Is it possible to get 1080p 60 hz with 3dtv on passive 3d tv's?
Currently owning a sony passive 3d tv and it seems that nvidia 3dtv locks itself to max 24hz in 3d mode, calling itself 'blue ray 3d' Which is kinda odd.
Currently own a 670 gtx, though planning to upgrade, connected to tv via duallink dvi adapter to hdmi, which as far as I understand it should not make 1080p 3d 60 hz an issue, specifically own a sony bravia 42" kdl-w828, and it officially supports 60 hz in both sbs and over and under at 1080p, though max 1080p 30hz with frame packing (name might be wrong), but it won't even deliver that?
cable is a 2.0 hdmi cable so it shouldn't be the problem? and adapter shouldn't either, and the hdmi port doesn't allow it due to 1.4 limitations, but the dual link dvi port should work? anyone got any ideas? is it really a limit that nvidia has set in?
Currently owning a sony passive 3d tv and it seems that nvidia 3dtv locks itself to max 24hz in 3d mode, calling itself 'blue ray 3d' Which is kinda odd.
Currently own a 670 gtx, though planning to upgrade, connected to tv via duallink dvi adapter to hdmi, which as far as I understand it should not make 1080p 3d 60 hz an issue, specifically own a sony bravia 42" kdl-w828, and it officially supports 60 hz in both sbs and over and under at 1080p, though max 1080p 30hz with frame packing (name might be wrong), but it won't even deliver that?
cable is a 2.0 hdmi cable so it shouldn't be the problem? and adapter shouldn't either, and the hdmi port doesn't allow it due to 1.4 limitations, but the dual link dvi port should work? anyone got any ideas? is it really a limit that nvidia has set in?
No, it is not possible. Passive TV's use an interlacing method, which halves the resolution of the display. If you want to get close to 1080p, you would need a 4k display; or you can get an active Display. You can typically find those in older models of 3d televisions, because it is far superior but because people didn't like how you needed batteries to run it it's not as popular anymore.
Passive displays half the vertical resolution. So 340x2160 is actually 3840x1080, or effectively 1080p with more horizontal resolution.
Your best bet is to upscale the resolution to make it appear a higher resolution than it really is, although I am not sure if DSR is supported in 3d.
No, it is not possible. Passive TV's use an interlacing method, which halves the resolution of the display. If you want to get close to 1080p, you would need a 4k display; or you can get an active Display. You can typically find those in older models of 3d televisions, because it is far superior but because people didn't like how you needed batteries to run it it's not as popular anymore.
Passive displays half the vertical resolution. So 340x2160 is actually 3840x1080, or effectively 1080p with more horizontal resolution.
Your best bet is to upscale the resolution to make it appear a higher resolution than it really is, although I am not sure if DSR is supported in 3d.
While the DVI output on the GPU has a higher pixel clock ceiling than the HDMI output, using an adapter doesn't magically unlock the higher pixel clock, it's still treated as HDMI.
HDMI 2.0 became available with the release of the GTX 9XX series.
A DVI Single Link and HDMI are compatible pin for pin.
A Dual Link DVI to HDMI doesn't use the extra pins.
'blue ray 3d' unlocks the stereoscopic drivers for Blu-ray disc/video playback on HDMI 1.4 compatible devices using software such as Cyberlink PowerDVD Ultra.
3DTV Play unlocks access to Nvidia's stereoscopic drivers for gameplay.
While the DVI output on the GPU has a higher pixel clock ceiling than the HDMI output, using an adapter doesn't magically unlock the higher pixel clock, it's still treated as HDMI.
HDMI 2.0 became available with the release of the GTX 9XX series.
A DVI Single Link and HDMI are compatible pin for pin.
A Dual Link DVI to HDMI doesn't use the extra pins.
'blue ray 3d' unlocks the stereoscopic drivers for Blu-ray disc/video playback on HDMI 1.4 compatible devices using software such as Cyberlink PowerDVD Ultra.
3DTV Play unlocks access to Nvidia's stereoscopic drivers for gameplay.
