Epic 3D TV Play Question I bet you cannot give me an asnwer...
  1 / 2    
[b][u]Equipment[/u][/b]

-Nvidia 3D TV Play
-Nvidia GTX 480 (mini HDMI)
-Samsung UN46C7000 (46", LED LCD, 1080p, 3D, 240hz)

[b][u]Isssue[/u][/b]

I want to use an over the top high bandwidth HDMI cable. I've not found any over 10gbps for mini HDMI to standard HDMI 1.4. The only way to do this would be to get a standard HDMI to HDMI cable and then use an adapter. That adapter in turn would reduce quality. Depending on the connector I don't even know if the 3D would carry over good or not. I'm not using the HDMI for anything else, just video. In other words I'm not using it for Audio and have disabled it in my TV menu options.

Movies can be watched in 1980x1080p 3D, but my games tell me that 1980x1080p is not a compatible resolution (forgot the exact error, but also references HDMI 1.4). So I have to play in 1280x720p. Is 720p my only option? Also, if I have 240hz shouldn't I get a higher "hz" option as opposed to 120hz when the 3D does it's thing and lowers the hz?

[b][u]Summary[/u][/b]

Even if I have to use lower resolution, what would be a good cable solution to get the highest bandwidth possible (even if it's not necessary). I've seen some go to 18gpbs, or so. I've never really seen any of these things addressed. When is Nvidia going to release regular HDMI on their cards like Radeon is already doing. I'm tempted to switch.Thanks in advance.
Equipment



-Nvidia 3D TV Play

-Nvidia GTX 480 (mini HDMI)

-Samsung UN46C7000 (46", LED LCD, 1080p, 3D, 240hz)



Isssue



I want to use an over the top high bandwidth HDMI cable. I've not found any over 10gbps for mini HDMI to standard HDMI 1.4. The only way to do this would be to get a standard HDMI to HDMI cable and then use an adapter. That adapter in turn would reduce quality. Depending on the connector I don't even know if the 3D would carry over good or not. I'm not using the HDMI for anything else, just video. In other words I'm not using it for Audio and have disabled it in my TV menu options.



Movies can be watched in 1980x1080p 3D, but my games tell me that 1980x1080p is not a compatible resolution (forgot the exact error, but also references HDMI 1.4). So I have to play in 1280x720p. Is 720p my only option? Also, if I have 240hz shouldn't I get a higher "hz" option as opposed to 120hz when the 3D does it's thing and lowers the hz?



Summary



Even if I have to use lower resolution, what would be a good cable solution to get the highest bandwidth possible (even if it's not necessary). I've seen some go to 18gpbs, or so. I've never really seen any of these things addressed. When is Nvidia going to release regular HDMI on their cards like Radeon is already doing. I'm tempted to switch.Thanks in advance.

[Asus Rampage Extreme II][Core i7 920 @ 3.2ghz][GTX 480 Stock][G.SKILL PI 6GB @ 1600mhz]

[WD Velociraptor 150gb x2 Raid 0][WD Caviar Green 1TB x3 Raid 5][Sony BWU-500S Blu-ray Burner]

[ABS Tagan 1100w PSU][Samsung LED LCD 3D 1080p TV][Nivida 3D TV Play][Windows 7 Premium 64bit SP1]

#1
Posted 05/27/2011 03:53 AM   
[quote name='Ambush083' date='26 May 2011 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1306468434' post='1242904']
Equipment

-Nvidia 3D TV Play
-Nvidia GTX 480 (mini HDMI)
-Samsung UN46C7000 (46", LED LCD, 1080p, 3D, 240hz)

Isssue

I want to use an over the top high bandwidth HDMI cable. I've not found any over 10gbps for mini HDMI to standard HDMI 1.4. The only way to do this would be to get a standard HDMI to HDMI cable and then use an adapter. That adapter in turn would reduce quality. Depending on the connector I don't even know if the 3D would carry over good or not. I'm not using the HDMI for anything else, just video. In other words I'm not using it for Audio and have disabled it in my TV menu options.

Movies can be watched in 1980x1080p 3D, but my games tell me that 1980x1080p is not a compatible resolution (forgot the exact error, but also references HDMI 1.4). So I have to play in 1280x720p. Is 720p my only option?[/quote]

Your cable won't affect quality or performance at all because the HDMI1.4 input is the bottleneck, not the cable. In fact, I've used HDMI1.3 cable with adaptor (miniport) and that works as well as any.

