reversal and no CB or SBS mode.
3D Vision/CB mode has been available to anyone who wants it since Jan. 20,2011. Adding SBS mode is vastly more necessary because it is not available at all and it would allow panasonic, toshiba, sharp, sony, phillips owners to begin enjoying full quality 3D gaming.
We need a first implementation of SBS, not a second implementation of CB.
If Nvidia had any intention of ever adding CB mode, they would have done so months ago.
The 'no user intervention' policy will be enforced as long as current managment is employed at nvidia, that's why no checkbox for eye reversal and no CB or SBS mode.[/quote]
Actually, that statement made think, has nvidia added even one single feature that people have asked for in the entire past year?
I mean the eye reversal issue, although is hasn't affected me, is a big thing for some people, and I would guess it's probably another fairly easy piece of code to implement. That right there has made me realize that nvidia isn't responsive to their customers needs at all. I'm left with no choice other to conclude that nvidia sucks badly at customer service. Wow, I'd never thought I'd have to say that, but if it walks like a duck...
[quote]
3D Vision/CB mode has been available to anyone who wants it since Jan. 20,2011.[/quote]
Now that's twice you've teased me with that. What happened on that date? Did they release a version that I missed? Or are you referring to one of the hacks?
[quote]Adding SBS mode is vastly more necessary because it is not available at all and it would allow panasonic, toshiba, sharp, sony, phillips owners to begin enjoying full quality 3D gaming.
We need a first implementation of SBS, not a second implementation of CB.[/quote]
Hmmm, my Samsung only supports checkerboard, as far as I can tell. So it wouldn't help everyone. But I agree that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one. And I would suspect there is no quality difference between them as they both do roughly the same thing.
If Nvidia had any intention of ever adding CB mode, they would have done so months ago.
The 'no user intervention' policy will be enforced as long as current managment is employed at nvidia, that's why no checkbox for eye reversal and no CB or SBS mode.
Actually, that statement made think, has nvidia added even one single feature that people have asked for in the entire past year?
I mean the eye reversal issue, although is hasn't affected me, is a big thing for some people, and I would guess it's probably another fairly easy piece of code to implement. That right there has made me realize that nvidia isn't responsive to their customers needs at all. I'm left with no choice other to conclude that nvidia sucks badly at customer service. Wow, I'd never thought I'd have to say that, but if it walks like a duck...
Now that's twice you've teased me with that. What happened on that date? Did they release a version that I missed? Or are you referring to one of the hacks?
Hmmm, my Samsung only supports checkerboard, as far as I can tell. So it wouldn't help everyone. But I agree that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one. And I would suspect there is no quality difference between them as they both do roughly the same thing.
Now that's twice you've teased me with that. What happened on that date? [/quote]
1/20/2011 is the date samsung/Mits people were freed from dreaded ugly scaled low res 720P gaming in Video mode, and upgraded to native resolution 3D gaming in PC Graphics mode. Apparently, you somehow missed the thread that contains details of how to convert from 3DTV Play to 3D Vision.
The purpose of this forum is for users to help other users achieve the goal of the best 3D gaming experience possible, native resolution gaming. Steps to realization of that goal are merely implementation details.
[quote]Hmmm, my Samsung only supports checkerboard, as far as I can tell. So it wouldn't help everyone.[/quote]
No, SBS would help everyone, samsung and non-samsung alike.
SBS wouldn't help you only because you don't need help, you already have access to native resolution gaming with checkerboard.
[quote] But I agree that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one. And I would suspect there is no quality difference between them as they both do roughly the same thing.
[/quote]
Right, SBS and CB are indistinquishable from each other. If SBS mode were added, you'd be unaffected because you already have CB mode.
Your "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one" comment implies you think others would get the upgrade instead of you, definitely not the case. Adding SBS would bring the non-samsung people up to the level you've enjoyed since 1/20/2011.
Since you have a CB capable samsung, you can begin native resolution gaming right away. If interested, respond to this or send me a PM.
roller
Now that's twice you've teased me with that. What happened on that date?
1/20/2011 is the date samsung/Mits people were freed from dreaded ugly scaled low res 720P gaming in Video mode, and upgraded to native resolution 3D gaming in PC Graphics mode. Apparently, you somehow missed the thread that contains details of how to convert from 3DTV Play to 3D Vision.
The purpose of this forum is for users to help other users achieve the goal of the best 3D gaming experience possible, native resolution gaming. Steps to realization of that goal are merely implementation details.
