Continued from: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=199344&view=findpost&p=1232426
Well, im all for CB if its better or move efficient, but I keep running into contradictions when all i require is a simple technical explanation which i am having a very hard time finding. Could you take a short video? However I can't ignore these contradictions.
1. How could it not show in a screenshot or photo if it is "LOSSLESS 1080"???? and as you state, looks no different to you than "full 1080".
2. If it is lossless, how is 960x1080 lossless?
3. You ask me to go read the thread asking myself questions about posters motives, yet what is really called for is an explanation of how checkboard works.
4. Part of your arguement, an unnecessary part, is that thread has 250,000 views. It "could" mean something, it might not mean anything. It might mean that when you say things like this all the time: "CB is the only way to game, 720p scaled looks like crap, don't even bother"(btw, when looking for this thread, i noticed that just the first 4 pages in this forums have more views, not counting the stickys, which have 400,000 themselves. Maybe you meant something else? Either way, not a good sign...)
5. you claim the existence of "checkerboard haters", so, there are checkerboard haters then????
6. You say a screenshot won't show the differences, so the difference is only the edges then, is that right?
7. Framepacking over saturates the colors? It actually changes them, are you sure about this?
8.What is the blooming effect?
As far as the scene modes, i have already modified most scenes to suit my preferences for 3d, 2d gaming, power saving/or not, desktop mode, watching movies, etc. I wonder, speaking of modes, while i was testing something, I accidentally switched to movie mode, which has a little sharpening enabled. It totally highlighted the jaggies by a large factor. I wonder if you had image sharpening enable on your HX800.
Continued from: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=199344&view=findpost&p=1232426
Well, im all for CB if its better or move efficient, but I keep running into contradictions when all i require is a simple technical explanation which i am having a very hard time finding. Could you take a short video? However I can't ignore these contradictions.
1. How could it not show in a screenshot or photo if it is "LOSSLESS 1080"???? and as you state, looks no different to you than "full 1080".
2. If it is lossless, how is 960x1080 lossless?
3. You ask me to go read the thread asking myself questions about posters motives, yet what is really called for is an explanation of how checkboard works.
4. Part of your arguement, an unnecessary part, is that thread has 250,000 views. It "could" mean something, it might not mean anything. It might mean that when you say things like this all the time: "CB is the only way to game, 720p scaled looks like crap, don't even bother"(btw, when looking for this thread, i noticed that just the first 4 pages in this forums have more views, not counting the stickys, which have 400,000 themselves. Maybe you meant something else? Either way, not a good sign...)
5. you claim the existence of "checkerboard haters", so, there are checkerboard haters then????
6. You say a screenshot won't show the differences, so the difference is only the edges then, is that right?
7. Framepacking over saturates the colors? It actually changes them, are you sure about this?
8.What is the blooming effect?
As far as the scene modes, i have already modified most scenes to suit my preferences for 3d, 2d gaming, power saving/or not, desktop mode, watching movies, etc. I wonder, speaking of modes, while i was testing something, I accidentally switched to movie mode, which has a little sharpening enabled. It totally highlighted the jaggies by a large factor. I wonder if you had image sharpening enable on your HX800.
[quote name='Libertine' date='02 May 2011 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1304353938' post='1232678']
I keep running into contradictions when all i require is a simple technical explanation which i am having a very hard
time finding.[/quote]
There's only one contradiction. Some say CB looks like crap, some say it looks great. See "checkerboard haters" below.
[quote]1. How could it not show in a screenshot or photo if it is "LOSSLESS 1080"???? and as you state, looks no different to you than "full 1080".[/quote]
View it on a Samsung 3DTV and you'll see the difference immediately. Mike01 had an entire thread going about this.
He couldn't understand how full HD framepacking looks strange, he was viewing it on his Samsung.
[quote]2. If it is lossless, how is 960x1080 lossless?[/quote]
I don't know the technical difference between lossless and non-lossless. My guess is that lossless refers to bits per pixel.
[quote]what is really called for is an explanation of how checkboard works.[/quote]
Short answer: Imagine a checkerboard where only the black squares are displayed on the first vertical refresh. Next refresh, only the red squares. First refresh is left eye image, second is right eye, both in sequence is a full frame.
Long explanation:
CB takes the left eye image 1920x1080 pixels and displays every other pixel across every scanline. The first scanline displays pixels 0,2,4,...1918. The second scan line displays pixels 1,3,5,...1919. The third scanline goes back to 0,2,4...1918 and so on for all 1080 scanlines. So the left eye image is composed of half the pixels which are displayed in one vertical refresh. The next refresh is the right eye image. It's just like the left eye capture except it starts with with 1,3,5...1919 on the first scan line, so it gets all the pixels that were not displayed on the previous left eye refresh. The two images (one left eye, one right eye) are shown in sequence to create one complete full rez frame, 1920x1080 pixels.
[quote] when looking for this thread, i noticed that just the first 4 pages in this forums have more views,[/quote]
Whatever. Maybe it has 289,898 views. Maybe it has 290,122 views. My point is it has over four time more views than the second most popular thread in this forum (stickys excluded). You can't say that there's no difference between a thread which gets 290,000 views, and a thread that gets 7 views. More importantly, there's nothing but praise for CB by those who have witnessed both CB and 720 framepack. This is in sharp contrast to the claim that CB is merely "slightly better" than, or worse than 720P framepacking.
You say that the popularity of the numerous CB threads means nothing. I say that the only people who have reason to view these threads are the people who want to 3D game CB, or are at least interested in it. You also can't dismiss the fact that so many people demanded CB that Andrew admitted Nvidia made a mistake by omitting it from the 3DTV Play product. Your suggestion that there's no evidence that CB is any better than 720P just doesn't jibe with measureable objective facts.
What matters is that all the people trashing Samsung CB have never seen Samsung CB, example:
"roller11, I just heard 'some guy' say that CB looks like crap. What do you say to that.?"
I respond.. "ask 'some guy' if he has ever seen a Samsung TV."
your response... "no, he has never seen a Samsung TV. He has an Epson 720P front projector cause that's all he can afford."
[quote]5. you claim the existence of "checkerboard haters", so, there are checkerboard haters then????[/quote]
Yes, of course, and all of them have never seen CB on a Samsung TV. There will always be the "haves and the have nots". A small but vocal percentage of the have nots will be jealous of the haves, it's just a fact of life.
[quote]6. You say a screenshot won't show the differences, so the difference is only the edges then, is that right?[/quote]
No, not at all. Framepacking is processing the pixels "differently" vs both Frame Sequential and CB. Result is an unpleasant representation of the scene. This is why sceen captures can't tell the difference between FP and CB. Noteably, Frame sequential is the same rez per eye as framepacking, but it processes the pixels like CB. So the ulitmate would be 1920x1080 per eye frame sequential @60 fps.
[quote]7. Framepacking over saturates the colors? It actually changes them, are you sure about this?[/quote]
Yes, and Mike01 noticed this too before I ever mentined it. His interpretation was that framepacking looked "half rez".
[quote]8.What is the blooming effect?[/quote]
Over saturation I've been refering to.
I could take SS and show the difference between 720 FP and 1080P CB and all it would show is more jaggies on 720P. That's because when viewed, you would not be in FP mode as you are when you launch a game.
If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, do the only valid test possible on your own Sony screen. Launch a game in 720P FP, then launch the same game in 1080P SBS. I would be very interested in getting your evaluation.
[quote name='Libertine' date='02 May 2011 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1304353938' post='1232678']
I keep running into contradictions when all i require is a simple technical explanation which i am having a very hard
time finding.
There's only one contradiction. Some say CB looks like crap, some say it looks great. See "checkerboard haters" below.
1. How could it not show in a screenshot or photo if it is "LOSSLESS 1080"???? and as you state, looks no different to you than "full 1080".
View it on a Samsung 3DTV and you'll see the difference immediately. Mike01 had an entire thread going about this.
He couldn't understand how full HD framepacking looks strange, he was viewing it on his Samsung.
2. If it is lossless, how is 960x1080 lossless?
I don't know the technical difference between lossless and non-lossless. My guess is that lossless refers to bits per pixel.
what is really called for is an explanation of how checkboard works.
Short answer: Imagine a checkerboard where only the black squares are displayed on the first vertical refresh. Next refresh, only the red squares. First refresh is left eye image, second is right eye, both in sequence is a full frame.
Long explanation:
CB takes the left eye image 1920x1080 pixels and displays every other pixel across every scanline. The first scanline displays pixels 0,2,4,...1918. The second scan line displays pixels 1,3,5,...1919. The third scanline goes back to 0,2,4...1918 and so on for all 1080 scanlines. So the left eye image is composed of half the pixels which are displayed in one vertical refresh. The next refresh is the right eye image. It's just like the left eye capture except it starts with with 1,3,5...1919 on the first scan line, so it gets all the pixels that were not displayed on the previous left eye refresh. The two images (one left eye, one right eye) are shown in sequence to create one complete full rez frame, 1920x1080 pixels.
when looking for this thread, i noticed that just the first 4 pages in this forums have more views,
Whatever. Maybe it has 289,898 views. Maybe it has 290,122 views. My point is it has over four time more views than the second most popular thread in this forum (stickys excluded). You can't say that there's no difference between a thread which gets 290,000 views, and a thread that gets 7 views. More importantly, there's nothing but praise for CB by those who have witnessed both CB and 720 framepack. This is in sharp contrast to the claim that CB is merely "slightly better" than, or worse than 720P framepacking.
