[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1327702844' post='1361556']
Yes your gloss is exactly what is going on.
[/quote]
It seems to me that an exact definition of what the term "resolution" means is in order.
My own understanding of it is the amount of data (eye candy) within a fixed space. That, of course, being determined by whether you are looking at the "big picture" or narrowing it down to the pixel.
If a pixel is empty is it considered to have resolution?
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1327702844' post='1361556']
Yes your gloss is exactly what is going on.
It seems to me that an exact definition of what the term "resolution" means is in order.
My own understanding of it is the amount of data (eye candy) within a fixed space. That, of course, being determined by whether you are looking at the "big picture" or narrowing it down to the pixel.
If a pixel is empty is it considered to have resolution?
[quote name='churnobull' date='27 January 2012 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1327704778' post='1361563']
It seems to me that an exact definition of what the term "resolution" means is in order.
My own understanding of it is the amount of data (eye candy) within a fixed space. That, of course, being determined by whether you are looking at the "big picture" or narrowing it down to the pixel.
If a pixel is empty is it considered to have resolution?
[/quote]
On checkerboard you don't have empty pixels per frame, but you do have a decimation process in divying up the left and right checkerboard array, which results in some loss of information.
I think resolution should be considered here as what is displayed per cycle (a frame) on your display.
[quote name='churnobull' date='27 January 2012 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1327704778' post='1361563']
It seems to me that an exact definition of what the term "resolution" means is in order.
My own understanding of it is the amount of data (eye candy) within a fixed space. That, of course, being determined by whether you are looking at the "big picture" or narrowing it down to the pixel.
If a pixel is empty is it considered to have resolution?
On checkerboard you don't have empty pixels per frame, but you do have a decimation process in divying up the left and right checkerboard array, which results in some loss of information.
I think resolution should be considered here as what is displayed per cycle (a frame) on your display.
Grestorn, make no mistake about it. I don't think anyone is "picking" at your comments or calling you stupid. I am pretty much a newb at this stuff and don't claim to be any kind of intellectual genius. Please have patience and help us understand exactly what it is you are saying and maybe we will all be a little more knowlegable because of it. I want to learn more. Let us pick your brain.
Grestorn, make no mistake about it. I don't think anyone is "picking" at your comments or calling you stupid. I am pretty much a newb at this stuff and don't claim to be any kind of intellectual genius. Please have patience and help us understand exactly what it is you are saying and maybe we will all be a little more knowlegable because of it. I want to learn more. Let us pick your brain.
I wish to to contribute some still images for comparison.
Similarly to what Xylon does on avsforum.
I have taken two very similar screenshots from the opening scene of trine 2.
One at 720p.
I supply both the original 720p file as well as the same image resized bicubic in photoshop.
The 1080p image needs no introduction.
For checkerboard I used an alpha mask to remove all odd pixels from the left eye and all the even pixels from the right eye.
To recreate the missing pixels I used gausian blur radius 1 pixel which makes makes the missing pixel the average of the surrounding pixels.
http://www.mediafire.com/?y1vilxlzi6hcw9c
My conclusions is that it is hard to see the difference between 720p and the one resized by photoshop.
When compared to a true 1080p image checkerboard loses a lot of detail.
Notice how the number 4 that I added in small font is a lot less sharp in CB.
I have not yet figured out if 720p or CB is better.
There is different scaling artifacts in both so I guess it is also about preference.
My preference is clear and that is 120hz 1080p frame sequencial.
One benefit of 720p is that the game runs at a lower resolution and thus with better performance.
720p also gives a significantly sharper image.
Considering most xbox and ps3 games run at 720p and commonly at even lower res internally games can look pretty good at non native resolution.
I found the recent discussion being very opinionated and very little picture evidence.
If thats what CB looks like i've just got no words. Other than yuck! I wish someone would take some pictures like i explained, I still can't believe it looks that bad. Are you sure the gausian worked correctly? I don't even think the blurriness im noticing with SBS is THAT bad.
If thats what CB looks like i've just got no words. Other than yuck! I wish someone would take some pictures like i explained, I still can't believe it looks that bad. Are you sure the gausian worked correctly? I don't even think the blurriness im noticing with SBS is THAT bad.
