[quote name='clammy' date='18 June 2012 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1339977605' post='1422539']
Yea but at what size do you start to lose image quality???
Im pretty comfortable with 27"
And this interleaved mode is supposed to be better than my 1080P@120HZ?
[/quote]
1080p/60hz interleaved will look better than 720p on a active 3dtv, there's no doubt about that .
Nothings better than your 3dvision 1080p/120hz, but the fact is your playing 3d on a small screen.
I had a 32" 3dtv once, alittle screen i personally think is awful, sit it next to a 47" 3dtv and wow just
wow, 3d is more pronounced.
Each to there own though.
Big screen 3d gaming trashes 1080p/120hz on alittle screen.
So what the image is alittle degraded due to size but big is where the fun is!
I put together a badd ass enthusiast pc in the last few weeks, i'd never consider 1080p/120hz as it's just too small of a screen to enjoy, the tiny bit of pop/depth you see on a 27" is nothing compared to the pop and depth you can see at 47" and bigger, there really is no contest between them as 3dtv wins everytime, all 108p/120hz has got is full res, its not that big of a deal.
Being honest...
I think people that rave about 1080p/120hz and 3dvision activeon a monitor are stuck in the past or listen to people that talk the past, either way it's time to move forward and 3dvisons 1080p/120hz on a monitor is nearly at the bottom of the 3d pile compared to large screen gaming.
Obviously the people that use 720p/120hz 3dvision on projectors are badass!!! I want one.
[quote name='clammy' date='18 June 2012 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1339977605' post='1422539']
Yea but at what size do you start to lose image quality???
Im pretty comfortable with 27"
And this interleaved mode is supposed to be better than my 1080P@120HZ?
1080p/60hz interleaved will look better than 720p on a active 3dtv, there's no doubt about that .
Nothings better than your 3dvision 1080p/120hz, but the fact is your playing 3d on a small screen.
I had a 32" 3dtv once, alittle screen i personally think is awful, sit it next to a 47" 3dtv and wow just
wow, 3d is more pronounced.
Each to there own though.
Big screen 3d gaming trashes 1080p/120hz on alittle screen.
So what the image is alittle degraded due to size but big is where the fun is!
I put together a badd ass enthusiast pc in the last few weeks, i'd never consider 1080p/120hz as it's just too small of a screen to enjoy, the tiny bit of pop/depth you see on a 27" is nothing compared to the pop and depth you can see at 47" and bigger, there really is no contest between them as 3dtv wins everytime, all 108p/120hz has got is full res, its not that big of a deal.
Being honest...
I think people that rave about 1080p/120hz and 3dvision activeon a monitor are stuck in the past or listen to people that talk the past, either way it's time to move forward and 3dvisons 1080p/120hz on a monitor is nearly at the bottom of the 3d pile compared to large screen gaming.
Obviously the people that use 720p/120hz 3dvision on projectors are badass!!! I want one.
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
[quote name='shappy1010' date='17 June 2012 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1339928148' post='1422328']
I have no idea what you are saying here. I think you are hinting at playing on a passive 3D TV, but even with certain 'tricks' it's far, far worse then playing 720p frame packed on an active shutterglass set. 720p may be a lower res then 1080p, but the thrill of playing in 3D makes up for it, plus with technology as Iso filtering and AA, PC games look better then there console counterparts in 720p. The other alternative is buying Nvidia Vision with a 120hz DVI monitor, which is the only true option for playing 1080p 3D games at 60hz, however they don't come any larger then 27".
[/quote]
]
I do'nt get that, you say 1080p interlaced is muchworse than 720p frame packing, where did you pull that info from as it is further from the truth than you can know, even matching a active 3dtv and passive the passives 1080p will trash the actives 720p everytime and make 720p look like a xbox game!
I should know, i used to use 3dtvplay and play xbox.
I use neither now as there rubbish.
[quote name='shappy1010' date='17 June 2012 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1339928148' post='1422328']
I have no idea what you are saying here. I think you are hinting at playing on a passive 3D TV, but even with certain 'tricks' it's far, far worse then playing 720p frame packed on an active shutterglass set. 720p may be a lower res then 1080p, but the thrill of playing in 3D makes up for it, plus with technology as Iso filtering and AA, PC games look better then there console counterparts in 720p. The other alternative is buying Nvidia Vision with a 120hz DVI monitor, which is the only true option for playing 1080p 3D games at 60hz, however they don't come any larger then 27".
]
I do'nt get that, you say 1080p interlaced is muchworse than 720p frame packing, where did you pull that info from as it is further from the truth than you can know, even matching a active 3dtv and passive the passives 1080p will trash the actives 720p everytime and make 720p look like a xbox game!
I should know, i used to use 3dtvplay and play xbox.
I use neither now as there rubbish.
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
I do'nt get that, you say 1080p interlaced is muchworse than 720p frame packing, where did you pull that info from as it is further from the truth than you can know, even matching a active 3dtv and passive the passives 1080p will trash the actives 720p everytime and make 720p look like a xbox game!
I should know, i used to use 3dtvplay and play xbox.
I use neither now as there rubbish.
[/quote]
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. Let me rephrase: It was TERRIBLE. I own an Optoma HD33 DLP and game on 720p frame packed or 1080p SBS, but FP is ussualy a bit better. I also (yesterday) bought a 700 Euro Panasonic 46" with active glasses and it is stellar.