You say that the popularity of the numerous CB threads means nothing. I say that the only people who have reason to view these threads are the people who want to 3D game CB, or are at least interested in it. You also can't dismiss the fact that so many people demanded CB that Andrew admitted Nvidia made a mistake by omitting it from the 3DTV Play product. Your suggestion that there's no evidence that CB is any better than 720P just doesn't jibe with measureable objective facts.
What matters is that all the people trashing Samsung CB have never seen Samsung CB, example:
"roller11, I just heard 'some guy' say that CB looks like crap. What do you say to that.?"
I respond.. "ask 'some guy' if he has ever seen a Samsung TV."
your response... "no, he has never seen a Samsung TV. He has an Epson 720P front projector cause that's all he can afford."
5. you claim the existence of "checkerboard haters", so, there are checkerboard haters then????
Yes, of course, and all of them have never seen CB on a Samsung TV. There will always be the "haves and the have nots". A small but vocal percentage of the have nots will be jealous of the haves, it's just a fact of life.
6. You say a screenshot won't show the differences, so the difference is only the edges then, is that right?
No, not at all. Framepacking is processing the pixels "differently" vs both Frame Sequential and CB. Result is an unpleasant representation of the scene. This is why sceen captures can't tell the difference between FP and CB. Noteably, Frame sequential is the same rez per eye as framepacking, but it processes the pixels like CB. So the ulitmate would be 1920x1080 per eye frame sequential @60 fps.
7. Framepacking over saturates the colors? It actually changes them, are you sure about this?
Yes, and Mike01 noticed this too before I ever mentined it. His interpretation was that framepacking looked "half rez".
8.What is the blooming effect?
Over saturation I've been refering to.
I could take SS and show the difference between 720 FP and 1080P CB and all it would show is more jaggies on 720P. That's because when viewed, you would not be in FP mode as you are when you launch a game.
If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, do the only valid test possible on your own Sony screen. Launch a game in 720P FP, then launch the same game in 1080P SBS. I would be very interested in getting your evaluation.
[quote name='roller11' date='02 May 2011 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1304366921' post='1232742']
I don't know the technical difference between lossless and non-lossless. My guess is that lossless refers to bits per pixel.[/quote]
Lossless just means the 1280x720 frame generated by the gpu is sent in its entirety to the display, which shows all of it, 1280x720 pixels are displayed.
[quote]
Short answer: Imagine a checkerboard where only the black squares are displayed on the first vertical refresh. Next refresh, only the red squares. First refresh is left eye image, second is right eye, both in sequence is a full frame.
Long explanation:
CB takes the left eye image 1920x1080 pixels and displays every other pixel across every scanline. The first scanline displays pixels 0,2,4,...1918. The second scan line displays pixels 1,3,5,...1919. The third scanline goes back to 0,2,4...1918 and so on for all 1080 scanlines. So the left eye image is composed of half the pixels which are displayed in one vertical refresh. The next refresh is the right eye image. It's just like the left eye capture except it starts with with 1,3,5...1919 on the first scan line, so it gets all the pixels that were not displayed on the previous left eye refresh. The two images (one left eye, one right eye) are shown in sequence to create one complete full rez frame, 1920x1080 pixels. [/quote]
So your saying that CB displays like a current generation passive display, except instead of separating by lines, its a CB pattern? Which like passive display, simply result in a somewhat softer picture?
Btw, everything you've mentioned thus far WILL show in a screenshot... Just be in a bright, well lit area of a popular game and take a good photo of it.
[quote] There will always be the "haves and the have nots". A small but vocal percentage of the have nots will be jealous of the haves, it's just a fact of life. [/quote]
You think the "CB haters" are jealous of you?
As far as you saying this thread had more views than all others combined....well, no comment...
[quote name='roller11' date='02 May 2011 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1304366921' post='1232742']
I don't know the technical difference between lossless and non-lossless. My guess is that lossless refers to bits per pixel.
Lossless just means the 1280x720 frame generated by the gpu is sent in its entirety to the display, which shows all of it, 1280x720 pixels are displayed.
Short answer: Imagine a checkerboard where only the black squares are displayed on the first vertical refresh. Next refresh, only the red squares. First refresh is left eye image, second is right eye, both in sequence is a full frame.
Long explanation:
CB takes the left eye image 1920x1080 pixels and displays every other pixel across every scanline. The first scanline displays pixels 0,2,4,...1918. The second scan line displays pixels 1,3,5,...1919. The third scanline goes back to 0,2,4...1918 and so on for all 1080 scanlines. So the left eye image is composed of half the pixels which are displayed in one vertical refresh. The next refresh is the right eye image. It's just like the left eye capture except it starts with with 1,3,5...1919 on the first scan line, so it gets all the pixels that were not displayed on the previous left eye refresh. The two images (one left eye, one right eye) are shown in sequence to create one complete full rez frame, 1920x1080 pixels.
So your saying that CB displays like a current generation passive display, except instead of separating by lines, its a CB pattern? Which like passive display, simply result in a somewhat softer picture?
Btw, everything you've mentioned thus far WILL show in a screenshot... Just be in a bright, well lit area of a popular game and take a good photo of it.
There will always be the "haves and the have nots". A small but vocal percentage of the have nots will be jealous of the haves, it's just a fact of life.
You think the "CB haters" are jealous of you?
As far as you saying this thread had more views than all others combined....well, no comment...
[quote name='Libertine' date='03 May 2011 - 10:07 AM' timestamp='1304438873' post='1233039']
... instead of separating by lines, its a CB pattern?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote].... result in a somewhat softer picture?[/quote]
No, I'm saying the opposite.
[quote]Btw, everything you've mentioned thus far WILL show in a screenshot[/quote]
The only thing that shows up in a screenshot is aliasing artifacts. What doesn't show up is the difference in 3D pixel processing, frame packing vs CB/Frame sequential. this differnce is what matters. I know this because I've viewed these static SS on two different partitions, one with 3D Vision (CB and FS) and the other with 3DTV Play (Frame Packing). A given SS looks completely different on the Frame Packing partition vs the CB partition. Even though the SS was taken in FP mode, it looks like CB when viewed on the CB partition, and vice versa. This means that unless you have a CB display, you can't observe how CB affects pixel processing.
[quote]You think the "CB haters" are jealous of you?[/quote]
No. I think that when someone says "native rez looks better than scaled" they take that as a personal insult. The proof of this is that these people will trash CB while admitting they have never seen CB on a Samsung.
You have the ability to perform the only valid experiment that matters, 3D gaming in both Framepacking and SBS mode at the same resolution. This will account for all differences unlike worthless SS. Will you do this?
[quote name='Libertine' date='03 May 2011 - 10:07 AM' timestamp='1304438873' post='1233039']
... instead of separating by lines, its a CB pattern?
Yes.
.... result in a somewhat softer picture?
No, I'm saying the opposite.
Btw, everything you've mentioned thus far WILL show in a screenshot
The only thing that shows up in a screenshot is aliasing artifacts. What doesn't show up is the difference in 3D pixel processing, frame packing vs CB/Frame sequential. this differnce is what matters. I know this because I've viewed these static SS on two different partitions, one with 3D Vision (CB and FS) and the other with 3DTV Play (Frame Packing). A given SS looks completely different on the Frame Packing partition vs the CB partition. Even though the SS was taken in FP mode, it looks like CB when viewed on the CB partition, and vice versa. This means that unless you have a CB display, you can't observe how CB affects pixel processing.
You think the "CB haters" are jealous of you?
No. I think that when someone says "native rez looks better than scaled" they take that as a personal insult. The proof of this is that these people will trash CB while admitting they have never seen CB on a Samsung.
You have the ability to perform the only valid experiment that matters, 3D gaming in both Framepacking and SBS mode at the same resolution. This will account for all differences unlike worthless SS. Will you do this?
This thread keeps going on and by the end of the year, Andrew will say here that CB will be added to 3DTV Play any time soon. And than comes 2012, and we're still waiting....
I really don't think this will happen any day, but I would love to have more 3D options for my Samsung Plasma TV. 3DTV Play is a dead thing for me now and I only use my 3DTV for 3Dbluray and movies, not gaming. I just can't stand 720p FP, it looks nasty and consolized. 1080p 24hz only for bluray3D, gaming is definatelly not suitable.
Nvidia gives us checkerboard for god sake. Give us some hope for CB or SBS gaming, a date at least.
This thread keeps going on and by the end of the year, Andrew will say here that CB will be added to 3DTV Play any time soon. And than comes 2012, and we're still waiting....