Grestorn
I apologize for my earlier comments. I should never post when I have had a bad day. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Hopefully this will bring some understanding of what is happening here. (I know I said I was not commenting anymore... but I couldn't help myself)
Below is a cross eyed 3d picture of Skyrim. Now if you can manage to cross your eyes and focus on the image correctly this should put this subject to rest.
I view these by putting my finger about 3" from my nose. Then focus on your finger and move it in and out until the image on your monitor comes into focus. Once you get in focus you can pull your finger away.
When you get it right you will see 3 images side by side. Two ghosted 2d images on each side and a 3D image in the middle. It took lots of practice for me.
Make sure you view the image at actual size on your screen or the second image will be a mess.
The 1st image is what you would see with frame sequential 3d.
The 2nd image is what you would see with interleaved 3d. I simply masked the odd lines in one image and the evens in the other.
The 3rd image is the top image shrunk horizontally by 50% then stretched back to normal size. This is exactly what side by side mode does.
[url="http://www.mediafire.com/?4peiqssmpybk7ku"]Skyrim 3d Modes.png[/url]
Now obviously the 1st image is best.
The 2nd image is darker(made up for because passive glasses don't cut out as much light as active) but IMO the resolution looks pretty close to the 1st image. NVidia and DDD both process the image to reduce interlacing artifacts to make it look better. I have not done that here.
The 3rd image is obviously half resolution and blurry.
Anyway I hope this proves to you guys that even though half the pixels are blocked in the second picture your eyes/brain can reconstitute the image to mostly full resolution. It is much better than SBS IMO.
I take no responsibility for the eyestrain incurred while looking at the above image.
I apologize for my earlier comments. I should never post when I have had a bad day. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Hopefully this will bring some understanding of what is happening here. (I know I said I was not commenting anymore... but I couldn't help myself)
Below is a cross eyed 3d picture of Skyrim. Now if you can manage to cross your eyes and focus on the image correctly this should put this subject to rest.
I view these by putting my finger about 3" from my nose. Then focus on your finger and move it in and out until the image on your monitor comes into focus. Once you get in focus you can pull your finger away.
When you get it right you will see 3 images side by side. Two ghosted 2d images on each side and a 3D image in the middle. It took lots of practice for me.
Make sure you view the image at actual size on your screen or the second image will be a mess.
The 1st image is what you would see with frame sequential 3d.
The 2nd image is what you would see with interleaved 3d. I simply masked the odd lines in one image and the evens in the other.
The 3rd image is the top image shrunk horizontally by 50% then stretched back to normal size. This is exactly what side by side mode does.
The 2nd image is darker(made up for because passive glasses don't cut out as much light as active) but IMO the resolution looks pretty close to the 1st image. NVidia and DDD both process the image to reduce interlacing artifacts to make it look better. I have not done that here.
The 3rd image is obviously half resolution and blurry.
Anyway I hope this proves to you guys that even though half the pixels are blocked in the second picture your eyes/brain can reconstitute the image to mostly full resolution. It is much better than SBS IMO.
I take no responsibility for the eyestrain incurred while looking at the above image.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1327729641' post='1361687']
Anyway I hope this proves to you guys that even though half the pixels are blocked in the second picture your eyes/brain can reconstitute the image to mostly full resolution. It is much better than SBS IMO.
I take no responsibility for the eyestrain incurred while looking at the above image.
[/quote]
I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye.
What's happening is that the TV is using the pixels it has and interpolates a full res, 1080p image out of them and shows that to one eye. Then it takes the other pixels, does its interpolating and scaling and shows it to the other eye.
For both checkerboard and side-by-side, you have to a downscaling before transmitting, cutting the resolution in half. You could do that just by cutting out half of the pixels, but that would certainly be suboptimal. Usually, there's at least some bilinear filtering involved, I'm pretty sure they're using a more elaborare algorithm for that.
I don't think that there is any visual difference between SBS or CB. The only slight difference that I can imagine might be caused by the fact, that for checkerboard you alternate the missing pixels for each line, while for SBS you'll lose the same pixel in each line.
If there were no intelligent downsampling, ie. if they would just drop the pixels they can't transmit, the following illustration would represent which pixels of the original image would be transmitted (x : Pixel transferred, - : lost pixel):
SBS:
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
CB:
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
But, again, I don't think that this difference makes any visual difference in the end result, because of the intelligent filtering when downscaling. You lose half the resolution using either SBS or CB anyway.
