[quote name='disolitude' date='06 April 2011 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1302131229' post='1220517']
Current Gen consoles can't do 720p in 3d let alone 1080p so that market doesn't exist.
[/quote]
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
[quote name='disolitude' date='06 April 2011 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1302131229' post='1220517']
Current Gen consoles can't do 720p in 3d let alone 1080p so that market doesn't exist.
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
[quote name='roller11' date='06 April 2011 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1302136323' post='1220556']
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
[/quote]
Problem is though, is that crowd is as incompetent as it comes to gaming. That's why they are on and prefer consoles to begin with. What they have is "good enough" for them. The console iteration cycle is too lengthy to implement an immediate plan. Besides a few interesting exclusives, it's gaming for the inept compared to what we have with 3D Vision, DX11, and Nvidia. That formula is going to get worse, much worse, until they have the Playshaft 4 and the IneptBox 720. By then, who knows what we will be on though. Even the DX9 ports are in no way comparable in terms of detail between PC and consoles.
[quote name='roller11' date='06 April 2011 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1302136323' post='1220556']
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
Problem is though, is that crowd is as incompetent as it comes to gaming. That's why they are on and prefer consoles to begin with. What they have is "good enough" for them. The console iteration cycle is too lengthy to implement an immediate plan. Besides a few interesting exclusives, it's gaming for the inept compared to what we have with 3D Vision, DX11, and Nvidia. That formula is going to get worse, much worse, until they have the Playshaft 4 and the IneptBox 720. By then, who knows what we will be on though. Even the DX9 ports are in no way comparable in terms of detail between PC and consoles.
[quote name='roller11' date='06 April 2011 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1302136323' post='1220556']
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
[/quote]
PS3 can technically do 1080p 3D per eye, not just 720p...it has the bandwith. But it barely has the processing muscle to do 720p in 2D. Out of the games released thus far in 3D only GT5 is 720p per eye. Everything else is 720p / 2 per eye and then upscaled back to 720p. 360 is in the same boat...
Only thing 1080p@60 hz 3D could be used for today is Nvidia 3D vision, tridef and IZ3D gaming. I would love to get a fully equiped 1080p@120 hz projector, but it doesn't look like its in the cards for another few years. Once PS4 and Xbox 720 start pushing 3D capabilities to the masses, we may see full HD 3D...
[quote name='roller11' date='06 April 2011 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1302136323' post='1220556']
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
PS3 can technically do 1080p 3D per eye, not just 720p...it has the bandwith. But it barely has the processing muscle to do 720p in 2D. Out of the games released thus far in 3D only GT5 is 720p per eye. Everything else is 720p / 2 per eye and then upscaled back to 720p. 360 is in the same boat...
Only thing 1080p@60 hz 3D could be used for today is Nvidia 3D vision, tridef and IZ3D gaming. I would love to get a fully equiped 1080p@120 hz projector, but it doesn't look like its in the cards for another few years. Once PS4 and Xbox 720 start pushing 3D capabilities to the masses, we may see full HD 3D...
It has to do with the HDMI chipsets that process the signal. The HDMI cable, video cards themselves and the display panels could support the full 1080P60.
Maybe by next year they will bring out the "Full HD 1080P 3D, NO REALLY FULL HD this time" TVs.
It has to do with the HDMI chipsets that process the signal. The HDMI cable, video cards themselves and the display panels could support the full 1080P60.
Maybe by next year they will bring out the "Full HD 1080P 3D, NO REALLY FULL HD this time" TVs.
[quote name='photios' date='06 April 2011 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1302139370' post='1220578']
Problem is though, is that crowd is as incompetent as it comes to gaming.[/quote]
Agreed, but I believe you're over thinking this, it's all about the hype, not the reality. All gamers have one thing in common, the desire for the 'next great thing'. When Sony/Microsoft tells you you're not cool unless you get the new 3D capable console with hi res sharp images, you're gonna want one, especially when your buddies have one. Like us, console gamers care about how 'cool' their consoles are, and the quality of the game itself, the presentation. Marketing hype drives sales on the console side, and that in turn drives sales of HDTVs that are compatible with the new gen of consoles. So I would disagree with the proposition that consoles have negligble effect on the very displays they are designed for. It isn't the sophistication of the gamers, it's their numbers that matter to TV makers.
[quote name='photios' date='06 April 2011 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1302139370' post='1220578']
Problem is though, is that crowd is as incompetent as it comes to gaming.
Agreed, but I believe you're over thinking this, it's all about the hype, not the reality. All gamers have one thing in common, the desire for the 'next great thing'. When Sony/Microsoft tells you you're not cool unless you get the new 3D capable console with hi res sharp images, you're gonna want one, especially when your buddies have one. Like us, console gamers care about how 'cool' their consoles are, and the quality of the game itself, the presentation. Marketing hype drives sales on the console side, and that in turn drives sales of HDTVs that are compatible with the new gen of consoles. So I would disagree with the proposition that consoles have negligble effect on the very displays they are designed for. It isn't the sophistication of the gamers, it's their numbers that matter to TV makers.