No matter how you look at it, passive is ALWAYS half the resolution, whether in FP, SBS or interleaved, your screen doesn't magically generate double the ammount of pixels just so it makes up for the polarised half resolution. So if you are not using Frame packed it's even worse: half+half the resolution.
Look we can debate this in technical terms, but I would just advise anyone to go to an electronic store and ask for a 3D bluray movie demo on 1080p 24hz Frame Packed (they ussualy don't have games running) on both active and passive sets. This will give a good idea on the quality in games (or lack of) on passive vs. active. If you don't trust the specs, trust your eyes.
[quote name='mocca' date='18 June 2012 - 06:53 AM' timestamp='1339998796' post='1422599']
]
I do'nt get that, you say 1080p interlaced is muchworse than 720p frame packing, where did you pull that info from as it is further from the truth than you can know, even matching a active 3dtv and passive the passives 1080p will trash the actives 720p everytime and make 720p look like a xbox game!
I should know, i used to use 3dtvplay and play xbox.
I use neither now as there rubbish.
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. Let me rephrase: It was TERRIBLE. I own an Optoma HD33 DLP and game on 720p frame packed or 1080p SBS, but FP is ussualy a bit better. I also (yesterday) bought a 700 Euro Panasonic 46" with active glasses and it is stellar.
No matter how you look at it, passive is ALWAYS half the resolution, whether in FP, SBS or interleaved, your screen doesn't magically generate double the ammount of pixels just so it makes up for the polarised half resolution. So if you are not using Frame packed it's even worse: half+half the resolution.
Look we can debate this in technical terms, but I would just advise anyone to go to an electronic store and ask for a 3D bluray movie demo on 1080p 24hz Frame Packed (they ussualy don't have games running) on both active and passive sets. This will give a good idea on the quality in games (or lack of) on passive vs. active. If you don't trust the specs, trust your eyes.
[quote name='shappy1010' date='18 June 2012 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1340007138' post='1422623']
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. Let me rephrase: It was TERRIBLE. I own an Optoma HD33 DLP and game on 720p frame packed or 1080p SBS, but FP is ussualy a bit better. I also (yesterday) bought a 700 Euro Panasonic 46" with active glasses and it is stellar.
No matter how you look at it, passive is ALWAYS half the resolution, whether in FP, SBS or interleaved, your screen doesn't magically generate double the ammount of pixels just so it makes up for the polarised half resolution. So if you are not using Frame packed it's even worse: half+half the resolution.
Look we can debate this in technical terms, but I would just advise anyone to go to an electronic store and ask for a 3D bluray movie demo on 1080p 24hz Frame Packed (they ussualy don't have games running) on both active and passive sets. This will give a good idea on the quality in games (or lack of) on passive vs. active. If you don't trust the specs, trust your eyes.
[/quote]
Well said...720p 60 frame-packed 3D all day. It's the bomb.
[quote name='shappy1010' date='18 June 2012 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1340007138' post='1422623']
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. Let me rephrase: It was TERRIBLE. I own an Optoma HD33 DLP and game on 720p frame packed or 1080p SBS, but FP is ussualy a bit better. I also (yesterday) bought a 700 Euro Panasonic 46" with active glasses and it is stellar.
No matter how you look at it, passive is ALWAYS half the resolution, whether in FP, SBS or interleaved, your screen doesn't magically generate double the ammount of pixels just so it makes up for the polarised half resolution. So if you are not using Frame packed it's even worse: half+half the resolution.
Look we can debate this in technical terms, but I would just advise anyone to go to an electronic store and ask for a 3D bluray movie demo on 1080p 24hz Frame Packed (they ussualy don't have games running) on both active and passive sets. This will give a good idea on the quality in games (or lack of) on passive vs. active. If you don't trust the specs, trust your eyes.
Well said...720p 60 frame-packed 3D all day. It's the bomb.
[quote name='sammaz' date='18 June 2012 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1340008541' post='1422630']
Well said...720p 60 frame-packed 3D all day. It's the bomb.
[/quote]
I do'nt know what tv you have but you say its the bomb, well 720p 3d most likey is for you as thats the best your going to get on your 3d with nvidia unless you use tridef.
If somebody can say that tridefs 1080p sbs looks worse than 3dtvplays 720p then i'll eat my pants!
The fact is people use 3dtvplay's because there 3dtv's do'nt support checkerboard or interlaced 3d, so they have 1080p sbs sets ect that do'nt work with 3dvisons 1080p 3d, abit of a bummer really as those people are stuck with not being able to get the full potential in 3d gaming.
Of course some people have to use 3dtvplay because there system is'nt powerfull enough for 1080p 3d.
[quote]
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. quote]
1 day?
Maybe you should of got off the high horse and tested it for a few weeks, 1 day is a pitifull amount of time to test something such as a 3dtv and then trash it.
I moved from a 40 sammy active to a 47 passive, if i find the post you would see i said it looked awfull !!!
Within a few weeks and ever since i am hooked on passive 3dtv's, lcd actives just do'nt have the same performance as a good passive and plasmas, well they are plasma, lcd is best for prolonged pc use or as a gaming tv as long as the lcd passives have low pixel response times like 2.5ms or less.
I see nothing in any active set or plasma that a good passive can't beat for 3d gaming unless it is checkerboard!
It's allso getting harder and harder to have chjeckerboard 3d on a 3dtv so interlaced with its zero lag gaming is the better option as it allows for tridef 1080p and nvidia 1080p /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
[quote name='sammaz' date='18 June 2012 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1340008541' post='1422630']
Well said...720p 60 frame-packed 3D all day. It's the bomb.