You can 3D game in 1080P frame pack with 3DTV Play, but it will be 24 fps which is too slow for games. And 720P/60 FP is very low quality because of low res and also because FP forces your TV into undesireable Video mode even though PC mode is choosen for your HDMI1/DVI input (i.e. framepack overides your pixel processing mode setting and there's nothing you can do about it).
But you're in luck...you have a 2010 model Samsung, so you're not doomed to 3DTV Play's bad visuals/performance. You can 3D game at native resolution by obtaining a Nvidia 3D Vision emitter and 3D game in checkerboard mode. This gives you 1920x1080 per frame at 60 fps.
If you want to go this route, let me know and I;ll provide details.
[quote name='Ambush083' date='26 May 2011 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1306468434' post='1242904']

Equipment



-Nvidia 3D TV Play

-Nvidia GTX 480 (mini HDMI)

-Samsung UN46C7000 (46", LED LCD, 1080p, 3D, 240hz)



Isssue



I want to use an over the top high bandwidth HDMI cable. I've not found any over 10gbps for mini HDMI to standard HDMI 1.4. The only way to do this would be to get a standard HDMI to HDMI cable and then use an adapter. That adapter in turn would reduce quality. Depending on the connector I don't even know if the 3D would carry over good or not. I'm not using the HDMI for anything else, just video. In other words I'm not using it for Audio and have disabled it in my TV menu options.



Movies can be watched in 1980x1080p 3D, but my games tell me that 1980x1080p is not a compatible resolution (forgot the exact error, but also references HDMI 1.4). So I have to play in 1280x720p. Is 720p my only option?



Your cable won't affect quality or performance at all because the HDMI1.4 input is the bottleneck, not the cable. In fact, I've used HDMI1.3 cable with adaptor (miniport) and that works as well as any.



You can 3D game in 1080P frame pack with 3DTV Play, but it will be 24 fps which is too slow for games. And 720P/60 FP is very low quality because of low res and also because FP forces your TV into undesireable Video mode even though PC mode is choosen for your HDMI1/DVI input (i.e. framepack overides your pixel processing mode setting and there's nothing you can do about it).

But you're in luck...you have a 2010 model Samsung, so you're not doomed to 3DTV Play's bad visuals/performance. You can 3D game at native resolution by obtaining a Nvidia 3D Vision emitter and 3D game in checkerboard mode. This gives you 1920x1080 per frame at 60 fps.

If you want to go this route, let me know and I;ll provide details.

#2
Posted 05/27/2011 04:25 AM   
[quote name='roller11' date='26 May 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1306470325' post='1242912']
If you want to go this route, let me know and I;ll provide details.
[/quote]

[IMG]http://files.sharenator.com/house_do_want_thumbnail_Would_You_Have_Sex_With_This_Woman-s500x336-108003-580.jpg[/IMG]
[quote name='roller11' date='26 May 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1306470325' post='1242912']

If you want to go this route, let me know and I;ll provide details.





Image

[Asus Rampage Extreme II][Core i7 920 @ 3.2ghz][GTX 480 Stock][G.SKILL PI 6GB @ 1600mhz]

[WD Velociraptor 150gb x2 Raid 0][WD Caviar Green 1TB x3 Raid 5][Sony BWU-500S Blu-ray Burner]

[ABS Tagan 1100w PSU][Samsung LED LCD 3D 1080p TV][Nivida 3D TV Play][Windows 7 Premium 64bit SP1]

