Checkerboard support for Mitsubishi 92" DLP (WD-92840)
  3 / 3    
Hi, just bringing this thread back to life to see if there has been any progress on getting Checkerboard support, or getting 3D vision support instead of just 3D Play working for Mitsubishi TV's. Or at the very least is there a workaround that can be performed to get it to work?

I have the 92inch Mitsubishi TV and it seems all I can get to work is 3D play. The biggest problem with this is there seems to be no way to force games into using a specific resolution/refresh. For example, while 3D Play supports pushing signal out at 1080P 24hz frame packing (as I can set the desktop to this as well as set it using the 3D vision testing image) when I open a game such as Call of Duty 2 or 3 you have to set the resolution in the game. The problem here is most games do not take refresh rate into consideration, if I set the game to 1920x1080 (1080p) it errors out saying "HDMI 1.4a does not support this resolution, try setting the resolution to 1080p 24hz or 720p 60hz" of which I assume I receive this error because the game is attempting to push 1920x1080 60hz. The games do allow 3d vision if you set to 720p, but the game looks like garbage...

What I am trying to get at here is not only can I not seem to get the optimal solution to work (Checkerboard at 1080p) because it is not supported, but now I can't even use the better of the lesser solution (Frame Packing @ 1080p) and have to resort to using something that just looks terrible (Frame Packing @ 720p). Are there any solutions or workarounds yet to force checkerboard/3d vision instead of using 3d-play? I have an nvidia emitter and could care less about using the emitter built into the TV. The way I see it, most people hooking a computer up to this TV with the intent of using 3D Vision are likely people that already have the 3D Vision Kit, it would definitely be great to override the awful settings 3D-Play forces us to use, and provide a native signal to the TV (Which I know both the graphics cards and 3d Vision are capable of delivering as it was the way 3D Vision used to work on DLP TV's before 3D Play came out and Mitsubishi started putting 3D emitters in their TV's)

Thanks for any help or updates.
Hi, just bringing this thread back to life to see if there has been any progress on getting Checkerboard support, or getting 3D vision support instead of just 3D Play working for Mitsubishi TV's. Or at the very least is there a workaround that can be performed to get it to work?



I have the 92inch Mitsubishi TV and it seems all I can get to work is 3D play. The biggest problem with this is there seems to be no way to force games into using a specific resolution/refresh. For example, while 3D Play supports pushing signal out at 1080P 24hz frame packing (as I can set the desktop to this as well as set it using the 3D vision testing image) when I open a game such as Call of Duty 2 or 3 you have to set the resolution in the game. The problem here is most games do not take refresh rate into consideration, if I set the game to 1920x1080 (1080p) it errors out saying "HDMI 1.4a does not support this resolution, try setting the resolution to 1080p 24hz or 720p 60hz" of which I assume I receive this error because the game is attempting to push 1920x1080 60hz. The games do allow 3d vision if you set to 720p, but the game looks like garbage...



What I am trying to get at here is not only can I not seem to get the optimal solution to work (Checkerboard at 1080p) because it is not supported, but now I can't even use the better of the lesser solution (Frame Packing @ 1080p) and have to resort to using something that just looks terrible (Frame Packing @ 720p). Are there any solutions or workarounds yet to force checkerboard/3d vision instead of using 3d-play? I have an nvidia emitter and could care less about using the emitter built into the TV. The way I see it, most people hooking a computer up to this TV with the intent of using 3D Vision are likely people that already have the 3D Vision Kit, it would definitely be great to override the awful settings 3D-Play forces us to use, and provide a native signal to the TV (Which I know both the graphics cards and 3d Vision are capable of delivering as it was the way 3D Vision used to work on DLP TV's before 3D Play came out and Mitsubishi started putting 3D emitters in their TV's)



Thanks for any help or updates.

#31
Posted 12/23/2011 03:58 PM   
[quote name='Grestorn' date='19 November 2011 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1321751262' post='1329518']
You keep on talking about a 'native resolution' and that's what I can't understand from the beginning. Because native resolution is 1920x1080, not 1920x540 or 960x1080. Only 1080p/24p gives you native resolution, all the other options (SBS, CB, IL, 720p/60Hz) reduce the resolution in some way and therefor are NOT native resolution.
[/quote]
You clearly don't understand the concept of "native resolution". Native resolution refers to an image who's pixels are 1 to 1 mapped onto a fixed pixel screen. If your [mis]understanding of native res was correct, then the 960x1080 L and R CB images would be mapped 1 to 2. That is, each single pixel in, say, the checkerboard left eye image would be mapped to two pixels on the screen. But that isn't what happens in CB, SBS, interleaved, or other native resolution formats. A single pixel in the L/R image maps to exactly one pixel on the screen, not two as you seem to think. The result is a 1920x1080 pixel frame mapped to the fixed 1920x1080 grid on a 1920x1080 display. Like an ordered pair in analytic geometry, each of the 1920x1080 pixels in the CB frame is distinct and aligns with exactly one pixel on the grid. And all 1920x1080 on the screen are mapped to exactly one distinct pixel on the L and R checkerboard images.
If you are right, then CBS,NBC, the CW, nvidia are all lying when they claim their HD format is 1920x1080. Is the rest of the world wrong, or are you?

