[quote name='rkuo' date='23 January 2011 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1295826562' post='1182451']
You're getting all fancy in your talking, but the simple fact is that far cheaper 120Hz monitors have more functionality in this respect than very high end big screen TV's. It's not hard to do, nor would it violate some sort of policy ... why would adding a dual link DVI input violate a policy? Big screen TV's could operate just as 3D Vision ready branded monitors do today ... if they had a 120Hz mode dual link input of some sort. It's really unfortunate that they don't seem to care about this scenario at all and are leaving it for the PC market. So gamers like ourselves are left unable to use the full potential of our gaming rigs.
[/quote]
If you scrutinize Blacksharks post, it really boils down to "TV Makers can offer a dual link input, they just choose not to". Like you say, a dual link DVI input works on a cheap 120Hz monitor, so it will work on a HDTV. Black's only reason why it won't is that it would require a seperate sync connection for the glasses which is BS....Vertical sync *is* the sync signal for the glasses and that is generated by the TV, no seperate connection required.
I like my theory better...from the TV makers viewpoint, everything works fine as is, why spend money to add another connection? All that would do is allow 3D gaming, and that is (apparently) not important.
Previously, I assumed that surely Nvidia is pushing TV makers to add full 3D gaming capability to their sets. But yesterday I gained insight from Andrew's appauling admission that he sacrificed picture quality just so users wouldn't have to push a button on the remote. Given that Andrew is a high ranking officer at nvidia, I can believe that nvidia really and truely doesn't care about a quality output, so maybe Nvidia isn't concerned about HDTVs lack of high quality 3D gaming support, and so nvidia isn't pushing for it.
[quote name='rkuo' date='23 January 2011 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1295826562' post='1182451']
You're getting all fancy in your talking, but the simple fact is that far cheaper 120Hz monitors have more functionality in this respect than very high end big screen TV's. It's not hard to do, nor would it violate some sort of policy ... why would adding a dual link DVI input violate a policy? Big screen TV's could operate just as 3D Vision ready branded monitors do today ... if they had a 120Hz mode dual link input of some sort. It's really unfortunate that they don't seem to care about this scenario at all and are leaving it for the PC market. So gamers like ourselves are left unable to use the full potential of our gaming rigs.
If you scrutinize Blacksharks post, it really boils down to "TV Makers can offer a dual link input, they just choose not to". Like you say, a dual link DVI input works on a cheap 120Hz monitor, so it will work on a HDTV. Black's only reason why it won't is that it would require a seperate sync connection for the glasses which is BS....Vertical sync *is* the sync signal for the glasses and that is generated by the TV, no seperate connection required.
I like my theory better...from the TV makers viewpoint, everything works fine as is, why spend money to add another connection? All that would do is allow 3D gaming, and that is (apparently) not important.
Previously, I assumed that surely Nvidia is pushing TV makers to add full 3D gaming capability to their sets. But yesterday I gained insight from Andrew's appauling admission that he sacrificed picture quality just so users wouldn't have to push a button on the remote. Given that Andrew is a high ranking officer at nvidia, I can believe that nvidia really and truely doesn't care about a quality output, so maybe Nvidia isn't concerned about HDTVs lack of high quality 3D gaming support, and so nvidia isn't pushing for it.
[quote name='roller11' date='23 January 2011 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1295833669' post='1182520']
If you scrutinize Blacksharks post, it really boils down to "TV Makers can offer a dual link input, they just choose not to". Like you say, a dual link DVI input works on a cheap 120Hz monitor, so it will work on a HDTV. Black's only reason why it won't is that it would require a seperate sync connection for the glasses which is BS....Vertical sync *is* the sync signal for the glasses and that is generated by the TV, no seperate connection required.
I like my theory better...from the TV makers viewpoint, everything works fine as is, why spend money to add another connection? All that would do is allow 3D gaming, and that is (apparently) not important.
Previously, I assumed that surely Nvidia is pushing TV makers to add full 3D gaming capability to their sets. But yesterday I gained insight from Andrew's appauling admission that he sacrificed picture quality just so users wouldn't have to push a button on the remote. Given that Andrew is a high ranking officer at nvidia, I can believe that nvidia really and truely doesn't care about a quality output, so maybe Nvidia isn't concerned about HDTVs lack of high quality 3D gaming support, and so nvidia isn't pushing for it.
[/quote]
The sync signal is there but the tv would not know which image is left eye vs right eye.
I don't think Andrew said anything of the sort. You do have a certain flair for dramatizing the facts! Although I agree with you on the basic principle of supporting 3D checkerboard mode properly.
From Andrew's perspective, HDMI 1.4 has broad industry support and will be how many consumers get involved with 3D. That's fair enough. What I would like to point out to him is that he is marketing to a very high end group of buyers right now ... even higher end than SLI customers, since we have to purchase an entire ecosystem of products and then get extremely beefy hardware to drive double the framerate.
There are a limited number of TV's right now and taking away working checkerboard on a significant portion of them b/c someone is too lazy to code up something to handle checkerboard TV's in the presence of 3DTV play is utter lunacy. nVidia, you can kill off checkerboard support when 1080p/60 3D TV's exist in sufficient quantity for a year or two. Until then, checkerboard is the highest quality 3D format for big screen 3D gaming. You cannot, cannot, cannot ignore or disable this format on a whim and expect high end gamers to take this seriously. Do the work and make the product users need right now.
[quote name='roller11' date='23 January 2011 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1295833669' post='1182520']
If you scrutinize Blacksharks post, it really boils down to "TV Makers can offer a dual link input, they just choose not to". Like you say, a dual link DVI input works on a cheap 120Hz monitor, so it will work on a HDTV. Black's only reason why it won't is that it would require a seperate sync connection for the glasses which is BS....Vertical sync *is* the sync signal for the glasses and that is generated by the TV, no seperate connection required.
I like my theory better...from the TV makers viewpoint, everything works fine as is, why spend money to add another connection? All that would do is allow 3D gaming, and that is (apparently) not important.
Previously, I assumed that surely Nvidia is pushing TV makers to add full 3D gaming capability to their sets. But yesterday I gained insight from Andrew's appauling admission that he sacrificed picture quality just so users wouldn't have to push a button on the remote. Given that Andrew is a high ranking officer at nvidia, I can believe that nvidia really and truely doesn't care about a quality output, so maybe Nvidia isn't concerned about HDTVs lack of high quality 3D gaming support, and so nvidia isn't pushing for it.
The sync signal is there but the tv would not know which image is left eye vs right eye.
I don't think Andrew said anything of the sort. You do have a certain flair for dramatizing the facts! Although I agree with you on the basic principle of supporting 3D checkerboard mode properly.
From Andrew's perspective, HDMI 1.4 has broad industry support and will be how many consumers get involved with 3D. That's fair enough. What I would like to point out to him is that he is marketing to a very high end group of buyers right now ... even higher end than SLI customers, since we have to purchase an entire ecosystem of products and then get extremely beefy hardware to drive double the framerate.
There are a limited number of TV's right now and taking away working checkerboard on a significant portion of them b/c someone is too lazy to code up something to handle checkerboard TV's in the presence of 3DTV play is utter lunacy. nVidia, you can kill off checkerboard support when 1080p/60 3D TV's exist in sufficient quantity for a year or two. Until then, checkerboard is the highest quality 3D format for big screen 3D gaming. You cannot, cannot, cannot ignore or disable this format on a whim and expect high end gamers to take this seriously. Do the work and make the product users need right now.
[quote name='rkuo' date='23 January 2011 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1295837269' post='1182552']
The sync signal is there but the tv would not know which image is left eye vs right eye.[/quote]Sure it would, it's encoded in the video stream during the blanking interval. If it gets out of step, there's an option under under samsung menu 'picture' > '3D' > 'picture correction' that gets it synced up properly. Note that 120Hz computer monitors have only the one DVI cable, no seperate sync cable required.
[quote]I don't think Andrew said anything of the sort.[/quote] Oh really? He said exactly that in post #52, and I quote:
"We currently are not looking to add formats that require end user interaction to switch the TV into that mode."------ high quality checkerboard WILL NOT be supported.
"Do you really want that?"------here he is surprised that anyone would want hi quality checkerboard if it means pushing a button (user interaction).
"Is it more important for you to get that resolution or to have automatic 3D enable/disalbe from the source device?"--------he expects that hi quality video is so unimportant, nobody would push a button to get it.
After reading these statements, how can you say that "he never said anything of the sort?" He's surprised that end users want hi quality video, which means he feels the opposite. What does that tell you about how highly he values picture quality?
[quote name='rkuo' date='23 January 2011 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1295837269' post='1182552']
The sync signal is there but the tv would not know which image is left eye vs right eye.Sure it would, it's encoded in the video stream during the blanking interval. If it gets out of step, there's an option under under samsung menu 'picture' > '3D' > 'picture correction' that gets it synced up properly. Note that 120Hz computer monitors have only the one DVI cable, no seperate sync cable required.
I don't think Andrew said anything of the sort.
Oh really? He said exactly that in post #52, and I quote:
"We currently are not looking to add formats that require end user interaction to switch the TV into that mode."------ high quality checkerboard WILL NOT be supported.
"Do you really want that?"------here he is surprised that anyone would want hi quality checkerboard if it means pushing a button (user interaction).
"Is it more important for you to get that resolution or to have automatic 3D enable/disalbe from the source device?"--------he expects that hi quality video is so unimportant, nobody would push a button to get it.
After reading these statements, how can you say that "he never said anything of the sort?" He's surprised that end users want hi quality video, which means he feels the opposite. What does that tell you about how highly he values picture quality?
[quote name='roller11' date='23 January 2011 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1295846822' post='1182581']
Sure it would, it's encoded in the video stream during the blanking interval. If it gets out of step, there's an option under under samsung menu 'picture' > '3D' > 'picture correction' that gets it synced up properly. Note that 120Hz computer monitors have only the one DVI cable, no seperate sync cable required.
Oh really? He said exactly that in post #52, and I quote:
"We currently are not looking to add formats that require end user interaction to switch the TV into that mode."------ high quality checkerboard WILL NOT be supported.
"Do you really want that?"------here he is surprised that anyone would want hi quality checkerboard if it means pushing a button (user interaction).