#3
Posted 05/27/2011 04:50 AM   
The cable has nothing to do with it. You could probably use a coat hanger, and it would still work. The problem is the HDMI chipset, which processes the signal. Right now it is limited to 720P @ 60Hz for gaming (technically you can do 1080P but its at 24Hz so its only good for movies). There is finally a new chipset created that solves this problem, but it won't be integrated into TVs until later this year or early next year, at which time you would need to buy a new TV. Sucks.
The cable has nothing to do with it. You could probably use a coat hanger, and it would still work. The problem is the HDMI chipset, which processes the signal. Right now it is limited to 720P @ 60Hz for gaming (technically you can do 1080P but its at 24Hz so its only good for movies). There is finally a new chipset created that solves this problem, but it won't be integrated into TVs until later this year or early next year, at which time you would need to buy a new TV. Sucks.
#4
Posted 05/27/2011 04:54 AM   
[quote name='Ambush083' date='27 May 2011 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1306471812' post='1242916']
[IMG]http://files.sharenator.com/house_do_want_thumbnail_Would_You_Have_Sex_With_This_Woman-s500x336-108003-580.jpg[/IMG]
[/quote]
That guy keeps pushing checkerboard on people, but what he doesn't want to admit is that its a half-resolution "frame-compatible" format. What it does is combine the left and right frames into one single frame in a checkerboard style format. This has the effect of losing half the total number of pixels (similar to the side-by-side mode but with better interpolation). I believe your TV supports it, so its worth trying if you want to see. You can do that with the iz3D or DDD drivers, and the Nvidia driver (with a hack). But I am still skeptical that the quality is really that much better.
[quote name='Ambush083' date='27 May 2011 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1306471812' post='1242916']

Image



That guy keeps pushing checkerboard on people, but what he doesn't want to admit is that its a half-resolution "frame-compatible" format. What it does is combine the left and right frames into one single frame in a checkerboard style format. This has the effect of losing half the total number of pixels (similar to the side-by-side mode but with better interpolation). I believe your TV supports it, so its worth trying if you want to see. You can do that with the iz3D or DDD drivers, and the Nvidia driver (with a hack). But I am still skeptical that the quality is really that much better.
#5
Posted 05/27/2011 04:58 AM   
[quote name='cybereality' date='26 May 2011 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1306472045' post='1242918']
There is finally a new chipset created that solves this problem, but it won't be integrated into TVs until later this year or early next year, at which time you would need to buy a new TV. Sucks.
[/quote]

Wow. I believe every word you say and am hella dissapointed. So, I will choose the alternative which would be using the Nvidia emitter and...well I'm waiting for the reply with information from Roller. He only just posted so no rush. Push the checkboard on me while you're at it, lol. Nah just playin.
[quote name='cybereality' date='26 May 2011 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1306472045' post='1242918']

There is finally a new chipset created that solves this problem, but it won't be integrated into TVs until later this year or early next year, at which time you would need to buy a new TV. Sucks.





Wow. I believe every word you say and am hella dissapointed. So, I will choose the alternative which would be using the Nvidia emitter and...well I'm waiting for the reply with information from Roller. He only just posted so no rush. Push the checkboard on me while you're at it, lol. Nah just playin.

[Asus Rampage Extreme II][Core i7 920 @ 3.2ghz][GTX 480 Stock][G.SKILL PI 6GB @ 1600mhz]

[WD Velociraptor 150gb x2 Raid 0][WD Caviar Green 1TB x3 Raid 5][Sony BWU-500S Blu-ray Burner]

[ABS Tagan 1100w PSU][Samsung LED LCD 3D 1080p TV][Nivida 3D TV Play][Windows 7 Premium 64bit SP1]

#6
Posted 05/27/2011 04:58 AM   
[quote name='cybereality' date='26 May 2011 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1306472287' post='1242919']
That guy keeps pushing checkerboard on people, but what he doesn't want to admit is that its a half-resolution "frame-compatible" format. What it does is combine the left and right frames into one single frame in a checkerboard style format. This has the effect of losing half the total number of pixels (similar to the side-by-side mode but with better interpolation). I believe your TV supports it, so its worth trying if you want to see. You can do that with the iz3D or DDD drivers, and the Nvidia driver (with a hack). But I am still skeptical that the quality is really that much better.
[/quote]
You say CB visually lacks quality. Obviously, you have much experience gaming in CB mode on your Samsung 3DTV. Otherwise, you could not/would not advise people on Samsung CB quality since you've never seen it. Could you elaborate as to exactly what you are seeing in your 3D games in CB that looks defecient? Which games in particular have you played in CB mode? What is the year/model number of your Samsung?
[quote name='cybereality' date='26 May 2011 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1306472287' post='1242919']

That guy keeps pushing checkerboard on people, but what he doesn't want to admit is that its a half-resolution "frame-compatible" format. What it does is combine the left and right frames into one single frame in a checkerboard style format. This has the effect of losing half the total number of pixels (similar to the side-by-side mode but with better interpolation). I believe your TV supports it, so its worth trying if you want to see. You can do that with the iz3D or DDD drivers, and the Nvidia driver (with a hack). But I am still skeptical that the quality is really that much better.