[quote name='Libertine' date='08 April 2011 - 03:55 AM' timestamp='1302249357' post='1221285']
How will we know when a Tv will do a 1080p @ 120hz output? Is that something that Tv makers would even bother letting people know they support?
[/quote]
All the 3D TVs out there already do 120Hz output. We are talking about *input* in this thread, and not even 120Hz at that. The issue is 1080P @ 60Hz frame-packed. This is where both left and right images and combined into one frame, but at full resolution (not squished). I suspect we will see TVs that can do this sometime next year.
[quote name='Libertine' date='08 April 2011 - 03:55 AM' timestamp='1302249357' post='1221285']
How will we know when a Tv will do a 1080p @ 120hz output? Is that something that Tv makers would even bother letting people know they support?
All the 3D TVs out there already do 120Hz output. We are talking about *input* in this thread, and not even 120Hz at that. The issue is 1080P @ 60Hz frame-packed. This is where both left and right images and combined into one frame, but at full resolution (not squished). I suspect we will see TVs that can do this sometime next year.
[quote name='Libertine' date='07 April 2011 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1302249357' post='1221285']
How will we know when a Tv will do a 1080p @ 120hz output? Is that something that Tv makers would even bother letting people know they support?
[/quote]
It's a little confusing (and somewhat of a scam) when manufacturer's quote refresh rates of 120hz or 240hz. Let me try and explain my understanding...
At the moment, the maximum speed of the input signal INTO the TV is 60hz. If we did 3d purely at this speed it means you would get 30 frames per second for each eye which would be give you a perceivable flickering effect since each eye would be closed for 1/60th of a second while the other eye displays which is quite a long time. To counter this they used something called 'frame-packed' at 60hz. What this means is that instead of sending one frame of information in that 1/60th of a second interval, it sends 2 (left and right eye images) in a packed format. The TV then takes this and during that 1/60th of a second displays each frame once for each eye, while the shutter glasses black out the other eye. This gives you a refresh rate of 120hz, since you're seeing 2 frames every 1/60th of a second, hence less flicker (because each eye is closed for 1/2 the time at a time). I believe newer TV's can now do 240hz, which means they may be showing 4 frames in each 1/60th of a second.
At the moment, TV's only support this frame-packed 60hz speed at 720p. For 1080p you're down to packed frames at 24Hz. Because this is again upscaled to 120hz/240hz on the TV you will not perceive the flicker, but it means you only get a maximum 'frame rate' of 24fps. This is fine for movies, but for fast-action gaming this too slow. Hence the requirement of people here for faster frame rates at 1080p. Technically HDMI 1.4a does have a format for packed 1080p at 60hz, but I haven't heard of a TV that supports this yet. It's unlikely that 3D PC gamers will be a large enough crowd to convince manufacturers to support this, but maybe when console gamers get more on-board with 3D then it will become a competitive advantage for companies to have this feature in their TVs.
There are monitors out there that support TRUE 120hz INPUT, but they are a maximum size of 27" right now and are not cheap. These are the monitors used for 3DVision and will give you a true 3D at 60hz which is great for gaming if you can deal with the smaller screen size. Personally I use a 32" at 4ft on my desktop which is for me the perfect size for gaming. I would love 3D but don't want to sacrifice the screen size; I think a lot of people here are probably feeling the same thing.
[quote name='Libertine' date='07 April 2011 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1302249357' post='1221285']
How will we know when a Tv will do a 1080p @ 120hz output? Is that something that Tv makers would even bother letting people know they support?
It's a little confusing (and somewhat of a scam) when manufacturer's quote refresh rates of 120hz or 240hz. Let me try and explain my understanding...
At the moment, the maximum speed of the input signal INTO the TV is 60hz. If we did 3d purely at this speed it means you would get 30 frames per second for each eye which would be give you a perceivable flickering effect since each eye would be closed for 1/60th of a second while the other eye displays which is quite a long time. To counter this they used something called 'frame-packed' at 60hz. What this means is that instead of sending one frame of information in that 1/60th of a second interval, it sends 2 (left and right eye images) in a packed format. The TV then takes this and during that 1/60th of a second displays each frame once for each eye, while the shutter glasses black out the other eye. This gives you a refresh rate of 120hz, since you're seeing 2 frames every 1/60th of a second, hence less flicker (because each eye is closed for 1/2 the time at a time). I believe newer TV's can now do 240hz, which means they may be showing 4 frames in each 1/60th of a second.
At the moment, TV's only support this frame-packed 60hz speed at 720p. For 1080p you're down to packed frames at 24Hz. Because this is again upscaled to 120hz/240hz on the TV you will not perceive the flicker, but it means you only get a maximum 'frame rate' of 24fps. This is fine for movies, but for fast-action gaming this too slow. Hence the requirement of people here for faster frame rates at 1080p. Technically HDMI 1.4a does have a format for packed 1080p at 60hz, but I haven't heard of a TV that supports this yet. It's unlikely that 3D PC gamers will be a large enough crowd to convince manufacturers to support this, but maybe when console gamers get more on-board with 3D then it will become a competitive advantage for companies to have this feature in their TVs.
