Checkerboard support for Mitsubishi 92" DLP (WD-92840)
  2 / 3    
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1321630491' post='1328886']
The end result is ......not 1920x1080.[/quote]
Wrong, checkerboard is 1920x1080 per frame.

[quote]Technically, frame packing is just the same as what you call frame sequential,..... But the image quality is identical for both techniques.[/quote]
Wrong again. On a 3DTV, there's a huge difference. This is due to TV makers providing a different/optimized pixel processing mode for computer use. Samsung, LG, Sony etc. set there HDMI1 inputs to broadcast video mode by default, but the user can change to PC graphics mode if they want. If this isn't done, the TV will process your PC graphics as though it were a news broadcast.
Framepacking is designed purely for broadcast TV, so the TV will process your PC graphics as though it were a news broadcast, over riding the users settings.
Good thing is this happens only in FP, so if CB, FS, SBS, interleaved modes are used, game stays in PC Graphics mode.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1321630491' post='1328886']

The end result is ......not 1920x1080.

Wrong, checkerboard is 1920x1080 per frame.



Technically, frame packing is just the same as what you call frame sequential,..... But the image quality is identical for both techniques.


Wrong again. On a 3DTV, there's a huge difference. This is due to TV makers providing a different/optimized pixel processing mode for computer use. Samsung, LG, Sony etc. set there HDMI1 inputs to broadcast video mode by default, but the user can change to PC graphics mode if they want. If this isn't done, the TV will process your PC graphics as though it were a news broadcast.

Framepacking is designed purely for broadcast TV, so the TV will process your PC graphics as though it were a news broadcast, over riding the users settings.

Good thing is this happens only in FP, so if CB, FS, SBS, interleaved modes are used, game stays in PC Graphics mode.

#16
Posted 11/18/2011 06:39 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 09:44 AM' timestamp='1321634675' post='1328912']
This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?[/quote]
I don't understand this part. You obviously have observed all these different modes, spent hours playing 3D games in CB, FP, FS, etc. I know this because you are commenting on the visible differences. So given the fact that you have so many hours of hands on experience with CB mode and FP mode how can you be clueless about this most important difference?


[quote]And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved.[/quote]
Which games did you say you've played in CB mode?
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 09:44 AM' timestamp='1321634675' post='1328912']

This one I don't get. Graphics processing mode? What's that supposed to mean?

I don't understand this part. You obviously have observed all these different modes, spent hours playing 3D games in CB, FP, FS, etc. I know this because you are commenting on the visible differences. So given the fact that you have so many hours of hands on experience with CB mode and FP mode how can you be clueless about this most important difference?





And, I AM arguing that 720p is actually not visibly worse than either checkerboard or inteleaved.


Which games did you say you've played in CB mode?

#17
Posted 11/18/2011 06:50 PM   
roller11,
Are you claiming that the *image* quality on a Framepacked 1080p24 movie will be less quality then a framesequential 1080p 3D Vision ready monitor watching the same movie, because the Framepacked mode will be limited to the pixel processing of the TV-"broadcast" mode? Is this correct?

I have never watched a movie on a 1080p 3D Vision ready monitor so I could not say.

So if this is the case the hiearchy of quality would look something like this:

3D Vision monitors 1080p Framesequential > HDMI 1.4a 1080p24 > 1080 Checkerboard & Side-by-Side > HDMI 1.4a 720p60
roller11,

Are you claiming that the *image* quality on a Framepacked 1080p24 movie will be less quality then a framesequential 1080p 3D Vision ready monitor watching the same movie, because the Framepacked mode will be limited to the pixel processing of the TV-"broadcast" mode? Is this correct?



I have never watched a movie on a 1080p 3D Vision ready monitor so I could not say.



So if this is the case the hiearchy of quality would look something like this:



3D Vision monitors 1080p Framesequential > HDMI 1.4a 1080p24 > 1080 Checkerboard & Side-by-Side > HDMI 1.4a 720p60

#18
Posted 11/18/2011 07:40 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1321641595' post='1328959']
Wrong, checkerboard is 1920x1080 per frame. [/quote]

That's just technically impossible. You cannot cheat bandwidth. You either get 1080p with half the frame rate or half the resolution. Anything else would just be a miracle as long as you use a single-link DVI or HDMI connection.


[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1321641595' post='1328959']
Wrong again. On a 3DTV, there's a huge difference. This is due to TV makers providing a different/optimized pixel processing mode for computer use. Samsung, LG, Sony etc. set there HDMI1 inputs to broadcast video mode by default, but the user can change to PC graphics mode if they want. If this isn't done, the TV will process your PC graphics as though it were a news broadcast.[/quote]

It's true that most TVs treat a PC input differently from a video input. But that's a matter of the TV entirely. Some TVs (e.g. LG) allow any input to be treated like a PC signal and to turn off any post processing. But that's not a problem nVidia is responsible for, it's the TV manufacturer's problem.

[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1321641595' post='1328959']
Framepacking is designed purely for broadcast TV, so the TV will process your PC graphics as though it were a news broadcast, over riding the users settings.
Good thing is this happens only in FP, so if CB, FS, SBS, interleaved modes are used, game stays in PC Graphics mode.
[/quote]
That your TV is differentiating the signals this way is the problem of this TV model.
[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1321641595' post='1328959']

Wrong, checkerboard is 1920x1080 per frame.



