Just bought 3dtv play..
  3 / 4    
[quote name='Exposed' date='11 December 2011 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1323653522' post='1340959']
Checkboard is slightly better than side by side only because the distribution of pixels is more even, instead of being directly halved either vertically or horizontally. But it's still not as good as full frame 1920x1080, and there is a noticeable difference in quality if you go looking for it.

What I've noticed is that darker, somewhat monochromatic game environments (like caves, dungeons, industrial settings, etc..) offer neglible differences between checkerboard (or any half resolution mode for that matter)and full HD. This is because the darker pixels (or pixels within the same color variance)are swaddled amongst each other with nearly the same pixel accuracy as a full HD frame. Since I'm playing Skyrim I notice this effect in the underground caves, I'm amazed how similar checkboard and 1080p 3D @ 24hz look (both high quality).

However, in environments with huge differences in pixel contrast and color hue (like rocky/grassy/road textures in daylight), there is a sizable difference in resolution quality that goes beyond aliased geometry. This is more noticable in some games than others. Gothic 3 and Gothic Forsaken Gods shows this most in my playing experience, there is a HUGE difference in checkerboard, side by side (tested with IZ3D, DDD) and 1080p 24hz (IZ3D, DDD, Nvidia) on my Samsung TV. I also notice this in the outside landscape in Skyrim, half resolution does make a difference (the only exception to this is when it snows, because again the pixels are basically monochromatic and the differences in resolution suddenly becomes much less noticable).

What I would like to see is someone or some company improve checkerboard quality by introducing an algorithm to "fill in the blanks" in a checkerboard pattern to produce a true 1080p image per eye (a la photoshop transformation function). I'm not sure if this is even possible, or even relevant considering faster HDMI chips should be coming out later in the year to provide 1080p 60hz 3D, but it seems theoretically feasible in nature.
[/quote]

You can already achieve 1920*1080@60Hz via interlace with the DDD drivers.
[quote name='Exposed' date='11 December 2011 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1323653522' post='1340959']

Checkboard is slightly better than side by side only because the distribution of pixels is more even, instead of being directly halved either vertically or horizontally. But it's still not as good as full frame 1920x1080, and there is a noticeable difference in quality if you go looking for it.



What I've noticed is that darker, somewhat monochromatic game environments (like caves, dungeons, industrial settings, etc..) offer neglible differences between checkerboard (or any half resolution mode for that matter)and full HD. This is because the darker pixels (or pixels within the same color variance)are swaddled amongst each other with nearly the same pixel accuracy as a full HD frame. Since I'm playing Skyrim I notice this effect in the underground caves, I'm amazed how similar checkboard and 1080p 3D @ 24hz look (both high quality).



However, in environments with huge differences in pixel contrast and color hue (like rocky/grassy/road textures in daylight), there is a sizable difference in resolution quality that goes beyond aliased geometry. This is more noticable in some games than others. Gothic 3 and Gothic Forsaken Gods shows this most in my playing experience, there is a HUGE difference in checkerboard, side by side (tested with IZ3D, DDD) and 1080p 24hz (IZ3D, DDD, Nvidia) on my Samsung TV. I also notice this in the outside landscape in Skyrim, half resolution does make a difference (the only exception to this is when it snows, because again the pixels are basically monochromatic and the differences in resolution suddenly becomes much less noticable).



What I would like to see is someone or some company improve checkerboard quality by introducing an algorithm to "fill in the blanks" in a checkerboard pattern to produce a true 1080p image per eye (a la photoshop transformation function). I'm not sure if this is even possible, or even relevant considering faster HDMI chips should be coming out later in the year to provide 1080p 60hz 3D, but it seems theoretically feasible in nature.





You can already achieve 1920*1080@60Hz via interlace with the DDD drivers.

Done.

#31
Posted 12/12/2011 02:05 AM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='11 December 2011 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1323653522' post='1340959']
What I would like to see is someone or some company improve checkerboard quality by introducing an algorithm to "fill in the blanks" in a checkerboard pattern to produce a true 1080p image per eye (a la photoshop transformation function). I'm not sure if this is even possible, or even relevant considering faster HDMI chips should be coming out later in the year to provide 1080p 60hz 3D, but it seems theoretically feasible in nature.
[/quote]

It's already been done and patented, it's called SENSIO® Hi-Fi 3D http://sensio.tv/business/technology_solutions/sensio__hi_fi_3d_format

Some of the Vizio TVs have it, I think there is/was only 1 cable channel outputting this format.
[quote name='Exposed' date='11 December 2011 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1323653522' post='1340959']

What I would like to see is someone or some company improve checkerboard quality by introducing an algorithm to "fill in the blanks" in a checkerboard pattern to produce a true 1080p image per eye (a la photoshop transformation function). I'm not sure if this is even possible, or even relevant considering faster HDMI chips should be coming out later in the year to provide 1080p 60hz 3D, but it seems theoretically feasible in nature.





