Nvidia suggesting low depth use for PC games?
  3 / 3    
Rendering wise 50% on a 23,6" screen is the same as 100% on a 47" screen so I believe that 3D rendering problems are less pronounced at below 100% on a 47" screen.

Everything that is rendered at screen depth becomes twice as many pixels separated at 23,6" 100% compared to 47" 100%.

Feels like comparing apples and oranges.
Rendering wise 50% on a 23,6" screen is the same as 100% on a 47" screen so I believe that 3D rendering problems are less pronounced at below 100% on a 47" screen.



Everything that is rendered at screen depth becomes twice as many pixels separated at 23,6" 100% compared to 47" 100%.



Feels like comparing apples and oranges.

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

#31
Posted 01/12/2012 11:04 PM   
Rendering wise 50% on a 23,6" screen is the same as 100% on a 47" screen so I believe that 3D rendering problems are less pronounced at below 100% on a 47" screen.

Everything that is rendered at screen depth becomes twice as many pixels separated at 23,6" 100% compared to 47" 100%.

Feels like comparing apples and oranges.
Rendering wise 50% on a 23,6" screen is the same as 100% on a 47" screen so I believe that 3D rendering problems are less pronounced at below 100% on a 47" screen.



Everything that is rendered at screen depth becomes twice as many pixels separated at 23,6" 100% compared to 47" 100%.



Feels like comparing apples and oranges.

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

#32
Posted 01/12/2012 11:04 PM   
[quote name='Flugan' date='13 January 2012 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1326409482' post='1355251']
Rendering wise 50% on a 23,6" screen is the same as 100% on a 47" screen so I believe that 3D rendering problems are less pronounced at below 100% on a 47" screen.

Everything that is rendered at screen depth becomes twice as many pixels separated at 23,6" 100% compared to 47" 100%.

Feels like comparing apples and oranges.
[/quote]

I don't know exactly what you mean with this, but you certainly know that the 3DVision driver knows the screen size and uses that for the calculation of the offset. So on a 47" screen, you get much less relative separation (resulting in the same absolute separation in mm) than on a 27" or 24" monitor.
[quote name='Flugan' date='13 January 2012 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1326409482' post='1355251']

Rendering wise 50% on a 23,6" screen is the same as 100% on a 47" screen so I believe that 3D rendering problems are less pronounced at below 100% on a 47" screen.



Everything that is rendered at screen depth becomes twice as many pixels separated at 23,6" 100% compared to 47" 100%.



Feels like comparing apples and oranges.





I don't know exactly what you mean with this, but you certainly know that the 3DVision driver knows the screen size and uses that for the calculation of the offset. So on a 47" screen, you get much less relative separation (resulting in the same absolute separation in mm) than on a 27" or 24" monitor.

#33
Posted 01/13/2012 06:18 AM   
[quote name='Flugan' date='13 January 2012 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1326409482' post='1355251']
Rendering wise 50% on a 23,6" screen is the same as 100% on a 47" screen so I believe that 3D rendering problems are less pronounced at below 100% on a 47" screen.

Everything that is rendered at screen depth becomes twice as many pixels separated at 23,6" 100% compared to 47" 100%.

Feels like comparing apples and oranges.
[/quote]

I don't know exactly what you mean with this, but you certainly know that the 3DVision driver knows the screen size and uses that for the calculation of the offset. So on a 47" screen, you get much less relative separation (resulting in the same absolute separation in mm) than on a 27" or 24" monitor.
[quote name='Flugan' date='13 January 2012 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1326409482' post='1355251']

Rendering wise 50% on a 23,6" screen is the same as 100% on a 47" screen so I believe that 3D rendering problems are less pronounced at below 100% on a 47" screen.



Everything that is rendered at screen depth becomes twice as many pixels separated at 23,6" 100% compared to 47" 100%.



Feels like comparing apples and oranges.





I don't know exactly what you mean with this, but you certainly know that the 3DVision driver knows the screen size and uses that for the calculation of the offset. So on a 47" screen, you get much less relative separation (resulting in the same absolute separation in mm) than on a 27" or 24" monitor.

#34
Posted 01/13/2012 06:18 AM   
I am assuming that both the large screen and the small screen has the same resolution (1080p) as I'm not aware of any 3D solutions for consumers with higher resolution.

I'm attaching pictures from Witcher 2 with both 100% depth and 50% depth on my small screen. If you were to look at the small screen 100% depth on a large screen you wouldn't be able to view the image as your eyes would have to diverge way beyond the occular width.

At 50% both eyes recieve much more similar images and as objects overlap to a much larger extent there is less ghosting.