That's just technically impossible. You cannot cheat bandwidth. You either get 1080p with half the frame rate or half the resolution. Anything else would just be a miracle as long as you use a single-link DVI or HDMI connection.





[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1321641595' post='1328959']

Wrong again. On a 3DTV, there's a huge difference. This is due to TV makers providing a different/optimized pixel processing mode for computer use. Samsung, LG, Sony etc. set there HDMI1 inputs to broadcast video mode by default, but the user can change to PC graphics mode if they want. If this isn't done, the TV will process your PC graphics as though it were a news broadcast.



It's true that most TVs treat a PC input differently from a video input. But that's a matter of the TV entirely. Some TVs (e.g. LG) allow any input to be treated like a PC signal and to turn off any post processing. But that's not a problem nVidia is responsible for, it's the TV manufacturer's problem.



[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1321641595' post='1328959']

Framepacking is designed purely for broadcast TV, so the TV will process your PC graphics as though it were a news broadcast, over riding the users settings.

Good thing is this happens only in FP, so if CB, FS, SBS, interleaved modes are used, game stays in PC Graphics mode.



That your TV is differentiating the signals this way is the problem of this TV model.

#19
Posted 11/18/2011 08:42 PM   
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1321635833' post='1328919']
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.[/quote]I now understand that you (and roller) are talking about the various post processing features of the TV or projectors. It's true that most TVs treat the input differently if they "think" it's a PC screen (because most post processing features actually diminish the quality of the image, they are turned off once a PC signal is detected.).

But why should nVidia care about the nonsense of the TV manufacturers? A good TV allows you to turn off these "features" independently of the input signal.


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.[/quote]

But that's the same thing. If you say, it's only half resolution [b][i]for each eye[/i][/b], then this is actually correct, but the same is true for 720p. You also get (a bit less than) half the resolution [b][i]for each eye[/i][/b]. There is just no difference. The image transferred in CB is full resolution, true, but each eye only sees half of it. With 720p, two images are transferred, and one is shown to the first, the other to the second eye. The end result is the same: Both eyes get one image with roughly the same resolution.

[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1321635833' post='1328919']
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.[/quote]Of course you have to scale! The only difference is, that it's an integer scale (you have to draw each image twice) whereas 720p is an odd, non-integer scale, which is certainly not that good. But again, since almost all TVs do some scaling (even in 1080p) anyway, I can hardly believe that this difference can be seen unless you sit 2cms (or 1 inch) away from the screen...

But I can agree that the image looks a bit "washed out" when scaling, granted. The same effect by the way as if you enable this new "FXAA" mode everyone is so extatic about... As a matter of fact, you don't lose any information, the subjective "crispiness" of the non-scaled image just leads to more aliasing artifacts. On a film or TV program noone would want that (that's why they're always relatively blurry) but on computer games, we're so used to it, that we think that the image has less quality, if we don't see razor sharp edges and maybe even some aliasing jaggies along with it.
[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1321635833' post='1328919']

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.I now understand that you (and roller) are talking about the various post processing features of the TV or projectors. It's true that most TVs treat the input differently if they "think" it's a PC screen (because most post processing features actually diminish the quality of the image, they are turned off once a PC signal is detected.).



But why should nVidia care about the nonsense of the TV manufacturers? A good TV allows you to turn off these "features" independently of the input signal.





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.



But that's the same thing. If you say, it's only half resolution for each eye, then this is actually correct, but the same is true for 720p. You also get (a bit less than) half the resolution for each eye. There is just no difference. The image transferred in CB is full resolution, true, but each eye only sees half of it. With 720p, two images are transferred, and one is shown to the first, the other to the second eye. The end result is the same: Both eyes get one image with roughly the same resolution.



[quote name='photios' date='18 November 2011 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1321635833' post='1328919']

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.Of course you have to scale! The only difference is, that it's an integer scale (you have to draw each image twice) whereas 720p is an odd, non-integer scale, which is certainly not that good. But again, since almost all TVs do some scaling (even in 1080p) anyway, I can hardly believe that this difference can be seen unless you sit 2cms (or 1 inch) away from the screen...



But I can agree that the image looks a bit "washed out" when scaling, granted. The same effect by the way as if you enable this new "FXAA" mode everyone is so extatic about... As a matter of fact, you don't lose any information, the subjective "crispiness" of the non-scaled image just leads to more aliasing artifacts. On a film or TV program noone would want that (that's why they're always relatively blurry) but on computer games, we're so used to it, that we think that the image has less quality, if we don't see razor sharp edges and maybe even some aliasing jaggies along with it.

#20
Posted 11/18/2011 08:55 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1321642228' post='1328969']
I don't understand this part. You obviously have observed all these different modes, spent hours playing 3D games in CB, FP, FS, etc. I know this because you are commenting on the visible differences. So given the fact that you have so many hours of hands on experience with CB mode and FP mode how can you be clueless about this most important difference?[/quote]You're confusing the differences due to the post processing of your TV with differences caused by the transfer format. I can believe that you see substantial differences. But they're just not caused by the transfer techniques but by your display's different approach to display them.