There are monitors out there that support TRUE 120hz INPUT, but they are a maximum size of 27" right now and are not cheap. These are the monitors used for 3DVision and will give you a true 3D at 60hz which is great for gaming if you can deal with the smaller screen size. Personally I use a 32" at 4ft on my desktop which is for me the perfect size for gaming. I would love 3D but don't want to sacrifice the screen size; I think a lot of people here are probably feeling the same thing.
[quote name='roller11' date='07 April 2011 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1302190442' post='1220860']
Agreed, but I believe you're over thinking this, it's all about the hype, not the reality. All gamers have one thing in common, the desire for the 'next great thing'. When Sony/Microsoft tells you you're not cool unless you get the new 3D capable console with hi res sharp images, you're gonna want one, especially when your buddies have one. Like us, console gamers care about how 'cool' their consoles are, and the quality of the game itself, the presentation. Marketing hype drives sales on the console side, and that in turn drives sales of HDTVs that are compatible with the new gen of consoles. So I would disagree with the proposition that consoles have negligble effect on the very displays they are designed for. It isn't the sophistication of the gamers, it's their numbers that matter to TV makers.
[/quote]
I agree with most of that, and we are probably on the same page. I'm not arguing that consoles have no effect, by no means. It is gaming for the masses on that score, but what I am arguing for is that the console hardware iteration cycle is too slow to make an *immediate* impact with the TV Market. If it had a much quicker refresh cycle such that you could swap your hardware in and out with the latest tech, it'd be an acid drip on PC gaming. In fact it would just BE a PC gaming machine. As is however, TV's can't really do much until those powers that be decide to speed up the process, but then again, most of that crowd hates spending money on a new console if it comes out any quicker than 5 years or so.
In its current form, we as PC gamers are one step (or two or three) ahead and also somewhat irrelevant to that mass market. It is somewhat odd ground to stand on. It's almost like everyone has to catch up to where we are now before we begin to reape the FULL benefit of what we actually possess.
[quote name='roller11' date='07 April 2011 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1302190442' post='1220860']
Agreed, but I believe you're over thinking this, it's all about the hype, not the reality. All gamers have one thing in common, the desire for the 'next great thing'. When Sony/Microsoft tells you you're not cool unless you get the new 3D capable console with hi res sharp images, you're gonna want one, especially when your buddies have one. Like us, console gamers care about how 'cool' their consoles are, and the quality of the game itself, the presentation. Marketing hype drives sales on the console side, and that in turn drives sales of HDTVs that are compatible with the new gen of consoles. So I would disagree with the proposition that consoles have negligble effect on the very displays they are designed for. It isn't the sophistication of the gamers, it's their numbers that matter to TV makers.
I agree with most of that, and we are probably on the same page. I'm not arguing that consoles have no effect, by no means. It is gaming for the masses on that score, but what I am arguing for is that the console hardware iteration cycle is too slow to make an *immediate* impact with the TV Market. If it had a much quicker refresh cycle such that you could swap your hardware in and out with the latest tech, it'd be an acid drip on PC gaming. In fact it would just BE a PC gaming machine. As is however, TV's can't really do much until those powers that be decide to speed up the process, but then again, most of that crowd hates spending money on a new console if it comes out any quicker than 5 years or so.
In its current form, we as PC gamers are one step (or two or three) ahead and also somewhat irrelevant to that mass market. It is somewhat odd ground to stand on. It's almost like everyone has to catch up to where we are now before we begin to reape the FULL benefit of what we actually possess.
[quote name='cybereality' date='08 April 2011 - 05:34 AM' timestamp='1302266082' post='1221357']
All the 3D TVs out there already do 120Hz output. We are talking about *input* in this thread, and not even 120Hz at that. The issue is 1080P @ 60Hz frame-packed. This is where both left and right images and combined into one frame, but at full resolution (not squished). I suspect we will see TVs that can do this sometime next year.
[/quote]
Ah yes, i did actually mean 120hz output to mean 60hz/eye, 1080p, in 3D. The question was, is it even on their radar to solve this problem for this market segment when they've got it covered for HD movie watcher and console gamers which can't do more than 720p? My first thought was considering that these 480hz TV's might require some extra processing power that would enable them to process what we need, but might not bother to advertise it.
[quote name='cybereality' date='08 April 2011 - 05:34 AM' timestamp='1302266082' post='1221357']
All the 3D TVs out there already do 120Hz output. We are talking about *input* in this thread, and not even 120Hz at that. The issue is 1080P @ 60Hz frame-packed. This is where both left and right images and combined into one frame, but at full resolution (not squished). I suspect we will see TVs that can do this sometime next year.