"Is it more important for you to get that resolution or to have automatic 3D enable/disalbe from the source device?"--------he expects that hi quality video is so unimportant, nobody would push a button to get it.
After reading these statements, how can you say that "he never said anything of the sort?" He's surprised that end users want hi quality video, which means he feels the opposite. What does that tell you about how highly he values picture quality?
[/quote]
left eye vs right eye is detectable in the blanking interval? OK you must know more about this than I do.
Yes, OK, you've made your point. I don't get the feeling that Andrew actively killed checkerboard, more that somebody took the easy way out with 3DTV Play from an engineering standpoint rather than trying to make the proper configuration path. Regardless, the point stands ... disabling the highest quality 3D format on these TV's is a big mistake and needs to be fixed, especially when the support already exists and just needs to be properly enabled. And don't assault the guy for asking questions ... he's giving you the chance to correct him! He wouldn't be asking if he didn't want to understand your point of view!
[quote name='roller11' date='23 January 2011 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1295846822' post='1182581']
Sure it would, it's encoded in the video stream during the blanking interval. If it gets out of step, there's an option under under samsung menu 'picture' > '3D' > 'picture correction' that gets it synced up properly. Note that 120Hz computer monitors have only the one DVI cable, no seperate sync cable required.
Oh really? He said exactly that in post #52, and I quote:
"We currently are not looking to add formats that require end user interaction to switch the TV into that mode."------ high quality checkerboard WILL NOT be supported.
"Do you really want that?"------here he is surprised that anyone would want hi quality checkerboard if it means pushing a button (user interaction).
"Is it more important for you to get that resolution or to have automatic 3D enable/disalbe from the source device?"--------he expects that hi quality video is so unimportant, nobody would push a button to get it.
After reading these statements, how can you say that "he never said anything of the sort?" He's surprised that end users want hi quality video, which means he feels the opposite. What does that tell you about how highly he values picture quality?
left eye vs right eye is detectable in the blanking interval? OK you must know more about this than I do.
Yes, OK, you've made your point. I don't get the feeling that Andrew actively killed checkerboard, more that somebody took the easy way out with 3DTV Play from an engineering standpoint rather than trying to make the proper configuration path. Regardless, the point stands ... disabling the highest quality 3D format on these TV's is a big mistake and needs to be fixed, especially when the support already exists and just needs to be properly enabled. And don't assault the guy for asking questions ... he's giving you the chance to correct him! He wouldn't be asking if he didn't want to understand your point of view!
[quote name='roller11' date='24 January 2011 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1295827477' post='1182461']
How so? A seperate cable isn't required now, the TV knows when Vblanking occurs, so it knows when to trigger the glasses. The sync signal is, in effect, embedded in V Blank.
So dual link is in the HDMI spec, and at the same time it goes against HDMI policy, and HDMI policy is to not have two channels of RGB data? Two channels that are already in the pinout, unused? Why would the HDMI people want to avoid implementing dual channel in their own standard?
Anyway, what's the stopping the TV makers from implementing 3D the same way the monitor guys are, and on the same dual link DVI connection? Or, add displayport 1.2 in addition to HDMI1.4?
[/quote]
Passing the left/right eye information in the DVI dual link blancking is not part of the DVI specification.
It is possible to do it but it would require creating a new extension to the DVI spec which all manufacturers would agree to follow so that all displays could share the same signals.
VESA, doesn't want to extend the life of DVI. They prefer pushing hdmi and Display port to add these new features. This is why hdmi and Display-Port were extended to contain the new specifications for 3D and DVI was not.
Dual link [b]was[/b] in the hdmi spec, it required the double-size Type B connector, no manufacturer used it, no manufacturer wanted it, I don't even know if any hdmi chip manufacturer ever implemented it. Now with hdmi 1.4 dual-link has been completely discarded and should not come back (see hdmi official website about this)
Hdmi 1.3 and 1.4 deliver the same amount of bandwidth as dual link hdmi but through a single link.
Again, I have never read or heard anything about dual link through type A connector.
Nvidia 3D vision does not transmit the left/right through the DVI cable. This information (and the sync too) is done through the additional USB emitter.
The nvidia approach allows a cheap implementation bacause the display is just a fast 2D display with minimal modifications. The display itself does not even need to be aware it's displaying 3D to work. But it has drawbacks that are significant enough that TV manufacturers prefer ignoring it completely.
[quote name='rkuo' date='24 January 2011 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1295847823' post='1182585']Yes, OK, you've made your point. I don't get the feeling that Andrew actively killed checkerboard, more that somebody took the easy way out with 3DTV Play from an engineering standpoint rather than trying to make the proper configuration path. Regardless, the point stands ... disabling the highest quality 3D format on these TV's is a big mistake and needs to be fixed, especially when the support already exists and just needs to be properly enabled. And don't assault the guy for asking questions ... he's giving you the chance to correct him! He wouldn't be asking if he didn't want to understand your point of view!
[/quote]
The problem with the nvidia driver is not technical, it's the marketing people decided keep control out of the user's hands and only provide the automatic mode nvidia wants you to use. When the automatic mode works it's good, I don't like having to set things up everytime I start/stop using 3D, so having automatic hdmi1.4 setting is great, but I also like to be able to tweak when I'm not happy with the default settings.
The old nvidia stereodrivers allowed you to choose any type of output (frame sequential, side by side, checkerboard, dual projectors, and more...) with any type of display, at any resolution and any refresh rate, even if you knew it wouldn't work, you could still use it just to see what the transmitted picture looks like, and that is missing.
[quote name='roller11' date='24 January 2011 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1295827477' post='1182461']
How so? A seperate cable isn't required now, the TV knows when Vblanking occurs, so it knows when to trigger the glasses. The sync signal is, in effect, embedded in V Blank.
So dual link is in the HDMI spec, and at the same time it goes against HDMI policy, and HDMI policy is to not have two channels of RGB data? Two channels that are already in the pinout, unused? Why would the HDMI people want to avoid implementing dual channel in their own standard?
Anyway, what's the stopping the TV makers from implementing 3D the same way the monitor guys are, and on the same dual link DVI connection? Or, add displayport 1.2 in addition to HDMI1.4?
Passing the left/right eye information in the DVI dual link blancking is not part of the DVI specification.
It is possible to do it but it would require creating a new extension to the DVI spec which all manufacturers would agree to follow so that all displays could share the same signals.
VESA, doesn't want to extend the life of DVI. They prefer pushing hdmi and Display port to add these new features. This is why hdmi and Display-Port were extended to contain the new specifications for 3D and DVI was not.
Dual link was in the hdmi spec, it required the double-size Type B connector, no manufacturer used it, no manufacturer wanted it, I don't even know if any hdmi chip manufacturer ever implemented it. Now with hdmi 1.4 dual-link has been completely discarded and should not come back (see hdmi official website about this)
Hdmi 1.3 and 1.4 deliver the same amount of bandwidth as dual link hdmi but through a single link.
Again, I have never read or heard anything about dual link through type A connector.
Nvidia 3D vision does not transmit the left/right through the DVI cable. This information (and the sync too) is done through the additional USB emitter.
The nvidia approach allows a cheap implementation bacause the display is just a fast 2D display with minimal modifications. The display itself does not even need to be aware it's displaying 3D to work. But it has drawbacks that are significant enough that TV manufacturers prefer ignoring it completely.
[quote name='rkuo' date='24 January 2011 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1295847823' post='1182585']Yes, OK, you've made your point. I don't get the feeling that Andrew actively killed checkerboard, more that somebody took the easy way out with 3DTV Play from an engineering standpoint rather than trying to make the proper configuration path. Regardless, the point stands ... disabling the highest quality 3D format on these TV's is a big mistake and needs to be fixed, especially when the support already exists and just needs to be properly enabled. And don't assault the guy for asking questions ... he's giving you the chance to correct him! He wouldn't be asking if he didn't want to understand your point of view!
The problem with the nvidia driver is not technical, it's the marketing people decided keep control out of the user's hands and only provide the automatic mode nvidia wants you to use. When the automatic mode works it's good, I don't like having to set things up everytime I start/stop using 3D, so having automatic hdmi1.4 setting is great, but I also like to be able to tweak when I'm not happy with the default settings.
The old nvidia stereodrivers allowed you to choose any type of output (frame sequential, side by side, checkerboard, dual projectors, and more...) with any type of display, at any resolution and any refresh rate, even if you knew it wouldn't work, you could still use it just to see what the transmitted picture looks like, and that is missing.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
A good compromise as far as I can tell here between Nvidia and new HDMI 1.4a 3DTV Samsung users, is have the Nvidia software DEFAULT to the HDMI 1.4a recognition. This is needed for hoi polloi who aren't reading these forums and aren't tinkering with having the best quality. All they want to do is play games and have something turn key. I see Andrews point and Nvidia's visional marketing strategy makes perfect sense here. And then, Nvidia should provide as a manual option for those who are 3D Vision owners and Samsung TV owners, the ability to change the display parameter to 3D vision (generic DLP), and run the TV manually in checkerboard mode.
I mean this was already possible long before 3D TV play's inception. Why? A new Samsung 3DTV HDMI 1.4a could play Avatar the game in checkerboard or side-by-side mode without any 3D TV play software. It should be a misnomer that Nvidia can't provide this ability.
Oh and those who think that DLP desktop is not good. Well I'm here to tell you it is NOT as bad as you think it is. No, it's not LCD quality, but it is still pretty good.
A good compromise as far as I can tell here between Nvidia and new HDMI 1.4a 3DTV Samsung users, is have the Nvidia software DEFAULT to the HDMI 1.4a recognition. This is needed for hoi polloi who aren't reading these forums and aren't tinkering with having the best quality. All they want to do is play games and have something turn key. I see Andrews point and Nvidia's visional marketing strategy makes perfect sense here. And then, Nvidia should provide as a manual option for those who are 3D Vision owners and Samsung TV owners, the ability to change the display parameter to 3D vision (generic DLP), and run the TV manually in checkerboard mode.
I mean this was already possible long before 3D TV play's inception. Why? A new Samsung 3DTV HDMI 1.4a could play Avatar the game in checkerboard or side-by-side mode without any 3D TV play software. It should be a misnomer that Nvidia can't provide this ability.
Oh and those who think that DLP desktop is not good. Well I'm here to tell you it is NOT as bad as you think it is. No, it's not LCD quality, but it is still pretty good.