It's already been done and patented, it's called SENSIO® Hi-Fi 3D http://sensio.tv/business/technology_solutions/sensio__hi_fi_3d_format



Some of the Vizio TVs have it, I think there is/was only 1 cable channel outputting this format.

#32
Posted 12/12/2011 02:19 AM   
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='11 December 2011 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1323655511' post='1340968']
You can already achieve 1920*1080@60Hz via interlace with the DDD drivers.
[/quote]

1080i @ 60hz 3D is not the same as 1080p 60hz 3D. You're still getting half vertical resolution per eye.

[quote name='D-Man11' date='11 December 2011 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1323656341' post='1340974']
It's already been done and patented, it's called SENSIO® Hi-Fi 3D http://sensio.tv/business/technology_solutions/sensio__hi_fi_3d_format

Some of the Vizio TVs have it, I think there is/was only 1 cable channel outputting this format.
[/quote]

Thanks, looks very interesting.
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='11 December 2011 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1323655511' post='1340968']

You can already achieve 1920*1080@60Hz via interlace with the DDD drivers.





1080i @ 60hz 3D is not the same as 1080p 60hz 3D. You're still getting half vertical resolution per eye.

[quote name='D-Man11' date='11 December 2011 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1323656341' post='1340974']

It's already been done and patented, it's called SENSIO® Hi-Fi 3D http://sensio.tv/business/technology_solutions/sensio__hi_fi_3d_format



Some of the Vizio TVs have it, I think there is/was only 1 cable channel outputting this format.





Thanks, looks very interesting.

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#33
Posted 12/12/2011 03:03 AM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='11 December 2011 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1323659015' post='1340982']
1080i @ 60hz 3D is not the same as 1080p 60hz 3D. You're still getting half vertical resolution per eye.
[/quote]

You're still getting 1920*1080 per eye, it's just two 1920*1080 images interlaced together. It's the best looking 3DTV tech as of yet, but it's not 3D vision. For now the only way you're going to get large format 3D vision is a projector.


BTW it's what LG and Vixio are using for their passive 3DTVs. 3DTV play doesn't support it currently so you need the DDD drivers.

[quote name='Exposed' date='11 December 2011 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1323659015' post='1340982']

1080i @ 60hz 3D is not the same as 1080p 60hz 3D. You're still getting half vertical resolution per eye.





You're still getting 1920*1080 per eye, it's just two 1920*1080 images interlaced together. It's the best looking 3DTV tech as of yet, but it's not 3D vision. For now the only way you're going to get large format 3D vision is a projector.





BTW it's what LG and Vixio are using for their passive 3DTVs. 3DTV play doesn't support it currently so you need the DDD drivers.


Done.

#34
Posted 12/12/2011 11:32 AM   
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 06:32 AM' timestamp='1323689536' post='1341118']
You're still getting 1920*1080 per eye, it's just two 1920*1080 images interlaced together. It's the best looking 3DTV tech as of yet, but it's not 3D vision. For now the only way you're going to get large format 3D vision is a projector.


BTW it's what LG and Vixio are using for their passive 3DTVs. 3DTV play doesn't support it currently so you need the DDD drivers.
[/quote]

You are NOT getting a true 1920x1080 pixels per eye. LG's new algorithm can be best described as "half-resolution-plus-pixel-reversal method". This article does an excellent job of exploring LG's updated algorithm, and also has a few cold, harsh words for LG's marketing claim of "full hd" per eye designed to reel in unsuspecting customers:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/08/lgs-passivepolarizedglasses-3dtv-where-is-my-pixel.php
[i]
Regardless of the advertising battles, LG’s claim of displaying the full resolution of the 3D Blu-ray disc by their passive 3DTV is quite clever considering the vast majority of consumers are technically misinformed and do not understand or care about how the pixels are displayed, but the claim is misleading behind a numbers-game to gain a market edge, in addition to the appealing factor of low cost passive 3D glasses.

However, could LG claim that they show all the 1080p lines per eye of the 3D Blu-ray progressive video frame? Theoretically yes, but the “how” and “where” the pixels are displayed cannot be ignored when analyzing the claim and evaluating image quality.