Ah yes, i did actually mean 120hz output to mean 60hz/eye, 1080p, in 3D. The question was, is it even on their radar to solve this problem for this market segment when they've got it covered for HD movie watcher and console gamers which can't do more than 720p? My first thought was considering that these 480hz TV's might require some extra processing power that would enable them to process what we need, but might not bother to advertise it.
[quote name='Raeldor' date='08 April 2011 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1302279361' post='1221472']
There are monitors out there that support TRUE 120hz INPUT, but they are a maximum size of 27" right now and are not cheap. These are the monitors used for 3DVision and will give you a true 3D at 60hz which is great for gaming if you can deal with the smaller screen size. Personally I use a 32" at 4ft on my desktop which is for me the perfect size for gaming. I would love 3D but don't want to sacrifice the screen size; I think a lot of people here are probably feeling the same thing.
[/quote]
I had a 30" Dell about 2' from my head for 3 years and a 24" about 2 years before that, now i've got a 46" (lol) about 2'8" from my head. I know all about now wanting to decrease screen size. Why don't you pull it closer to you, you'll increase your field of view and you'll be able to bump up the fov in the game settings too? Pull it close enough towards you and you have youself an IMAX screen in front of you. A freznel lens is another option. I've used them before and they were surprisingly very effective at enhancing immersion into the game world. Most office supply retailers here in WA state have smaller ones in the store you can sort of try out if they also have running monitors for sale.
[quote name='Raeldor' date='08 April 2011 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1302279361' post='1221472']
There are monitors out there that support TRUE 120hz INPUT, but they are a maximum size of 27" right now and are not cheap. These are the monitors used for 3DVision and will give you a true 3D at 60hz which is great for gaming if you can deal with the smaller screen size. Personally I use a 32" at 4ft on my desktop which is for me the perfect size for gaming. I would love 3D but don't want to sacrifice the screen size; I think a lot of people here are probably feeling the same thing.
I had a 30" Dell about 2' from my head for 3 years and a 24" about 2 years before that, now i've got a 46" (lol) about 2'8" from my head. I know all about now wanting to decrease screen size. Why don't you pull it closer to you, you'll increase your field of view and you'll be able to bump up the fov in the game settings too? Pull it close enough towards you and you have youself an IMAX screen in front of you. A freznel lens is another option. I've used them before and they were surprisingly very effective at enhancing immersion into the game world. Most office supply retailers here in WA state have smaller ones in the store you can sort of try out if they also have running monitors for sale.
[quote name='Libertine' date='08 April 2011 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1302311939' post='1221715']
Ah yes, i did actually mean 120hz output to mean 60hz/eye, 1080p, in 3D. The question was, is it even on their radar to solve this problem for this market segment when they've got it covered for HD movie watcher and console gamers which can't do more than 720p? My first thought was considering that these 480hz TV's might require some extra processing power that would enable them to process what we need, but might not bother to advertise it.
[/quote]
Full res per eye/60 is definitely on their radar. Check this Youtube interview with HDMI Licensing President, Steve Venuti at CES. Based on his responses, I believe he is well aware of the need for 1080P/120 capability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zyceO31cwg
[quote name='Libertine' date='08 April 2011 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1302311939' post='1221715']
Ah yes, i did actually mean 120hz output to mean 60hz/eye, 1080p, in 3D. The question was, is it even on their radar to solve this problem for this market segment when they've got it covered for HD movie watcher and console gamers which can't do more than 720p? My first thought was considering that these 480hz TV's might require some extra processing power that would enable them to process what we need, but might not bother to advertise it.
Full res per eye/60 is definitely on their radar. Check this Youtube interview with HDMI Licensing President, Steve Venuti at CES. Based on his responses, I believe he is well aware of the need for 1080P/120 capability.
[quote name='roller11' date='09 April 2011 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1302382616' post='1222035']
Full res per eye/60 is definitely on their radar. Check this Youtube interview with HDMI Licensing President, Steve Venuti at CES. Based on his responses, I believe he is well aware of the need for 1080P/120 capability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zyceO31cwg
[/quote]
Yeah, sounds like he is very aware. Nice that he seemed confident those chips we need are coming. Nice find. I tried comparing the difference in picture quality between 1080p and 720p in Bad Company and it wasn't as big as i thought, but man did the mouse lag skyrocket to unplayable levels. In testing HL2, it most definitely playable, but certainly not ideal.
[quote name='roller11' date='09 April 2011 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1302382616' post='1222035']
Full res per eye/60 is definitely on their radar. Check this Youtube interview with HDMI Licensing President, Steve Venuti at CES. Based on his responses, I believe he is well aware of the need for 1080P/120 capability.
Yeah, sounds like he is very aware. Nice that he seemed confident those chips we need are coming. Nice find. I tried comparing the difference in picture quality between 1080p and 720p in Bad Company and it wasn't as big as i thought, but man did the mouse lag skyrocket to unplayable levels. In testing HL2, it most definitely playable, but certainly not ideal.
Wow this is so depressing. All of this good pc horsepower going to waste.
I just wonder if companies like Samsung are bound by contracts related to the hdmi licensing standard... I honestly thought that they would have implemented the tech we all wanted this year in their D series models, but were prevented in some way from doing so.