I really don't think this will happen any day, but I would love to have more 3D options for my Samsung Plasma TV. 3DTV Play is a dead thing for me now and I only use my 3DTV for 3Dbluray and movies, not gaming. I just can't stand 720p FP, it looks nasty and consolized. 1080p 24hz only for bluray3D, gaming is definatelly not suitable.
Nvidia gives us checkerboard for god sake. Give us some hope for CB or SBS gaming, a date at least.
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
[quote name='francomg' date='03 May 2011 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1304450038' post='1233113']
This thread keeps going on and by the end of the year, Andrew will say here that CB will be added to 3DTV Play any time soon. And than comes 2012, and we're still waiting....
I really don't think this will happen any day, but I would love to have more 3D options for my Samsung Plasma TV. 3DTV Play is a dead thing for me now and I only use my 3DTV for 3Dbluray and movies, not gaming. I just can't stand 720p FP, it looks nasty and consolized. 1080p 24hz only for bluray3D, gaming is definatelly not suitable.
Nvidia gives us checkerboard for god sake. Give us some hope for CB or SBS gaming, a date at least.
[/quote]
[quote name='francomg' date='03 May 2011 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1304450038' post='1233113']
This thread keeps going on and by the end of the year, Andrew will say here that CB will be added to 3DTV Play any time soon. And than comes 2012, and we're still waiting....
I really don't think this will happen any day, but I would love to have more 3D options for my Samsung Plasma TV. 3DTV Play is a dead thing for me now and I only use my 3DTV for 3Dbluray and movies, not gaming. I just can't stand 720p FP, it looks nasty and consolized. 1080p 24hz only for bluray3D, gaming is definatelly not suitable.
Nvidia gives us checkerboard for god sake. Give us some hope for CB or SBS gaming, a date at least.
There's your proof Libertine. Does it sound like Francomg and AeroSign think that CB looks worse than scaled 720P framepack?
Francomg, AeroSign....
No doubt in 2012 Nvidia will still be saying "coming soon" and calling CB a "new feature" even though it isn't new at all.
I will therefore offer to assemble and ship the required hardware generator that will suppress the overlay so that anyone in this forum can start 3D gaming in CB using 3D Vision. I will do this for a nominal charge, so if interested either PM me or respond here. The cost will vary depending on where I need to ship, but I'm generally willing to ship world wide.
Francomg, you raise the point that with the rollermod hack one cannot instantly go back and forth between Framepack and CB. This is true, but there is a work around. Let me know.
There's your proof Libertine. Does it sound like Francomg and AeroSign think that CB looks worse than scaled 720P framepack?
Francomg, AeroSign....
No doubt in 2012 Nvidia will still be saying "coming soon" and calling CB a "new feature" even though it isn't new at all.
I will therefore offer to assemble and ship the required hardware generator that will suppress the overlay so that anyone in this forum can start 3D gaming in CB using 3D Vision. I will do this for a nominal charge, so if interested either PM me or respond here. The cost will vary depending on where I need to ship, but I'm generally willing to ship world wide.
Francomg, you raise the point that with the rollermod hack one cannot instantly go back and forth between Framepack and CB. This is true, but there is a work around. Let me know.
Well, i sort of get it now, i think... I do understand that simply removing pixels from from a 1080p frame could result in a finer edged image when combined [by your brain] with the other eye's frame.
So while i do see this having an impact of the amount of jaggies, it must result in a somewhat softer picture, just like reviewers say of passive displays which display at 1920 x 540. Especially in games like Metro 2033, where you've got tons of high resolution textures with specular maps. CB isn't 1920x540, its 960x540/eye. Framepacking is lossless, but of course scaled 1280x720.
It sounds like this comes down to [b]a bit more scaled, but TRUE detail[/b] vs. [b]less jaggies, but softer image[/b]. Whats "a bit" more true detail? Lets pull out the calculators...
1280x720 = 921600 pieces of info
960x540 = 518,400 pieces of info
518,400\912,600 = .5625
CB has[size="7"] 56% [/size]of the pixel information 720p has PER EYE.................. /omg.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':omg:' /> (im not tearing up, its just a normal twitch, you know what im talking about)
I really have to wonder if you had sharpening enabled on your HX800, because on mine, even at 3 out of 30, the edges all start to become much more noticeable. The default level is 15!!! I noticed this by accident the other day coming into Metro and wondering if Roller11 had a point about jaggies...but then i realized i was in the wrong mode. My NX711 and your HX800 may not be the same panel, they could be and at the very least are right next to each other in the advertised level of quality dept.
Furthermore, it then seems to me your asking for completely the wrong thing. Instead of CB and gaming at 1920x1080p with the framerate loss, it seems you should be asking more better scaling algorithms that could deliver some free anti-aliasing.
Well, i sort of get it now, i think... I do understand that simply removing pixels from from a 1080p frame could result in a finer edged image when combined [by your brain] with the other eye's frame.
So while i do see this having an impact of the amount of jaggies, it must result in a somewhat softer picture, just like reviewers say of passive displays which display at 1920 x 540. Especially in games like Metro 2033, where you've got tons of high resolution textures with specular maps. CB isn't 1920x540, its 960x540/eye. Framepacking is lossless, but of course scaled 1280x720.
It sounds like this comes down to a bit more scaled, but TRUE detail vs. less jaggies, but softer image. Whats "a bit" more true detail? Lets pull out the calculators...
1280x720 = 921600 pieces of info
960x540 = 518,400 pieces of info
518,400\912,600 = .5625
CB has 56% of the pixel information 720p has PER EYE.................. /omg.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':omg:' /> (im not tearing up, its just a normal twitch, you know what im talking about)
I really have to wonder if you had sharpening enabled on your HX800, because on mine, even at 3 out of 30, the edges all start to become much more noticeable. The default level is 15!!! I noticed this by accident the other day coming into Metro and wondering if Roller11 had a point about jaggies...but then i realized i was in the wrong mode. My NX711 and your HX800 may not be the same panel, they could be and at the very least are right next to each other in the advertised level of quality dept.
Furthermore, it then seems to me your asking for completely the wrong thing. Instead of CB and gaming at 1920x1080p with the framerate loss, it seems you should be asking more better scaling algorithms that could deliver some free anti-aliasing.
[quote name='Libertine' date='03 May 2011 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1304470614' post='1233214']
CB isn't 1920x540, its 960x540/eye.[/quote]
CB is 960x1080 per eye. Every scanline is present for every image.
You are trying to over analyze this, "proof by math" which can't work. In 1/10 th the time it has taken you to go down these dead ends, you could have D/L free iZ3D drivers and played Metro at both SBS native rez per frame and 720P Framepacking and resolved this matter conclusively. I believe you won't perform the test because you could no longer deny the visual proof that 1080P is indeed significantly better than 720P.
[quote name='Libertine' date='03 May 2011 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1304470614' post='1233214']
CB isn't 1920x540, its 960x540/eye.
CB is 960x1080 per eye. Every scanline is present for every image.
You are trying to over analyze this, "proof by math" which can't work. In 1/10 th the time it has taken you to go down these dead ends, you could have D/L free iZ3D drivers and played Metro at both SBS native rez per frame and 720P Framepacking and resolved this matter conclusively. I believe you won't perform the test because you could no longer deny the visual proof that 1080P is indeed significantly better than 720P.
[quote name='roller11' date='03 May 2011 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1304475119' post='1233226']
CB is 960x1080 per eye. Every scanline is present for every image. [/quote]
As I understand it, checkerboard is 960 x 540 pixels spread across 1920 x 1080 pixels worth space. No? Every other horizontal pixel yeilds a 1920/2 = 960 total and every other vertical pixel yields 1080/2 = 540 pixels. Is this not correct?
[quote]You are trying to over analyze this, "proof by math" which can't work. [/quote]
Im trying to understand it. I can extrapolate an idea based on a well worded explanation, what CB is like. Its very simple. Im still searching for that well worded explanation in the midst of conflicting statements by different forum members on different forums.
[quote]...you could have D/L free iZ3D drivers and played Metro at both SBS native rez per frame and 720P Framepacking and resolved this matter conclusively. [/quote]I couldn't get the iz3d drivers to work, i tried tho. Every 1080p SBS video on youtube is horrible. Do you have one you could point me to?
[quote]I believe you won't perform the test because you could no longer deny the visual proof that 1080P is indeed significantly better than 720P.[/quote]
I don't understand this.
[quote name='roller11' date='03 May 2011 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1304475119' post='1233226']
CB is 960x1080 per eye. Every scanline is present for every image.
As I understand it, checkerboard is 960 x 540 pixels spread across 1920 x 1080 pixels worth space. No? Every other horizontal pixel yeilds a 1920/2 = 960 total and every other vertical pixel yields 1080/2 = 540 pixels. Is this not correct?
You are trying to over analyze this, "proof by math" which can't work.
Im trying to understand it. I can extrapolate an idea based on a well worded explanation, what CB is like. Its very simple. Im still searching for that well worded explanation in the midst of conflicting statements by different forum members on different forums.
...you could have D/L free iZ3D drivers and played Metro at both SBS native rez per frame and 720P Framepacking and resolved this matter conclusively.
I couldn't get the iz3d drivers to work, i tried tho. Every 1080p SBS video on youtube is horrible. Do you have one you could point me to?