As you may have concluded after this reading, regardless “which” pixels are displayed “where” on the second 120Hz cycle, LG’s 3DTV still renders an image that has no more than 540 video lines per eye at any given displayed video frame, similarly to other passive 3DTVs, which is half the resolution of 3D Blu-ray and active-shutter 3DTVs per eye.

Reusing the same TV pixels to show another half-resolution-3D-image during the second 120Hz cycle to display content from adjacent video lines should not qualify for the claim of full resolution per eye because of the lack of simultaneity and line order of 1080p picture information for the displayed image.

Considering that the pixel content is shown shifted and up-side-down half of the time, the method can potentially show visual artifacts, not to mention if the content experiences fast motion beyond the processing capacity of the panel, which is limited to just 60Hz to show all the picture information of 3D, a speed that was left behind several generations ago by the LCD industry due to the motion blur issue.

As mentioned above, due to the fixed nature of the polarizer Film-Patterned-Retardant attached to the screen (odd-lines-for-left-eye and even-lines-for-right- eye) it is not physically possible for either eye to simultaneously see together all the 1080p lines for the given eye, like active-shutter does. [/i]
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 06:32 AM' timestamp='1323689536' post='1341118']

You're still getting 1920*1080 per eye, it's just two 1920*1080 images interlaced together. It's the best looking 3DTV tech as of yet, but it's not 3D vision. For now the only way you're going to get large format 3D vision is a projector.





BTW it's what LG and Vixio are using for their passive 3DTVs. 3DTV play doesn't support it currently so you need the DDD drivers.





You are NOT getting a true 1920x1080 pixels per eye. LG's new algorithm can be best described as "half-resolution-plus-pixel-reversal method". This article does an excellent job of exploring LG's updated algorithm, and also has a few cold, harsh words for LG's marketing claim of "full hd" per eye designed to reel in unsuspecting customers:



http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/08/lgs-passivepolarizedglasses-3dtv-where-is-my-pixel.php



Regardless of the advertising battles, LG’s claim of displaying the full resolution of the 3D Blu-ray disc by their passive 3DTV is quite clever considering the vast majority of consumers are technically misinformed and do not understand or care about how the pixels are displayed, but the claim is misleading behind a numbers-game to gain a market edge, in addition to the appealing factor of low cost passive 3D glasses.



However, could LG claim that they show all the 1080p lines per eye of the 3D Blu-ray progressive video frame? Theoretically yes, but the “how” and “where” the pixels are displayed cannot be ignored when analyzing the claim and evaluating image quality.



As you may have concluded after this reading, regardless “which” pixels are displayed “where” on the second 120Hz cycle, LG’s 3DTV still renders an image that has no more than 540 video lines per eye at any given displayed video frame, similarly to other passive 3DTVs, which is half the resolution of 3D Blu-ray and active-shutter 3DTVs per eye.



Reusing the same TV pixels to show another half-resolution-3D-image during the second 120Hz cycle to display content from adjacent video lines should not qualify for the claim of full resolution per eye because of the lack of simultaneity and line order of 1080p picture information for the displayed image.



Considering that the pixel content is shown shifted and up-side-down half of the time, the method can potentially show visual artifacts, not to mention if the content experiences fast motion beyond the processing capacity of the panel, which is limited to just 60Hz to show all the picture information of 3D, a speed that was left behind several generations ago by the LCD industry due to the motion blur issue.



As mentioned above, due to the fixed nature of the polarizer Film-Patterned-Retardant attached to the screen (odd-lines-for-left-eye and even-lines-for-right- eye) it is not physically possible for either eye to simultaneously see together all the 1080p lines for the given eye, like active-shutter does.

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#35
Posted 12/12/2011 05:08 PM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='11 December 2011 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1323653522' post='1340959']
there is a HUGE difference in checkerboard, side by side (tested with IZ3D, DDD) and 1080p 24hz (IZ3D, DDD, Nvidia) on my Samsung TV.[/quote]
If you are seeing a "HUGE" difference in any game, then you are comparing checkerboard mode to framepacking. In this comparison, I would agree that the difference can be significant, I see it right away in most games. But that's the wrong comparison because they are using different processing modes. The correct comparison is checkerboard vs frame sequential, both of which use PC Graphics mode.
I've played 20 games in both CB and FS including Portal2, the highest contrast game there is. Even in P2, I'm hard pressed to see any difference at all. If you are claiming there is a "huge" difference in any game, this is in strict contrast to what others are reporting, assuming you are comparing CB to FS.
FrancoMG's did an excellent detailed write up of FS vs CB on his samsung, here is his conclusion:

" I found very hard to notice differences between CB and FS in 3D overall quality. I know FS is full resolution per eye like FP, but Checkerboard looked just as good and it’s only half resolution per eye."