[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1321642228' post='1328969']
Which games did you say you've played in CB mode?
[/quote]None, but I don't have to, to understand what data is transferred. I could, however, set up an HDMI connection to my LG 3DTV (which is capable of processing CB, SBS, interleaved and FP). But frankly I don't see the point. The only difference between all these formats is how the data is arranged, that's it. There is exactly zero reason why the end result should be any different (other than the obvious differences in resolution with FP).

If you see some substantial differences, then only because your TV chooses to treat these inputs differently.

If it actually treats CB and interleaved differently, then I'd even say it must be broken. It's probably just the sign that some post processing is applied on the input signal BEFORE the two images are sparated, which, of course, would screw up the end result horribly. And it would affect CB and interleaved differently. Then SBS would actually result in the best picture by the way.
[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1321642228' post='1328969']

I don't understand this part. You obviously have observed all these different modes, spent hours playing 3D games in CB, FP, FS, etc. I know this because you are commenting on the visible differences. So given the fact that you have so many hours of hands on experience with CB mode and FP mode how can you be clueless about this most important difference?You're confusing the differences due to the post processing of your TV with differences caused by the transfer format. I can believe that you see substantial differences. But they're just not caused by the transfer techniques but by your display's different approach to display them.



[quote name='roller11' date='18 November 2011 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1321642228' post='1328969']

Which games did you say you've played in CB mode?

None, but I don't have to, to understand what data is transferred. I could, however, set up an HDMI connection to my LG 3DTV (which is capable of processing CB, SBS, interleaved and FP). But frankly I don't see the point. The only difference between all these formats is how the data is arranged, that's it. There is exactly zero reason why the end result should be any different (other than the obvious differences in resolution with FP).



If you see some substantial differences, then only because your TV chooses to treat these inputs differently.



If it actually treats CB and interleaved differently, then I'd even say it must be broken. It's probably just the sign that some post processing is applied on the input signal BEFORE the two images are sparated, which, of course, would screw up the end result horribly. And it would affect CB and interleaved differently. Then SBS would actually result in the best picture by the way.

#21
Posted 11/18/2011 09:04 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1321650272' post='1329039']
You're confusing the differences due to the post processing of your TV with differences caused by the transfer format. I can believe that you see substantial differences. But they're just not caused by the transfer techniques but by your display's different approach to display them.[/quote]
No, I'm specifically not confusing. If framepacking could be done in PC Graphics mode, it would likely look like FS which is always PC Graphics mode. The best one can do is compare CB to FS and look for differences because they are both PC mode.


[i]Which games did you say you've played in CB mode?[/i]
[quote]None, but I don't have to[/quote]
So, you have never seen CB mode, and yet you know what it looks like. How does that work exactly? How much image quality degradation is CB mode (1920x1080) visually compare to, say, frame sequential or framepacking (both are 2x 1920x1080)? Is there a 50% degradation in image quality vs framepack/frame sequential? 41%? 63%? I know this is a subjective comparison, but "half res" implies a 50% degradation in quality, is that a fair estimate? I'm asking because I don't have psychic vision, I have to actually see something to know what it looks like.

[quote]If you see some substantial differences, then only because your TV chooses to treat these inputs differently.[/quote]
Maybe, but that's the whole point, user has no control over which processing mode is used. You don't have the choice of doing FP in PC graphics mode, it auto switches to broadcast Video mode which degrades the image vs PC Graphics. This degradation is why 1920x1080 CB looks better than 2x 1920x1080 FP.
If you're saying 2x 1920x1080 will look the same whether it is FS or FP, and 1920x1080 will look the same whether it is CB, SBS top/bottom, or interleaved, given the same image processing, you may be right. Problem is there's no way to test your theory because you can't compare FP to FS visually. that's because FP will always switch to video mode and FS will always be in PC graphics mode, so there's no way to see them in the same processing mode.

[quote]If it actually treats CB and interleaved differently[/quote]
Interleaved, CB, SBS all look exactly the same visually, they are all are processed in PC Graphics mode.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='18 November 2011 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1321650272' post='1329039']

You're confusing the differences due to the post processing of your TV with differences caused by the transfer format. I can believe that you see substantial differences. But they're just not caused by the transfer techniques but by your display's different approach to display them.

No, I'm specifically not confusing. If framepacking could be done in PC Graphics mode, it would likely look like FS which is always PC Graphics mode. The best one can do is compare CB to FS and look for differences because they are both PC mode.





Which games did you say you've played in CB mode?

None, but I don't have to


So, you have never seen CB mode, and yet you know what it looks like. How does that work exactly? How much image quality degradation is CB mode (1920x1080) visually compare to, say, frame sequential or framepacking (both are 2x 1920x1080)? Is there a 50% degradation in image quality vs framepack/frame sequential? 41%? 63%? I know this is a subjective comparison, but "half res" implies a 50% degradation in quality, is that a fair estimate? I'm asking because I don't have psychic vision, I have to actually see something to know what it looks like.



If you see some substantial differences, then only because your TV chooses to treat these inputs differently.


Maybe, but that's the whole point, user has no control over which processing mode is used. You don't have the choice of doing FP in PC graphics mode, it auto switches to broadcast Video mode which degrades the image vs PC Graphics. This degradation is why 1920x1080 CB looks better than 2x 1920x1080 FP.