[quote name='BlackSharkfr' date='24 January 2011 - 07:50 AM' timestamp='1295880614' post='1182795']
Nvidia 3D vision does not transmit the left/right through the DVI cable. This information (and the sync too) is done through the additional USB emitter.[/quote]There is no seperate sync signal to my Samsung HDTV when I play a game in 3D, only the HDMI cable is present. Obviously, the left/right eye info is either transmitted in the HDMI cable, or, left/right switching is synchronized to vertical sync. The later way seems unlikely because if I go in and out of 3D while my game is running, when I go back to 3D it syncs up immediately. So there must be some sort of left/right marker in the video stream.
The "Nvidia approach" in 3DTV Play (no seperate sync signal) works perfectly well except for bandwidth. So it would do full res 1080P/60 if bandwidth was increased by a small amount (about 17%). In every case of full 1080P/60 per eye video transmission, the connection is dual link (two RGB channels of data). Just seems to me that dual link is an easier way to go since the AC requirements are more relaxed than single link at a higher clock speed. Implementation details aside, HDTV makers could provide 1080P/60 3D gaming support, they just lack a reason to do so.
[quote]The problem with the nvidia driver is not technical, it's the marketing people decided keep control out of the user's hands and only provide the automatic mode nvidia wants you to use. [/quote]
rkuo is portraying Andrew as a victim of a design engineering. But if you read Andrews statements in post #52, he is genuinely surprised at the suggestion that image quality is more important than convenience.
[quote name='BlackSharkfr' date='24 January 2011 - 07:50 AM' timestamp='1295880614' post='1182795']
Nvidia 3D vision does not transmit the left/right through the DVI cable. This information (and the sync too) is done through the additional USB emitter.There is no seperate sync signal to my Samsung HDTV when I play a game in 3D, only the HDMI cable is present. Obviously, the left/right eye info is either transmitted in the HDMI cable, or, left/right switching is synchronized to vertical sync. The later way seems unlikely because if I go in and out of 3D while my game is running, when I go back to 3D it syncs up immediately. So there must be some sort of left/right marker in the video stream.
The "Nvidia approach" in 3DTV Play (no seperate sync signal) works perfectly well except for bandwidth. So it would do full res 1080P/60 if bandwidth was increased by a small amount (about 17%). In every case of full 1080P/60 per eye video transmission, the connection is dual link (two RGB channels of data). Just seems to me that dual link is an easier way to go since the AC requirements are more relaxed than single link at a higher clock speed. Implementation details aside, HDTV makers could provide 1080P/60 3D gaming support, they just lack a reason to do so.
The problem with the nvidia driver is not technical, it's the marketing people decided keep control out of the user's hands and only provide the automatic mode nvidia wants you to use.
rkuo is portraying Andrew as a victim of a design engineering. But if you read Andrews statements in post #52, he is genuinely surprised at the suggestion that image quality is more important than convenience.
[quote name='photios' date='24 January 2011 - 08:39 AM' timestamp='1295883579' post='1182815']
A good compromise as far as I can tell here between Nvidia and new HDMI 1.4a 3DTV Samsung users, is have the Nvidia software DEFAULT to the HDMI 1.4a recognition. This is needed for hoi polloi who aren't reading these forums and aren't tinkering with having the best quality. All they want to do is play games and have something turn key. I see Andrews point and Nvidia's visional marketing strategy makes perfect sense here.[/quote]Makes sense only if you adopt "punish the innocent, reward the guilty" mentality. In this case, nvidia has no choice. Rewarding the "casual gamer" at the expense of the real gamer is a result of the HDMI1.4 design. High quality people should be rewarded, low quality people should stay out of their way. This policy was apparently ignored when going from HDMI1.3 to HDMI1.4.
[quote]Oh and those who think that DLP desktop is not good. Well I'm here to tell you it is NOT as bad as you think it is. No, it's not LCD quality, but it is still pretty good.
[/quote]
I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
[quote name='photios' date='24 January 2011 - 08:39 AM' timestamp='1295883579' post='1182815']
A good compromise as far as I can tell here between Nvidia and new HDMI 1.4a 3DTV Samsung users, is have the Nvidia software DEFAULT to the HDMI 1.4a recognition. This is needed for hoi polloi who aren't reading these forums and aren't tinkering with having the best quality. All they want to do is play games and have something turn key. I see Andrews point and Nvidia's visional marketing strategy makes perfect sense here.Makes sense only if you adopt "punish the innocent, reward the guilty" mentality. In this case, nvidia has no choice. Rewarding the "casual gamer" at the expense of the real gamer is a result of the HDMI1.4 design. High quality people should be rewarded, low quality people should stay out of their way. This policy was apparently ignored when going from HDMI1.3 to HDMI1.4.
Oh and those who think that DLP desktop is not good. Well I'm here to tell you it is NOT as bad as you think it is. No, it's not LCD quality, but it is still pretty good.
I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
[/quote]
you must have had a defective TV. my 2d PQ quality is excellent after i color calibrated and adjusted the geometry. These have dark-chip 3 in them. excellent PQ and the 3d is still ghost free at maximum depth and works perfect in 1080p60 3d checkerboard (plug and play) at an insanely cheap price (under 1000K for a 65 inch!). This is something that none of these new tv's can accomplish. I seriously considered a new tv for Christmas, until until i saw them in person at frys and realized they were absolutely not an improvement over my DLP for 3d gaming- a slight improvement in 2d-yes- but who cares about 2d in a 3d forum?
you should all save your money and buy cheap mits tvs or dlp projectors until the display industry gets there head out of there a@@! vote with you wallets. It is pathetic that we still do not have true 1080p displays. You are all getting ripped off with inferior tech at super high prices, and please do not even try to defend the 24hrz mode.
I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
you must have had a defective TV. my 2d PQ quality is excellent after i color calibrated and adjusted the geometry. These have dark-chip 3 in them. excellent PQ and the 3d is still ghost free at maximum depth and works perfect in 1080p60 3d checkerboard (plug and play) at an insanely cheap price (under 1000K for a 65 inch!). This is something that none of these new tv's can accomplish. I seriously considered a new tv for Christmas, until until i saw them in person at frys and realized they were absolutely not an improvement over my DLP for 3d gaming- a slight improvement in 2d-yes- but who cares about 2d in a 3d forum?
you should all save your money and buy cheap mits tvs or dlp projectors until the display industry gets there head out of there a@@! vote with you wallets. It is pathetic that we still do not have true 1080p displays. You are all getting ripped off with inferior tech at super high prices, and please do not even try to defend the 24hrz mode.
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
[quote name='roller11' date='24 January 2011 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1295893718' post='1182917']
Makes sense only if you adopt "punish the innocent, reward the guilty" mentality. In this case, nvidia has no choice. Rewarding the "casual gamer" at the expense of the real gamer is a result of the HDMI1.4 design. High quality people should be rewarded, low quality people should stay out of their way. This policy was apparently ignored when going from HDMI1.3 to HDMI1.4. [/quote]
The HDMI 1.4a standard is your context, and at this moment there is no going back while the major manufacturers for TV's have already committed months ago.
Your response to me is a [i]non sequitur[/i] and here is why, the [i][b]goal[/b][/i] of the HDMI 1.4a standard IS to supplement the average end user, not the high end one. Right now you have no support nor was it the intention of 3DTV play to even reward that feature anyways. Should they? Sure, but realize you are asking for something beyond the intended scope of the 3DTV play product. Really, the quality difference here between 720p60 and checkerboard 1080p is by and large marginal (yes I've seen both), and quite frankly I don't see that issue as the most pressing need at the moment compared to getting 3D Vision (the original product) working CORRECTLY with SLI all forms thereof (which is Nvidia's bread and butter performance setup). If they want to address the High End folks, they should begin [b][i][u]there[/u][/i][/b]. And as far as the industry standard goes, by my lights, Sony won the day with HDMI 1.4a over any of the other solutions. Good, bad, or indifferent, that was a win for the simple end user. Do I like that? No, but that's the context that you have to work with. Fist pounding, I doubt, won't do much work here. Might as well cut your losses and take your compromises where you can here. Conciliation will be the only way you'll make much of a dint. If you think Nvidia with 3DTV play is going to be a de facto MANUAL setup within the context of HDMI 1.4a, you are simply dreaming.
Now, I do think you guys have a good lobbying case here, and I think it is a viable pursuance. But it's going to be much easier for you to make your case if you are working from WITHIN the context of 3DTV play and what it was intended for. And at this point, not one of you has made your case this way on those kinds of terms.
[quote] I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
[/quote]
Actually, I was referring to the Mits DLP. If Samsung is better, good for them, but I use my Mits as my "standard" monitor at home with my desk 7' away from the TV and I don't have any significant problems viewing texts, pics, etc. Yeah my 24" Viewsonic at work is sharper no doubt, but the Mits is sufficient and as I said it is not bad. I'm not saying it is great, but it'll get the job done if someone wishes to have an "end all-be all" solution for 3D gaming that is decent quality and affordable and really shines in 3D. Scale 1- 10 in 2D. It's a 7.5.
[quote name='roller11' date='24 January 2011 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1295893718' post='1182917']
Makes sense only if you adopt "punish the innocent, reward the guilty" mentality. In this case, nvidia has no choice. Rewarding the "casual gamer" at the expense of the real gamer is a result of the HDMI1.4 design. High quality people should be rewarded, low quality people should stay out of their way. This policy was apparently ignored when going from HDMI1.3 to HDMI1.4.
The HDMI 1.4a standard is your context, and at this moment there is no going back while the major manufacturers for TV's have already committed months ago.
Your response to me is a non sequitur and here is why, the goal of the HDMI 1.4a standard IS to supplement the average end user, not the high end one. Right now you have no support nor was it the intention of 3DTV play to even reward that feature anyways. Should they? Sure, but realize you are asking for something beyond the intended scope of the 3DTV play product. Really, the quality difference here between 720p60 and checkerboard 1080p is by and large marginal (yes I've seen both), and quite frankly I don't see that issue as the most pressing need at the moment compared to getting 3D Vision (the original product) working CORRECTLY with SLI all forms thereof (which is Nvidia's bread and butter performance setup). If they want to address the High End folks, they should begin there. And as far as the industry standard goes, by my lights, Sony won the day with HDMI 1.4a over any of the other solutions. Good, bad, or indifferent, that was a win for the simple end user. Do I like that? No, but that's the context that you have to work with. Fist pounding, I doubt, won't do much work here. Might as well cut your losses and take your compromises where you can here. Conciliation will be the only way you'll make much of a dint. If you think Nvidia with 3DTV play is going to be a de facto MANUAL setup within the context of HDMI 1.4a, you are simply dreaming.