D-Man is absolutely right, but I'd still recommend raising it with Nvidia support. Ok, they still haven't added any extra modes to 3DTV play (SBS etc) or anything to take advantage of HDMI 2.0 but the more noise people make the better. They only ever added the basic HDMI 1.4 framepacking and 1.4b has been ignored. It's an ongoing frustration.
D-Man is absolutely right, but I'd still recommend raising it with Nvidia support. Ok, they still haven't added any extra modes to 3DTV play (SBS etc) or anything to take advantage of HDMI 2.0 but the more noise people make the better. They only ever added the basic HDMI 1.4 framepacking and 1.4b has been ignored. It's an ongoing frustration.
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
[quote="D-Man11"].[/quote]
Ah, I see, well that does explain it.
Thanks D-Man11: have ordered a 970 gtx, gathering pure hdmi would be the best connection to use then.
It is just quite odd since I can get full hdmi sound via the dvi -> hdmi adapter, would the adapter (it is dual link) on a 970 gtx work for any improvements? or would it need to be pure hdmi? the only reason I used adapter was initially to get bios display on main screen rather then secondary, but with displayport adapters I could easily get a displayport->dvi for secondary screen, though I can't seem to find any information on those that support WUXGA?
[quote="rustyk"]D-Man is absolutely right, but I'd still recommend raising it with Nvidia support. Ok, they still haven't added any extra modes to 3DTV play (SBS etc) or anything to take advantage of HDMI 2.0 but the more noise people make the better. They only ever added the basic HDMI 1.4 framepacking and 1.4b has been ignored. It's an ongoing frustration.[/quote]
Ah, hm well that does explain it, they really should add sbs/ou both half and full. Since then passive 3d tv users could use half ou (full horizontal resolution, half vertical resolution) since we lose vertical resolution anyway.
Thanks D-Man11: have ordered a 970 gtx, gathering pure hdmi would be the best connection to use then.
It is just quite odd since I can get full hdmi sound via the dvi -> hdmi adapter, would the adapter (it is dual link) on a 970 gtx work for any improvements? or would it need to be pure hdmi? the only reason I used adapter was initially to get bios display on main screen rather then secondary, but with displayport adapters I could easily get a displayport->dvi for secondary screen, though I can't seem to find any information on those that support WUXGA?
rustyk said:D-Man is absolutely right, but I'd still recommend raising it with Nvidia support. Ok, they still haven't added any extra modes to 3DTV play (SBS etc) or anything to take advantage of HDMI 2.0 but the more noise people make the better. They only ever added the basic HDMI 1.4 framepacking and 1.4b has been ignored. It's an ongoing frustration.
Ah, hm well that does explain it, they really should add sbs/ou both half and full. Since then passive 3d tv users could use half ou (full horizontal resolution, half vertical resolution) since we lose vertical resolution anyway.
[quote="Ambidex"]No, it is not possible.[/quote]
Am aware of interlacing, but with the testing I've done, the loss of vertical resolution is really not that bad, at least for me, and I don't mind losing it with half ou.
Am aware of interlacing, but with the testing I've done, the loss of vertical resolution is really not that bad, at least for me, and I don't mind losing it with half ou.
Keep in mind that Passive displays do not output progressive, you'll never get 1080P output.
Any progressive format that is input is converted to interlaced before being displayed.
Unless a TV has a newer HDMI chip for the input, it will not accept a 120Hz progressive signal at 1920x1080.
1920x1080@60i = 120 frames with 60 Frames containing the even half of the interlaced lines and 60 the odd lines. The other 1/2 of each frame is discarded prior to transmission.
120 half frames of interlaced is within the bandwidth limitation of HDMI 1.4, because 120 half frames requires the same bandwidth as 60 full frames.
So keep in mind that interlaced = half frames and progressive = full frames transmitted.
It requires the same GPU resources because full frames must be rendered. But as stated with interlaced, half of each frame is discarded prior to transmission.
Keep in mind that Passive displays do not output progressive, you'll never get 1080P output.
Any progressive format that is input is converted to interlaced before being displayed.