You say CB visually lacks quality. Obviously, you have much experience gaming in CB mode on your Samsung 3DTV. Otherwise, you could not/would not advise people on Samsung CB quality since you've never seen it. Could you elaborate as to exactly what you are seeing in your 3D games in CB that looks defecient? Which games in particular have you played in CB mode? What is the year/model number of your Samsung?

#7
Posted 05/27/2011 03:38 PM   
Well, Roller is a promoter of CB to be sure, but it's not at all fair to say that he doesn't "admit...that its a half-resolution "frame-compatible" format." Whereas, if you read what he's been saying, he's been giving technical details to users here of how CB actually works. Of course he knows it's limitations.

The only thing that has better visual quality than CB in 1080p per frame are the 1080p 3D Vision monitors (assuming you can deal with or minimize the ghosting) because they are full 1080p per eye. But if you don't want to game on a tiny display, those are non-starters.

My only acid drip on all this: get a Mits and 3D Vision, save your money and game hassle free without hacks until the next standard comes a long. If you can't do that due to space requirements, do the roller mod and spend the money.
Well, Roller is a promoter of CB to be sure, but it's not at all fair to say that he doesn't "admit...that its a half-resolution "frame-compatible" format." Whereas, if you read what he's been saying, he's been giving technical details to users here of how CB actually works. Of course he knows it's limitations.



The only thing that has better visual quality than CB in 1080p per frame are the 1080p 3D Vision monitors (assuming you can deal with or minimize the ghosting) because they are full 1080p per eye. But if you don't want to game on a tiny display, those are non-starters.



My only acid drip on all this: get a Mits and 3D Vision, save your money and game hassle free without hacks until the next standard comes a long. If you can't do that due to space requirements, do the roller mod and spend the money.

#8
Posted 05/27/2011 05:12 PM   
[quote name='photios' date='27 May 2011 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1306516363' post='1243163']
Well, Roller is a promoter of CB to be sure, but it's not at all fair to say that he doesn't "admit...that its a half-resolution "frame-compatible" format." Whereas, if you read what he's been saying, he's been giving technical details to users here of how CB actually works. Of course he knows it's limitations.

The only thing that has better visual quality than CB in 1080p per frame are the 1080p 3D Vision monitors (assuming you can deal with or minimize the ghosting) because they are full 1080p per eye. But if you don't want to game on a tiny display, those are non-starters.

My only acid drip on all this: get a Mits and 3D Vision, save your money and game hassle free without hacks until the next standard comes a long. If you can't do that due to space requirements, do the roller mod and spend the money.
[/quote]

The only advantage that I have personally found with gaming on my 55 inch 3D TV compared to my 24 inch Acer 3D monitor is that it allows for More people to view the Big Screen TV. I am forced to sit further away from the larger screen thus the relative screen size equates to the same. Because of the better quality on the 3D monitor I keep my PC hooked up to the monitor and only roll it out to the tv every once in a while for some disappointment.
PPl keep talking about about gaming on Tiny screens and what they tend to get is almost the same relative screen size and lower quality picture compared to the TINY 3d monitors out there.
Anyone that says different is bending the truth or trying to justify the cost placed into these 3D tvs.
[quote name='photios' date='27 May 2011 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1306516363' post='1243163']

Well, Roller is a promoter of CB to be sure, but it's not at all fair to say that he doesn't "admit...that its a half-resolution "frame-compatible" format." Whereas, if you read what he's been saying, he's been giving technical details to users here of how CB actually works. Of course he knows it's limitations.



The only thing that has better visual quality than CB in 1080p per frame are the 1080p 3D Vision monitors (assuming you can deal with or minimize the ghosting) because they are full 1080p per eye. But if you don't want to game on a tiny display, those are non-starters.



My only acid drip on all this: get a Mits and 3D Vision, save your money and game hassle free without hacks until the next standard comes a long. If you can't do that due to space requirements, do the roller mod and spend the money.





The only advantage that I have personally found with gaming on my 55 inch 3D TV compared to my 24 inch Acer 3D monitor is that it allows for More people to view the Big Screen TV. I am forced to sit further away from the larger screen thus the relative screen size equates to the same. Because of the better quality on the 3D monitor I keep my PC hooked up to the monitor and only roll it out to the tv every once in a while for some disappointment.