I do'nt know what tv you have but you say its the bomb, well 720p 3d most likey is for you as thats the best your going to get on your 3d with nvidia unless you use tridef.
If somebody can say that tridefs 1080p sbs looks worse than 3dtvplays 720p then i'll eat my pants!
The fact is people use 3dtvplay's because there 3dtv's do'nt support checkerboard or interlaced 3d, so they have 1080p sbs sets ect that do'nt work with 3dvisons 1080p 3d, abit of a bummer really as those people are stuck with not being able to get the full potential in 3d gaming.
Of course some people have to use 3dtvplay because there system is'nt powerfull enough for 1080p 3d.
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. quote]
1 day?
Maybe you should of got off the high horse and tested it for a few weeks, 1 day is a pitifull amount of time to test something such as a 3dtv and then trash it.
I moved from a 40 sammy active to a 47 passive, if i find the post you would see i said it looked awfull !!!
Within a few weeks and ever since i am hooked on passive 3dtv's, lcd actives just do'nt have the same performance as a good passive and plasmas, well they are plasma, lcd is best for prolonged pc use or as a gaming tv as long as the lcd passives have low pixel response times like 2.5ms or less.
I see nothing in any active set or plasma that a good passive can't beat for 3d gaming unless it is checkerboard!
It's allso getting harder and harder to have chjeckerboard 3d on a 3dtv so interlaced with its zero lag gaming is the better option as it allows for tridef 1080p and nvidia 1080p /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
Mocca, I have tridef, DDD, 3DTV and I tested it on 4 different games.
It simply doesn't matter, even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution. You interleaved solution doesn't change anything. It's very simple: plasma, LCD and DLP have a maximum of 1080*1920 pixels to show the picture on the screen and that's it. I order for polarisation to work (interlaced, SBS or FP) it needs to cut the res to 540*1920 (or 360*1280 in 720p!), because it needs to fit two screens on the one display. Shutterglasses show one full 1080p or 720p screen at the time and swaps these between your eyes. The larger the screen, the bigger the difference.
I totally get all the advantages in passive in terms of cheaper glasses, less eye strain etc. and I would love for it to be on par with active techs, but it's by no means better quality, in fact it's much worse. Did you actualy use 3DTV on your samsung? Or did you just try the SBS workarounds and such...
Look if you are happy with your current set & setup, bless you...I'm just glad I got the Panny plasma in the end. And I would advise all (new) users on this forum to have a good look in stores before they spend their money.
Mocca, I have tridef, DDD, 3DTV and I tested it on 4 different games.
It simply doesn't matter, even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution. You interleaved solution doesn't change anything. It's very simple: plasma, LCD and DLP have a maximum of 1080*1920 pixels to show the picture on the screen and that's it. I order for polarisation to work (interlaced, SBS or FP) it needs to cut the res to 540*1920 (or 360*1280 in 720p!), because it needs to fit two screens on the one display. Shutterglasses show one full 1080p or 720p screen at the time and swaps these between your eyes. The larger the screen, the bigger the difference.
I totally get all the advantages in passive in terms of cheaper glasses, less eye strain etc. and I would love for it to be on par with active techs, but it's by no means better quality, in fact it's much worse. Did you actualy use 3DTV on your samsung? Or did you just try the SBS workarounds and such...
Look if you are happy with your current set & setup, bless you...I'm just glad I got the Panny plasma in the end. And I would advise all (new) users on this forum to have a good look in stores before they spend their money.
[quote name='shappy1010' date='18 June 2012 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1340018555' post='1422661']even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution.
[/quote]
True.
But we could say "gaming on a 3DTV is always half resolution" /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
(exception for 1080p24 framepacking)
I own a Panasonic, i play at 720p60 (it's blurred),i am wondering if 1080i60 on a passive 3DTV would be better or not.
(both are ~half resolution , but 1080i has ~10% more pixels, and scaling is easier)
But we could say "gaming on a 3DTV is always half resolution" /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
(exception for 1080p24 framepacking)
I own a Panasonic, i play at 720p60 (it's blurred),i am wondering if 1080i60 on a passive 3DTV would be better or not.
(both are ~half resolution , but 1080i has ~10% more pixels, and scaling is easier)
[/quote]
Very simple test: go to the store, and ask them to run a blu-ray 1080p on a passive LG or Philips set. It's frame packed 1080p, so in fact you are looking at 1080i, which should give you an idea what games look like in this resolution. For me the interlaced lines/screen tearing was so extremely visible it almost looked like a Nintendo 3DS display. Also depth was less and screen position is much more important then with active, move your head and the perspective changes, sit to close and you loose depth. I'd rather have a bit of blur and better depth then staring at a screen through a set of windowblinds.. again, this is by no means a flame against passive technologies, we wouldn't even have this discussion if it wasn't for damn HDMI 1,4 not supporting 1080p 60hz FP.
[quote name='ZePRiNCE' date='18 June 2012 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1340018942' post='1422662']
True.
But we could say "gaming on a 3DTV is always half resolution" /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
(exception for 1080p24 framepacking)
I own a Panasonic, i play at 720p60 (it's blurred),i am wondering if 1080i60 on a passive 3DTV would be better or not.