And that the other eye is also seeing the same scene (from a slightly different viewpoint), which is also shown using half the resolution, doesn't somehow make up for it. Even if both eyes would see exactly the same image (which is usually not the case in a 3D scene), each being half the resolution, you wouldn't somehow regain the lost resolution, just because the left eye sees the pixels that were skipped for the right eye. The brain doesn't work like this. And the whole downsampling and upsampling process doesn't reconstruct exact pixels anyway.
Summary:
[list][*]1080p in either 2D, frame sequential or frame packed results in the best and full resolution image quality on the screen.[/list][list][*]1080p used to transfer two [i][b]different[/b][/i] images (one for each eye), either using checkerboard, side-by-side, interleaved or any other technique is resulting in a visibly reduced resolution. There is just no doubt about that.[/list][list][*]I don't think that there is any visible difference, however, between using checkerboard or side-by-side. Interleaved/Interlaced will be looking slightly differnt, however, because here the resolution is cut vertically instead of horizontally. If that's actually better or worse than CB/SBS is mostly a matter of taste, I think.[/list][list][*]720p 3D is usually resulting in a worse image quality than 1080p CB or SBS, because the resolution is even lower. But, on the other hand, the image looks exactly like the game is rendering it, since there is no need for downscaling after the game has rendered the scene. That doesn't make any difference for most games, especially modern games also targetted for consoles.[/list][list][*]There are some games, however, where there are some fine, one pixel wide details (like texts or HUD details). Those are rendered using the full resolution available to the game, ie. the text is readable well enough, if you can actually see all 1920x1080 pixels. But because of the downscaling of the the rendered image (for CB resp. SBS), some of these details ARE lost, making the text harder to read and giving the HUD an overall blurred look.[/list][list][*]For those games it MIGHT be better to use 720p, because then the game renders the HUD and the texts matching for that resolution (using bigger text and HUD elements). There is no downscaling done for 720p images in 3D, so everything the game intends to render is visible on the screen in full detail.[/list]
That was my point from the beginning of this discussion. Not more and not less.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1327729641' post='1361687']
Anyway I hope this proves to you guys that even though half the pixels are blocked in the second picture your eyes/brain can reconstitute the image to mostly full resolution. It is much better than SBS IMO.
I take no responsibility for the eyestrain incurred while looking at the above image.
I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye.
What's happening is that the TV is using the pixels it has and interpolates a full res, 1080p image out of them and shows that to one eye. Then it takes the other pixels, does its interpolating and scaling and shows it to the other eye.
For both checkerboard and side-by-side, you have to a downscaling before transmitting, cutting the resolution in half. You could do that just by cutting out half of the pixels, but that would certainly be suboptimal. Usually, there's at least some bilinear filtering involved, I'm pretty sure they're using a more elaborare algorithm for that.
I don't think that there is any visual difference between SBS or CB. The only slight difference that I can imagine might be caused by the fact, that for checkerboard you alternate the missing pixels for each line, while for SBS you'll lose the same pixel in each line.
If there were no intelligent downsampling, ie. if they would just drop the pixels they can't transmit, the following illustration would represent which pixels of the original image would be transmitted (x : Pixel transferred, - : lost pixel):
SBS:
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
CB:
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
But, again, I don't think that this difference makes any visual difference in the end result, because of the intelligent filtering when downscaling. You lose half the resolution using either SBS or CB anyway.
And that the other eye is also seeing the same scene (from a slightly different viewpoint), which is also shown using half the resolution, doesn't somehow make up for it. Even if both eyes would see exactly the same image (which is usually not the case in a 3D scene), each being half the resolution, you wouldn't somehow regain the lost resolution, just because the left eye sees the pixels that were skipped for the right eye. The brain doesn't work like this. And the whole downsampling and upsampling process doesn't reconstruct exact pixels anyway.
Summary:
1080p in either 2D, frame sequential or frame packed results in the best and full resolution image quality on the screen.
1080p used to transfer two different images (one for each eye), either using checkerboard, side-by-side, interleaved or any other technique is resulting in a visibly reduced resolution. There is just no doubt about that.
[*]I don't think that there is any visible difference, however, between using checkerboard or side-by-side. Interleaved/Interlaced will be looking slightly differnt, however, because here the resolution is cut vertically instead of horizontally. If that's actually better or worse than CB/SBS is mostly a matter of taste, I think.