This is the most complete, accurate 3D gaming review to date, I'd advise people to read this before buying a 3DTV, especially if you are looking at a non-samsung.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925

If you are claiming that there is a "huge" difference between CB and FS, then post a screen shot showing this.
[quote name='Exposed' date='11 December 2011 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1323653522' post='1340959']

there is a HUGE difference in checkerboard, side by side (tested with IZ3D, DDD) and 1080p 24hz (IZ3D, DDD, Nvidia) on my Samsung TV.

If you are seeing a "HUGE" difference in any game, then you are comparing checkerboard mode to framepacking. In this comparison, I would agree that the difference can be significant, I see it right away in most games. But that's the wrong comparison because they are using different processing modes. The correct comparison is checkerboard vs frame sequential, both of which use PC Graphics mode.

I've played 20 games in both CB and FS including Portal2, the highest contrast game there is. Even in P2, I'm hard pressed to see any difference at all. If you are claiming there is a "huge" difference in any game, this is in strict contrast to what others are reporting, assuming you are comparing CB to FS.

FrancoMG's did an excellent detailed write up of FS vs CB on his samsung, here is his conclusion:



" I found very hard to notice differences between CB and FS in 3D overall quality. I know FS is full resolution per eye like FP, but Checkerboard looked just as good and it’s only half resolution per eye."



This is the most complete, accurate 3D gaming review to date, I'd advise people to read this before buying a 3DTV, especially if you are looking at a non-samsung.

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



If you are claiming that there is a "huge" difference between CB and FS, then post a screen shot showing this.

#36
Posted 12/12/2011 05:48 PM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1323709702' post='1341239']
You are NOT getting a true 1920x1080 pixels per eye. LG's new algorithm can be best described as "half-resolution-plus-pixel-reversal method". This article does an excellent job of exploring LG's updated algorithm, and also has a few cold, harsh words for LG's marketing claim of "full hd" per eye designed to reel in unsuspecting customers:

[url="http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/08/lgs-passivepolarizedglasses-3dtv-where-is-my-pixel.php"]http://www.hdtvmagaz...is-my-pixel.php[/url]
[i]
Regardless of the advertising battles, LG’s claim of displaying the full resolution of the 3D Blu-ray disc by their passive 3DTV is quite clever considering the vast majority of consumers are technically misinformed and do not understand or care about how the pixels are displayed, but the claim is misleading behind a numbers-game to gain a market edge, in addition to the appealing factor of low cost passive 3D glasses.

However, could LG claim that they show all the 1080p lines per eye of the 3D Blu-ray progressive video frame? Theoretically yes, but the “how” and “where” the pixels are displayed cannot be ignored when analyzing the claim and evaluating image quality.

As you may have concluded after this reading, regardless “which” pixels are displayed “where” on the second 120Hz cycle, LG’s 3DTV still renders an image that has no more than 540 video lines per eye at any given displayed video frame, similarly to other passive 3DTVs, which is half the resolution of 3D Blu-ray and active-shutter 3DTVs per eye.

Reusing the same TV pixels to show another half-resolution-3D-image during the second 120Hz cycle to display content from adjacent video lines should not qualify for the claim of full resolution per eye because of the lack of simultaneity and line order of 1080p picture information for the displayed image.

Considering that the pixel content is shown shifted and up-side-down half of the time, the method can potentially show visual artifacts, not to mention if the content experiences fast motion beyond the processing capacity of the panel, which is limited to just 60Hz to show all the picture information of 3D, a speed that was left behind several generations ago by the LCD industry due to the motion blur issue.

As mentioned above, due to the fixed nature of the polarizer Film-Patterned-Retardant attached to the screen (odd-lines-for-left-eye and even-lines-for-right- eye) it is not physically possible for either eye to simultaneously see together all the 1080p lines for the given eye, like active-shutter does. [/i]
[/quote]

I'm not "unsuspecting." I know the difference between 1920*1080i and 1920*1080p, but we're talking about playing games on a TV, and 1920*1080i @ 60Hz is better than any other alternative currently. The size of the image matters a LOT when you're gaming, and the only way to achieve 1920*1080@60Hz via HDMI on a single panel currently is via that "misleading" algorithm. IMO it's not misleading to claim your TV can output 1920*1080 when it [i]can. [/i]

Without physically doubling the resolution in a panel single panel passive 3D display cannot display 1920*1080 progressive per eye, though 1920*1080 interlace isn't half-res --it's half density. Your brain stitches the images together pretty well and the signal loss is negligible. The first full resolution display was the iZ3D display, but it used 2 physical panels, and there are several 2 projector methods which display 1920*1080 progressive. Multiple projectors were used for glasses free 3D dating back to the 70's.