PPl keep talking about about gaming on Tiny screens and what they tend to get is almost the same relative screen size and lower quality picture compared to the TINY 3d monitors out there.

Anyone that says different is bending the truth or trying to justify the cost placed into these 3D tvs.

Intel Core i9-9820x @ 3.30GHZ
32 gig Ram
2 EVGA RTX 2080 ti Gaming
3 X ASUS ROG SWIFT 27 144Hz G-SYNC Gaming 3D Monitor [PG278Q]
1 X ASUS VG278HE
Nvidia 3Dvision
Oculus Rift
HTC VIVE
Windows 10

#9
Posted 05/27/2011 05:30 PM   
[quote name='msm903' date='27 May 2011 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1306517436' post='1243166']
The only advantage that I have personally found with gaming on my 55 inch 3D TV compared to my 24 inch Acer 3D monitor is that it allows for More people to view the Big Screen TV. I am forced to sit further away from the larger screen thus the relative screen size equates to the same. Because of the better quality on the 3D monitor I keep my PC hooked up to the monitor and only roll it out to the tv every once in a while for some disappointment.
PPl keep talking about about gaming on Tiny screens and what they tend to get is almost the same relative screen size and lower quality picture compared to the TINY 3d monitors out there.
Anyone that says different is bending the truth or trying to justify the cost placed into these 3D tvs.
[/quote]

I'm not trying to criticize gaming on the 3D monitors, but if the relative size was a true analogue then everyone would just game that way, which they don't. I sit at a 24inch all day at work, occasionally game on it during lunch and then go home to my Mits, I don't see quite the comparison between the two as to emersion.

And as far as cost goes, compare the cheapest Mits HDMI 1.3 3D TV to a 3D Vision Monitor and ask yourself which is a better bang for the buck.

It's a simple trade off here between the two: The best image quality with some ghosting with 3D Vision monitors or a much larger display, less image quality with CB and no ghosting.
[quote name='msm903' date='27 May 2011 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1306517436' post='1243166']

The only advantage that I have personally found with gaming on my 55 inch 3D TV compared to my 24 inch Acer 3D monitor is that it allows for More people to view the Big Screen TV. I am forced to sit further away from the larger screen thus the relative screen size equates to the same. Because of the better quality on the 3D monitor I keep my PC hooked up to the monitor and only roll it out to the tv every once in a while for some disappointment.

PPl keep talking about about gaming on Tiny screens and what they tend to get is almost the same relative screen size and lower quality picture compared to the TINY 3d monitors out there.

Anyone that says different is bending the truth or trying to justify the cost placed into these 3D tvs.





I'm not trying to criticize gaming on the 3D monitors, but if the relative size was a true analogue then everyone would just game that way, which they don't. I sit at a 24inch all day at work, occasionally game on it during lunch and then go home to my Mits, I don't see quite the comparison between the two as to emersion.



And as far as cost goes, compare the cheapest Mits HDMI 1.3 3D TV to a 3D Vision Monitor and ask yourself which is a better bang for the buck.



It's a simple trade off here between the two: The best image quality with some ghosting with 3D Vision monitors or a much larger display, less image quality with CB and no ghosting.

#10
Posted 05/27/2011 06:10 PM   
[quote name='photios' date='27 May 2011 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1306519854' post='1243186']
I'm not trying to criticize gaming on the 3D monitors, but if the relative size was a true analogue then everyone would just game that way, which they don't. I sit at a 24inch all day at work, occasionally game on it during lunch and then go home to my Mits, I don't see quite the comparison between the two as to emersion.

And as far as cost goes, compare the cheapest Mits HDMI 1.3 3D TV to a 3D Vision Monitor and ask yourself which is a better bang for the buck.

It's a simple trade off here between the two: The best image quality with some ghosting with 3D Vision monitors or a much larger display, less image quality with CB and no ghosting.
[/quote]

Well my TV sucks then cause I still get ghosting with CB on it.
[quote name='photios' date='27 May 2011 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1306519854' post='1243186']

I'm not trying to criticize gaming on the 3D monitors, but if the relative size was a true analogue then everyone would just game that way, which they don't. I sit at a 24inch all day at work, occasionally game on it during lunch and then go home to my Mits, I don't see quite the comparison between the two as to emersion.