[*]720p 3D is usually resulting in a worse image quality than 1080p CB or SBS, because the resolution is even lower. But, on the other hand, the image looks exactly like the game is rendering it, since there is no need for downscaling after the game has rendered the scene. That doesn't make any difference for most games, especially modern games also targetted for consoles.
[*]There are some games, however, where there are some fine, one pixel wide details (like texts or HUD details). Those are rendered using the full resolution available to the game, ie. the text is readable well enough, if you can actually see all 1920x1080 pixels. But because of the downscaling of the the rendered image (for CB resp. SBS), some of these details ARE lost, making the text harder to read and giving the HUD an overall blurred look.
[*]For those games it MIGHT be better to use 720p, because then the game renders the HUD and the texts matching for that resolution (using bigger text and HUD elements). There is no downscaling done for 720p images in 3D, so everything the game intends to render is visible on the screen in full detail.
That was my point from the beginning of this discussion. Not more and not less.
SBS doesn't hurt framerate nearly as much as full 1080p, so i assumed it processes a 960x1080 image for each eye, not downcales at 1080p processed image. Or at least skips every other pixel somehow.
Either way, take some photos people comon! THeres no need for all this theorizing...
SBS doesn't hurt framerate nearly as much as full 1080p, so i assumed it processes a 960x1080 image for each eye, not downcales at 1080p processed image. Or at least skips every other pixel somehow.
Either way, take some photos people comon! THeres no need for all this theorizing...
[quote name='Libertine' date='28 January 2012 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1327746560' post='1361756']
SBS doesn't hurt framerate nearly as much as full 1080p, so i assumed it processes a 960x1080 image for each eye, not downcales at 1080p processed image. Or at least skips every other pixel somehow.
[/quote]
It doesn't make any difference whether those pixels are actually rendered and then downscaled or if the driver just renders directly to 960x1080. The problem is, that the game is [i][u]scaling[/u][/i] everything for a target of 1920x1080. Including the HUD and the texts. If the driver renders the text and HUD directly to a 960x1080 frame buffer, it still has to downscale it, losing the same details as if it were downsampling in a separate step.
[quote name='Libertine' date='28 January 2012 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1327746560' post='1361756']
SBS doesn't hurt framerate nearly as much as full 1080p, so i assumed it processes a 960x1080 image for each eye, not downcales at 1080p processed image. Or at least skips every other pixel somehow.
It doesn't make any difference whether those pixels are actually rendered and then downscaled or if the driver just renders directly to 960x1080. The problem is, that the game is scaling everything for a target of 1920x1080. Including the HUD and the texts. If the driver renders the text and HUD directly to a 960x1080 frame buffer, it still has to downscale it, losing the same details as if it were downsampling in a separate step.
I've decided to make some direct photo shots using my 60" TV with the Rollermod. Unfortunately, I'm not able to find it anymore, the attachment in the thread where it was introduced is nowhere to be found. And google doesn't help either.
Can someone please point me to it or send it to me directly?
/edit: Nevermind, found it.
/edit2: I think there's just no way of doing that for me. I can connect my LG TV (which supports both SBS and CB), but I cannot get Roller's rollermod to work. Primarily because I don't have a separate 3DVision set (my Acer monitor has an intergrated 3DVision emitter). When using the 3DVision wizard on the faked Samsung monitor (which is in fact my LG TV), I'm asked to enable the emitter. Since I don't have any emitter, I can't enable it, and I can't complete the wizard. Yes, the Acer monitor is still connected, and 3DTVPlay is working fine (when allowing the LG to be detected properly).
I've tried this with a 280er and a 285 driver too, without any success.
So, sorry, someone else has to make these pictures. Everything I can do would be simulations instead of the real thing, and that really wouldn't prove anything.
I've decided to make some direct photo shots using my 60" TV with the Rollermod. Unfortunately, I'm not able to find it anymore, the attachment in the thread where it was introduced is nowhere to be found. And google doesn't help either.
Can someone please point me to it or send it to me directly?
/edit: Nevermind, found it.