If we are to discuss the quite reasonable recommendations of nvidia for 24" computer monitors we can't draw conclusions from when using huge screens.

The recommended settings might result in only 50cm depth beyond the screen but is generally more confortable to use and suffers from less ghosting.

If the game does not support 3D well like Skyrim which has things like character arrows rendered at screen depth causes much larger problems when using a small screen.

It is no secret that most games does not handle 3D flawlessly and rendering a small screen att 100% depth shows the problems from their worst side.

Going back to my calculations I was suprised to find that the percieved depth doubles if I double the distance to the screen (at 100% depth configuration).
45cm screen distance, 6,3cm displacement on screen = 14,6m
100cm screen distance, 6,3cm displacement on screen = 32,5m

Edit: Files removed
I am assuming that both the large screen and the small screen has the same resolution (1080p) as I'm not aware of any 3D solutions for consumers with higher resolution.



I'm attaching pictures from Witcher 2 with both 100% depth and 50% depth on my small screen. If you were to look at the small screen 100% depth on a large screen you wouldn't be able to view the image as your eyes would have to diverge way beyond the occular width.



At 50% both eyes recieve much more similar images and as objects overlap to a much larger extent there is less ghosting.



If we are to discuss the quite reasonable recommendations of nvidia for 24" computer monitors we can't draw conclusions from when using huge screens.



The recommended settings might result in only 50cm depth beyond the screen but is generally more confortable to use and suffers from less ghosting.



If the game does not support 3D well like Skyrim which has things like character arrows rendered at screen depth causes much larger problems when using a small screen.



It is no secret that most games does not handle 3D flawlessly and rendering a small screen att 100% depth shows the problems from their worst side.



Going back to my calculations I was suprised to find that the percieved depth doubles if I double the distance to the screen (at 100% depth configuration).

45cm screen distance, 6,3cm displacement on screen = 14,6m

100cm screen distance, 6,3cm displacement on screen = 32,5m



Edit: Files removed

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

#35
Posted 01/13/2012 10:52 AM   
I am assuming that both the large screen and the small screen has the same resolution (1080p) as I'm not aware of any 3D solutions for consumers with higher resolution.

I'm attaching pictures from Witcher 2 with both 100% depth and 50% depth on my small screen. If you were to look at the small screen 100% depth on a large screen you wouldn't be able to view the image as your eyes would have to diverge way beyond the occular width.

At 50% both eyes recieve much more similar images and as objects overlap to a much larger extent there is less ghosting.

If we are to discuss the quite reasonable recommendations of nvidia for 24" computer monitors we can't draw conclusions from when using huge screens.

The recommended settings might result in only 50cm depth beyond the screen but is generally more confortable to use and suffers from less ghosting.

If the game does not support 3D well like Skyrim which has things like character arrows rendered at screen depth causes much larger problems when using a small screen.

It is no secret that most games does not handle 3D flawlessly and rendering a small screen att 100% depth shows the problems from their worst side.

Going back to my calculations I was suprised to find that the percieved depth doubles if I double the distance to the screen (at 100% depth configuration).
45cm screen distance, 6,3cm displacement on screen = 14,6m
100cm screen distance, 6,3cm displacement on screen = 32,5m

Edit: Files removed
I am assuming that both the large screen and the small screen has the same resolution (1080p) as I'm not aware of any 3D solutions for consumers with higher resolution.



I'm attaching pictures from Witcher 2 with both 100% depth and 50% depth on my small screen. If you were to look at the small screen 100% depth on a large screen you wouldn't be able to view the image as your eyes would have to diverge way beyond the occular width.



At 50% both eyes recieve much more similar images and as objects overlap to a much larger extent there is less ghosting.



If we are to discuss the quite reasonable recommendations of nvidia for 24" computer monitors we can't draw conclusions from when using huge screens.



The recommended settings might result in only 50cm depth beyond the screen but is generally more confortable to use and suffers from less ghosting.



If the game does not support 3D well like Skyrim which has things like character arrows rendered at screen depth causes much larger problems when using a small screen.



It is no secret that most games does not handle 3D flawlessly and rendering a small screen att 100% depth shows the problems from their worst side.



Going back to my calculations I was suprised to find that the percieved depth doubles if I double the distance to the screen (at 100% depth configuration).

45cm screen distance, 6,3cm displacement on screen = 14,6m

100cm screen distance, 6,3cm displacement on screen = 32,5m



Edit: Files removed

Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?

donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com

#36
Posted 01/13/2012 10:52 AM   
  3 / 3    
Scroll To Top