(both are ~half resolution , but 1080i has ~10% more pixels, and scaling is easier)
Very simple test: go to the store, and ask them to run a blu-ray 1080p on a passive LG or Philips set. It's frame packed 1080p, so in fact you are looking at 1080i, which should give you an idea what games look like in this resolution. For me the interlaced lines/screen tearing was so extremely visible it almost looked like a Nintendo 3DS display. Also depth was less and screen position is much more important then with active, move your head and the perspective changes, sit to close and you loose depth. I'd rather have a bit of blur and better depth then staring at a screen through a set of windowblinds.. again, this is by no means a flame against passive technologies, we wouldn't even have this discussion if it wasn't for damn HDMI 1,4 not supporting 1080p 60hz FP.
[quote name='shappy1010' date='18 June 2012 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1340019595' post='1422663']
Very simple test: go to the store, and ask them to run a blu-ray 1080p on a passive LG or Philips set.
[/quote]
Of course... with a bluray.
But we are talking about games.
1080i60 vs 720p60, (or 1080i60 vs 1080p60SBS) i'm not sure the active 3DTV is better...
[quote name='ZePRiNCE' date='18 June 2012 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1340019737' post='1422665']
Of course... with a bluray.
But we are talking about games.
1080i60 vs 720p60, (or 1080i60 vs 1080p60SBS) i'm not sure the active 3DTV is better...
[/quote]
Doesn't matter, if the interlace lines don't botter you on a passive set with blu-ray movies, they won't botter you in games either. If you think the quality is good, go for it.
I personally thought it looked terrible...but hey as you rightly said so, we are ALL gaming in half resolution in the end.. /shifty.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':shifty:' /> (and lovin'it!)
[quote name='ZePRiNCE' date='18 June 2012 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1340019737' post='1422665']
Of course... with a bluray.
But we are talking about games.
1080i60 vs 720p60, (or 1080i60 vs 1080p60SBS) i'm not sure the active 3DTV is better...
Doesn't matter, if the interlace lines don't botter you on a passive set with blu-ray movies, they won't botter you in games either. If you think the quality is good, go for it.
I personally thought it looked terrible...but hey as you rightly said so, we are ALL gaming in half resolution in the end.. /shifty.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':shifty:' /> (and lovin'it!)
[quote name='shappy1010' date='18 June 2012 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1340018555' post='1422661']
Mocca, I have tridef, DDD, 3DTV and I tested it on 4 different games.
It simply doesn't matter, even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution. You interleaved solution doesn't change anything. It's very simple: plasma, LCD and DLP have a maximum of 1080*1920 pixels to show the picture on the screen and that's it. I order for polarisation to work (interlaced, SBS or FP) it needs to cut the res to 540*1920 (or 360*1280 in 720p!), because it needs to fit two screens on the one display. Shutterglasses show one full 1080p or 720p screen at the time and swaps these between your eyes. The larger the screen, the bigger the difference.
I totally get all the advantages in passive in terms of cheaper glasses, less eye strain etc. and I would love for it to be on par with active techs, but it's by no means better quality, in fact it's much worse. Did you actualy use 3DTV on your samsung? Or did you just try the SBS workarounds and such...
Look if you are happy with your current set & setup, bless you...I'm just glad I got the Panny plasma in the end. And I would advise all (new) users on this forum to have a good look in stores before they spend their money.
[/quote]
I just tried 720p tridef at the time as 3dtvplay was'nt out then.
Each to there own though, i know we all like different things :)
I did buy around 5 3dtv's last year included a 3d plasma, nothing came close to what i originally had so i got virtually my own set back.
So now i think about it i did have 3dtvplay running on a 50" plasma active 3dtv, it was awfull and 1080p was'nt much better, nowhere near as sharp as any of the passives i've seen.
I've allways thought a active set has better depth/pop allso but again i have'nt found any set that matches the Lg 47ld920 ld950 for 3d gaming hence the reason i stay with passive and the ld920
[quote name='shappy1010' date='18 June 2012 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1340018555' post='1422661']
Mocca, I have tridef, DDD, 3DTV and I tested it on 4 different games.
It simply doesn't matter, even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution. You interleaved solution doesn't change anything. It's very simple: plasma, LCD and DLP have a maximum of 1080*1920 pixels to show the picture on the screen and that's it. I order for polarisation to work (interlaced, SBS or FP) it needs to cut the res to 540*1920 (or 360*1280 in 720p!), because it needs to fit two screens on the one display. Shutterglasses show one full 1080p or 720p screen at the time and swaps these between your eyes. The larger the screen, the bigger the difference.
I totally get all the advantages in passive in terms of cheaper glasses, less eye strain etc. and I would love for it to be on par with active techs, but it's by no means better quality, in fact it's much worse. Did you actualy use 3DTV on your samsung? Or did you just try the SBS workarounds and such...
Look if you are happy with your current set & setup, bless you...I'm just glad I got the Panny plasma in the end. And I would advise all (new) users on this forum to have a good look in stores before they spend their money.
I just tried 720p tridef at the time as 3dtvplay was'nt out then.
Each to there own though, i know we all like different things :)
I did buy around 5 3dtv's last year included a 3d plasma, nothing came close to what i originally had so i got virtually my own set back.
So now i think about it i did have 3dtvplay running on a 50" plasma active 3dtv, it was awfull and 1080p was'nt much better, nowhere near as sharp as any of the passives i've seen.
I've allways thought a active set has better depth/pop allso but again i have'nt found any set that matches the Lg 47ld920 ld950 for 3d gaming hence the reason i stay with passive and the ld920
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
Yea but at what size do you start to lose image quality???
Im pretty comfortable with 27"
And this interleaved mode is supposed to be better than my 1080P@120HZ?