/edit2: I think there's just no way of doing that for me. I can connect my LG TV (which supports both SBS and CB), but I cannot get Roller's rollermod to work. Primarily because I don't have a separate 3DVision set (my Acer monitor has an intergrated 3DVision emitter). When using the 3DVision wizard on the faked Samsung monitor (which is in fact my LG TV), I'm asked to enable the emitter. Since I don't have any emitter, I can't enable it, and I can't complete the wizard. Yes, the Acer monitor is still connected, and 3DTVPlay is working fine (when allowing the LG to be detected properly).
I've tried this with a 280er and a 285 driver too, without any success.
So, sorry, someone else has to make these pictures. Everything I can do would be simulations instead of the real thing, and that really wouldn't prove anything.
"I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye."
Not your display no. But a display that uses passive glasses absolutely does block half the pixels to one eye. The glasses do the blocking. I take it you have never used a passive display?
"I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye."
Not your display no. But a display that uses passive glasses absolutely does block half the pixels to one eye. The glasses do the blocking. I take it you have never used a passive display?
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1327761065' post='1361814']
"I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye."
Not your display no. But a display that uses passive glasses absolutely does block half the pixels to one eye. The glasses do the blocking. I take it you have never used a passive display?
[/quote]
A passive display uses LINES to separate between the left and the right eye. Ie. every other line is shown to the left and the right eye.
As many tests have proved, this is very well visible, not only because of the black lines but also the reduced resolution.
And it's also in no way similar to a checkerboard pattern.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1327761065' post='1361814']
"I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye."
Not your display no. But a display that uses passive glasses absolutely does block half the pixels to one eye. The glasses do the blocking. I take it you have never used a passive display?
A passive display uses LINES to separate between the left and the right eye. Ie. every other line is shown to the left and the right eye.
As many tests have proved, this is very well visible, not only because of the black lines but also the reduced resolution.
And it's also in no way similar to a checkerboard pattern.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='28 January 2012 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1327762833' post='1361822']
A passive display uses LINES to separate between the left and the right eye. Ie. every other line is shown to the left and the right eye.
As many tests have proved, this is very well visible, not only because of the black lines but also the reduced resolution.
And it's also in no way similar to a checkerboard pattern.
[/quote]
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='28 January 2012 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1327762833' post='1361822']
A passive display uses LINES to separate between the left and the right eye. Ie. every other line is shown to the left and the right eye.
As many tests have proved, this is very well visible, not only because of the black lines but also the reduced resolution.
And it's also in no way similar to a checkerboard pattern.
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1327764860' post='1361833']
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
[/quote]
Boke,
Grestorn has boxed himself into a corner by claiming that CB mode is scaled 1 to 2 mapped video. Remember that he has never seen CB mode so he has absolutely NO IDEA what it looks like, hence is absurd comments. He isn't about to admit that he is wrong no matter how contradictory his comments.
Your comments/observations/logic are consistent with what everyone else is seeing, so best ignore Grestorn's rants.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1327764860' post='1361833']
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Boke,
Grestorn has boxed himself into a corner by claiming that CB mode is scaled 1 to 2 mapped video. Remember that he has never seen CB mode so he has absolutely NO IDEA what it looks like, hence is absurd comments. He isn't about to admit that he is wrong no matter how contradictory his comments.
Your comments/observations/logic are consistent with what everyone else is seeing, so best ignore Grestorn's rants.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1327764860' post='1361833']
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
[/quote]
What you write about interleaved 3D, that the brain somehow adds up the information from the left and right eye to reconstruct the full resolution is just a pure speculation, I'd even say, wishfull thinking on your part. However, I can't directly dispute it, since I don't have a passive 3D display myself.
Still, you can read in all tests about passive 3D TVs all over the internet, that the reduction in vertical resolution is very visible (if you're sitting close enough to the display) and that the black lines can be seen clearly, which would contradict your speculation.
By the way, the resampling you used in your bottom pics is very badly suited for this task. Here's the result of a simple doubling of the scanlines, which already looks much better, but still makes the loss of information very obvious: [attachment=24020:linearScale.png]
Anyway, this discussion was about checkerboard. And you transfer your speculation about passive interleaved displays, where the lines are indeed masked out, to checkerboard, where the pixels are definitely NOT blacked out. That makes your speculation even more dubious... you're claiming that even though the display already DOES fill in the missing pixels the brain still somehow ignores these fill-ins and uses those two interpolated images, which, on top, are even showing the scene from different angles, to recreate the full resolution image.