Medical side effects aside, active shutter TVs don't work worth a damn for gaming if your brain processes visual signals faster than 24 times a second. While this isn't an issue for most people, it's a deal breaker for some.
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1323709702' post='1341239']

You are NOT getting a true 1920x1080 pixels per eye. LG's new algorithm can be best described as "half-resolution-plus-pixel-reversal method". This article does an excellent job of exploring LG's updated algorithm, and also has a few cold, harsh words for LG's marketing claim of "full hd" per eye designed to reel in unsuspecting customers:



http://www.hdtvmagaz...is-my-pixel.php



Regardless of the advertising battles, LG’s claim of displaying the full resolution of the 3D Blu-ray disc by their passive 3DTV is quite clever considering the vast majority of consumers are technically misinformed and do not understand or care about how the pixels are displayed, but the claim is misleading behind a numbers-game to gain a market edge, in addition to the appealing factor of low cost passive 3D glasses.



However, could LG claim that they show all the 1080p lines per eye of the 3D Blu-ray progressive video frame? Theoretically yes, but the “how” and “where” the pixels are displayed cannot be ignored when analyzing the claim and evaluating image quality.



As you may have concluded after this reading, regardless “which” pixels are displayed “where” on the second 120Hz cycle, LG’s 3DTV still renders an image that has no more than 540 video lines per eye at any given displayed video frame, similarly to other passive 3DTVs, which is half the resolution of 3D Blu-ray and active-shutter 3DTVs per eye.



Reusing the same TV pixels to show another half-resolution-3D-image during the second 120Hz cycle to display content from adjacent video lines should not qualify for the claim of full resolution per eye because of the lack of simultaneity and line order of 1080p picture information for the displayed image.



Considering that the pixel content is shown shifted and up-side-down half of the time, the method can potentially show visual artifacts, not to mention if the content experiences fast motion beyond the processing capacity of the panel, which is limited to just 60Hz to show all the picture information of 3D, a speed that was left behind several generations ago by the LCD industry due to the motion blur issue.



As mentioned above, due to the fixed nature of the polarizer Film-Patterned-Retardant attached to the screen (odd-lines-for-left-eye and even-lines-for-right- eye) it is not physically possible for either eye to simultaneously see together all the 1080p lines for the given eye, like active-shutter does.






I'm not "unsuspecting." I know the difference between 1920*1080i and 1920*1080p, but we're talking about playing games on a TV, and 1920*1080i @ 60Hz is better than any other alternative currently. The size of the image matters a LOT when you're gaming, and the only way to achieve 1920*1080@60Hz via HDMI on a single panel currently is via that "misleading" algorithm. IMO it's not misleading to claim your TV can output 1920*1080 when it can.



Without physically doubling the resolution in a panel single panel passive 3D display cannot display 1920*1080 progressive per eye, though 1920*1080 interlace isn't half-res --it's half density. Your brain stitches the images together pretty well and the signal loss is negligible. The first full resolution display was the iZ3D display, but it used 2 physical panels, and there are several 2 projector methods which display 1920*1080 progressive. Multiple projectors were used for glasses free 3D dating back to the 70's.





Medical side effects aside, active shutter TVs don't work worth a damn for gaming if your brain processes visual signals faster than 24 times a second. While this isn't an issue for most people, it's a deal breaker for some.

Done.

#37
Posted 12/12/2011 06:01 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='12 December 2011 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1323712135' post='1341259']
If you are seeing a "HUGE" difference in any game, then you are comparing checkerboard mode to framepacking. In this comparison, I would agree that the difference can be significant, I see it right away in most games. But that's the wrong comparison because they are using different processing modes. The correct comparison is checkerboard vs frame sequential, both of which use PC Graphics mode.
I've played 20 games in both CB and FS including Portal2, the highest contrast game there is. Even in P2, I'm hard pressed to see any difference at all. If you are claiming there is a "huge" difference in any game, this is in strict contrast to what others are reporting, assuming you are comparing CB to FS.
FrancoMG's did an excellent detailed write up of FS vs CB on his samsung, here is his conclusion:

" I found very hard to notice differences between CB and FS in 3D overall quality. I know FS is full resolution per eye like FP, but Checkerboard looked just as good and it’s only half resolution per eye."