If you're saying 2x 1920x1080 will look the same whether it is FS or FP, and 1920x1080 will look the same whether it is CB, SBS top/bottom, or interleaved, given the same image processing, you may be right. Problem is there's no way to test your theory because you can't compare FP to FS visually. that's because FP will always switch to video mode and FS will always be in PC graphics mode, so there's no way to see them in the same processing mode.



If it actually treats CB and interleaved differently


Interleaved, CB, SBS all look exactly the same visually, they are all are processed in PC Graphics mode.

#22
Posted 11/18/2011 11:56 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1321660576' post='1329107']
No, I'm specifically not confusing. If framepacking could be done in PC Graphics mode, it would likely look like FS which is always PC Graphics mode. The best one can do is compare CB to FS and look for differences because they are both PC mode.[/quote]
Again, officially there is no such thing as a "PC Graphics mode". That's just some invention of your DLP manufacturer (and admittedly most other TV and projector manufacturers as well). They distinguish between video modes, where post processing is applied, versus PC mode, were no post processing should be applied.

What you're confusing in your argument is that you want to force nVidia to change something because your projector is not flexible enough to select what you call "PC mode" independently of the actual format of the input signal. If it would be able to do that - and it should - then there wouldn't be any problem for you.

[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1321660576' post='1329107']
So, you have never seen CB mode, and yet you know what it looks like. How does that work exactly? How much image quality degradation is CB mode (1920x1080) visually compare to, say, frame sequential or framepacking (both are 2x 1920x1080)? Is there a 50% degradation in image quality vs framepack/frame sequential? 41%? 63%? I know this is a subjective comparison, but "half res" implies a 50% degradation in quality, is that a fair estimate? I'm asking because I don't have psychic vision, I have to actually see something to know what it looks like.[/quote]
I didn't argument how well it looks like. I just said that it has exactly half the resolution of 1080p, that's it. That's a fact, and I don't have to see it to know it. Sometimes I'm watching a movie in SBS, and the degradation in picture quality is quite obvious (compared to full 1080p), but I totally agree that the quality is still good enough for me. But that's totally besides the point!

The point was, that CB/SBS/IL cannot look much better (I'd say, most people won't be able to tell the difference) than 720p FP, unless the TV applies some additional post processing, which seems to be your problem with 720p.

[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1321660576' post='1329107']
Maybe, but that's the whole point, user has no control over which processing mode is used. You don't have the choice of doing FP in PC graphics mode, it auto switches to broadcast Video mode which degrades the image vs PC Graphics. This degradation is why 1920x1080 CB looks better than 2x 1920x1080 FP.[/quote]
Again, then the problem lies with your projector. You should ask its manufacturer to add a menu option to turn off the post processing manually.

On my 60" LG TV, for example, you just have to rename the input to "PC" and then you can actually select to disable the post processing, no matter which type of signal is applied.

[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1321660576' post='1329107']
If you're saying 2x 1920x1080 will look the same whether it is FS or FP, and 1920x1080 will look the same whether it is CB, SBS top/bottom, or interleaved, given the same image processing, you may be right. Problem is there's no way to test your theory because you can't compare FP to FS visually. that's because FP will always switch to video mode and FS will always be in PC graphics mode, so there's no way to see them in the same processing mode.

Interleaved, CB, SBS all look exactly the same visually, they are all are processed in PC Graphics mode.
[/quote]Then we're in total agreement here... :)
[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1321660576' post='1329107']

No, I'm specifically not confusing. If framepacking could be done in PC Graphics mode, it would likely look like FS which is always PC Graphics mode. The best one can do is compare CB to FS and look for differences because they are both PC mode.

Again, officially there is no such thing as a "PC Graphics mode". That's just some invention of your DLP manufacturer (and admittedly most other TV and projector manufacturers as well). They distinguish between video modes, where post processing is applied, versus PC mode, were no post processing should be applied.



What you're confusing in your argument is that you want to force nVidia to change something because your projector is not flexible enough to select what you call "PC mode" independently of the actual format of the input signal. If it would be able to do that - and it should - then there wouldn't be any problem for you.



[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1321660576' post='1329107']

So, you have never seen CB mode, and yet you know what it looks like. How does that work exactly? How much image quality degradation is CB mode (1920x1080) visually compare to, say, frame sequential or framepacking (both are 2x 1920x1080)? Is there a 50% degradation in image quality vs framepack/frame sequential? 41%? 63%? I know this is a subjective comparison, but "half res" implies a 50% degradation in quality, is that a fair estimate? I'm asking because I don't have psychic vision, I have to actually see something to know what it looks like.

I didn't argument how well it looks like. I just said that it has exactly half the resolution of 1080p, that's it. That's a fact, and I don't have to see it to know it. Sometimes I'm watching a movie in SBS, and the degradation in picture quality is quite obvious (compared to full 1080p), but I totally agree that the quality is still good enough for me. But that's totally besides the point!



The point was, that CB/SBS/IL cannot look much better (I'd say, most people won't be able to tell the difference) than 720p FP, unless the TV applies some additional post processing, which seems to be your problem with 720p.