[/quote]
1080p/60hz interleaved will look better than 720p on a active 3dtv, there's no doubt about that .
Nothings better than your 3dvision 1080p/120hz, but the fact is your playing 3d on a small screen.
I had a 32" 3dtv once, alittle screen i personally think is awful, sit it next to a 47" 3dtv and wow just
wow, 3d is more pronounced.
Each to there own though.
Big screen 3d gaming trashes 1080p/120hz on alittle screen.
So what the image is alittle degraded due to size but big is where the fun is!
I put together a badd ass enthusiast pc in the last few weeks, i'd never consider 1080p/120hz as it's just too small of a screen to enjoy, the tiny bit of pop/depth you see on a 27" is nothing compared to the pop and depth you can see at 47" and bigger, there really is no contest between them as 3dtv wins everytime, all 108p/120hz has got is full res, its not that big of a deal.
Being honest...
I think people that rave about 1080p/120hz and 3dvision activeon a monitor are stuck in the past or listen to people that talk the past, either way it's time to move forward and 3dvisons 1080p/120hz on a monitor is nearly at the bottom of the 3d pile compared to large screen gaming.
Obviously the people that use 720p/120hz 3dvision on projectors are badass!!! I want one.
Yea but at what size do you start to lose image quality???
Im pretty comfortable with 27"
And this interleaved mode is supposed to be better than my 1080P@120HZ?
1080p/60hz interleaved will look better than 720p on a active 3dtv, there's no doubt about that .
Nothings better than your 3dvision 1080p/120hz, but the fact is your playing 3d on a small screen.
I had a 32" 3dtv once, alittle screen i personally think is awful, sit it next to a 47" 3dtv and wow just
wow, 3d is more pronounced.
Each to there own though.
Big screen 3d gaming trashes 1080p/120hz on alittle screen.
So what the image is alittle degraded due to size but big is where the fun is!
I put together a badd ass enthusiast pc in the last few weeks, i'd never consider 1080p/120hz as it's just too small of a screen to enjoy, the tiny bit of pop/depth you see on a 27" is nothing compared to the pop and depth you can see at 47" and bigger, there really is no contest between them as 3dtv wins everytime, all 108p/120hz has got is full res, its not that big of a deal.
Being honest...
I think people that rave about 1080p/120hz and 3dvision activeon a monitor are stuck in the past or listen to people that talk the past, either way it's time to move forward and 3dvisons 1080p/120hz on a monitor is nearly at the bottom of the 3d pile compared to large screen gaming.
Obviously the people that use 720p/120hz 3dvision on projectors are badass!!! I want one.
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
I have no idea what you are saying here. I think you are hinting at playing on a passive 3D TV, but even with certain 'tricks' it's far, far worse then playing 720p frame packed on an active shutterglass set. 720p may be a lower res then 1080p, but the thrill of playing in 3D makes up for it, plus with technology as Iso filtering and AA, PC games look better then there console counterparts in 720p. The other alternative is buying Nvidia Vision with a 120hz DVI monitor, which is the only true option for playing 1080p 3D games at 60hz, however they don't come any larger then 27".
[/quote]
]
I do'nt get that, you say 1080p interlaced is muchworse than 720p frame packing, where did you pull that info from as it is further from the truth than you can know, even matching a active 3dtv and passive the passives 1080p will trash the actives 720p everytime and make 720p look like a xbox game!
I should know, i used to use 3dtvplay and play xbox.
I use neither now as there rubbish.
I have no idea what you are saying here. I think you are hinting at playing on a passive 3D TV, but even with certain 'tricks' it's far, far worse then playing 720p frame packed on an active shutterglass set. 720p may be a lower res then 1080p, but the thrill of playing in 3D makes up for it, plus with technology as Iso filtering and AA, PC games look better then there console counterparts in 720p. The other alternative is buying Nvidia Vision with a 120hz DVI monitor, which is the only true option for playing 1080p 3D games at 60hz, however they don't come any larger then 27".
]
I do'nt get that, you say 1080p interlaced is muchworse than 720p frame packing, where did you pull that info from as it is further from the truth than you can know, even matching a active 3dtv and passive the passives 1080p will trash the actives 720p everytime and make 720p look like a xbox game!
I should know, i used to use 3dtvplay and play xbox.
I use neither now as there rubbish.
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
]
I do'nt get that, you say 1080p interlaced is muchworse than 720p frame packing, where did you pull that info from as it is further from the truth than you can know, even matching a active 3dtv and passive the passives 1080p will trash the actives 720p everytime and make 720p look like a xbox game!
I should know, i used to use 3dtvplay and play xbox.
I use neither now as there rubbish.
[/quote]
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. Let me rephrase: It was TERRIBLE. I own an Optoma HD33 DLP and game on 720p frame packed or 1080p SBS, but FP is ussualy a bit better. I also (yesterday) bought a 700 Euro Panasonic 46" with active glasses and it is stellar.
No matter how you look at it, passive is ALWAYS half the resolution, whether in FP, SBS or interleaved, your screen doesn't magically generate double the ammount of pixels just so it makes up for the polarised half resolution. So if you are not using Frame packed it's even worse: half+half the resolution.
Look we can debate this in technical terms, but I would just advise anyone to go to an electronic store and ask for a 3D bluray movie demo on 1080p 24hz Frame Packed (they ussualy don't have games running) on both active and passive sets. This will give a good idea on the quality in games (or lack of) on passive vs. active. If you don't trust the specs, trust your eyes.