No, SBS would help everyone, samsung and non-samsung alike.
SBS wouldn't help you only because you don't need help, you already have access to native resolution gaming with checkerboard.
Right, SBS and CB are indistinquishable from each other. If SBS mode were added, you'd be unaffected because you already have CB mode.
Your "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one" comment implies you think others would get the upgrade instead of you, definitely not the case. Adding SBS would bring the non-samsung people up to the level you've enjoyed since 1/20/2011.
Since you have a CB capable samsung, you can begin native resolution gaming right away. If interested, respond to this or send me a PM.
roller
1/20/2011 is the date samsung/Mits people were freed from dreaded ugly scaled low res 720P gaming in Video mode, and upgraded to native resolution 3D gaming in PC Graphics mode. Apparently, you somehow missed the thread that contains details of how to convert from 3DTV Play to 3D Vision.
The purpose of this forum is for users to help other users achieve the goal of the best 3D gaming experience possible, native resolution gaming. Steps to realization of that goal are merely implementation details.[/quote]
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
1/20/2011 is the date samsung/Mits people were freed from dreaded ugly scaled low res 720P gaming in Video mode, and upgraded to native resolution 3D gaming in PC Graphics mode. Apparently, you somehow missed the thread that contains details of how to convert from 3DTV Play to 3D Vision.
The purpose of this forum is for users to help other users achieve the goal of the best 3D gaming experience possible, native resolution gaming. Steps to realization of that goal are merely implementation details.
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
[/quote]
Well it's both. It is and it isn't. What roller is saying is that the PC will display in checkerboard the native resolution of the display *per frame.* You're correct, it's not full resolution if this means seeing 1080p per eye per frame. But he's correct though in one significant regard, displaying at native resolution 1080p per frame, half resolution per eye looks better and crisper than playing at 720p per frame, per eye and then upscaled to the TV's native resolution. It's the upscaling factor and the *video mode* he talks about that degrades the image quality on 3D gaming via framepacking. A console gamer would probably push on and not really care, but a PC gamer usually will have a problem with it. Ultimately it comes down to the user and what they want. A more casual gamer or a person that doesn't really want to have to mess with menu's and settings would probably be happy with 720p framepacking, a more hardcore gamer will probably want the capacity to tweak it to their desire.
photios
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
Well it's both. It is and it isn't. What roller is saying is that the PC will display in checkerboard the native resolution of the display *per frame.* You're correct, it's not full resolution if this means seeing 1080p per eye per frame. But he's correct though in one significant regard, displaying at native resolution 1080p per frame, half resolution per eye looks better and crisper than playing at 720p per frame, per eye and then upscaled to the TV's native resolution. It's the upscaling factor and the *video mode* he talks about that degrades the image quality on 3D gaming via framepacking. A console gamer would probably push on and not really care, but a PC gamer usually will have a problem with it. Ultimately it comes down to the user and what they want. A more casual gamer or a person that doesn't really want to have to mess with menu's and settings would probably be happy with 720p framepacking, a more hardcore gamer will probably want the capacity to tweak it to their desire.
photios
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
[/quote]
Of course it isn't, I never said it was. "Full" resolution is the highest resolution possible, 2x 1920x1080 which is either framepacking or frame sequential. Checkerboard is native resolution 1920x1080, 1 to 1 pixel mapped.
The highest quality is frame sequential 2x 1920x1080 then checkerboard....framepacking is worst because it forces the TV out of desireable PC Graphics processing mode and into broadcast Video mode, overriding the users settings. This is why I hope that when we get HDMI1.5, VESA will provide for 2x1920x1080/ 120 Hz frame sequential and not just framepacking. If we get 2x 1920x1080 fp and not 2x 1920x1080 frame sequential, then HDMI 1.5 will be a step backwards.
Sorry, but Checkerboard is NOT full resolution.
Of course it isn't, I never said it was. "Full" resolution is the highest resolution possible, 2x 1920x1080 which is either framepacking or frame sequential. Checkerboard is native resolution 1920x1080, 1 to 1 pixel mapped.
The highest quality is frame sequential 2x 1920x1080 then checkerboard....framepacking is worst because it forces the TV out of desireable PC Graphics processing mode and into broadcast Video mode, overriding the users settings. This is why I hope that when we get HDMI1.5, VESA will provide for 2x1920x1080/ 120 Hz frame sequential and not just framepacking. If we get 2x 1920x1080 fp and not 2x 1920x1080 frame sequential, then HDMI 1.5 will be a step backwards.