I believe you won't perform the test because you could no longer deny the visual proof that 1080P is indeed significantly better than 720P.
[quote name='Libertine' date='04 May 2011 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1304477997' post='1233233']
As I understand it, checkerboard is 960 x 540 pixels spread across 1920 x 1080 pixels worth space. No? Every other horizontal pixel yeilds a 1920/2 = 960 total and every other vertical pixel yields 1080/2 = 540 pixels. Is this not correct?
[/quote]
For shutter-systems this isn't true.
Keep an eye on a single line. You have 50% from 1920 pixels for your left and 50% for your right eye.
And that for each line.
That means you have a resolution of 960x1080 or 1920x540 pixels per eye spread over the whole frame.
[quote name='Libertine' date='04 May 2011 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1304477997' post='1233233']
As I understand it, checkerboard is 960 x 540 pixels spread across 1920 x 1080 pixels worth space. No? Every other horizontal pixel yeilds a 1920/2 = 960 total and every other vertical pixel yields 1080/2 = 540 pixels. Is this not correct?
For shutter-systems this isn't true.
Keep an eye on a single line. You have 50% from 1920 pixels for your left and 50% for your right eye.
And that for each line.
That means you have a resolution of 960x1080 or 1920x540 pixels per eye spread over the whole frame.
1280x720 = 921600 pixel
960x1080 = 1036800 pixel
1036800/921600 = 1.125
1.125 * 100 = 112.5%
That means you have 12.5% more information CB compared to 720p per eye.
Ok that makes sense, thank you Robert. I had been using the multiplication technique where you multiply the row by the column and since their were half in each row and column I assumed i could divide the factors by 2.
So its 12.5% more dense with gfx info, but the game has to process the full 1920x1080. I'd certainly try it. Although my gtx 260 and E8500 won't run most games in 3D at 720p over 30 fps, but I'll still give CB a marginal thumbs up for Roller11's sake. /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
Ok that makes sense, thank you Robert. I had been using the multiplication technique where you multiply the row by the column and since their were half in each row and column I assumed i could divide the factors by 2.
So its 12.5% more dense with gfx info, but the game has to process the full 1920x1080. I'd certainly try it. Although my gtx 260 and E8500 won't run most games in 3D at 720p over 30 fps, but I'll still give CB a marginal thumbs up for Roller11's sake. /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
[quote name='Libertine' date='04 May 2011 - 07:30 AM' timestamp='1304515813' post='1233368']
So its 12.5% more dense with gfx info, ... I'll still give CB a marginal thumbs up for Roller11's sake. /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
[/quote]
CB is not "marginally" better than 720P framepack.
The 12.5% increase in pixels is meaningless, doesn't translate to 12.5% better visual quality. That's because 75% of the 720P pixels are misaligned whereas all the CB pixels are perfectly aligned, see below ***. By this second mathematical analysis, CB is 300% (4 times) better than 720P framepack, not 12.5%.
[quote]I couldn't get the iz3d drivers to work, [/quote]
What do you mean by iZ3D drivers "don't work"? Nobody in this forum has reported a problem so walk me through exactly what you did. Did they install? if so, did the game launch? If it launched, was it not in 3D? The only possible problem is that you didn't choose "custom" set up, so describe your step by step and you'll be gaming in SBS with iZ3D (unless you simply don't want to). TriDef offers the same free trial and SBS mode, so that will work as well as iZ3D.
*** Imagine a 1280x720 pixel grid overlaid upon a same size 1920x1080 grid. Over the entire grid, half the rows and columns of pixels are aligned, so 3/4 of all pixels are misaligned. So a scaling algorithim must try to correct the misalignment as best it can by interpolating. It's these scaling errors that give non-native resolution that 'muddy' look whereas a 1 to 1 map is crisp. With CB 100% of pixels in the scene have an exact place on the display grid. With 720P framepack, only 25% are mapped correctly. Therefore, mathematical analysis says CB looks 4 times (300%) better than 720P framepack.
[quote name='Libertine' date='04 May 2011 - 07:30 AM' timestamp='1304515813' post='1233368']
So its 12.5% more dense with gfx info, ... I'll still give CB a marginal thumbs up for Roller11's sake. /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
CB is not "marginally" better than 720P framepack.
The 12.5% increase in pixels is meaningless, doesn't translate to 12.5% better visual quality. That's because 75% of the 720P pixels are misaligned whereas all the CB pixels are perfectly aligned, see below ***. By this second mathematical analysis, CB is 300% (4 times) better than 720P framepack, not 12.5%.
I couldn't get the iz3d drivers to work,
What do you mean by iZ3D drivers "don't work"? Nobody in this forum has reported a problem so walk me through exactly what you did. Did they install? if so, did the game launch? If it launched, was it not in 3D? The only possible problem is that you didn't choose "custom" set up, so describe your step by step and you'll be gaming in SBS with iZ3D (unless you simply don't want to). TriDef offers the same free trial and SBS mode, so that will work as well as iZ3D.
*** Imagine a 1280x720 pixel grid overlaid upon a same size 1920x1080 grid. Over the entire grid, half the rows and columns of pixels are aligned, so 3/4 of all pixels are misaligned. So a scaling algorithim must try to correct the misalignment as best it can by interpolating. It's these scaling errors that give non-native resolution that 'muddy' look whereas a 1 to 1 map is crisp. With CB 100% of pixels in the scene have an exact place on the display grid. With 720P framepack, only 25% are mapped correctly. Therefore, mathematical analysis says CB looks 4 times (300%) better than 720P framepack.
Some people make the claim that 720p could look better than 1080 checkerboard. This COULD sorta be true due to the limits of your video card. If your system can't handle rendering graphics at high framerates at 1080 (normally in 2D, or especially in 3D) then the reduced framerates you will see versus 720 could offset the increased and sharper resolution. In other words, some people with slower computers could prefer gaming at 720 at 60 fps rather than 1080 at 30 fps (these framerates are just for example). These people might even swear that it looks better because of the better framerates. But does each individual frame of 720 look as good or better? No, it does not. Anyone claiming it does, is quite simply wrong. And Roller11 is right that resizing a 720 image onto a 1080 screen will not look as good as a native 1080p checkerboard image. But a lot of the mathematical reasoning I see on here is either wrong or meaningless. I say this as a computer programmer who did my PhD research in computer science. Graphics is not my field. But I know enough about graphics that I can still say what I say with reasonable certainty. I also recently bought a 2011 Samsung 3D tv partially because of reading this thread, and I can say that 1080 checkerboard looked better than 720p resized stuff on my screen.
I would add that it takes a very powerful system to handle 1080p checkerboard with all the settings on high. You'd need either one of the best cards, or more than one card in SLI. If you don't have the power, you might actually prefer 720 over 1080 because everything runs smoother (although it is slightly blurrier). If you've got the power though, there is no question that native 1080p (checkerboard, SBS, etc.) should look better.
Right now, if all you love is 3D gaming on a big TV, I'd almost suggest you buy a cheap 720p TV and game on that. You can game in full 3D and any good video card should run your 3D games silky smooth, and the HDMI cable can support full 720p, and 3D TV Play supports it too. Since you aren't resizing, the image should be pretty sharp (not as good as 1080, but way better than 720 resized to a 1080 screen). But using this TV for anything other than 3D gaming will not be as good since it's only 720p. I almost considered buying one and testing this out myself. But I didn't want to buy another tv just for 3d gaming.
That being said, later this year the new chips from Nvidia (Kepler) should be so fast that they should be able to handle 1080p checkerboard very very well. Once video cards are this fast, you either need a higher than 1080 resolution computer monitor (tv's higher than 1080 are years away) or you need to be gaming in 3D to really push the card to it's limits and enjoy all your gaming rig has to offer. Hopefully, Nvidia will have increased support for more implementations of 3D soon. Not sure what is taking so long, because programming this should not be that complicated if you already having other 3D implementations working.
But I don't think complaining to Andrew or other Nvidia employees is as useful as kindly asking for help. You get more with sugar than you do with vinegar. It's in nvidia's best interest to add this support and it's been said numerous times that they are indeed working on it. I just ordered a new computer with a gtx 580 ($500 video card) in hopes that the checkerboard support is coming soon. I'll buy 3DTV Play once it is. So I'm supporting nvidia with my money and I add my name to the list of people eagerly awaiting checkerboard support to be added. :)
Some people make the claim that 720p could look better than 1080 checkerboard. This COULD sorta be true due to the limits of your video card. If your system can't handle rendering graphics at high framerates at 1080 (normally in 2D, or especially in 3D) then the reduced framerates you will see versus 720 could offset the increased and sharper resolution. In other words, some people with slower computers could prefer gaming at 720 at 60 fps rather than 1080 at 30 fps (these framerates are just for example). These people might even swear that it looks better because of the better framerates. But does each individual frame of 720 look as good or better? No, it does not. Anyone claiming it does, is quite simply wrong. And Roller11 is right that resizing a 720 image onto a 1080 screen will not look as good as a native 1080p checkerboard image. But a lot of the mathematical reasoning I see on here is either wrong or meaningless. I say this as a computer programmer who did my PhD research in computer science. Graphics is not my field. But I know enough about graphics that I can still say what I say with reasonable certainty. I also recently bought a 2011 Samsung 3D tv partially because of reading this thread, and I can say that 1080 checkerboard looked better than 720p resized stuff on my screen.