[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1321660576' post='1329107']

Maybe, but that's the whole point, user has no control over which processing mode is used. You don't have the choice of doing FP in PC graphics mode, it auto switches to broadcast Video mode which degrades the image vs PC Graphics. This degradation is why 1920x1080 CB looks better than 2x 1920x1080 FP.

Again, then the problem lies with your projector. You should ask its manufacturer to add a menu option to turn off the post processing manually.



On my 60" LG TV, for example, you just have to rename the input to "PC" and then you can actually select to disable the post processing, no matter which type of signal is applied.



[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1321660576' post='1329107']

If you're saying 2x 1920x1080 will look the same whether it is FS or FP, and 1920x1080 will look the same whether it is CB, SBS top/bottom, or interleaved, given the same image processing, you may be right. Problem is there's no way to test your theory because you can't compare FP to FS visually. that's because FP will always switch to video mode and FS will always be in PC graphics mode, so there's no way to see them in the same processing mode.



Interleaved, CB, SBS all look exactly the same visually, they are all are processed in PC Graphics mode.

Then we're in total agreement here... :)

#23
Posted 11/19/2011 08:49 AM   
Grestorn,
I never stated that there was no scaling for 1080p checkerboard, I said there was no upscaling in relation to the displays native resolution. Furthermore, this discussion here has almost nothing to do with the OP really, because a DLP will display a 720p framepacked signal in 1080p checkerboard, and there is no post processing applied on DLPs as far as I know. The issue here is almost exclusively related to 3D LEDs, LCDs, and Plasmas.

If you think there is no image quality difference between 1:1 pixel mapping native resolution gaming vs non-native resolution gaming, then there would be no image quality difference between a 1280x720 desktop resolution native display and a 1920x1080 display running in 1280x720 desktop resolution.

What's wrong with that argument?
Grestorn,

I never stated that there was no scaling for 1080p checkerboard, I said there was no upscaling in relation to the displays native resolution. Furthermore, this discussion here has almost nothing to do with the OP really, because a DLP will display a 720p framepacked signal in 1080p checkerboard, and there is no post processing applied on DLPs as far as I know. The issue here is almost exclusively related to 3D LEDs, LCDs, and Plasmas.



If you think there is no image quality difference between 1:1 pixel mapping native resolution gaming vs non-native resolution gaming, then there would be no image quality difference between a 1280x720 desktop resolution native display and a 1920x1080 display running in 1280x720 desktop resolution.



What's wrong with that argument?

#24
Posted 11/19/2011 03:21 PM   
[quote name='photios' date='19 November 2011 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1321716063' post='1329371']
Furthermore, this discussion here has almost nothing to do with the OP really, because a DLP will display a 720p framepacked signal in 1080p checkerboard, and there is no post processing applied on DLPs as far as I know.[/quote]
Hm. Agreed, for DLP projectors that are using a polarized checkerboard pattern to produce the 3D image, a source that matches this pattern exactly would certainly be ideal.

I have to apologize that I didn't actually read the whole thread but just barged in on an ongoing discussion without actually reading the original problem. A very bad habit. :(

So you're absolutely correct with what you wrote.
[quote name='photios' date='19 November 2011 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1321716063' post='1329371']

Furthermore, this discussion here has almost nothing to do with the OP really, because a DLP will display a 720p framepacked signal in 1080p checkerboard, and there is no post processing applied on DLPs as far as I know.

Hm. Agreed, for DLP projectors that are using a polarized checkerboard pattern to produce the 3D image, a source that matches this pattern exactly would certainly be ideal.



I have to apologize that I didn't actually read the whole thread but just barged in on an ongoing discussion without actually reading the original problem. A very bad habit. :(



So you're absolutely correct with what you wrote.

#25
Posted 11/19/2011 03:33 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='19 November 2011 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1321692548' post='1329266']
What you're confusing in your argument is that you want to force nVidia to change something[/quote]
What "something" are you refering to, I have no idea. And how does this equate to "confusion"? Confusion implies I don't understand something, I understand everything that is related to this discussion.
[quote] because your projector is not flexible enough to select what you call "PC mode" independently of the actual format of the input signal. If it would be able to do that - and it should - then there wouldn't be any problem for you.[/quote]
Where do you get that I'm trying to force Nvidia to make FS processed in Video mode, or FP processed in PC Graphics mode? I've never suggested that in any post, Nvidia has no control over that.


[quote]I didn't argument how well it looks like.[/quote]
Yes you did. Later in this post you say CB *looks* no different than 720P.
post #13 above:

"So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to *see* the difference".

You're saying that visually, scaled 720P has identical image quality as native resolution CB/interleaved. How did you come to the conclusion that 1920x1080 CB looks just like scaled 720P when you have never seen CB??? Oh that's right, you have "psychic vision".

[quote]I just said that it has exactly half the resolution of 1080p, that's it. That's a fact, and I don't have to see it to know it.[/quote]
You're confusing number of pixels with visual quality. It's shocking that you don't understand the basic concept of "scaling". Photios explained it in detail, I'll summarize: In 720P scaling, 75% of the image pixels are misaligned with the monitor's 1920x1080 fixed grid. So where do you place these pixels? They are approximated and placed somewhere on the grid. The inevitable result of these "close as I can get it" errors is a muddy image, VERY visible to anyone as dozens of samsung/Mits owners have testified. Of course you made the mistake of buying an LG that can't do CB, so you must defend your purchase ny denying CB is any better image quality than hideous 720P framepacking because that's what you're stuck with.