This is the most complete, accurate 3D gaming review to date, I'd advise people to read this before buying a 3DTV, especially if you are looking at a non-samsung.
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925

If you are claiming that there is a "huge" difference between CB and FS, then post a screen shot showing this.
[/quote]

Checkerboard on a Samsung can only be done in PC input, so it's a direct comparison (no video processing). Also, did you read my post or skim through it? Checkerboard is still half resolution no matter which way you slice it, it's absurd to deny otherwise. However I also stated there are many situations where the difference between checkerboard and full resolution is negligible, based on my findings and how surrounding pixels are affected by monochromatic scenery. Likewise, there ARE other scenes where differences between checkerboard/FS resolution is QUITE significant (in my opinion). Portal 2 doesn't have many instances of highly variant pixels within single textures where this would be noticable. Try Gothic 3 or Gothic Forsaken Gods, or Gothic 4. Or Skyrim outdoors with plenty of trees/mountains in the background during a clear day. The difference in resolution is noticable, to deny that is equally futile. Whether the difference is more or less tolerant to certain people is another matter.

I haven't read any technical reasons from you why they there shouldn't be a difference other than "eyeballing" it. If that's the case, then what's stopping 640x360 checkerboard from looking as good as 1920x1080p full HD? Or 960x540? or 1280x720? Where is the line drawn?

Coming from gaming with SBS/checkerboard for almost a year to full resolution HD on my Samsung TV I can pick up minute details right away. Nvidia's checkerboard isn't any different than IZ3D's or DDD's from what I can see. However, I can tell a good difference right away with full resolution FS/FP. Maybe it's because I was stuck with half resolution for a long time.
[quote name='roller11' date='12 December 2011 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1323712135' post='1341259']

If you are seeing a "HUGE" difference in any game, then you are comparing checkerboard mode to framepacking. In this comparison, I would agree that the difference can be significant, I see it right away in most games. But that's the wrong comparison because they are using different processing modes. The correct comparison is checkerboard vs frame sequential, both of which use PC Graphics mode.

I've played 20 games in both CB and FS including Portal2, the highest contrast game there is. Even in P2, I'm hard pressed to see any difference at all. If you are claiming there is a "huge" difference in any game, this is in strict contrast to what others are reporting, assuming you are comparing CB to FS.

FrancoMG's did an excellent detailed write up of FS vs CB on his samsung, here is his conclusion:



" I found very hard to notice differences between CB and FS in 3D overall quality. I know FS is full resolution per eye like FP, but Checkerboard looked just as good and it’s only half resolution per eye."



This is the most complete, accurate 3D gaming review to date, I'd advise people to read this before buying a 3DTV, especially if you are looking at a non-samsung.

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



If you are claiming that there is a "huge" difference between CB and FS, then post a screen shot showing this.





Checkerboard on a Samsung can only be done in PC input, so it's a direct comparison (no video processing). Also, did you read my post or skim through it? Checkerboard is still half resolution no matter which way you slice it, it's absurd to deny otherwise. However I also stated there are many situations where the difference between checkerboard and full resolution is negligible, based on my findings and how surrounding pixels are affected by monochromatic scenery. Likewise, there ARE other scenes where differences between checkerboard/FS resolution is QUITE significant (in my opinion). Portal 2 doesn't have many instances of highly variant pixels within single textures where this would be noticable. Try Gothic 3 or Gothic Forsaken Gods, or Gothic 4. Or Skyrim outdoors with plenty of trees/mountains in the background during a clear day. The difference in resolution is noticable, to deny that is equally futile. Whether the difference is more or less tolerant to certain people is another matter.



I haven't read any technical reasons from you why they there shouldn't be a difference other than "eyeballing" it. If that's the case, then what's stopping 640x360 checkerboard from looking as good as 1920x1080p full HD? Or 960x540? or 1280x720? Where is the line drawn?



Coming from gaming with SBS/checkerboard for almost a year to full resolution HD on my Samsung TV I can pick up minute details right away. Nvidia's checkerboard isn't any different than IZ3D's or DDD's from what I can see. However, I can tell a good difference right away with full resolution FS/FP. Maybe it's because I was stuck with half resolution for a long time.

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#38
Posted 12/12/2011 06:24 PM   
You are talking about 3DTV Play at 1920x1080P@25, yes it looks great, but doesn't play well in all games.
You are talking about 3DTV Play at 1920x1080P@25, yes it looks great, but doesn't play well in all games.