And as far as cost goes, compare the cheapest Mits HDMI 1.3 3D TV to a 3D Vision Monitor and ask yourself which is a better bang for the buck.



It's a simple trade off here between the two: The best image quality with some ghosting with 3D Vision monitors or a much larger display, less image quality with CB and no ghosting.





Well my TV sucks then cause I still get ghosting with CB on it.

Intel Core i9-9820x @ 3.30GHZ
32 gig Ram
2 EVGA RTX 2080 ti Gaming
3 X ASUS ROG SWIFT 27 144Hz G-SYNC Gaming 3D Monitor [PG278Q]
1 X ASUS VG278HE
Nvidia 3Dvision
Oculus Rift
HTC VIVE
Windows 10

#11
Posted 05/27/2011 06:31 PM   
[quote name='photios' date='27 May 2011 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1306519854' post='1243186']
if the relative size was a true analogue then everyone would just game that way, [/quote]
Exactly.
It's logical, but wrong, to assume that gaming on a little screen up close is exactly the same as gaming on a big screen far away as long as the FOV is the same.
It's all about emmersion. Imagine gaming on a 6" screen at a distance of 6". Then imagine gaming on a 100" screen 100" away. Which is more emmersive which is better? The eye's periphial vision picks up clues from the surroundings so you want objects to be life size to be emmersive. That's where the analog of 'little screen close up' fails.
[quote name='photios' date='27 May 2011 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1306519854' post='1243186']

if the relative size was a true analogue then everyone would just game that way,

Exactly.

It's logical, but wrong, to assume that gaming on a little screen up close is exactly the same as gaming on a big screen far away as long as the FOV is the same.

It's all about emmersion. Imagine gaming on a 6" screen at a distance of 6". Then imagine gaming on a 100" screen 100" away. Which is more emmersive which is better? The eye's periphial vision picks up clues from the surroundings so you want objects to be life size to be emmersive. That's where the analog of 'little screen close up' fails.

#12
Posted 05/27/2011 07:01 PM   
[quote name='roller11' date='27 May 2011 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1306522894' post='1243202']
Exactly.
It's logical, but wrong, to assume that gaming on a little screen up close is exactly the same as gaming on a big screen far away as long as the FOV is the same.
It's all about emmersion. Imagine gaming on a 6" screen at a distance of 6". Then imagine gaming on a 100" screen 100" away. Which is more emmersive which is better? The eye's periphial vision picks up clues from the surroundings so you want objects to be life size to be emmersive. That's where the analog of 'little screen close up' fails.
[/quote]

for me it makes no difference playing on or viewing on a larger or smaller tv. For the first few days I notice the size difference after that I don't notice it anymore nor do I gain anything from it.
The larger screen is good for me and my family if we are all attempting to watch the tv together. Other than that gain nothing from having a big screen tv over a smaller one. I don't feel or experience any more emmersion when I am looking at my larger TV compared to my smaller Monitor. we assume that because the screen is bigger then it must be better and I THINK many of us trick ourself into believing that, after all that was my justification on buying a bigger screen device.
[quote name='roller11' date='27 May 2011 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1306522894' post='1243202']

Exactly.

It's logical, but wrong, to assume that gaming on a little screen up close is exactly the same as gaming on a big screen far away as long as the FOV is the same.

It's all about emmersion. Imagine gaming on a 6" screen at a distance of 6". Then imagine gaming on a 100" screen 100" away. Which is more emmersive which is better? The eye's periphial vision picks up clues from the surroundings so you want objects to be life size to be emmersive. That's where the analog of 'little screen close up' fails.





for me it makes no difference playing on or viewing on a larger or smaller tv. For the first few days I notice the size difference after that I don't notice it anymore nor do I gain anything from it.

The larger screen is good for me and my family if we are all attempting to watch the tv together. Other than that gain nothing from having a big screen tv over a smaller one. I don't feel or experience any more emmersion when I am looking at my larger TV compared to my smaller Monitor. we assume that because the screen is bigger then it must be better and I THINK many of us trick ourself into believing that, after all that was my justification on buying a bigger screen device.