I would add that it takes a very powerful system to handle 1080p checkerboard with all the settings on high. You'd need either one of the best cards, or more than one card in SLI. If you don't have the power, you might actually prefer 720 over 1080 because everything runs smoother (although it is slightly blurrier). If you've got the power though, there is no question that native 1080p (checkerboard, SBS, etc.) should look better.
Right now, if all you love is 3D gaming on a big TV, I'd almost suggest you buy a cheap 720p TV and game on that. You can game in full 3D and any good video card should run your 3D games silky smooth, and the HDMI cable can support full 720p, and 3D TV Play supports it too. Since you aren't resizing, the image should be pretty sharp (not as good as 1080, but way better than 720 resized to a 1080 screen). But using this TV for anything other than 3D gaming will not be as good since it's only 720p. I almost considered buying one and testing this out myself. But I didn't want to buy another tv just for 3d gaming.
That being said, later this year the new chips from Nvidia (Kepler) should be so fast that they should be able to handle 1080p checkerboard very very well. Once video cards are this fast, you either need a higher than 1080 resolution computer monitor (tv's higher than 1080 are years away) or you need to be gaming in 3D to really push the card to it's limits and enjoy all your gaming rig has to offer. Hopefully, Nvidia will have increased support for more implementations of 3D soon. Not sure what is taking so long, because programming this should not be that complicated if you already having other 3D implementations working.
But I don't think complaining to Andrew or other Nvidia employees is as useful as kindly asking for help. You get more with sugar than you do with vinegar. It's in nvidia's best interest to add this support and it's been said numerous times that they are indeed working on it. I just ordered a new computer with a gtx 580 ($500 video card) in hopes that the checkerboard support is coming soon. I'll buy 3DTV Play once it is. So I'm supporting nvidia with my money and I add my name to the list of people eagerly awaiting checkerboard support to be added. :)
Andrew stated it in a DLP thread.
[/quote]
taz291819, can you point me to that thread? I'd like to be sure to subscribe to the right one...
Andrew stated it in a DLP thread.
taz291819, can you point me to that thread? I'd like to be sure to subscribe to the right one...
Well, im all for CB if its better or move efficient, but I keep running into contradictions when all i require is a simple technical explanation which i am having a very hard time finding. Could you take a short video? However I can't ignore these contradictions.
1. How could it not show in a screenshot or photo if it is "LOSSLESS 1080"???? and as you state, looks no different to you than "full 1080".
2. If it is lossless, how is 960x1080 lossless?
3. You ask me to go read the thread asking myself questions about posters motives, yet what is really called for is an explanation of how checkboard works.
4. Part of your arguement, an unnecessary part, is that thread has 250,000 views. It "could" mean something, it might not mean anything. It might mean that when you say things like this all the time: "CB is the only way to game, 720p scaled looks like crap, don't even bother"(btw, when looking for this thread, i noticed that just the first 4 pages in this forums have more views, not counting the stickys, which have 400,000 themselves. Maybe you meant something else? Either way, not a good sign...)
5. you claim the existence of "checkerboard haters", so, there are checkerboard haters then????
6. You say a screenshot won't show the differences, so the difference is only the edges then, is that right?
7. Framepacking over saturates the colors? It actually changes them, are you sure about this?
8.What is the blooming effect?
As far as the scene modes, i have already modified most scenes to suit my preferences for 3d, 2d gaming, power saving/or not, desktop mode, watching movies, etc. I wonder, speaking of modes, while i was testing something, I accidentally switched to movie mode, which has a little sharpening enabled. It totally highlighted the jaggies by a large factor. I wonder if you had image sharpening enable on your HX800.
Well, im all for CB if its better or move efficient, but I keep running into contradictions when all i require is a simple technical explanation which i am having a very hard time finding. Could you take a short video? However I can't ignore these contradictions.
1. How could it not show in a screenshot or photo if it is "LOSSLESS 1080"???? and as you state, looks no different to you than "full 1080".
2. If it is lossless, how is 960x1080 lossless?
3. You ask me to go read the thread asking myself questions about posters motives, yet what is really called for is an explanation of how checkboard works.
4. Part of your arguement, an unnecessary part, is that thread has 250,000 views. It "could" mean something, it might not mean anything. It might mean that when you say things like this all the time: "CB is the only way to game, 720p scaled looks like crap, don't even bother"(btw, when looking for this thread, i noticed that just the first 4 pages in this forums have more views, not counting the stickys, which have 400,000 themselves. Maybe you meant something else? Either way, not a good sign...)
5. you claim the existence of "checkerboard haters", so, there are checkerboard haters then????
6. You say a screenshot won't show the differences, so the difference is only the edges then, is that right?
7. Framepacking over saturates the colors? It actually changes them, are you sure about this?
8.What is the blooming effect?
As far as the scene modes, i have already modified most scenes to suit my preferences for 3d, 2d gaming, power saving/or not, desktop mode, watching movies, etc. I wonder, speaking of modes, while i was testing something, I accidentally switched to movie mode, which has a little sharpening enabled. It totally highlighted the jaggies by a large factor. I wonder if you had image sharpening enable on your HX800.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
I keep running into contradictions when all i require is a simple technical explanation which i am having a very hard
time finding.[/quote]
There's only one contradiction. Some say CB looks like crap, some say it looks great. See "checkerboard haters" below.
[quote]1. How could it not show in a screenshot or photo if it is "LOSSLESS 1080"???? and as you state, looks no different to you than "full 1080".[/quote]
View it on a Samsung 3DTV and you'll see the difference immediately. Mike01 had an entire thread going about this.
He couldn't understand how full HD framepacking looks strange, he was viewing it on his Samsung.
[quote]2. If it is lossless, how is 960x1080 lossless?[/quote]
I don't know the technical difference between lossless and non-lossless. My guess is that lossless refers to bits per pixel.
[quote]what is really called for is an explanation of how checkboard works.[/quote]
Short answer: Imagine a checkerboard where only the black squares are displayed on the first vertical refresh. Next refresh, only the red squares. First refresh is left eye image, second is right eye, both in sequence is a full frame.
Long explanation:
CB takes the left eye image 1920x1080 pixels and displays every other pixel across every scanline. The first scanline displays pixels 0,2,4,...1918. The second scan line displays pixels 1,3,5,...1919. The third scanline goes back to 0,2,4...1918 and so on for all 1080 scanlines. So the left eye image is composed of half the pixels which are displayed in one vertical refresh. The next refresh is the right eye image. It's just like the left eye capture except it starts with with 1,3,5...1919 on the first scan line, so it gets all the pixels that were not displayed on the previous left eye refresh. The two images (one left eye, one right eye) are shown in sequence to create one complete full rez frame, 1920x1080 pixels.
[quote] when looking for this thread, i noticed that just the first 4 pages in this forums have more views,[/quote]
Whatever. Maybe it has 289,898 views. Maybe it has 290,122 views. My point is it has over four time more views than the second most popular thread in this forum (stickys excluded). You can't say that there's no difference between a thread which gets 290,000 views, and a thread that gets 7 views. More importantly, there's nothing but praise for CB by those who have witnessed both CB and 720 framepack. This is in sharp contrast to the claim that CB is merely "slightly better" than, or worse than 720P framepacking.
You say that the popularity of the numerous CB threads means nothing. I say that the only people who have reason to view these threads are the people who want to 3D game CB, or are at least interested in it. You also can't dismiss the fact that so many people demanded CB that Andrew admitted Nvidia made a mistake by omitting it from the 3DTV Play product. Your suggestion that there's no evidence that CB is any better than 720P just doesn't jibe with measureable objective facts.
What matters is that all the people trashing Samsung CB have never seen Samsung CB, example:
"roller11, I just heard 'some guy' say that CB looks like crap. What do you say to that.?"
I respond.. "ask 'some guy' if he has ever seen a Samsung TV."
your response... "no, he has never seen a Samsung TV. He has an Epson 720P front projector cause that's all he can afford."
[quote]5. you claim the existence of "checkerboard haters", so, there are checkerboard haters then????[/quote]
Yes, of course, and all of them have never seen CB on a Samsung TV. There will always be the "haves and the have nots". A small but vocal percentage of the have nots will be jealous of the haves, it's just a fact of life.
[quote]6. You say a screenshot won't show the differences, so the difference is only the edges then, is that right?[/quote]
No, not at all. Framepacking is processing the pixels "differently" vs both Frame Sequential and CB. Result is an unpleasant representation of the scene. This is why sceen captures can't tell the difference between FP and CB. Noteably, Frame sequential is the same rez per eye as framepacking, but it processes the pixels like CB. So the ulitmate would be 1920x1080 per eye frame sequential @60 fps.