[quote]The point was, that CB/SBS/IL cannot look much better (I'd say, most people won't be able to tell the difference[/quote]
If this is so, how do you explain the hoards of people who rave about the visual superiority of CB to FP? Are they lying, hallucinating?

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925

These eyewitnesses have compared the two, and you, who admittedly have never seen CB, claim to be a better judge of visual quality. My tutorial on how to upgrade from scaled 720P to 1920x1080 created the biggest fervor in this 3D forum, well over 350,000 views. It started a revolt begging Nvidia to add CB to 3DTV Play. If my tutorial is absolutely worthless, why all the fuss? Why the hyper demands for CB if it has no value? To say "native resolution 1920x1080 looks no better than scaled 1280x720" is ludicrous. Yes, part of it is the difference is wrong mode pixel processing, but this visual degradation still counts. Even if FP could be processed in PC graphics mode, there would still be a big degradation due to scaling. Anyone who doubts this only needs to set their desktop res to something less than native res of their monitor.

[quote]Again, then the problem lies with your projector. You should ask its manufacturer to add a menu option to turn off the post processing manually.[/quote]
No TV maker is going to defy industry policy and take orders from me. It is far more likely that we 3D gamers will achieve the same goal in a different way, implementation of CB/SBS mode in Nvidia drivers. So far, we've collectively failed but at least we have someone tangible to yell at. Then again, if you are right, if native res 1920x1080 looks no better than scaled 1280x720, why all the threads demanding CB?

Last post I challenged you to put a subjective number on the perceived visual degradation of going from 2x 1920x1080 resolution to 1920x1080 resolution both in the same processing mode, i.e. frame sequential to CB/IL. Your deliberate avoidance of my straighforward request proves your claim is a crock, a way of defending your purchase.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='19 November 2011 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1321692548' post='1329266']

What you're confusing in your argument is that you want to force nVidia to change something

What "something" are you refering to, I have no idea. And how does this equate to "confusion"? Confusion implies I don't understand something, I understand everything that is related to this discussion.

because your projector is not flexible enough to select what you call "PC mode" independently of the actual format of the input signal. If it would be able to do that - and it should - then there wouldn't be any problem for you.


Where do you get that I'm trying to force Nvidia to make FS processed in Video mode, or FP processed in PC Graphics mode? I've never suggested that in any post, Nvidia has no control over that.





I didn't argument how well it looks like.


Yes you did. Later in this post you say CB *looks* no different than 720P.

post #13 above:



"So 720p has 88% the pixels of 1080p halved. I challenge anyone to *see* the difference".



You're saying that visually, scaled 720P has identical image quality as native resolution CB/interleaved. How did you come to the conclusion that 1920x1080 CB looks just like scaled 720P when you have never seen CB??? Oh that's right, you have "psychic vision".



I just said that it has exactly half the resolution of 1080p, that's it. That's a fact, and I don't have to see it to know it.


You're confusing number of pixels with visual quality. It's shocking that you don't understand the basic concept of "scaling". Photios explained it in detail, I'll summarize: In 720P scaling, 75% of the image pixels are misaligned with the monitor's 1920x1080 fixed grid. So where do you place these pixels? They are approximated and placed somewhere on the grid. The inevitable result of these "close as I can get it" errors is a muddy image, VERY visible to anyone as dozens of samsung/Mits owners have testified. Of course you made the mistake of buying an LG that can't do CB, so you must defend your purchase ny denying CB is any better image quality than hideous 720P framepacking because that's what you're stuck with.



The point was, that CB/SBS/IL cannot look much better (I'd say, most people won't be able to tell the difference


If this is so, how do you explain the hoards of people who rave about the visual superiority of CB to FP? Are they lying, hallucinating?



http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925



These eyewitnesses have compared the two, and you, who admittedly have never seen CB, claim to be a better judge of visual quality. My tutorial on how to upgrade from scaled 720P to 1920x1080 created the biggest fervor in this 3D forum, well over 350,000 views. It started a revolt begging Nvidia to add CB to 3DTV Play. If my tutorial is absolutely worthless, why all the fuss? Why the hyper demands for CB if it has no value? To say "native resolution 1920x1080 looks no better than scaled 1280x720" is ludicrous. Yes, part of it is the difference is wrong mode pixel processing, but this visual degradation still counts. Even if FP could be processed in PC graphics mode, there would still be a big degradation due to scaling. Anyone who doubts this only needs to set their desktop res to something less than native res of their monitor.



Again, then the problem lies with your projector. You should ask its manufacturer to add a menu option to turn off the post processing manually.


No TV maker is going to defy industry policy and take orders from me. It is far more likely that we 3D gamers will achieve the same goal in a different way, implementation of CB/SBS mode in Nvidia drivers. So far, we've collectively failed but at least we have someone tangible to yell at. Then again, if you are right, if native res 1920x1080 looks no better than scaled 1280x720, why all the threads demanding CB?