You're trying to have a reasonable discussion here, I grant you that. But you have to admit, that your reasoning is a bit flawed and far fetched here.
[quote name='roller11' date='28 January 2012 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1327766990' post='1361848']
Boke,
Grestorn has boxed himself into a corner by claiming that CB mode is scaled 1 to 2 mapped video. Remember that he has never seen CB mode so he has absolutely NO IDEA what it looks like, hence is absurd comments. He isn't about to admit that he is wrong no matter how contradictory his comments.
Your comments/observations/logic are consistent with what everyone else is seeing, so best ignore Grestorn's rants.
[/quote]
Roller, this is really funny, dude, I have to give you credit for that!... :) But I don't think you're helping Boke at all.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1327764860' post='1361833']
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
What you write about interleaved 3D, that the brain somehow adds up the information from the left and right eye to reconstruct the full resolution is just a pure speculation, I'd even say, wishfull thinking on your part. However, I can't directly dispute it, since I don't have a passive 3D display myself.
Still, you can read in all tests about passive 3D TVs all over the internet, that the reduction in vertical resolution is very visible (if you're sitting close enough to the display) and that the black lines can be seen clearly, which would contradict your speculation.
By the way, the resampling you used in your bottom pics is very badly suited for this task. Here's the result of a simple doubling of the scanlines, which already looks much better, but still makes the loss of information very obvious: [attachment=24020:linearScale.png]
Anyway, this discussion was about checkerboard. And you transfer your speculation about passive interleaved displays, where the lines are indeed masked out, to checkerboard, where the pixels are definitely NOT blacked out. That makes your speculation even more dubious... you're claiming that even though the display already DOES fill in the missing pixels the brain still somehow ignores these fill-ins and uses those two interpolated images, which, on top, are even showing the scene from different angles, to recreate the full resolution image.
You're trying to have a reasonable discussion here, I grant you that. But you have to admit, that your reasoning is a bit flawed and far fetched here.
[quote name='roller11' date='28 January 2012 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1327766990' post='1361848']
Boke,
Grestorn has boxed himself into a corner by claiming that CB mode is scaled 1 to 2 mapped video. Remember that he has never seen CB mode so he has absolutely NO IDEA what it looks like, hence is absurd comments. He isn't about to admit that he is wrong no matter how contradictory his comments.
Your comments/observations/logic are consistent with what everyone else is seeing, so best ignore Grestorn's rants.
Roller, this is really funny, dude, I have to give you credit for that!... :) But I don't think you're helping Boke at all.
Yes your gloss is exactly what is going on.
[/quote]
It seems to me that an exact definition of what the term "resolution" means is in order.
My own understanding of it is the amount of data (eye candy) within a fixed space. That, of course, being determined by whether you are looking at the "big picture" or narrowing it down to the pixel.
If a pixel is empty is it considered to have resolution?
Yes your gloss is exactly what is going on.
It seems to me that an exact definition of what the term "resolution" means is in order.
My own understanding of it is the amount of data (eye candy) within a fixed space. That, of course, being determined by whether you are looking at the "big picture" or narrowing it down to the pixel.
If a pixel is empty is it considered to have resolution?
It seems to me that an exact definition of what the term "resolution" means is in order.
My own understanding of it is the amount of data (eye candy) within a fixed space. That, of course, being determined by whether you are looking at the "big picture" or narrowing it down to the pixel.
If a pixel is empty is it considered to have resolution?
[/quote]
On checkerboard you don't have empty pixels per frame, but you do have a decimation process in divying up the left and right checkerboard array, which results in some loss of information.
I think resolution should be considered here as what is displayed per cycle (a frame) on your display.
It seems to me that an exact definition of what the term "resolution" means is in order.
My own understanding of it is the amount of data (eye candy) within a fixed space. That, of course, being determined by whether you are looking at the "big picture" or narrowing it down to the pixel.
If a pixel is empty is it considered to have resolution?
On checkerboard you don't have empty pixels per frame, but you do have a decimation process in divying up the left and right checkerboard array, which results in some loss of information.
I think resolution should be considered here as what is displayed per cycle (a frame) on your display.
Similarly to what Xylon does on avsforum.
I have taken two very similar screenshots from the opening scene of trine 2.
One at 720p.
I supply both the original 720p file as well as the same image resized bicubic in photoshop.