Intel Core i9-9820x @ 3.30GHZ
32 gig Ram
2 EVGA RTX 2080 ti Gaming
3 X ASUS ROG SWIFT 27 144Hz G-SYNC Gaming 3D Monitor [PG278Q]
1 X ASUS VG278HE
Nvidia 3Dvision
Oculus Rift
HTC VIVE
Windows 10

#13
Posted 05/27/2011 07:33 PM   
II like to sit as close as possible to a ten foot screen. Great immersion that far exceeds my old monitor up close. Even with only 720 p i still like the larger screen more. I can afford any tv or projector out there. That's what i prefer. To each there own.

Checkerboard is alright imo. Its been around since 07. I care more about zero ghosting than the slight resolution increase Checkerboard offers over 720p projector.
II like to sit as close as possible to a ten foot screen. Great immersion that far exceeds my old monitor up close. Even with only 720 p i still like the larger screen more. I can afford any tv or projector out there. That's what i prefer. To each there own.



Checkerboard is alright imo. Its been around since 07. I care more about zero ghosting than the slight resolution increase Checkerboard offers over 720p projector.

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

#14
Posted 05/27/2011 09:26 PM   
[quote name='DanielJoy' date='27 May 2011 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1306531567' post='1243242']
II like to sit as close as possible to a ten foot screen. Great immersion that far exceeds my old monitor up close. Even with only 720 p i still like the larger screen more. I can afford any tv or projector out there. That's what i prefer. To each there own. [/quote]
Exactly. I gamed on 24" monitors until 2007 when I got a 55" HDTV. I could not BELIEVE the difference in emmersion vs my monitor up close. It's was the same feeling I got in December 2010 when I first experienced 3D gaming, and said "no way will I ever game in 2D.". Like wise, I'm done with computer monitors.
But as you say, personal preference trumps all.

[quote]Checkerboard is alright imo. Its been around since 07. I care more about zero ghosting than the slight resolution increase Checkerboard offers over 720p projector.
[/quote]
Right on. If display A has less ghosting than display B, but B has better image quality, then it's the classic tradeoff that each individual must make for themselves. The nice thing about FPs is:
1. Big display
2. native resolution
3. cheap
4. Bright high contrast

Sure the rez is only 720P, but they get surprisingly good image quality due to high contrast. Never say "FP sucks because they are only 720P" unless you have 3D gamed on one. It would be like saying "CB sucks because it is only 1920x1080 per frame" when you have never seen CB.

My big complaint, my only complaint, is they make a harsh, irritating howling noise, as though they have a fan or something. And that noise source is close to your ear unlike a RP. So even if they did have "zero ghosting in games" (they don't) FP are the last tech I would ever own because I can't stand the noise. If there is ever a fanless FP, I'll buy ten of them.
[quote name='DanielJoy' date='27 May 2011 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1306531567' post='1243242']

II like to sit as close as possible to a ten foot screen. Great immersion that far exceeds my old monitor up close. Even with only 720 p i still like the larger screen more. I can afford any tv or projector out there. That's what i prefer. To each there own.

Exactly. I gamed on 24" monitors until 2007 when I got a 55" HDTV. I could not BELIEVE the difference in emmersion vs my monitor up close. It's was the same feeling I got in December 2010 when I first experienced 3D gaming, and said "no way will I ever game in 2D.". Like wise, I'm done with computer monitors.

But as you say, personal preference trumps all.



Checkerboard is alright imo. Its been around since 07. I care more about zero ghosting than the slight resolution increase Checkerboard offers over 720p projector.



Right on. If display A has less ghosting than display B, but B has better image quality, then it's the classic tradeoff that each individual must make for themselves. The nice thing about FPs is:

1. Big display

2. native resolution

3. cheap

4. Bright high contrast



Sure the rez is only 720P, but they get surprisingly good image quality due to high contrast. Never say "FP sucks because they are only 720P" unless you have 3D gamed on one. It would be like saying "CB sucks because it is only 1920x1080 per frame" when you have never seen CB.



My big complaint, my only complaint, is they make a harsh, irritating howling noise, as though they have a fan or something. And that noise source is close to your ear unlike a RP. So even if they did have "zero ghosting in games" (they don't) FP are the last tech I would ever own because I can't stand the noise. If there is ever a fanless FP, I'll buy ten of them.

#15
Posted 05/27/2011 10:17 PM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top