#39
Posted 12/12/2011 06:40 PM   
[quote name='D-Man11' date='12 December 2011 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1323715228' post='1341289']
You are talking about 3DTV Play at 1920x1080P@25, yes it looks great, but doesn't play well in all games.
[/quote]

24FPS is crap-tastic for gaming IMO. I'll take 1920*1080 interlace at 60FPS over 1920*1080 progressive at 24FPS on any day in any game.
[quote name='D-Man11' date='12 December 2011 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1323715228' post='1341289']

You are talking about 3DTV Play at 1920x1080P@25, yes it looks great, but doesn't play well in all games.





24FPS is crap-tastic for gaming IMO. I'll take 1920*1080 interlace at 60FPS over 1920*1080 progressive at 24FPS on any day in any game.

Done.

#40
Posted 12/12/2011 06:53 PM   
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1323712902' post='1341266']
I'm not "unsuspecting." I know the difference between 1920*1080i and 1920*1080p, but we're talking about playing games on a TV, and 1920*1080i @ 60Hz is better than any other alternative currently. The size of the image matters a LOT when you're gaming, and the only way to achieve 1920*1080@60Hz via HDMI on a single panel currently is via that "misleading" algorithm. IMO it's not misleading to claim your TV can output 1920*1080 when it [i]can. [/i]

Without physically doubling the resolution in a panel single panel passive 3D display cannot display 1920*1080 progressive per eye, though 1920*1080 interlace isn't half-res --it's half density. Your brain stitches the images together pretty well and the signal loss is negligible. The first full resolution display was the iZ3D display, but it used 2 physical panels, and there are several 2 projector methods which display 1920*1080 progressive. Multiple projectors were used for glasses free 3D dating back to the 70's.


Medical side effects aside, active shutter TVs don't work worth a damn for gaming if your brain processes visual signals faster than 24 times a second. While this isn't an issue for most people, it's a deal breaker for some.
[/quote]

At any given time you're still only getting 540 vertical lines per eye. Therefore I have an issue referring to this tech as "true 1080p 60hz 3D gaming", when it clearly isn't. You're also still seeing interlaced lines with the glasses on (because you're getting only 540 lines per eye), to me that is still a bit of a nuisance.

As far as it being better than other tech, that's a matter of opinion. I think checkerboard is the best 3D tech outside of full frame HD, no point in 1080 interlaced if you're going to run into those limitations mentioned above.
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1323712902' post='1341266']

I'm not "unsuspecting." I know the difference between 1920*1080i and 1920*1080p, but we're talking about playing games on a TV, and 1920*1080i @ 60Hz is better than any other alternative currently. The size of the image matters a LOT when you're gaming, and the only way to achieve 1920*1080@60Hz via HDMI on a single panel currently is via that "misleading" algorithm. IMO it's not misleading to claim your TV can output 1920*1080 when it can.



Without physically doubling the resolution in a panel single panel passive 3D display cannot display 1920*1080 progressive per eye, though 1920*1080 interlace isn't half-res --it's half density. Your brain stitches the images together pretty well and the signal loss is negligible. The first full resolution display was the iZ3D display, but it used 2 physical panels, and there are several 2 projector methods which display 1920*1080 progressive. Multiple projectors were used for glasses free 3D dating back to the 70's.





Medical side effects aside, active shutter TVs don't work worth a damn for gaming if your brain processes visual signals faster than 24 times a second. While this isn't an issue for most people, it's a deal breaker for some.





At any given time you're still only getting 540 vertical lines per eye. Therefore I have an issue referring to this tech as "true 1080p 60hz 3D gaming", when it clearly isn't. You're also still seeing interlaced lines with the glasses on (because you're getting only 540 lines per eye), to me that is still a bit of a nuisance.



As far as it being better than other tech, that's a matter of opinion. I think checkerboard is the best 3D tech outside of full frame HD, no point in 1080 interlaced if you're going to run into those limitations mentioned above.

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#41
Posted 12/12/2011 07:00 PM   
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1323716000' post='1341297']
24FPS is crap-tastic for gaming IMO. I'll take 1920*1080 interlace at 60FPS over 1920*1080 progressive at 24FPS on any day in any game.
[/quote]

A good thing about my samsung is that it can interpolate those 24 or 30 frames to make it smoother. Granted it's not perfect, but works rather well for a good number of games. If I need more speed, then I use checkerboard which would have less artifacts than 1080 interlaced.
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1323716000' post='1341297']

24FPS is crap-tastic for gaming IMO. I'll take 1920*1080 interlace at 60FPS over 1920*1080 progressive at 24FPS on any day in any game.





A good thing about my samsung is that it can interpolate those 24 or 30 frames to make it smoother. Granted it's not perfect, but works rather well for a good number of games. If I need more speed, then I use checkerboard which would have less artifacts than 1080 interlaced.