]
I do'nt get that, you say 1080p interlaced is muchworse than 720p frame packing, where did you pull that info from as it is further from the truth than you can know, even matching a active 3dtv and passive the passives 1080p will trash the actives 720p everytime and make 720p look like a xbox game!
I should know, i used to use 3dtvplay and play xbox.
I use neither now as there rubbish.
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. Let me rephrase: It was TERRIBLE. I own an Optoma HD33 DLP and game on 720p frame packed or 1080p SBS, but FP is ussualy a bit better. I also (yesterday) bought a 700 Euro Panasonic 46" with active glasses and it is stellar.
No matter how you look at it, passive is ALWAYS half the resolution, whether in FP, SBS or interleaved, your screen doesn't magically generate double the ammount of pixels just so it makes up for the polarised half resolution. So if you are not using Frame packed it's even worse: half+half the resolution.
Look we can debate this in technical terms, but I would just advise anyone to go to an electronic store and ask for a 3D bluray movie demo on 1080p 24hz Frame Packed (they ussualy don't have games running) on both active and passive sets. This will give a good idea on the quality in games (or lack of) on passive vs. active. If you don't trust the specs, trust your eyes.
i7 - Nvidia 780ti - Nvidia 3DTV - Optoma HD33 - 100" screen + Panasonic Viera TX-P46GT30E
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. Let me rephrase: It was TERRIBLE. I own an Optoma HD33 DLP and game on 720p frame packed or 1080p SBS, but FP is ussualy a bit better. I also (yesterday) bought a 700 Euro Panasonic 46" with active glasses and it is stellar.
No matter how you look at it, passive is ALWAYS half the resolution, whether in FP, SBS or interleaved, your screen doesn't magically generate double the ammount of pixels just so it makes up for the polarised half resolution. So if you are not using Frame packed it's even worse: half+half the resolution.
Look we can debate this in technical terms, but I would just advise anyone to go to an electronic store and ask for a 3D bluray movie demo on 1080p 24hz Frame Packed (they ussualy don't have games running) on both active and passive sets. This will give a good idea on the quality in games (or lack of) on passive vs. active. If you don't trust the specs, trust your eyes.
[/quote]
Well said...720p 60 frame-packed 3D all day. It's the bomb.
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. Let me rephrase: It was TERRIBLE. I own an Optoma HD33 DLP and game on 720p frame packed or 1080p SBS, but FP is ussualy a bit better. I also (yesterday) bought a 700 Euro Panasonic 46" with active glasses and it is stellar.
No matter how you look at it, passive is ALWAYS half the resolution, whether in FP, SBS or interleaved, your screen doesn't magically generate double the ammount of pixels just so it makes up for the polarised half resolution. So if you are not using Frame packed it's even worse: half+half the resolution.
Look we can debate this in technical terms, but I would just advise anyone to go to an electronic store and ask for a 3D bluray movie demo on 1080p 24hz Frame Packed (they ussualy don't have games running) on both active and passive sets. This will give a good idea on the quality in games (or lack of) on passive vs. active. If you don't trust the specs, trust your eyes.
Well said...720p 60 frame-packed 3D all day. It's the bomb.
HELIX MOD NEWS
Worked on these Helix Mods ---> PURE MX vs. ATV : REFLEX TOY SOLDIERS CRASH TIME 4 BANG BANG Racing
Dual CPU Tyan S7002 (2) Intel Xeon X5550 @ 3.1Ghz 12G DDR3 16 Cores (Logical) 8 Cores (Physical)
Galaxy GTX 670
Well said...720p 60 frame-packed 3D all day. It's the bomb.
[/quote]
I do'nt know what tv you have but you say its the bomb, well 720p 3d most likey is for you as thats the best your going to get on your 3d with nvidia unless you use tridef.
If somebody can say that tridefs 1080p sbs looks worse than 3dtvplays 720p then i'll eat my pants!
The fact is people use 3dtvplay's because there 3dtv's do'nt support checkerboard or interlaced 3d, so they have 1080p sbs sets ect that do'nt work with 3dvisons 1080p 3d, abit of a bummer really as those people are stuck with not being able to get the full potential in 3d gaming.
Of course some people have to use 3dtvplay because there system is'nt powerfull enough for 1080p 3d.
[quote]
I'm sorry Mocca but you are dead wrong. I'm a bit of a freak and I own a lot of displays at home. I also tried the LG and Philips passive sets. I actualy bought a 700 Euro 42" Philips set beacause of your comments on 'meant to be seen' on the greatness of passive and interleaved. I returned the Philips within a day it was that bad. quote]
1 day?
Maybe you should of got off the high horse and tested it for a few weeks, 1 day is a pitifull amount of time to test something such as a 3dtv and then trash it.
I moved from a 40 sammy active to a 47 passive, if i find the post you would see i said it looked awfull !!!
Within a few weeks and ever since i am hooked on passive 3dtv's, lcd actives just do'nt have the same performance as a good passive and plasmas, well they are plasma, lcd is best for prolonged pc use or as a gaming tv as long as the lcd passives have low pixel response times like 2.5ms or less.
I see nothing in any active set or plasma that a good passive can't beat for 3d gaming unless it is checkerboard!
It's allso getting harder and harder to have chjeckerboard 3d on a 3dtv so interlaced with its zero lag gaming is the better option as it allows for tridef 1080p and nvidia 1080p
Well said...720p 60 frame-packed 3D all day. It's the bomb.