In this thread, I said:
"your lack of technical knowedge of video is shocking"

to which you responded
"If you'd actually read my posts, you wouldn't have to be shocked..."
Agreed, none of your statements will shock me from this point on.

[quote]These "hordes" are actually two people as far as I can see... [/quote]
So it's your position that exactly two people in this forum can visually distinguish between hideous low res scaled 1280x720 and native res 1920x1080. Everyone else in this forum would look at 1920x1080 and 1280x720 and say "gee, I can't see any difference, looks the same to me!" Are you going to stick with that story?
I've got 59 PM folders full of thanks from members who have thanked me for freeing them from the horror of 1280x720 framepacking gaming. The thread that instructs people how to upgrade their 1280x720 games to 1920x1080 has over 442,000 views. Franco's thread "rollermod rules!" has a similar following. The only reason to view these threads are to upgrade from 1280x720 gaming to 1920x1080 gaming. Not to mention the countless threads of people demanding that Andrew keep his promise of adding CB and SBS mode to 3DTV Play.

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925 francOMG post
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=191819

All this, and you say that only two people in this forum can distinguish between a 1280x720 frame and a 1920x1080 frame, both on a 1920x1080 display. Like I said, nothing you can come up with shocks me any more.

[quote]And one of them actually claims that 1080p @ 30fps (FS) is actually superior to 120 Hz monitors showing 1920x1080 with 60 fps, which is absolutely laughable. The image quality is identical at best (as is 1080p @24fps if you make sure you don't have any post processing), but you'll always have the lower frame rate. Why would it look better than on a 120 Hz monitor (besides the larger screen)?[/quote]
You'd have to ask that person, if he exists (I think you're making this up).
[quote name='Grestorn' date='19 November 2011 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1321751262' post='1329518']

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



You clearly don't understand the concept of "native resolution". Native resolution refers to an image who's pixels are 1 to 1 mapped onto a fixed pixel screen. If your [mis]understanding of native res was correct, then the 960x1080 L and R CB images would be mapped 1 to 2. That is, each single pixel in, say, the checkerboard left eye image would be mapped to two pixels on the screen. But that isn't what happens in CB, SBS, interleaved, or other native resolution formats. A single pixel in the L/R image maps to exactly one pixel on the screen, not two as you seem to think. The result is a 1920x1080 pixel frame mapped to the fixed 1920x1080 grid on a 1920x1080 display. Like an ordered pair in analytic geometry, each of the 1920x1080 pixels in the CB frame is distinct and aligns with exactly one pixel on the grid. And all 1920x1080 on the screen are mapped to exactly one distinct pixel on the L and R checkerboard images.

If you are right, then CBS,NBC, the CW, nvidia are all lying when they claim their HD format is 1920x1080. Is the rest of the world wrong, or are you?



In this thread, I said:

"your lack of technical knowedge of video is shocking"



to which you responded

"If you'd actually read my posts, you wouldn't have to be shocked..."

Agreed, none of your statements will shock me from this point on.



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


So it's your position that exactly two people in this forum can visually distinguish between hideous low res scaled 1280x720 and native res 1920x1080. Everyone else in this forum would look at 1920x1080 and 1280x720 and say "gee, I can't see any difference, looks the same to me!" Are you going to stick with that story?

I've got 59 PM folders full of thanks from members who have thanked me for freeing them from the horror of 1280x720 framepacking gaming. The thread that instructs people how to upgrade their 1280x720 games to 1920x1080 has over 442,000 views. Franco's thread "rollermod rules!" has a similar following. The only reason to view these threads are to upgrade from 1280x720 gaming to 1920x1080 gaming. Not to mention the countless threads of people demanding that Andrew keep his promise of adding CB and SBS mode to 3DTV Play.



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

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=191819




All this, and you say that only two people in this forum can distinguish between a 1280x720 frame and a 1920x1080 frame, both on a 1920x1080 display. Like I said, nothing you can come up with shocks me any more.



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


You'd have to ask that person, if he exists (I think you're making this up).

#32
Posted 12/24/2011 01:15 AM   
  3 / 3    
Scroll To Top