What stopped them putting a display port or dual link dvi input in these tv's this year so we could finally game in peace?
I don't want to make it sound like a conspiracy but this is getting ridiculous.
Maybe the 60" they're releasing later this year will have display port or dvi-d inputs?
Wow this is so depressing. All of this good pc horsepower going to waste.
I just wonder if companies like Samsung are bound by contracts related to the hdmi licensing standard... I honestly thought that they would have implemented the tech we all wanted this year in their D series models, but were prevented in some way from doing so.
What stopped them putting a display port or dual link dvi input in these tv's this year so we could finally game in peace?
I don't want to make it sound like a conspiracy but this is getting ridiculous.
Maybe the 60" they're releasing later this year will have display port or dvi-d inputs?
AMD Phenom II X3 720 @ 2.8GHZ
8GB RAM
Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb @ 2048x1536 @ 85hz
Edimensional glasses and Nvidia 3D Vision
Current Gen consoles can't do 720p in 3d let alone 1080p so that market doesn't exist.
[/quote]
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
Current Gen consoles can't do 720p in 3d let alone 1080p so that market doesn't exist.
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
[/quote]
Problem is though, is that crowd is as incompetent as it comes to gaming. That's why they are on and prefer consoles to begin with. What they have is "good enough" for them. The console iteration cycle is too lengthy to implement an immediate plan. Besides a few interesting exclusives, it's gaming for the inept compared to what we have with 3D Vision, DX11, and Nvidia. That formula is going to get worse, much worse, until they have the Playshaft 4 and the IneptBox 720. By then, who knows what we will be on though. Even the DX9 ports are in no way comparable in terms of detail between PC and consoles.
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
Problem is though, is that crowd is as incompetent as it comes to gaming. That's why they are on and prefer consoles to begin with. What they have is "good enough" for them. The console iteration cycle is too lengthy to implement an immediate plan. Besides a few interesting exclusives, it's gaming for the inept compared to what we have with 3D Vision, DX11, and Nvidia. That formula is going to get worse, much worse, until they have the Playshaft 4 and the IneptBox 720. By then, who knows what we will be on though. Even the DX9 ports are in no way comparable in terms of detail between PC and consoles.
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
[/quote]
PS3 can technically do 1080p 3D per eye, not just 720p...it has the bandwith. But it barely has the processing muscle to do 720p in 2D. Out of the games released thus far in 3D only GT5 is 720p per eye. Everything else is 720p / 2 per eye and then upscaled back to 720p. 360 is in the same boat...
Only thing 1080p@60 hz 3D could be used for today is Nvidia 3D vision, tridef and IZ3D gaming. I would love to get a fully equiped 1080p@120 hz projector, but it doesn't look like its in the cards for another few years. Once PS4 and Xbox 720 start pushing 3D capabilities to the masses, we may see full HD 3D...
I thought PS3 did 720P 3D?
The market doesn't exist because the TV makers don't provide the necessary input. If a TV maker could advertize "full 1080P/120 in 3D" then potentially everyone who wants to game at full quality (.i.e. all gamers) would buy one. Even if the consoles don't do this now, they would upgrade so they could advertize a complete full quality solution, something they can't do now.
PS3 can technically do 1080p 3D per eye, not just 720p...it has the bandwith. But it barely has the processing muscle to do 720p in 2D. Out of the games released thus far in 3D only GT5 is 720p per eye. Everything else is 720p / 2 per eye and then upscaled back to 720p. 360 is in the same boat...
Only thing 1080p@60 hz 3D could be used for today is Nvidia 3D vision, tridef and IZ3D gaming. I would love to get a fully equiped 1080p@120 hz projector, but it doesn't look like its in the cards for another few years. Once PS4 and Xbox 720 start pushing 3D capabilities to the masses, we may see full HD 3D...
Maybe by next year they will bring out the "Full HD 1080P 3D, NO REALLY FULL HD this time" TVs.
Maybe by next year they will bring out the "Full HD 1080P 3D, NO REALLY FULL HD this time" TVs.
check my blog - cybereality.com
Problem is though, is that crowd is as incompetent as it comes to gaming.[/quote]
Agreed, but I believe you're over thinking this, it's all about the hype, not the reality. All gamers have one thing in common, the desire for the 'next great thing'. When Sony/Microsoft tells you you're not cool unless you get the new 3D capable console with hi res sharp images, you're gonna want one, especially when your buddies have one. Like us, console gamers care about how 'cool' their consoles are, and the quality of the game itself, the presentation. Marketing hype drives sales on the console side, and that in turn drives sales of HDTVs that are compatible with the new gen of consoles. So I would disagree with the proposition that consoles have negligble effect on the very displays they are designed for. It isn't the sophistication of the gamers, it's their numbers that matter to TV makers.
Problem is though, is that crowd is as incompetent as it comes to gaming.