Technically, frame packing is just the same as what you call frame sequential, the only difference is that frame packing is defined for HDMI 1.4 and is using half the bandwith than Dual-Link DVI with sequential frames. Therefor you only get 24p (ie. 24fps max), while Dual-Link DVI still allows for 60 Hz. But the image quality is identical for both techniques.
However, checkerboard AND interleaved will allow to use 60Hz even with HDMI 1.4 (or single-link DVI) but only at the cost of half the resolution.
The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI (since the only difference between HDMI and DVI is the connector anyway), and you cannot transfer more data using HDMI no matter what.
Technically, frame packing is just the same as what you call frame sequential, the only difference is that frame packing is defined for HDMI 1.4 and is using half the bandwith than Dual-Link DVI with sequential frames. Therefor you only get 24p (ie. 24fps max), while Dual-Link DVI still allows for 60 Hz. But the image quality is identical for both techniques.
However, checkerboard AND interleaved will allow to use 60Hz even with HDMI 1.4 (or single-link DVI) but only at the cost of half the resolution.
The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI (since the only difference between HDMI and DVI is the connector anyway), and you cannot transfer more data using HDMI no matter what.
There are some careful distinctions that you're missing to truth track roller's argument. I'm not defending *him* per se, but noting simply the [i]argument[/i].
Those distinctions are as follows:
1) The Image Quality of 1080p Native resolution of checkerboard (per frame) vs. upscaled 720p HDMI 1.4a framepacking.
2) PC graphics processing mode that one obtains by using 1080p SBS and CB vs. 720p framepacked video processing mode.
It matters not the issue of bandwidth here to solve the above two points. I repeat, making the bandwidth appeal does not *touch* the argument of those two points. So to say "The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI" does not differentiate the "image" quality of those distinct modes.
There are some careful distinctions that you're missing to truth track roller's argument. I'm not defending *him* per se, but noting simply the argument.
Those distinctions are as follows:
1) The Image Quality of 1080p Native resolution of checkerboard (per frame) vs. upscaled 720p HDMI 1.4a framepacking.
2) PC graphics processing mode that one obtains by using 1080p SBS and CB vs. 720p framepacked video processing mode.
It matters not the issue of bandwidth here to solve the above two points. I repeat, making the bandwidth appeal does not *touch* the argument of those two points. So to say "The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI" does not differentiate the "image" quality of those distinct modes.
1) The Image Quality of 1080p Native resolution of checkerboard (per frame) vs. upscaled 720p HDMI 1.4a framepacking.[/quote]
720p is 1280x720, ie. 921600 pixels. Checkerboard/Interleaved is 1920x1080/2, ie. 1036800 pixels.
So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to see the difference. But I don't deny that there is one.
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
2) PC graphics processing mode that one obtains by using 1080p SBS and CB vs. 720p framepacked video processing mode.[/quote]
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
It matters not the issue of bandwidth here to solve the above two points. I repeat, making the bandwidth appeal does not *touch* the argument of those two points. So to say "The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI" does not differentiate the "image" quality of those distinct modes.
[/quote]
Can we agree that checkerboard and interleaved has the same result in image quality? Because that's what I thought he was challenging.
And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved. So I can understand that nVidia sees no real reason to support it where it's not really the only way, because frame packaging is not supported.
1) The Image Quality of 1080p Native resolution of checkerboard (per frame) vs. upscaled 720p HDMI 1.4a framepacking.
720p is 1280x720, ie. 921600 pixels. Checkerboard/Interleaved is 1920x1080/2, ie. 1036800 pixels.
So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to see the difference. But I don't deny that there is one.
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
2) PC graphics processing mode that one obtains by using 1080p SBS and CB vs. 720p framepacked video processing mode.
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1321632033' post='1328898']
It matters not the issue of bandwidth here to solve the above two points. I repeat, making the bandwidth appeal does not *touch* the argument of those two points. So to say "The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is the same as Single-Link DVI" does not differentiate the "image" quality of those distinct modes.
Can we agree that checkerboard and interleaved has the same result in image quality? Because that's what I thought he was challenging.
And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved. So I can understand that nVidia sees no real reason to support it where it's not really the only way, because frame packaging is not supported.
720p is 1280x720, ie. 921600 pixels. Checkerboard/Interleaved is 1920x1080/2, ie. 1036800 pixels.