[quote]7. Framepacking over saturates the colors? It actually changes them, are you sure about this?[/quote]
Yes, and Mike01 noticed this too before I ever mentined it. His interpretation was that framepacking looked "half rez".
[quote]8.What is the blooming effect?[/quote]
Over saturation I've been refering to.
I could take SS and show the difference between 720 FP and 1080P CB and all it would show is more jaggies on 720P. That's because when viewed, you would not be in FP mode as you are when you launch a game.
If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, do the only valid test possible on your own Sony screen. Launch a game in 720P FP, then launch the same game in 1080P SBS. I would be very interested in getting your evaluation.
I keep running into contradictions when all i require is a simple technical explanation which i am having a very hard
time finding.
There's only one contradiction. Some say CB looks like crap, some say it looks great. See "checkerboard haters" below.
View it on a Samsung 3DTV and you'll see the difference immediately. Mike01 had an entire thread going about this.
He couldn't understand how full HD framepacking looks strange, he was viewing it on his Samsung.
I don't know the technical difference between lossless and non-lossless. My guess is that lossless refers to bits per pixel.
Short answer: Imagine a checkerboard where only the black squares are displayed on the first vertical refresh. Next refresh, only the red squares. First refresh is left eye image, second is right eye, both in sequence is a full frame.
Long explanation:
CB takes the left eye image 1920x1080 pixels and displays every other pixel across every scanline. The first scanline displays pixels 0,2,4,...1918. The second scan line displays pixels 1,3,5,...1919. The third scanline goes back to 0,2,4...1918 and so on for all 1080 scanlines. So the left eye image is composed of half the pixels which are displayed in one vertical refresh. The next refresh is the right eye image. It's just like the left eye capture except it starts with with 1,3,5...1919 on the first scan line, so it gets all the pixels that were not displayed on the previous left eye refresh. The two images (one left eye, one right eye) are shown in sequence to create one complete full rez frame, 1920x1080 pixels.
Whatever. Maybe it has 289,898 views. Maybe it has 290,122 views. My point is it has over four time more views than the second most popular thread in this forum (stickys excluded). You can't say that there's no difference between a thread which gets 290,000 views, and a thread that gets 7 views. More importantly, there's nothing but praise for CB by those who have witnessed both CB and 720 framepack. This is in sharp contrast to the claim that CB is merely "slightly better" than, or worse than 720P framepacking.
You say that the popularity of the numerous CB threads means nothing. I say that the only people who have reason to view these threads are the people who want to 3D game CB, or are at least interested in it. You also can't dismiss the fact that so many people demanded CB that Andrew admitted Nvidia made a mistake by omitting it from the 3DTV Play product. Your suggestion that there's no evidence that CB is any better than 720P just doesn't jibe with measureable objective facts.
What matters is that all the people trashing Samsung CB have never seen Samsung CB, example:
"roller11, I just heard 'some guy' say that CB looks like crap. What do you say to that.?"
I respond.. "ask 'some guy' if he has ever seen a Samsung TV."
your response... "no, he has never seen a Samsung TV. He has an Epson 720P front projector cause that's all he can afford."
Yes, of course, and all of them have never seen CB on a Samsung TV. There will always be the "haves and the have nots". A small but vocal percentage of the have nots will be jealous of the haves, it's just a fact of life.
No, not at all. Framepacking is processing the pixels "differently" vs both Frame Sequential and CB. Result is an unpleasant representation of the scene. This is why sceen captures can't tell the difference between FP and CB. Noteably, Frame sequential is the same rez per eye as framepacking, but it processes the pixels like CB. So the ulitmate would be 1920x1080 per eye frame sequential @60 fps.
Yes, and Mike01 noticed this too before I ever mentined it. His interpretation was that framepacking looked "half rez".
Over saturation I've been refering to.
I could take SS and show the difference between 720 FP and 1080P CB and all it would show is more jaggies on 720P. That's because when viewed, you would not be in FP mode as you are when you launch a game.
If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, do the only valid test possible on your own Sony screen. Launch a game in 720P FP, then launch the same game in 1080P SBS. I would be very interested in getting your evaluation.
I don't know the technical difference between lossless and non-lossless. My guess is that lossless refers to bits per pixel.[/quote]
Lossless just means the 1280x720 frame generated by the gpu is sent in its entirety to the display, which shows all of it, 1280x720 pixels are displayed.
[quote]
Short answer: Imagine a checkerboard where only the black squares are displayed on the first vertical refresh. Next refresh, only the red squares. First refresh is left eye image, second is right eye, both in sequence is a full frame.
Long explanation:
CB takes the left eye image 1920x1080 pixels and displays every other pixel across every scanline. The first scanline displays pixels 0,2,4,...1918. The second scan line displays pixels 1,3,5,...1919. The third scanline goes back to 0,2,4...1918 and so on for all 1080 scanlines. So the left eye image is composed of half the pixels which are displayed in one vertical refresh. The next refresh is the right eye image. It's just like the left eye capture except it starts with with 1,3,5...1919 on the first scan line, so it gets all the pixels that were not displayed on the previous left eye refresh. The two images (one left eye, one right eye) are shown in sequence to create one complete full rez frame, 1920x1080 pixels. [/quote]
So your saying that CB displays like a current generation passive display, except instead of separating by lines, its a CB pattern? Which like passive display, simply result in a somewhat softer picture?
Btw, everything you've mentioned thus far WILL show in a screenshot... Just be in a bright, well lit area of a popular game and take a good photo of it.
[quote] There will always be the "haves and the have nots". A small but vocal percentage of the have nots will be jealous of the haves, it's just a fact of life. [/quote]
You think the "CB haters" are jealous of you?
As far as you saying this thread had more views than all others combined....well, no comment...
I don't know the technical difference between lossless and non-lossless. My guess is that lossless refers to bits per pixel.
Lossless just means the 1280x720 frame generated by the gpu is sent in its entirety to the display, which shows all of it, 1280x720 pixels are displayed.
So your saying that CB displays like a current generation passive display, except instead of separating by lines, its a CB pattern? Which like passive display, simply result in a somewhat softer picture?
Btw, everything you've mentioned thus far WILL show in a screenshot... Just be in a bright, well lit area of a popular game and take a good photo of it.
You think the "CB haters" are jealous of you?
As far as you saying this thread had more views than all others combined....well, no comment...
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
... instead of separating by lines, its a CB pattern?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote].... result in a somewhat softer picture?[/quote]
No, I'm saying the opposite.
[quote]Btw, everything you've mentioned thus far WILL show in a screenshot[/quote]
The only thing that shows up in a screenshot is aliasing artifacts. What doesn't show up is the difference in 3D pixel processing, frame packing vs CB/Frame sequential. this differnce is what matters. I know this because I've viewed these static SS on two different partitions, one with 3D Vision (CB and FS) and the other with 3DTV Play (Frame Packing). A given SS looks completely different on the Frame Packing partition vs the CB partition. Even though the SS was taken in FP mode, it looks like CB when viewed on the CB partition, and vice versa. This means that unless you have a CB display, you can't observe how CB affects pixel processing.
[quote]You think the "CB haters" are jealous of you?[/quote]
No. I think that when someone says "native rez looks better than scaled" they take that as a personal insult. The proof of this is that these people will trash CB while admitting they have never seen CB on a Samsung.
You have the ability to perform the only valid experiment that matters, 3D gaming in both Framepacking and SBS mode at the same resolution. This will account for all differences unlike worthless SS. Will you do this?
... instead of separating by lines, its a CB pattern?
Yes.
No, I'm saying the opposite.
The only thing that shows up in a screenshot is aliasing artifacts. What doesn't show up is the difference in 3D pixel processing, frame packing vs CB/Frame sequential. this differnce is what matters. I know this because I've viewed these static SS on two different partitions, one with 3D Vision (CB and FS) and the other with 3DTV Play (Frame Packing). A given SS looks completely different on the Frame Packing partition vs the CB partition. Even though the SS was taken in FP mode, it looks like CB when viewed on the CB partition, and vice versa. This means that unless you have a CB display, you can't observe how CB affects pixel processing.
No. I think that when someone says "native rez looks better than scaled" they take that as a personal insult. The proof of this is that these people will trash CB while admitting they have never seen CB on a Samsung.
You have the ability to perform the only valid experiment that matters, 3D gaming in both Framepacking and SBS mode at the same resolution. This will account for all differences unlike worthless SS. Will you do this?
I really don't think this will happen any day, but I would love to have more 3D options for my Samsung Plasma TV. 3DTV Play is a dead thing for me now and I only use my 3DTV for 3Dbluray and movies, not gaming. I just can't stand 720p FP, it looks nasty and consolized. 1080p 24hz only for bluray3D, gaming is definatelly not suitable.
Nvidia gives us checkerboard for god sake. Give us some hope for CB or SBS gaming, a date at least.
I really don't think this will happen any day, but I would love to have more 3D options for my Samsung Plasma TV. 3DTV Play is a dead thing for me now and I only use my 3DTV for 3Dbluray and movies, not gaming. I just can't stand 720p FP, it looks nasty and consolized. 1080p 24hz only for bluray3D, gaming is definatelly not suitable.