Last post I challenged you to put a subjective number on the perceived visual degradation of going from 2x 1920x1080 resolution to 1920x1080 resolution both in the same processing mode, i.e. frame sequential to CB/IL. Your deliberate avoidance of my straighforward request proves your claim is a crock, a way of defending your purchase.

#26
Posted 11/19/2011 05:25 PM   
Roller,
To be fair, I don't see Grestron defending a purchase he made and according to my research the LG's support all modes including checkerboard, at least the current lineup does. It seems to me that he's simply making a common mistake of summing pixel count and assuming that is the sum total of image quality without verifying it for himself. Grestron is a sharp guy, he's the author of nhancer.
Roller,

To be fair, I don't see Grestron defending a purchase he made and according to my research the LG's support all modes including checkerboard, at least the current lineup does. It seems to me that he's simply making a common mistake of summing pixel count and assuming that is the sum total of image quality without verifying it for himself. Grestron is a sharp guy, he's the author of nhancer.

#27
Posted 11/19/2011 10:40 PM   
First of all, I'd like to ask you to watch your language. I don't see any reason to be that agressive towards me.

I already admitted that I was missing some facts (like the fact that the projector uses checkerboard as its native way to project the 3D image) which makes some of my argument quite pointless.


[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']
You're saying that visually, scaled 720P has identical image quality as native resolution CB/interleaved. How did you come to the conclusion that 1920x1080 CB looks just like scaled 720P when you have never seen CB??? Oh that's right, you have "psychic vision". [/quote]
You keep on talking about a 'native resolution' and that's what I can't understand from the beginning. Because native resolution is 1920x1080, not 1920x540 or 960x1080. Only 1080p/24p gives you native resolution, all the other options (SBS, CB, IL, 720p/60Hz) reduce the resolution in some way and therefor are NOT native resolution.

If you'd care to read my [url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=215912&view=findpost&p=1329039"]Post 21[/url], you'd see that I know exactly what effects scaling has.

Again, what I didn't realize is, that the DLP projector actually doesn't have to do any calculation at all for the scaling if the input is CB with 1080p, because it maps the CB pixels directly to the polarized pixels. This way, you defacto get a very simple [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearest-neighbor_interpolation"]point sampling scaling[/url], which certainly looks quite well in this case, but it still reduces the shown resolution by half (i.e. you only get 960x1080).

I also agree that if you'd use a bicubic scaling to do the same, you'd get a seemingly washed out image. 720p will always be scaled using bicubic or some kind of more elaborate interpolation, and the result will always look a bit washed out.

Still, as I've written in [url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=215912&view=findpost&p=1329039"]Post 21[/url], I wouldn't say that the "washed out" image is neccessarily worse than the original, unscaled image.

[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']
You're confusing number of pixels with visual quality. It's shocking that you don't understand the basic concept of "scaling".[/quote]If you'd actually read my posts, you wouldn't have to be shocked... :)

[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']
Of course you made the mistake of buying an LG that can't do CB, so you must defend your purchase ny denying CB is any better image quality than hideous 720P framepacking because that's what you're stuck with.[/quote]I have to correct you on that. I'm never playing PC games on my LG, I use a 120HZ PC monitor for that. The LG is only used for PS3/XBox360 games and for movies. I just brought up my LG as an example of a TV and the post processing problems.

[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']
If this is so, how do you explain the hoards of people who rave about the visual superiority of CB to FP? Are they lying, hallucinating?

[url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925"]http://forums.nvidia...howtopic=200925[/url][/quote]
These "hordes" are actually two people as far as I can see...

And one of them actually claims that 1080p @ 30fps (FS) is actually superior to 120 Hz monitors showing 1920x1080 with 60 fps, which is absolutely laughable. The image quality is identical at best (as is 1080p @24fps if you make sure you don't have any post processing), but you'll always have the lower frame rate. Why would it look better than on a 120 Hz monitor (besides the larger screen)?

[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']
No TV maker is going to defy industry policy and take orders from me. It is far more likely that we 3D gamers will achieve the same goal in a different way, implementation of CB/SBS mode in Nvidia drivers. So far, we've collectively failed but at least we have someone tangible to yell at. Then again, if you are right, if native res 1920x1080 looks no better than scaled 1280x720, why all the threads demanding CB?[/quote]And again you're talking about native 1920x1080 which you just don't get with either CB, SBS or IL. All of these reduce the number of pixels, so it's NOT native 1920x1080.

[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']
Last post I challenged you to put a subjective number on the perceived visual degradation of going from 2x 1920x1080 resolution to 1920x1080 resolution both in the same processing mode, i.e. frame sequential to CB/IL. Your deliberate avoidance of my straighforward request proves your claim is a crock, a way of defending your purchase.
[/quote]Excuse me, but that's utter BS. I certainly am not defending any purchase ... :)
First of all, I'd like to ask you to watch your language. I don't see any reason to be that agressive towards me.



I already admitted that I was missing some facts (like the fact that the projector uses checkerboard as its native way to project the 3D image) which makes some of my argument quite pointless.





[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']

You're saying that visually, scaled 720P has identical image quality as native resolution CB/interleaved. How did you come to the conclusion that 1920x1080 CB looks just like scaled 720P when you have never seen CB??? Oh that's right, you have "psychic vision".