Now, I do think you guys have a good lobbying case here, and I think it is a viable pursuance. But it's going to be much easier for you to make your case if you are working from WITHIN the context of 3DTV play and what it was intended for. And at this point, not one of you has made your case this way on those kinds of terms.
I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
Actually, I was referring to the Mits DLP. If Samsung is better, good for them, but I use my Mits as my "standard" monitor at home with my desk 7' away from the TV and I don't have any significant problems viewing texts, pics, etc. Yeah my 24" Viewsonic at work is sharper no doubt, but the Mits is sufficient and as I said it is not bad. I'm not saying it is great, but it'll get the job done if someone wishes to have an "end all-be all" solution for 3D gaming that is decent quality and affordable and really shines in 3D. Scale 1- 10 in 2D. It's a 7.5.
[quote name='DanielJoy' date='24 January 2011 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1295896131' post='1182941']
you should all save your money and buy cheap mits tvs or dlp projectors until the display industry gets there head out of there a@@! vote with you wallets. It is pathetic that we still do not have true 1080p displays. You are all getting ripped off with inferior tech at super high prices, and please do not even try to defend the 24hrz mode.
[/quote]
You really couldn't have said it better. A DLP is the [i]via media[/i] for both price and performance over anything else until we have til an industry standard change.
[quote name='DanielJoy' date='24 January 2011 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1295896131' post='1182941']
you should all save your money and buy cheap mits tvs or dlp projectors until the display industry gets there head out of there a@@! vote with you wallets. It is pathetic that we still do not have true 1080p displays. You are all getting ripped off with inferior tech at super high prices, and please do not even try to defend the 24hrz mode.
You really couldn't have said it better. A DLP is the via media for both price and performance over anything else until we have til an industry standard change.
[quote name='roller11' date='24 January 2011 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1295885227' post='1182824']
There is no seperate sync signal to my Samsung HDTV when I play a game in 3D, only the HDMI cable is present. Obviously, the left/right eye info is either transmitted in the HDMI cable, or, left/right switching is synchronized to vertical sync. The later way seems unlikely because if I go in and out of 3D while my game is running, when I go back to 3D it syncs up immediately. So there must be some sort of left/right marker in the video stream.
The "Nvidia approach" in 3DTV Play (no seperate sync signal) works perfectly well except for bandwidth. So it would do full res 1080P/60 if bandwidth was increased by a small amount (about 17%). In every case of full 1080P/60 per eye video transmission, the connection is dual link (two RGB channels of data). Just seems to me that dual link is an easier way to go since the AC requirements are more relaxed than single link at a higher clock speed. Implementation details aside, HDTV makers could provide 1080P/60 3D gaming support, they just lack a reason to do so.
[/quote]
You are comparing apples to tomatoes.
Nvidia 3DTV play uses hdmi 1.4 formats that do contain everything (image pairing and left/right information), you only need one hdmi cable and the glasses synchronize automatically with the display.
Nvidia 3D Vision uses DVI dual link to transmit FullHD at 120Hz, it does contain neither the left/right information not the pairing, you need to use nvidia 3D vision glasses with the emitter plugged to the computer because only the computer knows which image belongs to which eye.
[quote name='roller11' date='24 January 2011 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1295885227' post='1182824']
There is no seperate sync signal to my Samsung HDTV when I play a game in 3D, only the HDMI cable is present. Obviously, the left/right eye info is either transmitted in the HDMI cable, or, left/right switching is synchronized to vertical sync. The later way seems unlikely because if I go in and out of 3D while my game is running, when I go back to 3D it syncs up immediately. So there must be some sort of left/right marker in the video stream.
The "Nvidia approach" in 3DTV Play (no seperate sync signal) works perfectly well except for bandwidth. So it would do full res 1080P/60 if bandwidth was increased by a small amount (about 17%). In every case of full 1080P/60 per eye video transmission, the connection is dual link (two RGB channels of data). Just seems to me that dual link is an easier way to go since the AC requirements are more relaxed than single link at a higher clock speed. Implementation details aside, HDTV makers could provide 1080P/60 3D gaming support, they just lack a reason to do so.
You are comparing apples to tomatoes.
Nvidia 3DTV play uses hdmi 1.4 formats that do contain everything (image pairing and left/right information), you only need one hdmi cable and the glasses synchronize automatically with the display.
Nvidia 3D Vision uses DVI dual link to transmit FullHD at 120Hz, it does contain neither the left/right information not the pairing, you need to use nvidia 3D vision glasses with the emitter plugged to the computer because only the computer knows which image belongs to which eye.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
[quote name='BlackSharkfr' date='24 January 2011 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1295898379' post='1182969']
You are comparing apples to tomatoes.
Nvidia 3DTV play uses hdmi 1.4 formats that do contain everything (image pairing and left/right information), you only need one hdmi cable and the glasses synchronize automatically with the display.
Nvidia 3D Vision uses DVI dual link to transmit FullHD at 120Hz, it does contain neither the left/right information not the pairing, you need to use nvidia 3D vision glasses with the emitter plugged to the computer because only the computer knows which image belongs to which eye.
[/quote]
See now this is how I thought it worked.
Anyway, roller11, the point stands. I didn't pay for 3DTV play, I paid for 3D Vision. Checkerboard used to work, for god's sake ... and got killed when 3DTV Play overrode it. Give us the option to manually override the HDMI 1.4 formats and sync cable warnings in the drivers.
Or to put it a simpler way so you know exactly what to do ... go buy a 2010 samsung 3d plasma and make the checkerboard work with your drivers.
I don't attribute any maliciousness to this on Andrew, but he's got all the facts now. I'm waiting for him to make the right call.
And yes checkerboard 1080p does look better then 720/60p. Flat out.
[quote name='BlackSharkfr' date='24 January 2011 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1295898379' post='1182969']
You are comparing apples to tomatoes.
Nvidia 3DTV play uses hdmi 1.4 formats that do contain everything (image pairing and left/right information), you only need one hdmi cable and the glasses synchronize automatically with the display.
Nvidia 3D Vision uses DVI dual link to transmit FullHD at 120Hz, it does contain neither the left/right information not the pairing, you need to use nvidia 3D vision glasses with the emitter plugged to the computer because only the computer knows which image belongs to which eye.
See now this is how I thought it worked.
Anyway, roller11, the point stands. I didn't pay for 3DTV play, I paid for 3D Vision. Checkerboard used to work, for god's sake ... and got killed when 3DTV Play overrode it. Give us the option to manually override the HDMI 1.4 formats and sync cable warnings in the drivers.
Or to put it a simpler way so you know exactly what to do ... go buy a 2010 samsung 3d plasma and make the checkerboard work with your drivers.
I don't attribute any maliciousness to this on Andrew, but he's got all the facts now. I'm waiting for him to make the right call.
And yes checkerboard 1080p does look better then 720/60p. Flat out.
[quote name='photios' date='24 January 2011 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1295896551' post='1182945']
you are asking for something beyond the intended scope of the 3DTV play product.[/quote]
The only "intention" of 3DTV Play was to make sure 3D switching is automatic. Andrew threw quality under the bus to get it.
[quote] the quality difference here between 720p60 and checkerboard 1080p is by and large marginal[/quote]
No doubt you can't distinguish between hi def broadcast and low def either.
[quote]And as far as the industry standard goes, by my lights, Sony won the day with HDMI 1.4a over any of the other solutions.[/quote]
Yeah, I'm sure glad Displayport 1.2 didn't win over HDMI1.4. If it had we'd be forced to 3D game in full res/full framerate 1920x1080P/60. Wouldn't that be terrible! Thank goodness for low bandwidth, 3D crippled HDMI1.4a.
[quote] If you think Nvidia with 3DTV play is going to be a de facto MANUAL setup within the context of HDMI 1.4a, you are simply dreaming.[/quote]
Nvidia should uncastrate 3DTV Play, it's the right thing to do.
[quote] I use my Mits as my "standard" monitor at home with my desk 7' away from the TV and I don't have any significant problems viewing texts, pics, etc.[/quote]
Of course you do. You're the guy who thinks scaled 720P looks just as good as native checkerboard 1920x1080.
I'm just glad that you're not the one setting industry standards. If you were, we'd all still be watching TV programs in black and white on 17" Crosley TVs.
[quote name='photios' date='24 January 2011 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1295896551' post='1182945']
you are asking for something beyond the intended scope of the 3DTV play product.
The only "intention" of 3DTV Play was to make sure 3D switching is automatic. Andrew threw quality under the bus to get it.
the quality difference here between 720p60 and checkerboard 1080p is by and large marginal
No doubt you can't distinguish between hi def broadcast and low def either.
And as far as the industry standard goes, by my lights, Sony won the day with HDMI 1.4a over any of the other solutions.
Yeah, I'm sure glad Displayport 1.2 didn't win over HDMI1.4. If it had we'd be forced to 3D game in full res/full framerate 1920x1080P/60. Wouldn't that be terrible! Thank goodness for low bandwidth, 3D crippled HDMI1.4a.
If you think Nvidia with 3DTV play is going to be a de facto MANUAL setup within the context of HDMI 1.4a, you are simply dreaming.
Nvidia should uncastrate 3DTV Play, it's the right thing to do.
I use my Mits as my "standard" monitor at home with my desk 7' away from the TV and I don't have any significant problems viewing texts, pics, etc.
Of course you do. You're the guy who thinks scaled 720P looks just as good as native checkerboard 1920x1080.
I'm just glad that you're not the one setting industry standards. If you were, we'd all still be watching TV programs in black and white on 17" Crosley TVs.
[quote name='roller11' date='24 January 2011 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1295902382' post='1183015']
The only "intention" of 3DTV Play was to make sure 3D switching is automatic. Andrew threw quality under the bus to get it.
No doubt you can't distinguish between hi def broadcast and low def either.