So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to see the difference. But I don't deny that there is one.
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?
Can we agree that checkerboard and interleaved has the same result in image quality? Because that's what I thought he was challenging.
And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved. So I can understand that nVidia sees no real reason to support it where it's not really the only way, because frame packaging is not supported.
[/quote]
Grestron,
I'll let someone else argue what is going on with "PC mode" vs. "Video Mode" as the display assigns the two different modes depending on source and type. All I can say is that I have witnessed the difference empirically even at a given datum resolution for 2D. I cannot say technically what the display is doing, only that I know that it is doing something different. This is not a problem on my Mitsubishi DLP, as it treats them all the same. I can only say that I've noticed the difference on LED/LCD 3D TVs I've installed and configured. On 3D Plasma's, I cannot comment.
You are equivocating on pixel count. You cannot simply add up the pixel count and allocate the value, and base your analysis solely on that count and come to a conlclusion. If that was the basis of analysis, then yes, I would agree the argument would be pretty much a wash. However, there are two distinctions here that are missed if one goes about it that way: 1) native resolution per frame and 2) native resolution per eye. Checkerboard is full 1080p per frame and only half rez per eye. 720p60 is 720p for both and both non-native. The image quality distinction is differentiated most noteably because of these points, Checkerboard is displayed at the displays native resolution, therefore no upscaling required to display the image fullscreen. 720p60 Framepacking on the other hand loses quality because it is not being rendered at the displays native resolution, and that's the rub...There's an easy test case for this: take a 1080p 24in Monitor (any of them) with it's native res as 1920x1080 and then change your desktop resolution for 2D to something like 1280x720 or 1600x900. YOu will notice a distinctly degraded desktop. This is exactly the argument that roller is saying except he is applying it to the gaming environment. In this example you are displaying an internal resolution of 1600x900 on a 1920x1080p display and the quality is less than desirable. As far as *best* image quality is concerned, native resolution per frame per eye is the peak. Frame sequential and/or Framepacking *native res 1080p* offers the best image quality, checkerboard-side by side 1080p native is next, and non-native resolution gaming is third.
I hope this is making sense.
720p is 1280x720, ie. 921600 pixels. Checkerboard/Interleaved is 1920x1080/2, ie. 1036800 pixels.
So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to see the difference. But I don't deny that there is one.
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?
Can we agree that checkerboard and interleaved has the same result in image quality? Because that's what I thought he was challenging.
And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved. So I can understand that nVidia sees no real reason to support it where it's not really the only way, because frame packaging is not supported.
Grestron,
I'll let someone else argue what is going on with "PC mode" vs. "Video Mode" as the display assigns the two different modes depending on source and type. All I can say is that I have witnessed the difference empirically even at a given datum resolution for 2D. I cannot say technically what the display is doing, only that I know that it is doing something different. This is not a problem on my Mitsubishi DLP, as it treats them all the same. I can only say that I've noticed the difference on LED/LCD 3D TVs I've installed and configured. On 3D Plasma's, I cannot comment.
You are equivocating on pixel count. You cannot simply add up the pixel count and allocate the value, and base your analysis solely on that count and come to a conlclusion. If that was the basis of analysis, then yes, I would agree the argument would be pretty much a wash. However, there are two distinctions here that are missed if one goes about it that way: 1) native resolution per frame and 2) native resolution per eye. Checkerboard is full 1080p per frame and only half rez per eye. 720p60 is 720p for both and both non-native. The image quality distinction is differentiated most noteably because of these points, Checkerboard is displayed at the displays native resolution, therefore no upscaling required to display the image fullscreen. 720p60 Framepacking on the other hand loses quality because it is not being rendered at the displays native resolution, and that's the rub...There's an easy test case for this: take a 1080p 24in Monitor (any of them) with it's native res as 1920x1080 and then change your desktop resolution for 2D to something like 1280x720 or 1600x900. YOu will notice a distinctly degraded desktop. This is exactly the argument that roller is saying except he is applying it to the gaming environment. In this example you are displaying an internal resolution of 1600x900 on a 1920x1080p display and the quality is less than desirable. As far as *best* image quality is concerned, native resolution per frame per eye is the peak. Frame sequential and/or Framepacking *native res 1080p* offers the best image quality, checkerboard-side by side 1080p native is next, and non-native resolution gaming is third.
I hope this is making sense.