You keep on talking about a 'native resolution' and that's what I can't understand from the beginning. Because native resolution is 1920x1080, not 1920x540 or 960x1080. Only 1080p/24p gives you native resolution, all the other options (SBS, CB, IL, 720p/60Hz) reduce the resolution in some way and therefor are NOT native resolution.



If you'd care to read my Post 21, you'd see that I know exactly what effects scaling has.



Again, what I didn't realize is, that the DLP projector actually doesn't have to do any calculation at all for the scaling if the input is CB with 1080p, because it maps the CB pixels directly to the polarized pixels. This way, you defacto get a very simple point sampling scaling, which certainly looks quite well in this case, but it still reduces the shown resolution by half (i.e. you only get 960x1080).



I also agree that if you'd use a bicubic scaling to do the same, you'd get a seemingly washed out image. 720p will always be scaled using bicubic or some kind of more elaborate interpolation, and the result will always look a bit washed out.



Still, as I've written in Post 21, I wouldn't say that the "washed out" image is neccessarily worse than the original, unscaled image.



[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']

You're confusing number of pixels with visual quality. It's shocking that you don't understand the basic concept of "scaling".If you'd actually read my posts, you wouldn't have to be shocked... :)



[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']

Of course you made the mistake of buying an LG that can't do CB, so you must defend your purchase ny denying CB is any better image quality than hideous 720P framepacking because that's what you're stuck with.I have to correct you on that. I'm never playing PC games on my LG, I use a 120HZ PC monitor for that. The LG is only used for PS3/XBox360 games and for movies. I just brought up my LG as an example of a TV and the post processing problems.



[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']

If this is so, how do you explain the hoards of people who rave about the visual superiority of CB to FP? Are they lying, hallucinating?



http://forums.nvidia...howtopic=200925

These "hordes" are actually two people as far as I can see...



And one of them actually claims that 1080p @ 30fps (FS) is actually superior to 120 Hz monitors showing 1920x1080 with 60 fps, which is absolutely laughable. The image quality is identical at best (as is 1080p @24fps if you make sure you don't have any post processing), but you'll always have the lower frame rate. Why would it look better than on a 120 Hz monitor (besides the larger screen)?



[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']

No TV maker is going to defy industry policy and take orders from me. It is far more likely that we 3D gamers will achieve the same goal in a different way, implementation of CB/SBS mode in Nvidia drivers. So far, we've collectively failed but at least we have someone tangible to yell at. Then again, if you are right, if native res 1920x1080 looks no better than scaled 1280x720, why all the threads demanding CB?And again you're talking about native 1920x1080 which you just don't get with either CB, SBS or IL. All of these reduce the number of pixels, so it's NOT native 1920x1080.



[quote name='roller11' date='19 November 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1321723537' post='1329406']

Last post I challenged you to put a subjective number on the perceived visual degradation of going from 2x 1920x1080 resolution to 1920x1080 resolution both in the same processing mode, i.e. frame sequential to CB/IL. Your deliberate avoidance of my straighforward request proves your claim is a crock, a way of defending your purchase.

Excuse me, but that's utter BS. I certainly am not defending any purchase ... :)

#28
Posted 11/20/2011 01:07 AM   
Hi

Let me comment on Mitsubishi DLPs since everyone keeps bringing this up.

We have an issue in our drivers that we detect many of the Mitsubishi DLP TVs as HDMI 1.4 3D TVs. We did this because Mitsubishi started to embed emitters directly insides their TVs and ship their own glasses. 3D Vision glasses can work when connected to a PC with our emitter.

We had to make a decision - do we support these TVs with 3DTV Play or 3D Vision.

We chose 3DTV Play since most customers were getting new TV glasses with their TV for free.

So it was not a deliberate act to remove checkerboard support for Mitsubishi DLP TVs, it came down to having to pick between HDMI 1.4 3DTV Play support and 3D Vision support.

That being said, we do have on our roadmap to add checkerboard support in the first half of 2012, its taking longer than I would have liked.
Hi



Let me comment on Mitsubishi DLPs since everyone keeps bringing this up.



We have an issue in our drivers that we detect many of the Mitsubishi DLP TVs as HDMI 1.4 3D TVs. We did this because Mitsubishi started to embed emitters directly insides their TVs and ship their own glasses. 3D Vision glasses can work when connected to a PC with our emitter.



We had to make a decision - do we support these TVs with 3DTV Play or 3D Vision.



We chose 3DTV Play since most customers were getting new TV glasses with their TV for free.



So it was not a deliberate act to remove checkerboard support for Mitsubishi DLP TVs, it came down to having to pick between HDMI 1.4 3DTV Play support and 3D Vision support.



That being said, we do have on our roadmap to add checkerboard support in the first half of 2012, its taking longer than I would have liked.

#29
Posted 11/20/2011 01:58 AM   
Why not support the tv with both 3dtv play AND 3d-vision?
Why not support the tv with both 3dtv play AND 3d-vision?

Image

Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe

Cpu: C2D E6600

Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX

3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D

Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.

#30
Posted 11/20/2011 08:06 AM   
  2 / 3    
Scroll To Top