Yeah, I'm sure glad Displayport 1.2 didn't win over HDMI1.4. If it had we'd be forced to 3D game in full res/full framerate 1920x1080P/60. Wouldn't that be terrible! Thank goodness for low bandwidth, 3D crippled HDMI1.4a.
Nvidia should uncastrate 3DTV Play, it's the right thing to do.
Of course you do. You're the guy who thinks scaled 720P looks just as good as native checkerboard 1920x1080.
I'm just glad that you're not the one setting industry standards. If you were, we'd all still be watching TV programs in black and white on 17" Crosley TVs.
[/quote]
Thank you roller11 for that [b][i]ad hominem[/i][/b] display. If you were the "standard" by which to work out an argument, we would all be swinging from trees. Your assessment of what I said was neither fair nor balanced. But hey, [i]tu quoque[/i].
[quote name='roller11' date='24 January 2011 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1295902382' post='1183015']
The only "intention" of 3DTV Play was to make sure 3D switching is automatic. Andrew threw quality under the bus to get it.
No doubt you can't distinguish between hi def broadcast and low def either.
Yeah, I'm sure glad Displayport 1.2 didn't win over HDMI1.4. If it had we'd be forced to 3D game in full res/full framerate 1920x1080P/60. Wouldn't that be terrible! Thank goodness for low bandwidth, 3D crippled HDMI1.4a.
Nvidia should uncastrate 3DTV Play, it's the right thing to do.
Of course you do. You're the guy who thinks scaled 720P looks just as good as native checkerboard 1920x1080.
I'm just glad that you're not the one setting industry standards. If you were, we'd all still be watching TV programs in black and white on 17" Crosley TVs.
Thank you roller11 for that ad hominem display. If you were the "standard" by which to work out an argument, we would all be swinging from trees. Your assessment of what I said was neither fair nor balanced. But hey, tu quoque.
You're getting all fancy in your talking, but the simple fact is that far cheaper 120Hz monitors have more functionality in this respect than very high end big screen TV's. It's not hard to do, nor would it violate some sort of policy ... why would adding a dual link DVI input violate a policy? Big screen TV's could operate just as 3D Vision ready branded monitors do today ... if they had a 120Hz mode dual link input of some sort. It's really unfortunate that they don't seem to care about this scenario at all and are leaving it for the PC market. So gamers like ourselves are left unable to use the full potential of our gaming rigs.
[/quote]
If you scrutinize Blacksharks post, it really boils down to "TV Makers can offer a dual link input, they just choose not to". Like you say, a dual link DVI input works on a cheap 120Hz monitor, so it will work on a HDTV. Black's only reason why it won't is that it would require a seperate sync connection for the glasses which is BS....Vertical sync *is* the sync signal for the glasses and that is generated by the TV, no seperate connection required.
I like my theory better...from the TV makers viewpoint, everything works fine as is, why spend money to add another connection? All that would do is allow 3D gaming, and that is (apparently) not important.
Previously, I assumed that surely Nvidia is pushing TV makers to add full 3D gaming capability to their sets. But yesterday I gained insight from Andrew's appauling admission that he sacrificed picture quality just so users wouldn't have to push a button on the remote. Given that Andrew is a high ranking officer at nvidia, I can believe that nvidia really and truely doesn't care about a quality output, so maybe Nvidia isn't concerned about HDTVs lack of high quality 3D gaming support, and so nvidia isn't pushing for it.
You're getting all fancy in your talking, but the simple fact is that far cheaper 120Hz monitors have more functionality in this respect than very high end big screen TV's. It's not hard to do, nor would it violate some sort of policy ... why would adding a dual link DVI input violate a policy? Big screen TV's could operate just as 3D Vision ready branded monitors do today ... if they had a 120Hz mode dual link input of some sort. It's really unfortunate that they don't seem to care about this scenario at all and are leaving it for the PC market. So gamers like ourselves are left unable to use the full potential of our gaming rigs.
If you scrutinize Blacksharks post, it really boils down to "TV Makers can offer a dual link input, they just choose not to". Like you say, a dual link DVI input works on a cheap 120Hz monitor, so it will work on a HDTV. Black's only reason why it won't is that it would require a seperate sync connection for the glasses which is BS....Vertical sync *is* the sync signal for the glasses and that is generated by the TV, no seperate connection required.
I like my theory better...from the TV makers viewpoint, everything works fine as is, why spend money to add another connection? All that would do is allow 3D gaming, and that is (apparently) not important.
Previously, I assumed that surely Nvidia is pushing TV makers to add full 3D gaming capability to their sets. But yesterday I gained insight from Andrew's appauling admission that he sacrificed picture quality just so users wouldn't have to push a button on the remote. Given that Andrew is a high ranking officer at nvidia, I can believe that nvidia really and truely doesn't care about a quality output, so maybe Nvidia isn't concerned about HDTVs lack of high quality 3D gaming support, and so nvidia isn't pushing for it.
If you scrutinize Blacksharks post, it really boils down to "TV Makers can offer a dual link input, they just choose not to". Like you say, a dual link DVI input works on a cheap 120Hz monitor, so it will work on a HDTV. Black's only reason why it won't is that it would require a seperate sync connection for the glasses which is BS....Vertical sync *is* the sync signal for the glasses and that is generated by the TV, no seperate connection required.
I like my theory better...from the TV makers viewpoint, everything works fine as is, why spend money to add another connection? All that would do is allow 3D gaming, and that is (apparently) not important.
Previously, I assumed that surely Nvidia is pushing TV makers to add full 3D gaming capability to their sets. But yesterday I gained insight from Andrew's appauling admission that he sacrificed picture quality just so users wouldn't have to push a button on the remote. Given that Andrew is a high ranking officer at nvidia, I can believe that nvidia really and truely doesn't care about a quality output, so maybe Nvidia isn't concerned about HDTVs lack of high quality 3D gaming support, and so nvidia isn't pushing for it.
[/quote]
The sync signal is there but the tv would not know which image is left eye vs right eye.
I don't think Andrew said anything of the sort. You do have a certain flair for dramatizing the facts! Although I agree with you on the basic principle of supporting 3D checkerboard mode properly.
From Andrew's perspective, HDMI 1.4 has broad industry support and will be how many consumers get involved with 3D. That's fair enough. What I would like to point out to him is that he is marketing to a very high end group of buyers right now ... even higher end than SLI customers, since we have to purchase an entire ecosystem of products and then get extremely beefy hardware to drive double the framerate.
There are a limited number of TV's right now and taking away working checkerboard on a significant portion of them b/c someone is too lazy to code up something to handle checkerboard TV's in the presence of 3DTV play is utter lunacy. nVidia, you can kill off checkerboard support when 1080p/60 3D TV's exist in sufficient quantity for a year or two. Until then, checkerboard is the highest quality 3D format for big screen 3D gaming. You cannot, cannot, cannot ignore or disable this format on a whim and expect high end gamers to take this seriously. Do the work and make the product users need right now.
If you scrutinize Blacksharks post, it really boils down to "TV Makers can offer a dual link input, they just choose not to". Like you say, a dual link DVI input works on a cheap 120Hz monitor, so it will work on a HDTV. Black's only reason why it won't is that it would require a seperate sync connection for the glasses which is BS....Vertical sync *is* the sync signal for the glasses and that is generated by the TV, no seperate connection required.
I like my theory better...from the TV makers viewpoint, everything works fine as is, why spend money to add another connection? All that would do is allow 3D gaming, and that is (apparently) not important.
Previously, I assumed that surely Nvidia is pushing TV makers to add full 3D gaming capability to their sets. But yesterday I gained insight from Andrew's appauling admission that he sacrificed picture quality just so users wouldn't have to push a button on the remote. Given that Andrew is a high ranking officer at nvidia, I can believe that nvidia really and truely doesn't care about a quality output, so maybe Nvidia isn't concerned about HDTVs lack of high quality 3D gaming support, and so nvidia isn't pushing for it.
The sync signal is there but the tv would not know which image is left eye vs right eye.
I don't think Andrew said anything of the sort. You do have a certain flair for dramatizing the facts! Although I agree with you on the basic principle of supporting 3D checkerboard mode properly.
From Andrew's perspective, HDMI 1.4 has broad industry support and will be how many consumers get involved with 3D. That's fair enough. What I would like to point out to him is that he is marketing to a very high end group of buyers right now ... even higher end than SLI customers, since we have to purchase an entire ecosystem of products and then get extremely beefy hardware to drive double the framerate.
There are a limited number of TV's right now and taking away working checkerboard on a significant portion of them b/c someone is too lazy to code up something to handle checkerboard TV's in the presence of 3DTV play is utter lunacy. nVidia, you can kill off checkerboard support when 1080p/60 3D TV's exist in sufficient quantity for a year or two. Until then, checkerboard is the highest quality 3D format for big screen 3D gaming. You cannot, cannot, cannot ignore or disable this format on a whim and expect high end gamers to take this seriously. Do the work and make the product users need right now.
The sync signal is there but the tv would not know which image is left eye vs right eye.[/quote]Sure it would, it's encoded in the video stream during the blanking interval. If it gets out of step, there's an option under under samsung menu 'picture' > '3D' > 'picture correction' that gets it synced up properly. Note that 120Hz computer monitors have only the one DVI cable, no seperate sync cable required.
[quote]I don't think Andrew said anything of the sort.[/quote] Oh really? He said exactly that in post #52, and I quote:
"We currently are not looking to add formats that require end user interaction to switch the TV into that mode."------ high quality checkerboard WILL NOT be supported.
"Do you really want that?"------here he is surprised that anyone would want hi quality checkerboard if it means pushing a button (user interaction).
"Is it more important for you to get that resolution or to have automatic 3D enable/disalbe from the source device?"--------he expects that hi quality video is so unimportant, nobody would push a button to get it.
After reading these statements, how can you say that "he never said anything of the sort?" He's surprised that end users want hi quality video, which means he feels the opposite. What does that tell you about how highly he values picture quality?
The sync signal is there but the tv would not know which image is left eye vs right eye.Sure it would, it's encoded in the video stream during the blanking interval. If it gets out of step, there's an option under under samsung menu 'picture' > '3D' > 'picture correction' that gets it synced up properly. Note that 120Hz computer monitors have only the one DVI cable, no seperate sync cable required.
Oh really? He said exactly that in post #52, and I quote:
"We currently are not looking to add formats that require end user interaction to switch the TV into that mode."------ high quality checkerboard WILL NOT be supported.