I do'nt know what tv you have but you say its the bomb, well 720p 3d most likey is for you as thats the best your going to get on your 3d with nvidia unless you use tridef.
If somebody can say that tridefs 1080p sbs looks worse than 3dtvplays 720p then i'll eat my pants!
The fact is people use 3dtvplay's because there 3dtv's do'nt support checkerboard or interlaced 3d, so they have 1080p sbs sets ect that do'nt work with 3dvisons 1080p 3d, abit of a bummer really as those people are stuck with not being able to get the full potential in 3d gaming.
Of course some people have to use 3dtvplay because there system is'nt powerfull enough for 1080p 3d.
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
It simply doesn't matter, even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution. You interleaved solution doesn't change anything. It's very simple: plasma, LCD and DLP have a maximum of 1080*1920 pixels to show the picture on the screen and that's it. I order for polarisation to work (interlaced, SBS or FP) it needs to cut the res to 540*1920 (or 360*1280 in 720p!), because it needs to fit two screens on the one display. Shutterglasses show one full 1080p or 720p screen at the time and swaps these between your eyes. The larger the screen, the bigger the difference.
I totally get all the advantages in passive in terms of cheaper glasses, less eye strain etc. and I would love for it to be on par with active techs, but it's by no means better quality, in fact it's much worse. Did you actualy use 3DTV on your samsung? Or did you just try the SBS workarounds and such...
Look if you are happy with your current set & setup, bless you...I'm just glad I got the Panny plasma in the end. And I would advise all (new) users on this forum to have a good look in stores before they spend their money.
It simply doesn't matter, even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution. You interleaved solution doesn't change anything. It's very simple: plasma, LCD and DLP have a maximum of 1080*1920 pixels to show the picture on the screen and that's it. I order for polarisation to work (interlaced, SBS or FP) it needs to cut the res to 540*1920 (or 360*1280 in 720p!), because it needs to fit two screens on the one display. Shutterglasses show one full 1080p or 720p screen at the time and swaps these between your eyes. The larger the screen, the bigger the difference.
I totally get all the advantages in passive in terms of cheaper glasses, less eye strain etc. and I would love for it to be on par with active techs, but it's by no means better quality, in fact it's much worse. Did you actualy use 3DTV on your samsung? Or did you just try the SBS workarounds and such...
Look if you are happy with your current set & setup, bless you...I'm just glad I got the Panny plasma in the end. And I would advise all (new) users on this forum to have a good look in stores before they spend their money.
i7 - Nvidia 780ti - Nvidia 3DTV - Optoma HD33 - 100" screen + Panasonic Viera TX-P46GT30E
[/quote]
True.
But we could say "gaming on a 3DTV is always half resolution"
(exception for 1080p24 framepacking)
I own a Panasonic, i play at 720p60 (it's blurred),i am wondering if 1080i60 on a passive 3DTV would be better or not.
(both are ~half resolution , but 1080i has ~10% more pixels, and scaling is easier)
True.
But we could say "gaming on a 3DTV is always half resolution"
(exception for 1080p24 framepacking)
I own a Panasonic, i play at 720p60 (it's blurred),i am wondering if 1080i60 on a passive 3DTV would be better or not.
(both are ~half resolution , but 1080i has ~10% more pixels, and scaling is easier)
MOTHERBOARD: Asus Z87-WS C2 / CPU: Intel Core i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz
GRAPHIC: 2 * GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition / RAM: Kingston 2x8Go @ 2400MHz, CAS 11
SSD OS: Intel SSD 520 180Go / SSD GAMES: Crucial M500 960 Go
MONITORS: 3 * DELL U2515H / 3DTV: LG 65UG870V
True.
But we could say "gaming on a 3DTV is always half resolution"
(exception for 1080p24 framepacking)
I own a Panasonic, i play at 720p60 (it's blurred),i am wondering if 1080i60 on a passive 3DTV would be better or not.
(both are ~half resolution , but 1080i has ~10% more pixels, and scaling is easier)
[/quote]
Very simple test: go to the store, and ask them to run a blu-ray 1080p on a passive LG or Philips set. It's frame packed 1080p, so in fact you are looking at 1080i, which should give you an idea what games look like in this resolution. For me the interlaced lines/screen tearing was so extremely visible it almost looked like a Nintendo 3DS display. Also depth was less and screen position is much more important then with active, move your head and the perspective changes, sit to close and you loose depth. I'd rather have a bit of blur and better depth then staring at a screen through a set of windowblinds.. again, this is by no means a flame against passive technologies, we wouldn't even have this discussion if it wasn't for damn HDMI 1,4 not supporting 1080p 60hz FP.
True.
But we could say "gaming on a 3DTV is always half resolution"
(exception for 1080p24 framepacking)
I own a Panasonic, i play at 720p60 (it's blurred),i am wondering if 1080i60 on a passive 3DTV would be better or not.
(both are ~half resolution , but 1080i has ~10% more pixels, and scaling is easier)
Very simple test: go to the store, and ask them to run a blu-ray 1080p on a passive LG or Philips set. It's frame packed 1080p, so in fact you are looking at 1080i, which should give you an idea what games look like in this resolution. For me the interlaced lines/screen tearing was so extremely visible it almost looked like a Nintendo 3DS display. Also depth was less and screen position is much more important then with active, move your head and the perspective changes, sit to close and you loose depth. I'd rather have a bit of blur and better depth then staring at a screen through a set of windowblinds.. again, this is by no means a flame against passive technologies, we wouldn't even have this discussion if it wasn't for damn HDMI 1,4 not supporting 1080p 60hz FP.
i7 - Nvidia 780ti - Nvidia 3DTV - Optoma HD33 - 100" screen + Panasonic Viera TX-P46GT30E
Very simple test: go to the store, and ask them to run a blu-ray 1080p on a passive LG or Philips set.