Nvidia gives us checkerboard for god sake. Give us some hope for CB or SBS gaming, a date at least.
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
This thread keeps going on and by the end of the year, Andrew will say here that CB will be added to 3DTV Play any time soon. And than comes 2012, and we're still waiting....
I really don't think this will happen any day, but I would love to have more 3D options for my Samsung Plasma TV. 3DTV Play is a dead thing for me now and I only use my 3DTV for 3Dbluray and movies, not gaming. I just can't stand 720p FP, it looks nasty and consolized. 1080p 24hz only for bluray3D, gaming is definatelly not suitable.
Nvidia gives us checkerboard for god sake. Give us some hope for CB or SBS gaming, a date at least.
[/quote]
^ +1
This thread keeps going on and by the end of the year, Andrew will say here that CB will be added to 3DTV Play any time soon. And than comes 2012, and we're still waiting....
I really don't think this will happen any day, but I would love to have more 3D options for my Samsung Plasma TV. 3DTV Play is a dead thing for me now and I only use my 3DTV for 3Dbluray and movies, not gaming. I just can't stand 720p FP, it looks nasty and consolized. 1080p 24hz only for bluray3D, gaming is definatelly not suitable.
Nvidia gives us checkerboard for god sake. Give us some hope for CB or SBS gaming, a date at least.
^ +1
Francomg, AeroSign....
No doubt in 2012 Nvidia will still be saying "coming soon" and calling CB a "new feature" even though it isn't new at all.
I will therefore offer to assemble and ship the required hardware generator that will suppress the overlay so that anyone in this forum can start 3D gaming in CB using 3D Vision. I will do this for a nominal charge, so if interested either PM me or respond here. The cost will vary depending on where I need to ship, but I'm generally willing to ship world wide.
Francomg, you raise the point that with the rollermod hack one cannot instantly go back and forth between Framepack and CB. This is true, but there is a work around. Let me know.
Francomg, AeroSign....
No doubt in 2012 Nvidia will still be saying "coming soon" and calling CB a "new feature" even though it isn't new at all.
I will therefore offer to assemble and ship the required hardware generator that will suppress the overlay so that anyone in this forum can start 3D gaming in CB using 3D Vision. I will do this for a nominal charge, so if interested either PM me or respond here. The cost will vary depending on where I need to ship, but I'm generally willing to ship world wide.
Francomg, you raise the point that with the rollermod hack one cannot instantly go back and forth between Framepack and CB. This is true, but there is a work around. Let me know.
So while i do see this having an impact of the amount of jaggies, it must result in a somewhat softer picture, just like reviewers say of passive displays which display at 1920 x 540. Especially in games like Metro 2033, where you've got tons of high resolution textures with specular maps. CB isn't 1920x540, its 960x540/eye. Framepacking is lossless, but of course scaled 1280x720.
It sounds like this comes down to [b]a bit more scaled, but TRUE detail[/b] vs. [b]less jaggies, but softer image[/b]. Whats "a bit" more true detail? Lets pull out the calculators...
1280x720 = 921600 pieces of info
960x540 = 518,400 pieces of info
518,400\912,600 = .5625
CB has[size="7"] 56% [/size]of the pixel information 720p has PER EYE..................
I really have to wonder if you had sharpening enabled on your HX800, because on mine, even at 3 out of 30, the edges all start to become much more noticeable. The default level is 15!!! I noticed this by accident the other day coming into Metro and wondering if Roller11 had a point about jaggies...but then i realized i was in the wrong mode. My NX711 and your HX800 may not be the same panel, they could be and at the very least are right next to each other in the advertised level of quality dept.
Furthermore, it then seems to me your asking for completely the wrong thing. Instead of CB and gaming at 1920x1080p with the framerate loss, it seems you should be asking more better scaling algorithms that could deliver some free anti-aliasing.
So while i do see this having an impact of the amount of jaggies, it must result in a somewhat softer picture, just like reviewers say of passive displays which display at 1920 x 540. Especially in games like Metro 2033, where you've got tons of high resolution textures with specular maps. CB isn't 1920x540, its 960x540/eye. Framepacking is lossless, but of course scaled 1280x720.
It sounds like this comes down to a bit more scaled, but TRUE detail vs. less jaggies, but softer image. Whats "a bit" more true detail? Lets pull out the calculators...
1280x720 = 921600 pieces of info
960x540 = 518,400 pieces of info
518,400\912,600 = .5625
CB has 56% of the pixel information 720p has PER EYE..................
I really have to wonder if you had sharpening enabled on your HX800, because on mine, even at 3 out of 30, the edges all start to become much more noticeable. The default level is 15!!! I noticed this by accident the other day coming into Metro and wondering if Roller11 had a point about jaggies...but then i realized i was in the wrong mode. My NX711 and your HX800 may not be the same panel, they could be and at the very least are right next to each other in the advertised level of quality dept.
Furthermore, it then seems to me your asking for completely the wrong thing. Instead of CB and gaming at 1920x1080p with the framerate loss, it seems you should be asking more better scaling algorithms that could deliver some free anti-aliasing.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
CB isn't 1920x540, its 960x540/eye.[/quote]
CB is 960x1080 per eye. Every scanline is present for every image.
You are trying to over analyze this, "proof by math" which can't work. In 1/10 th the time it has taken you to go down these dead ends, you could have D/L free iZ3D drivers and played Metro at both SBS native rez per frame and 720P Framepacking and resolved this matter conclusively. I believe you won't perform the test because you could no longer deny the visual proof that 1080P is indeed significantly better than 720P.
CB isn't 1920x540, its 960x540/eye.
CB is 960x1080 per eye. Every scanline is present for every image.
You are trying to over analyze this, "proof by math" which can't work. In 1/10 th the time it has taken you to go down these dead ends, you could have D/L free iZ3D drivers and played Metro at both SBS native rez per frame and 720P Framepacking and resolved this matter conclusively. I believe you won't perform the test because you could no longer deny the visual proof that 1080P is indeed significantly better than 720P.
CB is 960x1080 per eye. Every scanline is present for every image. [/quote]
As I understand it, checkerboard is 960 x 540 pixels spread across 1920 x 1080 pixels worth space. No? Every other horizontal pixel yeilds a 1920/2 = 960 total and every other vertical pixel yields 1080/2 = 540 pixels. Is this not correct?
[quote]You are trying to over analyze this, "proof by math" which can't work. [/quote]
Im trying to understand it. I can extrapolate an idea based on a well worded explanation, what CB is like. Its very simple. Im still searching for that well worded explanation in the midst of conflicting statements by different forum members on different forums.
[quote]...you could have D/L free iZ3D drivers and played Metro at both SBS native rez per frame and 720P Framepacking and resolved this matter conclusively. [/quote]I couldn't get the iz3d drivers to work, i tried tho. Every 1080p SBS video on youtube is horrible. Do you have one you could point me to?
[quote]I believe you won't perform the test because you could no longer deny the visual proof that 1080P is indeed significantly better than 720P.[/quote]
I don't understand this.
CB is 960x1080 per eye. Every scanline is present for every image.
As I understand it, checkerboard is 960 x 540 pixels spread across 1920 x 1080 pixels worth space. No? Every other horizontal pixel yeilds a 1920/2 = 960 total and every other vertical pixel yields 1080/2 = 540 pixels. Is this not correct?
Im trying to understand it. I can extrapolate an idea based on a well worded explanation, what CB is like. Its very simple. Im still searching for that well worded explanation in the midst of conflicting statements by different forum members on different forums.
I couldn't get the iz3d drivers to work, i tried tho. Every 1080p SBS video on youtube is horrible. Do you have one you could point me to?
I don't understand this.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
As I understand it, checkerboard is 960 x 540 pixels spread across 1920 x 1080 pixels worth space. No? Every other horizontal pixel yeilds a 1920/2 = 960 total and every other vertical pixel yields 1080/2 = 540 pixels. Is this not correct?
[/quote]
For shutter-systems this isn't true.
Keep an eye on a single line. You have 50% from 1920 pixels for your left and 50% for your right eye.
And that for each line.
That means you have a resolution of 960x1080 or 1920x540 pixels per eye spread over the whole frame.
1280x720 = 921600 pixel
960x1080 = 1036800 pixel
1036800/921600 = 1.125
1.125 * 100 = 112.5%
That means you have 12.5% more information CB compared to 720p per eye.
As I understand it, checkerboard is 960 x 540 pixels spread across 1920 x 1080 pixels worth space. No? Every other horizontal pixel yeilds a 1920/2 = 960 total and every other vertical pixel yields 1080/2 = 540 pixels. Is this not correct?
For shutter-systems this isn't true.
Keep an eye on a single line. You have 50% from 1920 pixels for your left and 50% for your right eye.
And that for each line.
That means you have a resolution of 960x1080 or 1920x540 pixels per eye spread over the whole frame.
1280x720 = 921600 pixel
960x1080 = 1036800 pixel
1036800/921600 = 1.125
1.125 * 100 = 112.5%
That means you have 12.5% more information CB compared to 720p per eye.