"Do you really want that?"------here he is surprised that anyone would want hi quality checkerboard if it means pushing a button (user interaction).
"Is it more important for you to get that resolution or to have automatic 3D enable/disalbe from the source device?"--------he expects that hi quality video is so unimportant, nobody would push a button to get it.
After reading these statements, how can you say that "he never said anything of the sort?" He's surprised that end users want hi quality video, which means he feels the opposite. What does that tell you about how highly he values picture quality?
Sure it would, it's encoded in the video stream during the blanking interval. If it gets out of step, there's an option under under samsung menu 'picture' > '3D' > 'picture correction' that gets it synced up properly. Note that 120Hz computer monitors have only the one DVI cable, no seperate sync cable required.
Oh really? He said exactly that in post #52, and I quote:
"We currently are not looking to add formats that require end user interaction to switch the TV into that mode."------ high quality checkerboard WILL NOT be supported.
"Do you really want that?"------here he is surprised that anyone would want hi quality checkerboard if it means pushing a button (user interaction).
"Is it more important for you to get that resolution or to have automatic 3D enable/disalbe from the source device?"--------he expects that hi quality video is so unimportant, nobody would push a button to get it.
After reading these statements, how can you say that "he never said anything of the sort?" He's surprised that end users want hi quality video, which means he feels the opposite. What does that tell you about how highly he values picture quality?
[/quote]
left eye vs right eye is detectable in the blanking interval? OK you must know more about this than I do.
Yes, OK, you've made your point. I don't get the feeling that Andrew actively killed checkerboard, more that somebody took the easy way out with 3DTV Play from an engineering standpoint rather than trying to make the proper configuration path. Regardless, the point stands ... disabling the highest quality 3D format on these TV's is a big mistake and needs to be fixed, especially when the support already exists and just needs to be properly enabled. And don't assault the guy for asking questions ... he's giving you the chance to correct him! He wouldn't be asking if he didn't want to understand your point of view!
Sure it would, it's encoded in the video stream during the blanking interval. If it gets out of step, there's an option under under samsung menu 'picture' > '3D' > 'picture correction' that gets it synced up properly. Note that 120Hz computer monitors have only the one DVI cable, no seperate sync cable required.
Oh really? He said exactly that in post #52, and I quote:
"We currently are not looking to add formats that require end user interaction to switch the TV into that mode."------ high quality checkerboard WILL NOT be supported.
"Do you really want that?"------here he is surprised that anyone would want hi quality checkerboard if it means pushing a button (user interaction).
"Is it more important for you to get that resolution or to have automatic 3D enable/disalbe from the source device?"--------he expects that hi quality video is so unimportant, nobody would push a button to get it.
After reading these statements, how can you say that "he never said anything of the sort?" He's surprised that end users want hi quality video, which means he feels the opposite. What does that tell you about how highly he values picture quality?
left eye vs right eye is detectable in the blanking interval? OK you must know more about this than I do.
Yes, OK, you've made your point. I don't get the feeling that Andrew actively killed checkerboard, more that somebody took the easy way out with 3DTV Play from an engineering standpoint rather than trying to make the proper configuration path. Regardless, the point stands ... disabling the highest quality 3D format on these TV's is a big mistake and needs to be fixed, especially when the support already exists and just needs to be properly enabled. And don't assault the guy for asking questions ... he's giving you the chance to correct him! He wouldn't be asking if he didn't want to understand your point of view!
How so? A seperate cable isn't required now, the TV knows when Vblanking occurs, so it knows when to trigger the glasses. The sync signal is, in effect, embedded in V Blank.
So dual link is in the HDMI spec, and at the same time it goes against HDMI policy, and HDMI policy is to not have two channels of RGB data? Two channels that are already in the pinout, unused? Why would the HDMI people want to avoid implementing dual channel in their own standard?
Anyway, what's the stopping the TV makers from implementing 3D the same way the monitor guys are, and on the same dual link DVI connection? Or, add displayport 1.2 in addition to HDMI1.4?
[/quote]
Passing the left/right eye information in the DVI dual link blancking is not part of the DVI specification.
It is possible to do it but it would require creating a new extension to the DVI spec which all manufacturers would agree to follow so that all displays could share the same signals.
VESA, doesn't want to extend the life of DVI. They prefer pushing hdmi and Display port to add these new features. This is why hdmi and Display-Port were extended to contain the new specifications for 3D and DVI was not.
Dual link [b]was[/b] in the hdmi spec, it required the double-size Type B connector, no manufacturer used it, no manufacturer wanted it, I don't even know if any hdmi chip manufacturer ever implemented it. Now with hdmi 1.4 dual-link has been completely discarded and should not come back (see hdmi official website about this)
Hdmi 1.3 and 1.4 deliver the same amount of bandwidth as dual link hdmi but through a single link.
Again, I have never read or heard anything about dual link through type A connector.
Nvidia 3D vision does not transmit the left/right through the DVI cable. This information (and the sync too) is done through the additional USB emitter.
The nvidia approach allows a cheap implementation bacause the display is just a fast 2D display with minimal modifications. The display itself does not even need to be aware it's displaying 3D to work. But it has drawbacks that are significant enough that TV manufacturers prefer ignoring it completely.
[quote name='rkuo' date='24 January 2011 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1295847823' post='1182585']Yes, OK, you've made your point. I don't get the feeling that Andrew actively killed checkerboard, more that somebody took the easy way out with 3DTV Play from an engineering standpoint rather than trying to make the proper configuration path. Regardless, the point stands ... disabling the highest quality 3D format on these TV's is a big mistake and needs to be fixed, especially when the support already exists and just needs to be properly enabled. And don't assault the guy for asking questions ... he's giving you the chance to correct him! He wouldn't be asking if he didn't want to understand your point of view!
[/quote]
The problem with the nvidia driver is not technical, it's the marketing people decided keep control out of the user's hands and only provide the automatic mode nvidia wants you to use. When the automatic mode works it's good, I don't like having to set things up everytime I start/stop using 3D, so having automatic hdmi1.4 setting is great, but I also like to be able to tweak when I'm not happy with the default settings.
The old nvidia stereodrivers allowed you to choose any type of output (frame sequential, side by side, checkerboard, dual projectors, and more...) with any type of display, at any resolution and any refresh rate, even if you knew it wouldn't work, you could still use it just to see what the transmitted picture looks like, and that is missing.
How so? A seperate cable isn't required now, the TV knows when Vblanking occurs, so it knows when to trigger the glasses. The sync signal is, in effect, embedded in V Blank.
So dual link is in the HDMI spec, and at the same time it goes against HDMI policy, and HDMI policy is to not have two channels of RGB data? Two channels that are already in the pinout, unused? Why would the HDMI people want to avoid implementing dual channel in their own standard?
Anyway, what's the stopping the TV makers from implementing 3D the same way the monitor guys are, and on the same dual link DVI connection? Or, add displayport 1.2 in addition to HDMI1.4?
Passing the left/right eye information in the DVI dual link blancking is not part of the DVI specification.
It is possible to do it but it would require creating a new extension to the DVI spec which all manufacturers would agree to follow so that all displays could share the same signals.
VESA, doesn't want to extend the life of DVI. They prefer pushing hdmi and Display port to add these new features. This is why hdmi and Display-Port were extended to contain the new specifications for 3D and DVI was not.
Dual link was in the hdmi spec, it required the double-size Type B connector, no manufacturer used it, no manufacturer wanted it, I don't even know if any hdmi chip manufacturer ever implemented it. Now with hdmi 1.4 dual-link has been completely discarded and should not come back (see hdmi official website about this)
Hdmi 1.3 and 1.4 deliver the same amount of bandwidth as dual link hdmi but through a single link.
Again, I have never read or heard anything about dual link through type A connector.
Nvidia 3D vision does not transmit the left/right through the DVI cable. This information (and the sync too) is done through the additional USB emitter.
The nvidia approach allows a cheap implementation bacause the display is just a fast 2D display with minimal modifications. The display itself does not even need to be aware it's displaying 3D to work. But it has drawbacks that are significant enough that TV manufacturers prefer ignoring it completely.
[quote name='rkuo' date='24 January 2011 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1295847823' post='1182585']Yes, OK, you've made your point. I don't get the feeling that Andrew actively killed checkerboard, more that somebody took the easy way out with 3DTV Play from an engineering standpoint rather than trying to make the proper configuration path. Regardless, the point stands ... disabling the highest quality 3D format on these TV's is a big mistake and needs to be fixed, especially when the support already exists and just needs to be properly enabled. And don't assault the guy for asking questions ... he's giving you the chance to correct him! He wouldn't be asking if he didn't want to understand your point of view!
The problem with the nvidia driver is not technical, it's the marketing people decided keep control out of the user's hands and only provide the automatic mode nvidia wants you to use. When the automatic mode works it's good, I don't like having to set things up everytime I start/stop using 3D, so having automatic hdmi1.4 setting is great, but I also like to be able to tweak when I'm not happy with the default settings.
The old nvidia stereodrivers allowed you to choose any type of output (frame sequential, side by side, checkerboard, dual projectors, and more...) with any type of display, at any resolution and any refresh rate, even if you knew it wouldn't work, you could still use it just to see what the transmitted picture looks like, and that is missing.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
I mean this was already possible long before 3D TV play's inception. Why? A new Samsung 3DTV HDMI 1.4a could play Avatar the game in checkerboard or side-by-side mode without any 3D TV play software. It should be a misnomer that Nvidia can't provide this ability.
Oh and those who think that DLP desktop is not good. Well I'm here to tell you it is NOT as bad as you think it is. No, it's not LCD quality, but it is still pretty good.
I mean this was already possible long before 3D TV play's inception. Why? A new Samsung 3DTV HDMI 1.4a could play Avatar the game in checkerboard or side-by-side mode without any 3D TV play software. It should be a misnomer that Nvidia can't provide this ability.
Oh and those who think that DLP desktop is not good. Well I'm here to tell you it is NOT as bad as you think it is. No, it's not LCD quality, but it is still pretty good.