[/quote]
Of course... with a bluray.
But we are talking about games.
1080i60 vs 720p60, (or 1080i60 vs 1080p60SBS) i'm not sure the active 3DTV is better...
Very simple test: go to the store, and ask them to run a blu-ray 1080p on a passive LG or Philips set.
Of course... with a bluray.
But we are talking about games.
1080i60 vs 720p60, (or 1080i60 vs 1080p60SBS) i'm not sure the active 3DTV is better...
MOTHERBOARD: Asus Z87-WS C2 / CPU: Intel Core i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz
GRAPHIC: 2 * GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition / RAM: Kingston 2x8Go @ 2400MHz, CAS 11
SSD OS: Intel SSD 520 180Go / SSD GAMES: Crucial M500 960 Go
MONITORS: 3 * DELL U2515H / 3DTV: LG 65UG870V
Of course... with a bluray.
But we are talking about games.
1080i60 vs 720p60, (or 1080i60 vs 1080p60SBS) i'm not sure the active 3DTV is better...
[/quote]
Doesn't matter, if the interlace lines don't botter you on a passive set with blu-ray movies, they won't botter you in games either. If you think the quality is good, go for it.
I personally thought it looked terrible...but hey as you rightly said so, we are ALL gaming in half resolution in the end..
Of course... with a bluray.
But we are talking about games.
1080i60 vs 720p60, (or 1080i60 vs 1080p60SBS) i'm not sure the active 3DTV is better...
Doesn't matter, if the interlace lines don't botter you on a passive set with blu-ray movies, they won't botter you in games either. If you think the quality is good, go for it.
I personally thought it looked terrible...but hey as you rightly said so, we are ALL gaming in half resolution in the end..
i7 - Nvidia 780ti - Nvidia 3DTV - Optoma HD33 - 100" screen + Panasonic Viera TX-P46GT30E
Mocca, I have tridef, DDD, 3DTV and I tested it on 4 different games.
It simply doesn't matter, even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution. You interleaved solution doesn't change anything. It's very simple: plasma, LCD and DLP have a maximum of 1080*1920 pixels to show the picture on the screen and that's it. I order for polarisation to work (interlaced, SBS or FP) it needs to cut the res to 540*1920 (or 360*1280 in 720p!), because it needs to fit two screens on the one display. Shutterglasses show one full 1080p or 720p screen at the time and swaps these between your eyes. The larger the screen, the bigger the difference.
I totally get all the advantages in passive in terms of cheaper glasses, less eye strain etc. and I would love for it to be on par with active techs, but it's by no means better quality, in fact it's much worse. Did you actualy use 3DTV on your samsung? Or did you just try the SBS workarounds and such...
Look if you are happy with your current set & setup, bless you...I'm just glad I got the Panny plasma in the end. And I would advise all (new) users on this forum to have a good look in stores before they spend their money.
[/quote]
I just tried 720p tridef at the time as 3dtvplay was'nt out then.
Each to there own though, i know we all like different things :)
I did buy around 5 3dtv's last year included a 3d plasma, nothing came close to what i originally had so i got virtually my own set back.
So now i think about it i did have 3dtvplay running on a 50" plasma active 3dtv, it was awfull and 1080p was'nt much better, nowhere near as sharp as any of the passives i've seen.
I've allways thought a active set has better depth/pop allso but again i have'nt found any set that matches the Lg 47ld920 ld950 for 3d gaming hence the reason i stay with passive and the ld920
Mocca, I have tridef, DDD, 3DTV and I tested it on 4 different games.
It simply doesn't matter, even at 1080p a passive TV is ALWAYS half resolution. You interleaved solution doesn't change anything. It's very simple: plasma, LCD and DLP have a maximum of 1080*1920 pixels to show the picture on the screen and that's it. I order for polarisation to work (interlaced, SBS or FP) it needs to cut the res to 540*1920 (or 360*1280 in 720p!), because it needs to fit two screens on the one display. Shutterglasses show one full 1080p or 720p screen at the time and swaps these between your eyes. The larger the screen, the bigger the difference.
I totally get all the advantages in passive in terms of cheaper glasses, less eye strain etc. and I would love for it to be on par with active techs, but it's by no means better quality, in fact it's much worse. Did you actualy use 3DTV on your samsung? Or did you just try the SBS workarounds and such...
Look if you are happy with your current set & setup, bless you...I'm just glad I got the Panny plasma in the end. And I would advise all (new) users on this forum to have a good look in stores before they spend their money.
I just tried 720p tridef at the time as 3dtvplay was'nt out then.
Each to there own though, i know we all like different things :)
I did buy around 5 3dtv's last year included a 3d plasma, nothing came close to what i originally had so i got virtually my own set back.
So now i think about it i did have 3dtvplay running on a 50" plasma active 3dtv, it was awfull and 1080p was'nt much better, nowhere near as sharp as any of the passives i've seen.
I've allways thought a active set has better depth/pop allso but again i have'nt found any set that matches the Lg 47ld920 ld950 for 3d gaming hence the reason i stay with passive and the ld920
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d