So its 12.5% more dense with gfx info, but the game has to process the full 1920x1080. I'd certainly try it. Although my gtx 260 and E8500 won't run most games in 3D at 720p over 30 fps, but I'll still give CB a marginal thumbs up for Roller11's sake.
So its 12.5% more dense with gfx info, but the game has to process the full 1920x1080. I'd certainly try it. Although my gtx 260 and E8500 won't run most games in 3D at 720p over 30 fps, but I'll still give CB a marginal thumbs up for Roller11's sake.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
So its 12.5% more dense with gfx info, ... I'll still give CB a marginal thumbs up for Roller11's sake.
[/quote]
CB is not "marginally" better than 720P framepack.
The 12.5% increase in pixels is meaningless, doesn't translate to 12.5% better visual quality. That's because 75% of the 720P pixels are misaligned whereas all the CB pixels are perfectly aligned, see below ***. By this second mathematical analysis, CB is 300% (4 times) better than 720P framepack, not 12.5%.
[quote]I couldn't get the iz3d drivers to work, [/quote]
What do you mean by iZ3D drivers "don't work"? Nobody in this forum has reported a problem so walk me through exactly what you did. Did they install? if so, did the game launch? If it launched, was it not in 3D? The only possible problem is that you didn't choose "custom" set up, so describe your step by step and you'll be gaming in SBS with iZ3D (unless you simply don't want to). TriDef offers the same free trial and SBS mode, so that will work as well as iZ3D.
*** Imagine a 1280x720 pixel grid overlaid upon a same size 1920x1080 grid. Over the entire grid, half the rows and columns of pixels are aligned, so 3/4 of all pixels are misaligned. So a scaling algorithim must try to correct the misalignment as best it can by interpolating. It's these scaling errors that give non-native resolution that 'muddy' look whereas a 1 to 1 map is crisp. With CB 100% of pixels in the scene have an exact place on the display grid. With 720P framepack, only 25% are mapped correctly. Therefore, mathematical analysis says CB looks 4 times (300%) better than 720P framepack.
So its 12.5% more dense with gfx info, ... I'll still give CB a marginal thumbs up for Roller11's sake.
CB is not "marginally" better than 720P framepack.
The 12.5% increase in pixels is meaningless, doesn't translate to 12.5% better visual quality. That's because 75% of the 720P pixels are misaligned whereas all the CB pixels are perfectly aligned, see below ***. By this second mathematical analysis, CB is 300% (4 times) better than 720P framepack, not 12.5%.
What do you mean by iZ3D drivers "don't work"? Nobody in this forum has reported a problem so walk me through exactly what you did. Did they install? if so, did the game launch? If it launched, was it not in 3D? The only possible problem is that you didn't choose "custom" set up, so describe your step by step and you'll be gaming in SBS with iZ3D (unless you simply don't want to). TriDef offers the same free trial and SBS mode, so that will work as well as iZ3D.
*** Imagine a 1280x720 pixel grid overlaid upon a same size 1920x1080 grid. Over the entire grid, half the rows and columns of pixels are aligned, so 3/4 of all pixels are misaligned. So a scaling algorithim must try to correct the misalignment as best it can by interpolating. It's these scaling errors that give non-native resolution that 'muddy' look whereas a 1 to 1 map is crisp. With CB 100% of pixels in the scene have an exact place on the display grid. With 720P framepack, only 25% are mapped correctly. Therefore, mathematical analysis says CB looks 4 times (300%) better than 720P framepack.
Some people make the claim that 720p could look better than 1080 checkerboard. This COULD sorta be true due to the limits of your video card. If your system can't handle rendering graphics at high framerates at 1080 (normally in 2D, or especially in 3D) then the reduced framerates you will see versus 720 could offset the increased and sharper resolution. In other words, some people with slower computers could prefer gaming at 720 at 60 fps rather than 1080 at 30 fps (these framerates are just for example). These people might even swear that it looks better because of the better framerates. But does each individual frame of 720 look as good or better? No, it does not. Anyone claiming it does, is quite simply wrong. And Roller11 is right that resizing a 720 image onto a 1080 screen will not look as good as a native 1080p checkerboard image. But a lot of the mathematical reasoning I see on here is either wrong or meaningless. I say this as a computer programmer who did my PhD research in computer science. Graphics is not my field. But I know enough about graphics that I can still say what I say with reasonable certainty. I also recently bought a 2011 Samsung 3D tv partially because of reading this thread, and I can say that 1080 checkerboard looked better than 720p resized stuff on my screen.
I would add that it takes a very powerful system to handle 1080p checkerboard with all the settings on high. You'd need either one of the best cards, or more than one card in SLI. If you don't have the power, you might actually prefer 720 over 1080 because everything runs smoother (although it is slightly blurrier). If you've got the power though, there is no question that native 1080p (checkerboard, SBS, etc.) should look better.
Right now, if all you love is 3D gaming on a big TV, I'd almost suggest you buy a cheap 720p TV and game on that. You can game in full 3D and any good video card should run your 3D games silky smooth, and the HDMI cable can support full 720p, and 3D TV Play supports it too. Since you aren't resizing, the image should be pretty sharp (not as good as 1080, but way better than 720 resized to a 1080 screen). But using this TV for anything other than 3D gaming will not be as good since it's only 720p. I almost considered buying one and testing this out myself. But I didn't want to buy another tv just for 3d gaming.
That being said, later this year the new chips from Nvidia (Kepler) should be so fast that they should be able to handle 1080p checkerboard very very well. Once video cards are this fast, you either need a higher than 1080 resolution computer monitor (tv's higher than 1080 are years away) or you need to be gaming in 3D to really push the card to it's limits and enjoy all your gaming rig has to offer. Hopefully, Nvidia will have increased support for more implementations of 3D soon. Not sure what is taking so long, because programming this should not be that complicated if you already having other 3D implementations working.
But I don't think complaining to Andrew or other Nvidia employees is as useful as kindly asking for help. You get more with sugar than you do with vinegar. It's in nvidia's best interest to add this support and it's been said numerous times that they are indeed working on it. I just ordered a new computer with a gtx 580 ($500 video card) in hopes that the checkerboard support is coming soon. I'll buy 3DTV Play once it is. So I'm supporting nvidia with my money and I add my name to the list of people eagerly awaiting checkerboard support to be added. :)
Some people make the claim that 720p could look better than 1080 checkerboard. This COULD sorta be true due to the limits of your video card. If your system can't handle rendering graphics at high framerates at 1080 (normally in 2D, or especially in 3D) then the reduced framerates you will see versus 720 could offset the increased and sharper resolution. In other words, some people with slower computers could prefer gaming at 720 at 60 fps rather than 1080 at 30 fps (these framerates are just for example). These people might even swear that it looks better because of the better framerates. But does each individual frame of 720 look as good or better? No, it does not. Anyone claiming it does, is quite simply wrong. And Roller11 is right that resizing a 720 image onto a 1080 screen will not look as good as a native 1080p checkerboard image. But a lot of the mathematical reasoning I see on here is either wrong or meaningless. I say this as a computer programmer who did my PhD research in computer science. Graphics is not my field. But I know enough about graphics that I can still say what I say with reasonable certainty. I also recently bought a 2011 Samsung 3D tv partially because of reading this thread, and I can say that 1080 checkerboard looked better than 720p resized stuff on my screen.
I would add that it takes a very powerful system to handle 1080p checkerboard with all the settings on high. You'd need either one of the best cards, or more than one card in SLI. If you don't have the power, you might actually prefer 720 over 1080 because everything runs smoother (although it is slightly blurrier). If you've got the power though, there is no question that native 1080p (checkerboard, SBS, etc.) should look better.
Right now, if all you love is 3D gaming on a big TV, I'd almost suggest you buy a cheap 720p TV and game on that. You can game in full 3D and any good video card should run your 3D games silky smooth, and the HDMI cable can support full 720p, and 3D TV Play supports it too. Since you aren't resizing, the image should be pretty sharp (not as good as 1080, but way better than 720 resized to a 1080 screen). But using this TV for anything other than 3D gaming will not be as good since it's only 720p. I almost considered buying one and testing this out myself. But I didn't want to buy another tv just for 3d gaming.
That being said, later this year the new chips from Nvidia (Kepler) should be so fast that they should be able to handle 1080p checkerboard very very well. Once video cards are this fast, you either need a higher than 1080 resolution computer monitor (tv's higher than 1080 are years away) or you need to be gaming in 3D to really push the card to it's limits and enjoy all your gaming rig has to offer. Hopefully, Nvidia will have increased support for more implementations of 3D soon. Not sure what is taking so long, because programming this should not be that complicated if you already having other 3D implementations working.
But I don't think complaining to Andrew or other Nvidia employees is as useful as kindly asking for help. You get more with sugar than you do with vinegar. It's in nvidia's best interest to add this support and it's been said numerous times that they are indeed working on it. I just ordered a new computer with a gtx 580 ($500 video card) in hopes that the checkerboard support is coming soon. I'll buy 3DTV Play once it is. So I'm supporting nvidia with my money and I add my name to the list of people eagerly awaiting checkerboard support to be added. :)