Nvidia 3D vision does not transmit the left/right through the DVI cable. This information (and the sync too) is done through the additional USB emitter.[/quote]There is no seperate sync signal to my Samsung HDTV when I play a game in 3D, only the HDMI cable is present. Obviously, the left/right eye info is either transmitted in the HDMI cable, or, left/right switching is synchronized to vertical sync. The later way seems unlikely because if I go in and out of 3D while my game is running, when I go back to 3D it syncs up immediately. So there must be some sort of left/right marker in the video stream.
The "Nvidia approach" in 3DTV Play (no seperate sync signal) works perfectly well except for bandwidth. So it would do full res 1080P/60 if bandwidth was increased by a small amount (about 17%). In every case of full 1080P/60 per eye video transmission, the connection is dual link (two RGB channels of data). Just seems to me that dual link is an easier way to go since the AC requirements are more relaxed than single link at a higher clock speed. Implementation details aside, HDTV makers could provide 1080P/60 3D gaming support, they just lack a reason to do so.
[quote]The problem with the nvidia driver is not technical, it's the marketing people decided keep control out of the user's hands and only provide the automatic mode nvidia wants you to use. [/quote]
rkuo is portraying Andrew as a victim of a design engineering. But if you read Andrews statements in post #52, he is genuinely surprised at the suggestion that image quality is more important than convenience.
Nvidia 3D vision does not transmit the left/right through the DVI cable. This information (and the sync too) is done through the additional USB emitter.There is no seperate sync signal to my Samsung HDTV when I play a game in 3D, only the HDMI cable is present. Obviously, the left/right eye info is either transmitted in the HDMI cable, or, left/right switching is synchronized to vertical sync. The later way seems unlikely because if I go in and out of 3D while my game is running, when I go back to 3D it syncs up immediately. So there must be some sort of left/right marker in the video stream.
The "Nvidia approach" in 3DTV Play (no seperate sync signal) works perfectly well except for bandwidth. So it would do full res 1080P/60 if bandwidth was increased by a small amount (about 17%). In every case of full 1080P/60 per eye video transmission, the connection is dual link (two RGB channels of data). Just seems to me that dual link is an easier way to go since the AC requirements are more relaxed than single link at a higher clock speed. Implementation details aside, HDTV makers could provide 1080P/60 3D gaming support, they just lack a reason to do so.
rkuo is portraying Andrew as a victim of a design engineering. But if you read Andrews statements in post #52, he is genuinely surprised at the suggestion that image quality is more important than convenience.
A good compromise as far as I can tell here between Nvidia and new HDMI 1.4a 3DTV Samsung users, is have the Nvidia software DEFAULT to the HDMI 1.4a recognition. This is needed for hoi polloi who aren't reading these forums and aren't tinkering with having the best quality. All they want to do is play games and have something turn key. I see Andrews point and Nvidia's visional marketing strategy makes perfect sense here.[/quote]Makes sense only if you adopt "punish the innocent, reward the guilty" mentality. In this case, nvidia has no choice. Rewarding the "casual gamer" at the expense of the real gamer is a result of the HDMI1.4 design. High quality people should be rewarded, low quality people should stay out of their way. This policy was apparently ignored when going from HDMI1.3 to HDMI1.4.
[quote]Oh and those who think that DLP desktop is not good. Well I'm here to tell you it is NOT as bad as you think it is. No, it's not LCD quality, but it is still pretty good.
[/quote]
I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
A good compromise as far as I can tell here between Nvidia and new HDMI 1.4a 3DTV Samsung users, is have the Nvidia software DEFAULT to the HDMI 1.4a recognition. This is needed for hoi polloi who aren't reading these forums and aren't tinkering with having the best quality. All they want to do is play games and have something turn key. I see Andrews point and Nvidia's visional marketing strategy makes perfect sense here.Makes sense only if you adopt "punish the innocent, reward the guilty" mentality. In this case, nvidia has no choice. Rewarding the "casual gamer" at the expense of the real gamer is a result of the HDMI1.4 design. High quality people should be rewarded, low quality people should stay out of their way. This policy was apparently ignored when going from HDMI1.3 to HDMI1.4.
I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
[/quote]
you must have had a defective TV. my 2d PQ quality is excellent after i color calibrated and adjusted the geometry. These have dark-chip 3 in them. excellent PQ and the 3d is still ghost free at maximum depth and works perfect in 1080p60 3d checkerboard (plug and play) at an insanely cheap price (under 1000K for a 65 inch!). This is something that none of these new tv's can accomplish. I seriously considered a new tv for Christmas, until until i saw them in person at frys and realized they were absolutely not an improvement over my DLP for 3d gaming- a slight improvement in 2d-yes- but who cares about 2d in a 3d forum?
you should all save your money and buy cheap mits tvs or dlp projectors until the display industry gets there head out of there a@@! vote with you wallets. It is pathetic that we still do not have true 1080p displays. You are all getting ripped off with inferior tech at super high prices, and please do not even try to defend the 24hrz mode.
you must have had a defective TV. my 2d PQ quality is excellent after i color calibrated and adjusted the geometry. These have dark-chip 3 in them. excellent PQ and the 3d is still ghost free at maximum depth and works perfect in 1080p60 3d checkerboard (plug and play) at an insanely cheap price (under 1000K for a 65 inch!). This is something that none of these new tv's can accomplish. I seriously considered a new tv for Christmas, until until i saw them in person at frys and realized they were absolutely not an improvement over my DLP for 3d gaming- a slight improvement in 2d-yes- but who cares about 2d in a 3d forum?
you should all save your money and buy cheap mits tvs or dlp projectors until the display industry gets there head out of there a@@! vote with you wallets. It is pathetic that we still do not have true 1080p displays. You are all getting ripped off with inferior tech at super high prices, and please do not even try to defend the 24hrz mode.
System:
Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz
Asus Rampage Extreme II
2 Ge-force 480 in SLI
GTX 295 PhysX Card
12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram
Intel SSD in RAID 0
BR RW
1000w Sony surround sound
NVIDIA 3D Vision
3d displays tested:
Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)
Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)
Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)
23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)
Samsung 65D8000
Makes sense only if you adopt "punish the innocent, reward the guilty" mentality. In this case, nvidia has no choice. Rewarding the "casual gamer" at the expense of the real gamer is a result of the HDMI1.4 design. High quality people should be rewarded, low quality people should stay out of their way. This policy was apparently ignored when going from HDMI1.3 to HDMI1.4. [/quote]
The HDMI 1.4a standard is your context, and at this moment there is no going back while the major manufacturers for TV's have already committed months ago.
Your response to me is a [i]non sequitur[/i] and here is why, the [i][b]goal[/b][/i] of the HDMI 1.4a standard IS to supplement the average end user, not the high end one. Right now you have no support nor was it the intention of 3DTV play to even reward that feature anyways. Should they? Sure, but realize you are asking for something beyond the intended scope of the 3DTV play product. Really, the quality difference here between 720p60 and checkerboard 1080p is by and large marginal (yes I've seen both), and quite frankly I don't see that issue as the most pressing need at the moment compared to getting 3D Vision (the original product) working CORRECTLY with SLI all forms thereof (which is Nvidia's bread and butter performance setup). If they want to address the High End folks, they should begin [b][i][u]there[/u][/i][/b]. And as far as the industry standard goes, by my lights, Sony won the day with HDMI 1.4a over any of the other solutions. Good, bad, or indifferent, that was a win for the simple end user. Do I like that? No, but that's the context that you have to work with. Fist pounding, I doubt, won't do much work here. Might as well cut your losses and take your compromises where you can here. Conciliation will be the only way you'll make much of a dint. If you think Nvidia with 3DTV play is going to be a de facto MANUAL setup within the context of HDMI 1.4a, you are simply dreaming.
Now, I do think you guys have a good lobbying case here, and I think it is a viable pursuance. But it's going to be much easier for you to make your case if you are working from WITHIN the context of 3DTV play and what it was intended for. And at this point, not one of you has made your case this way on those kinds of terms.
[quote] I have had both Samsung DLP and Mits DLP. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. What you are describing is Samsung, surprisingly good for projection. Not computer monitor good, but not bad. Mits however was horrible, thick, blotchy graphics in 2D. As much as I loved 1920x1080 gaming in 3D on my 67" Mits, I sent it back to Amazon after about 3 weeks, I couldn't stomach the 2D.
[/quote]
Actually, I was referring to the Mits DLP. If Samsung is better, good for them, but I use my Mits as my "standard" monitor at home with my desk 7' away from the TV and I don't have any significant problems viewing texts, pics, etc. Yeah my 24" Viewsonic at work is sharper no doubt, but the Mits is sufficient and as I said it is not bad. I'm not saying it is great, but it'll get the job done if someone wishes to have an "end all-be all" solution for 3D gaming that is decent quality and affordable and really shines in 3D. Scale 1- 10 in 2D. It's a 7.5.
Makes sense only if you adopt "punish the innocent, reward the guilty" mentality. In this case, nvidia has no choice. Rewarding the "casual gamer" at the expense of the real gamer is a result of the HDMI1.4 design. High quality people should be rewarded, low quality people should stay out of their way. This policy was apparently ignored when going from HDMI1.3 to HDMI1.4.
The HDMI 1.4a standard is your context, and at this moment there is no going back while the major manufacturers for TV's have already committed months ago.
Your response to me is a non sequitur and here is why, the goal of the HDMI 1.4a standard IS to supplement the average end user, not the high end one. Right now you have no support nor was it the intention of 3DTV play to even reward that feature anyways. Should they? Sure, but realize you are asking for something beyond the intended scope of the 3DTV play product. Really, the quality difference here between 720p60 and checkerboard 1080p is by and large marginal (yes I've seen both), and quite frankly I don't see that issue as the most pressing need at the moment compared to getting 3D Vision (the original product) working CORRECTLY with SLI all forms thereof (which is Nvidia's bread and butter performance setup). If they want to address the High End folks, they should begin there. And as far as the industry standard goes, by my lights, Sony won the day with HDMI 1.4a over any of the other solutions. Good, bad, or indifferent, that was a win for the simple end user. Do I like that? No, but that's the context that you have to work with. Fist pounding, I doubt, won't do much work here. Might as well cut your losses and take your compromises where you can here. Conciliation will be the only way you'll make much of a dint. If you think Nvidia with 3DTV play is going to be a de facto MANUAL setup within the context of HDMI 1.4a, you are simply dreaming.