Unless a TV has a newer HDMI chip for the input, it will not accept a 120Hz progressive signal at 1920x1080.
1920x1080@60i = 120 frames with 60 Frames containing the even half of the interlaced lines and 60 the odd lines. The other 1/2 of each frame is discarded prior to transmission.
120 half frames of interlaced is within the bandwidth limitation of HDMI 1.4, because 120 half frames requires the same bandwidth as 60 full frames.
So keep in mind that interlaced = half frames and progressive = full frames transmitted.
It requires the same GPU resources because full frames must be rendered. But as stated with interlaced, half of each frame is discarded prior to transmission.
[quote="D-Man11"].
[/quote]
Well yes, that's how things work with passive 3d tv's but yeah even with the loss of vertical resolution, it isn't at least to me that visible.
But yeah here's hoping.
As for accepting 120hz signal, dunno, at least not via the default selection, though it supports full sbs/ou 3d signals at 60 hz.
Currently own a 670 gtx, though planning to upgrade, connected to tv via duallink dvi adapter to hdmi, which as far as I understand it should not make 1080p 3d 60 hz an issue, specifically own a sony bravia 42" kdl-w828, and it officially supports 60 hz in both sbs and over and under at 1080p, though max 1080p 30hz with frame packing (name might be wrong), but it won't even deliver that?
cable is a 2.0 hdmi cable so it shouldn't be the problem? and adapter shouldn't either, and the hdmi port doesn't allow it due to 1.4 limitations, but the dual link dvi port should work? anyone got any ideas? is it really a limit that nvidia has set in?
Passive displays half the vertical resolution. So 340x2160 is actually 3840x1080, or effectively 1080p with more horizontal resolution.
Your best bet is to upscale the resolution to make it appear a higher resolution than it really is, although I am not sure if DSR is supported in 3d.
HDMI 2.0 became available with the release of the GTX 9XX series.
A DVI Single Link and HDMI are compatible pin for pin.
A Dual Link DVI to HDMI doesn't use the extra pins.
'blue ray 3d' unlocks the stereoscopic drivers for Blu-ray disc/video playback on HDMI 1.4 compatible devices using software such as Cyberlink PowerDVD Ultra.
3DTV Play unlocks access to Nvidia's stereoscopic drivers for gameplay.
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
Ah, I see, well that does explain it.
Thanks D-Man11: have ordered a 970 gtx, gathering pure hdmi would be the best connection to use then.
It is just quite odd since I can get full hdmi sound via the dvi -> hdmi adapter, would the adapter (it is dual link) on a 970 gtx work for any improvements? or would it need to be pure hdmi? the only reason I used adapter was initially to get bios display on main screen rather then secondary, but with displayport adapters I could easily get a displayport->dvi for secondary screen, though I can't seem to find any information on those that support WUXGA?
Ah, hm well that does explain it, they really should add sbs/ou both half and full. Since then passive 3d tv users could use half ou (full horizontal resolution, half vertical resolution) since we lose vertical resolution anyway.
Am aware of interlacing, but with the testing I've done, the loss of vertical resolution is really not that bad, at least for me, and I don't mind losing it with half ou.
Any progressive format that is input is converted to interlaced before being displayed.
Unless a TV has a newer HDMI chip for the input, it will not accept a 120Hz progressive signal at 1920x1080.
1920x1080@60i = 120 frames with 60 Frames containing the even half of the interlaced lines and 60 the odd lines. The other 1/2 of each frame is discarded prior to transmission.
120 half frames of interlaced is within the bandwidth limitation of HDMI 1.4, because 120 half frames requires the same bandwidth as 60 full frames.
So keep in mind that interlaced = half frames and progressive = full frames transmitted.
It requires the same GPU resources because full frames must be rendered. But as stated with interlaced, half of each frame is discarded prior to transmission.
Well yes, that's how things work with passive 3d tv's but yeah even with the loss of vertical resolution, it isn't at least to me that visible.
But yeah here's hoping.
As for accepting 120hz signal, dunno, at least not via the default selection, though it supports full sbs/ou 3d signals at 60 hz.