Agreed, but I believe you're over thinking this, it's all about the hype, not the reality. All gamers have one thing in common, the desire for the 'next great thing'. When Sony/Microsoft tells you you're not cool unless you get the new 3D capable console with hi res sharp images, you're gonna want one, especially when your buddies have one. Like us, console gamers care about how 'cool' their consoles are, and the quality of the game itself, the presentation. Marketing hype drives sales on the console side, and that in turn drives sales of HDTVs that are compatible with the new gen of consoles. So I would disagree with the proposition that consoles have negligble effect on the very displays they are designed for. It isn't the sophistication of the gamers, it's their numbers that matter to TV makers.
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
How will we know when a Tv will do a 1080p @ 120hz output? Is that something that Tv makers would even bother letting people know they support?
[/quote]
All the 3D TVs out there already do 120Hz output. We are talking about *input* in this thread, and not even 120Hz at that. The issue is 1080P @ 60Hz frame-packed. This is where both left and right images and combined into one frame, but at full resolution (not squished). I suspect we will see TVs that can do this sometime next year.
How will we know when a Tv will do a 1080p @ 120hz output? Is that something that Tv makers would even bother letting people know they support?
All the 3D TVs out there already do 120Hz output. We are talking about *input* in this thread, and not even 120Hz at that. The issue is 1080P @ 60Hz frame-packed. This is where both left and right images and combined into one frame, but at full resolution (not squished). I suspect we will see TVs that can do this sometime next year.
check my blog - cybereality.com
How will we know when a Tv will do a 1080p @ 120hz output? Is that something that Tv makers would even bother letting people know they support?
[/quote]
It's a little confusing (and somewhat of a scam) when manufacturer's quote refresh rates of 120hz or 240hz. Let me try and explain my understanding...
At the moment, the maximum speed of the input signal INTO the TV is 60hz. If we did 3d purely at this speed it means you would get 30 frames per second for each eye which would be give you a perceivable flickering effect since each eye would be closed for 1/60th of a second while the other eye displays which is quite a long time. To counter this they used something called 'frame-packed' at 60hz. What this means is that instead of sending one frame of information in that 1/60th of a second interval, it sends 2 (left and right eye images) in a packed format. The TV then takes this and during that 1/60th of a second displays each frame once for each eye, while the shutter glasses black out the other eye. This gives you a refresh rate of 120hz, since you're seeing 2 frames every 1/60th of a second, hence less flicker (because each eye is closed for 1/2 the time at a time). I believe newer TV's can now do 240hz, which means they may be showing 4 frames in each 1/60th of a second.
At the moment, TV's only support this frame-packed 60hz speed at 720p. For 1080p you're down to packed frames at 24Hz. Because this is again upscaled to 120hz/240hz on the TV you will not perceive the flicker, but it means you only get a maximum 'frame rate' of 24fps. This is fine for movies, but for fast-action gaming this too slow. Hence the requirement of people here for faster frame rates at 1080p. Technically HDMI 1.4a does have a format for packed 1080p at 60hz, but I haven't heard of a TV that supports this yet. It's unlikely that 3D PC gamers will be a large enough crowd to convince manufacturers to support this, but maybe when console gamers get more on-board with 3D then it will become a competitive advantage for companies to have this feature in their TVs.
There are monitors out there that support TRUE 120hz INPUT, but they are a maximum size of 27" right now and are not cheap. These are the monitors used for 3DVision and will give you a true 3D at 60hz which is great for gaming if you can deal with the smaller screen size. Personally I use a 32" at 4ft on my desktop which is for me the perfect size for gaming. I would love 3D but don't want to sacrifice the screen size; I think a lot of people here are probably feeling the same thing.
How will we know when a Tv will do a 1080p @ 120hz output? Is that something that Tv makers would even bother letting people know they support?
It's a little confusing (and somewhat of a scam) when manufacturer's quote refresh rates of 120hz or 240hz. Let me try and explain my understanding...
At the moment, the maximum speed of the input signal INTO the TV is 60hz. If we did 3d purely at this speed it means you would get 30 frames per second for each eye which would be give you a perceivable flickering effect since each eye would be closed for 1/60th of a second while the other eye displays which is quite a long time. To counter this they used something called 'frame-packed' at 60hz. What this means is that instead of sending one frame of information in that 1/60th of a second interval, it sends 2 (left and right eye images) in a packed format. The TV then takes this and during that 1/60th of a second displays each frame once for each eye, while the shutter glasses black out the other eye. This gives you a refresh rate of 120hz, since you're seeing 2 frames every 1/60th of a second, hence less flicker (because each eye is closed for 1/2 the time at a time). I believe newer TV's can now do 240hz, which means they may be showing 4 frames in each 1/60th of a second.
At the moment, TV's only support this frame-packed 60hz speed at 720p. For 1080p you're down to packed frames at 24Hz. Because this is again upscaled to 120hz/240hz on the TV you will not perceive the flicker, but it means you only get a maximum 'frame rate' of 24fps. This is fine for movies, but for fast-action gaming this too slow. Hence the requirement of people here for faster frame rates at 1080p. Technically HDMI 1.4a does have a format for packed 1080p at 60hz, but I haven't heard of a TV that supports this yet. It's unlikely that 3D PC gamers will be a large enough crowd to convince manufacturers to support this, but maybe when console gamers get more on-board with 3D then it will become a competitive advantage for companies to have this feature in their TVs.