Now, I do think you guys have a good lobbying case here, and I think it is a viable pursuance. But it's going to be much easier for you to make your case if you are working from WITHIN the context of 3DTV play and what it was intended for. And at this point, not one of you has made your case this way on those kinds of terms.
Actually, I was referring to the Mits DLP. If Samsung is better, good for them, but I use my Mits as my "standard" monitor at home with my desk 7' away from the TV and I don't have any significant problems viewing texts, pics, etc. Yeah my 24" Viewsonic at work is sharper no doubt, but the Mits is sufficient and as I said it is not bad. I'm not saying it is great, but it'll get the job done if someone wishes to have an "end all-be all" solution for 3D gaming that is decent quality and affordable and really shines in 3D. Scale 1- 10 in 2D. It's a 7.5.
you should all save your money and buy cheap mits tvs or dlp projectors until the display industry gets there head out of there a@@! vote with you wallets. It is pathetic that we still do not have true 1080p displays. You are all getting ripped off with inferior tech at super high prices, and please do not even try to defend the 24hrz mode.
[/quote]
You really couldn't have said it better. A DLP is the [i]via media[/i] for both price and performance over anything else until we have til an industry standard change.
you should all save your money and buy cheap mits tvs or dlp projectors until the display industry gets there head out of there a@@! vote with you wallets. It is pathetic that we still do not have true 1080p displays. You are all getting ripped off with inferior tech at super high prices, and please do not even try to defend the 24hrz mode.
You really couldn't have said it better. A DLP is the via media for both price and performance over anything else until we have til an industry standard change.
There is no seperate sync signal to my Samsung HDTV when I play a game in 3D, only the HDMI cable is present. Obviously, the left/right eye info is either transmitted in the HDMI cable, or, left/right switching is synchronized to vertical sync. The later way seems unlikely because if I go in and out of 3D while my game is running, when I go back to 3D it syncs up immediately. So there must be some sort of left/right marker in the video stream.
The "Nvidia approach" in 3DTV Play (no seperate sync signal) works perfectly well except for bandwidth. So it would do full res 1080P/60 if bandwidth was increased by a small amount (about 17%). In every case of full 1080P/60 per eye video transmission, the connection is dual link (two RGB channels of data). Just seems to me that dual link is an easier way to go since the AC requirements are more relaxed than single link at a higher clock speed. Implementation details aside, HDTV makers could provide 1080P/60 3D gaming support, they just lack a reason to do so.
[/quote]
You are comparing apples to tomatoes.
Nvidia 3DTV play uses hdmi 1.4 formats that do contain everything (image pairing and left/right information), you only need one hdmi cable and the glasses synchronize automatically with the display.
Nvidia 3D Vision uses DVI dual link to transmit FullHD at 120Hz, it does contain neither the left/right information not the pairing, you need to use nvidia 3D vision glasses with the emitter plugged to the computer because only the computer knows which image belongs to which eye.
There is no seperate sync signal to my Samsung HDTV when I play a game in 3D, only the HDMI cable is present. Obviously, the left/right eye info is either transmitted in the HDMI cable, or, left/right switching is synchronized to vertical sync. The later way seems unlikely because if I go in and out of 3D while my game is running, when I go back to 3D it syncs up immediately. So there must be some sort of left/right marker in the video stream.
The "Nvidia approach" in 3DTV Play (no seperate sync signal) works perfectly well except for bandwidth. So it would do full res 1080P/60 if bandwidth was increased by a small amount (about 17%). In every case of full 1080P/60 per eye video transmission, the connection is dual link (two RGB channels of data). Just seems to me that dual link is an easier way to go since the AC requirements are more relaxed than single link at a higher clock speed. Implementation details aside, HDTV makers could provide 1080P/60 3D gaming support, they just lack a reason to do so.
You are comparing apples to tomatoes.
Nvidia 3DTV play uses hdmi 1.4 formats that do contain everything (image pairing and left/right information), you only need one hdmi cable and the glasses synchronize automatically with the display.
Nvidia 3D Vision uses DVI dual link to transmit FullHD at 120Hz, it does contain neither the left/right information not the pairing, you need to use nvidia 3D vision glasses with the emitter plugged to the computer because only the computer knows which image belongs to which eye.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
You are comparing apples to tomatoes.
Nvidia 3DTV play uses hdmi 1.4 formats that do contain everything (image pairing and left/right information), you only need one hdmi cable and the glasses synchronize automatically with the display.
Nvidia 3D Vision uses DVI dual link to transmit FullHD at 120Hz, it does contain neither the left/right information not the pairing, you need to use nvidia 3D vision glasses with the emitter plugged to the computer because only the computer knows which image belongs to which eye.
[/quote]
See now this is how I thought it worked.
Anyway, roller11, the point stands. I didn't pay for 3DTV play, I paid for 3D Vision. Checkerboard used to work, for god's sake ... and got killed when 3DTV Play overrode it. Give us the option to manually override the HDMI 1.4 formats and sync cable warnings in the drivers.
Or to put it a simpler way so you know exactly what to do ... go buy a 2010 samsung 3d plasma and make the checkerboard work with your drivers.
I don't attribute any maliciousness to this on Andrew, but he's got all the facts now. I'm waiting for him to make the right call.
And yes checkerboard 1080p does look better then 720/60p. Flat out.
You are comparing apples to tomatoes.
Nvidia 3DTV play uses hdmi 1.4 formats that do contain everything (image pairing and left/right information), you only need one hdmi cable and the glasses synchronize automatically with the display.
Nvidia 3D Vision uses DVI dual link to transmit FullHD at 120Hz, it does contain neither the left/right information not the pairing, you need to use nvidia 3D vision glasses with the emitter plugged to the computer because only the computer knows which image belongs to which eye.
See now this is how I thought it worked.
Anyway, roller11, the point stands. I didn't pay for 3DTV play, I paid for 3D Vision. Checkerboard used to work, for god's sake ... and got killed when 3DTV Play overrode it. Give us the option to manually override the HDMI 1.4 formats and sync cable warnings in the drivers.
Or to put it a simpler way so you know exactly what to do ... go buy a 2010 samsung 3d plasma and make the checkerboard work with your drivers.
I don't attribute any maliciousness to this on Andrew, but he's got all the facts now. I'm waiting for him to make the right call.
And yes checkerboard 1080p does look better then 720/60p. Flat out.
you are asking for something beyond the intended scope of the 3DTV play product.[/quote]
The only "intention" of 3DTV Play was to make sure 3D switching is automatic. Andrew threw quality under the bus to get it.
[quote] the quality difference here between 720p60 and checkerboard 1080p is by and large marginal[/quote]
No doubt you can't distinguish between hi def broadcast and low def either.
[quote]And as far as the industry standard goes, by my lights, Sony won the day with HDMI 1.4a over any of the other solutions.[/quote]
Yeah, I'm sure glad Displayport 1.2 didn't win over HDMI1.4. If it had we'd be forced to 3D game in full res/full framerate 1920x1080P/60. Wouldn't that be terrible! Thank goodness for low bandwidth, 3D crippled HDMI1.4a.
[quote] If you think Nvidia with 3DTV play is going to be a de facto MANUAL setup within the context of HDMI 1.4a, you are simply dreaming.[/quote]
Nvidia should uncastrate 3DTV Play, it's the right thing to do.
[quote] I use my Mits as my "standard" monitor at home with my desk 7' away from the TV and I don't have any significant problems viewing texts, pics, etc.[/quote]
Of course you do. You're the guy who thinks scaled 720P looks just as good as native checkerboard 1920x1080.
I'm just glad that you're not the one setting industry standards. If you were, we'd all still be watching TV programs in black and white on 17" Crosley TVs.
you are asking for something beyond the intended scope of the 3DTV play product.
The only "intention" of 3DTV Play was to make sure 3D switching is automatic. Andrew threw quality under the bus to get it.
No doubt you can't distinguish between hi def broadcast and low def either.
Yeah, I'm sure glad Displayport 1.2 didn't win over HDMI1.4. If it had we'd be forced to 3D game in full res/full framerate 1920x1080P/60. Wouldn't that be terrible! Thank goodness for low bandwidth, 3D crippled HDMI1.4a.
Nvidia should uncastrate 3DTV Play, it's the right thing to do.
Of course you do. You're the guy who thinks scaled 720P looks just as good as native checkerboard 1920x1080.
I'm just glad that you're not the one setting industry standards. If you were, we'd all still be watching TV programs in black and white on 17" Crosley TVs.
The only "intention" of 3DTV Play was to make sure 3D switching is automatic. Andrew threw quality under the bus to get it.
No doubt you can't distinguish between hi def broadcast and low def either.
Yeah, I'm sure glad Displayport 1.2 didn't win over HDMI1.4. If it had we'd be forced to 3D game in full res/full framerate 1920x1080P/60. Wouldn't that be terrible! Thank goodness for low bandwidth, 3D crippled HDMI1.4a.
Nvidia should uncastrate 3DTV Play, it's the right thing to do.
Of course you do. You're the guy who thinks scaled 720P looks just as good as native checkerboard 1920x1080.
I'm just glad that you're not the one setting industry standards. If you were, we'd all still be watching TV programs in black and white on 17" Crosley TVs.
[/quote]
Thank you roller11 for that [b][i]ad hominem[/i][/b] display. If you were the "standard" by which to work out an argument, we would all be swinging from trees. Your assessment of what I said was neither fair nor balanced. But hey, [i]tu quoque[/i].
The only "intention" of 3DTV Play was to make sure 3D switching is automatic. Andrew threw quality under the bus to get it.
No doubt you can't distinguish between hi def broadcast and low def either.
Yeah, I'm sure glad Displayport 1.2 didn't win over HDMI1.4. If it had we'd be forced to 3D game in full res/full framerate 1920x1080P/60. Wouldn't that be terrible! Thank goodness for low bandwidth, 3D crippled HDMI1.4a.
Nvidia should uncastrate 3DTV Play, it's the right thing to do.
Of course you do. You're the guy who thinks scaled 720P looks just as good as native checkerboard 1920x1080.
I'm just glad that you're not the one setting industry standards. If you were, we'd all still be watching TV programs in black and white on 17" Crosley TVs.
Thank you roller11 for that ad hominem display. If you were the "standard" by which to work out an argument, we would all be swinging from trees. Your assessment of what I said was neither fair nor balanced. But hey, tu quoque.