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#42
Posted 12/12/2011 07:04 PM   
http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-blu-ray.html

NVIDIA works with ArcSoft, Corel, CyberLink, and Roxio to ensure their latest players offer exceptional Blu-ray 3D playback when paired with GeForce GPUs and 3D Vision technology

3DTV Play 1920x1080@25 is video mode, as such certain features are disabled or changed. It works well in "some" games but not "all" games.

It's unfortunate that Nvidia opted to not fully support 3D HDTVs. Fortunately there is TriDef, while it may have its drawbacks, it works well and will only improve with time.

Nvidia's is well aware of the support they offer and do not offer. They made a clear choice. So you take what you get, unless you can implement a workaround.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-blu-ray.html



NVIDIA works with ArcSoft, Corel, CyberLink, and Roxio to ensure their latest players offer exceptional Blu-ray 3D playback when paired with GeForce GPUs and 3D Vision technology



3DTV Play 1920x1080@25 is video mode, as such certain features are disabled or changed. It works well in "some" games but not "all" games.



It's unfortunate that Nvidia opted to not fully support 3D HDTVs. Fortunately there is TriDef, while it may have its drawbacks, it works well and will only improve with time.



Nvidia's is well aware of the support they offer and do not offer. They made a clear choice. So you take what you get, unless you can implement a workaround.

#43
Posted 12/12/2011 07:39 PM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1323716445' post='1341301']
At any given time you're still only getting 540 vertical lines per eye. Therefore I have an issue referring to this tech as "true 1080p 60hz 3D gaming", when it clearly isn't. You're also still seeing interlaced lines with the glasses on (because you're getting only 540 lines per eye), to me that is still a bit of a nuisance.

As far as it being better than other tech, that's a matter of opinion. I think checkerboard is the best 3D tech outside of full frame HD, no point in 1080 interlaced if you're going to run into those limitatio1ns mentioned above.
[/quote]

You are allowed to have your issues with their marketing, but it never stopped anyone LOL. I still take issue with Nividia marketing multiple channel memory as a single faster memory controller, but it's not going to do jack crap about it. :P From a gaming perspective a 1920*1080 interlace image gives you a lot more screen real estate, and that matters in evrything but console ports.

I'd rather use a pair of projectors but they won't fit in anything but a McMansion or a Batchelor pad (neither of which I have.)

I see no point in active shutter due to the medical side effects, but I've been using 3D a lot more often than most people. I use a passive 3D IPS at the office, and with what doctors have to say about active shutter these days --I'm glad the office uses passive displays.

[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1323716445' post='1341301']

At any given time you're still only getting 540 vertical lines per eye. Therefore I have an issue referring to this tech as "true 1080p 60hz 3D gaming", when it clearly isn't. You're also still seeing interlaced lines with the glasses on (because you're getting only 540 lines per eye), to me that is still a bit of a nuisance.



As far as it being better than other tech, that's a matter of opinion. I think checkerboard is the best 3D tech outside of full frame HD, no point in 1080 interlaced if you're going to run into those limitatio1ns mentioned above.





You are allowed to have your issues with their marketing, but it never stopped anyone LOL. I still take issue with Nividia marketing multiple channel memory as a single faster memory controller, but it's not going to do jack crap about it. :P From a gaming perspective a 1920*1080 interlace image gives you a lot more screen real estate, and that matters in evrything but console ports.



I'd rather use a pair of projectors but they won't fit in anything but a McMansion or a Batchelor pad (neither of which I have.)



I see no point in active shutter due to the medical side effects, but I've been using 3D a lot more often than most people. I use a passive 3D IPS at the office, and with what doctors have to say about active shutter these days --I'm glad the office uses passive displays.


Done.

#44
Posted 12/12/2011 07:43 PM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1323716685' post='1341305']
A good thing about my samsung is that it can interpolate those 24 or 30 frames to make it smoother. Granted it's not perfect, but works rather well for a good number of games. If I need more speed, then I use checkerboard which would have less artifacts than 1080 interlaced.
[/quote]

I still pretty still and calibrate on a per-game basis. Artifacts don't happen to often for me at all.
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1323716685' post='1341305']

A good thing about my samsung is that it can interpolate those 24 or 30 frames to make it smoother. Granted it's not perfect, but works rather well for a good number of games. If I need more speed, then I use checkerboard which would have less artifacts than 1080 interlaced.





I still pretty still and calibrate on a per-game basis. Artifacts don't happen to often for me at all.

Done.

#45
Posted 12/12/2011 07:45 PM   
  3 / 4    
Scroll To Top