There are monitors out there that support TRUE 120hz INPUT, but they are a maximum size of 27" right now and are not cheap. These are the monitors used for 3DVision and will give you a true 3D at 60hz which is great for gaming if you can deal with the smaller screen size. Personally I use a 32" at 4ft on my desktop which is for me the perfect size for gaming. I would love 3D but don't want to sacrifice the screen size; I think a lot of people here are probably feeling the same thing.
Agreed, but I believe you're over thinking this, it's all about the hype, not the reality. All gamers have one thing in common, the desire for the 'next great thing'. When Sony/Microsoft tells you you're not cool unless you get the new 3D capable console with hi res sharp images, you're gonna want one, especially when your buddies have one. Like us, console gamers care about how 'cool' their consoles are, and the quality of the game itself, the presentation. Marketing hype drives sales on the console side, and that in turn drives sales of HDTVs that are compatible with the new gen of consoles. So I would disagree with the proposition that consoles have negligble effect on the very displays they are designed for. It isn't the sophistication of the gamers, it's their numbers that matter to TV makers.
[/quote]
I agree with most of that, and we are probably on the same page. I'm not arguing that consoles have no effect, by no means. It is gaming for the masses on that score, but what I am arguing for is that the console hardware iteration cycle is too slow to make an *immediate* impact with the TV Market. If it had a much quicker refresh cycle such that you could swap your hardware in and out with the latest tech, it'd be an acid drip on PC gaming. In fact it would just BE a PC gaming machine. As is however, TV's can't really do much until those powers that be decide to speed up the process, but then again, most of that crowd hates spending money on a new console if it comes out any quicker than 5 years or so.
In its current form, we as PC gamers are one step (or two or three) ahead and also somewhat irrelevant to that mass market. It is somewhat odd ground to stand on. It's almost like everyone has to catch up to where we are now before we begin to reape the FULL benefit of what we actually possess.
Agreed, but I believe you're over thinking this, it's all about the hype, not the reality. All gamers have one thing in common, the desire for the 'next great thing'. When Sony/Microsoft tells you you're not cool unless you get the new 3D capable console with hi res sharp images, you're gonna want one, especially when your buddies have one. Like us, console gamers care about how 'cool' their consoles are, and the quality of the game itself, the presentation. Marketing hype drives sales on the console side, and that in turn drives sales of HDTVs that are compatible with the new gen of consoles. So I would disagree with the proposition that consoles have negligble effect on the very displays they are designed for. It isn't the sophistication of the gamers, it's their numbers that matter to TV makers.
I agree with most of that, and we are probably on the same page. I'm not arguing that consoles have no effect, by no means. It is gaming for the masses on that score, but what I am arguing for is that the console hardware iteration cycle is too slow to make an *immediate* impact with the TV Market. If it had a much quicker refresh cycle such that you could swap your hardware in and out with the latest tech, it'd be an acid drip on PC gaming. In fact it would just BE a PC gaming machine. As is however, TV's can't really do much until those powers that be decide to speed up the process, but then again, most of that crowd hates spending money on a new console if it comes out any quicker than 5 years or so.
In its current form, we as PC gamers are one step (or two or three) ahead and also somewhat irrelevant to that mass market. It is somewhat odd ground to stand on. It's almost like everyone has to catch up to where we are now before we begin to reape the FULL benefit of what we actually possess.
All the 3D TVs out there already do 120Hz output. We are talking about *input* in this thread, and not even 120Hz at that. The issue is 1080P @ 60Hz frame-packed. This is where both left and right images and combined into one frame, but at full resolution (not squished). I suspect we will see TVs that can do this sometime next year.
[/quote]
Ah yes, i did actually mean 120hz output to mean 60hz/eye, 1080p, in 3D. The question was, is it even on their radar to solve this problem for this market segment when they've got it covered for HD movie watcher and console gamers which can't do more than 720p? My first thought was considering that these 480hz TV's might require some extra processing power that would enable them to process what we need, but might not bother to advertise it.
All the 3D TVs out there already do 120Hz output. We are talking about *input* in this thread, and not even 120Hz at that. The issue is 1080P @ 60Hz frame-packed. This is where both left and right images and combined into one frame, but at full resolution (not squished). I suspect we will see TVs that can do this sometime next year.
Ah yes, i did actually mean 120hz output to mean 60hz/eye, 1080p, in 3D. The question was, is it even on their radar to solve this problem for this market segment when they've got it covered for HD movie watcher and console gamers which can't do more than 720p? My first thought was considering that these 480hz TV's might require some extra processing power that would enable them to process what we need, but might not bother to advertise it.
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
There are monitors out there that support TRUE 120hz INPUT, but they are a maximum size of 27" right now and are not cheap. These are the monitors used for 3DVision and will give you a true 3D at 60hz which is great for gaming if you can deal with the smaller screen size. Personally I use a 32" at 4ft on my desktop which is for me the perfect size for gaming. I would love 3D but don't want to sacrifice the screen size; I think a lot of people here are probably feeling the same thing.
[/quote]
I had a 30" Dell about 2' from my head for 3 years and a 24" about 2 years before that, now i've got a 46" (lol) about 2'8" from my head. I know all about now wanting to decrease screen size. Why don't you pull it closer to you, you'll increase your field of view and you'll be able to bump up the fov in the game settings too? Pull it close enough towards you and you have youself an IMAX screen in front of you. A freznel lens is another option. I've used them before and they were surprisingly very effective at enhancing immersion into the game world. Most office supply retailers here in WA state have smaller ones in the store you can sort of try out if they also have running monitors for sale.
There are monitors out there that support TRUE 120hz INPUT, but they are a maximum size of 27" right now and are not cheap. These are the monitors used for 3DVision and will give you a true 3D at 60hz which is great for gaming if you can deal with the smaller screen size. Personally I use a 32" at 4ft on my desktop which is for me the perfect size for gaming. I would love 3D but don't want to sacrifice the screen size; I think a lot of people here are probably feeling the same thing.
I had a 30" Dell about 2' from my head for 3 years and a 24" about 2 years before that, now i've got a 46" (lol) about 2'8" from my head. I know all about now wanting to decrease screen size. Why don't you pull it closer to you, you'll increase your field of view and you'll be able to bump up the fov in the game settings too? Pull it close enough towards you and you have youself an IMAX screen in front of you. A freznel lens is another option. I've used them before and they were surprisingly very effective at enhancing immersion into the game world. Most office supply retailers here in WA state have smaller ones in the store you can sort of try out if they also have running monitors for sale.
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
Ah yes, i did actually mean 120hz output to mean 60hz/eye, 1080p, in 3D. The question was, is it even on their radar to solve this problem for this market segment when they've got it covered for HD movie watcher and console gamers which can't do more than 720p? My first thought was considering that these 480hz TV's might require some extra processing power that would enable them to process what we need, but might not bother to advertise it.
[/quote]
Full res per eye/60 is definitely on their radar. Check this Youtube interview with HDMI Licensing President, Steve Venuti at CES. Based on his responses, I believe he is well aware of the need for 1080P/120 capability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zyceO31cwg
Ah yes, i did actually mean 120hz output to mean 60hz/eye, 1080p, in 3D. The question was, is it even on their radar to solve this problem for this market segment when they've got it covered for HD movie watcher and console gamers which can't do more than 720p? My first thought was considering that these 480hz TV's might require some extra processing power that would enable them to process what we need, but might not bother to advertise it.
Full res per eye/60 is definitely on their radar. Check this Youtube interview with HDMI Licensing President, Steve Venuti at CES. Based on his responses, I believe he is well aware of the need for 1080P/120 capability.
Full res per eye/60 is definitely on their radar. Check this Youtube interview with HDMI Licensing President, Steve Venuti at CES. Based on his responses, I believe he is well aware of the need for 1080P/120 capability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zyceO31cwg
[/quote]
Yeah, sounds like he is very aware. Nice that he seemed confident those chips we need are coming. Nice find. I tried comparing the difference in picture quality between 1080p and 720p in Bad Company and it wasn't as big as i thought, but man did the mouse lag skyrocket to unplayable levels. In testing HL2, it most definitely playable, but certainly not ideal.
Full res per eye/60 is definitely on their radar. Check this Youtube interview with HDMI Licensing President, Steve Venuti at CES. Based on his responses, I believe he is well aware of the need for 1080P/120 capability.
Yeah, sounds like he is very aware. Nice that he seemed confident those chips we need are coming. Nice find. I tried comparing the difference in picture quality between 1080p and 720p in Bad Company and it wasn't as big as i thought, but man did the mouse lag skyrocket to unplayable levels. In testing HL2, it most definitely playable, but certainly not ideal.
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 just wonder if companies like Samsung are bound by contracts related to the hdmi licensing standard... I honestly thought that they would have implemented the tech we all wanted this year in their D series models, but were prevented in some way from doing so.
What stopped them putting a display port or dual link dvi input in these tv's this year so we could finally game in peace?
I don't want to make it sound like a conspiracy but this is getting ridiculous.
Maybe the 60" they're releasing later this year will have display port or dvi-d inputs?
I can only hope
I just wonder if companies like Samsung are bound by contracts related to the hdmi licensing standard... I honestly thought that they would have implemented the tech we all wanted this year in their D series models, but were prevented in some way from doing so.
What stopped them putting a display port or dual link dvi input in these tv's this year so we could finally game in peace?
I don't want to make it sound like a conspiracy but this is getting ridiculous.
Maybe the 60" they're releasing later this year will have display port or dvi-d inputs?
I can only hope