The 1080p image needs no introduction.
For checkerboard I used an alpha mask to remove all odd pixels from the left eye and all the even pixels from the right eye.
To recreate the missing pixels I used gausian blur radius 1 pixel which makes makes the missing pixel the average of the surrounding pixels.
http://www.mediafire.com/?y1vilxlzi6hcw9c
My conclusions is that it is hard to see the difference between 720p and the one resized by photoshop.
When compared to a true 1080p image checkerboard loses a lot of detail.
Notice how the number 4 that I added in small font is a lot less sharp in CB.
I have not yet figured out if 720p or CB is better.
There is different scaling artifacts in both so I guess it is also about preference.
My preference is clear and that is 120hz 1080p frame sequencial.
One benefit of 720p is that the game runs at a lower resolution and thus with better performance.
720p also gives a significantly sharper image.
Considering most xbox and ps3 games run at 720p and commonly at even lower res internally games can look pretty good at non native resolution.
I found the recent discussion being very opinionated and very little picture evidence.
Similarly to what Xylon does on avsforum.
I have taken two very similar screenshots from the opening scene of trine 2.
One at 720p.
I supply both the original 720p file as well as the same image resized bicubic in photoshop.
The 1080p image needs no introduction.
For checkerboard I used an alpha mask to remove all odd pixels from the left eye and all the even pixels from the right eye.
To recreate the missing pixels I used gausian blur radius 1 pixel which makes makes the missing pixel the average of the surrounding pixels.
http://www.mediafire.com/?y1vilxlzi6hcw9c
My conclusions is that it is hard to see the difference between 720p and the one resized by photoshop.
When compared to a true 1080p image checkerboard loses a lot of detail.
Notice how the number 4 that I added in small font is a lot less sharp in CB.
I have not yet figured out if 720p or CB is better.
There is different scaling artifacts in both so I guess it is also about preference.
My preference is clear and that is 120hz 1080p frame sequencial.
One benefit of 720p is that the game runs at a lower resolution and thus with better performance.
720p also gives a significantly sharper image.
Considering most xbox and ps3 games run at 720p and commonly at even lower res internally games can look pretty good at non native resolution.
I found the recent discussion being very opinionated and very little picture evidence.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
If thats what CB looks like i've just got no words. Other than yuck! I wish someone would take some pictures like i explained, I still can't believe it looks that bad. Are you sure the gausian worked correctly? I don't even think the blurriness im noticing with SBS is THAT bad.
If thats what CB looks like i've just got no words. Other than yuck! I wish someone would take some pictures like i explained, I still can't believe it looks that bad. Are you sure the gausian worked correctly? I don't even think the blurriness im noticing with SBS is THAT bad.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
I apologize for my earlier comments. I should never post when I have had a bad day. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Hopefully this will bring some understanding of what is happening here. (I know I said I was not commenting anymore... but I couldn't help myself)
Below is a cross eyed 3d picture of Skyrim. Now if you can manage to cross your eyes and focus on the image correctly this should put this subject to rest.
I view these by putting my finger about 3" from my nose. Then focus on your finger and move it in and out until the image on your monitor comes into focus. Once you get in focus you can pull your finger away.
When you get it right you will see 3 images side by side. Two ghosted 2d images on each side and a 3D image in the middle. It took lots of practice for me.
Make sure you view the image at actual size on your screen or the second image will be a mess.
The 1st image is what you would see with frame sequential 3d.
The 2nd image is what you would see with interleaved 3d. I simply masked the odd lines in one image and the evens in the other.
The 3rd image is the top image shrunk horizontally by 50% then stretched back to normal size. This is exactly what side by side mode does.
[url="http://www.mediafire.com/?4peiqssmpybk7ku"]Skyrim 3d Modes.png[/url]
Now obviously the 1st image is best.
The 2nd image is darker(made up for because passive glasses don't cut out as much light as active) but IMO the resolution looks pretty close to the 1st image. NVidia and DDD both process the image to reduce interlacing artifacts to make it look better. I have not done that here.
The 3rd image is obviously half resolution and blurry.
Anyway I hope this proves to you guys that even though half the pixels are blocked in the second picture your eyes/brain can reconstitute the image to mostly full resolution. It is much better than SBS IMO.
I take no responsibility for the eyestrain incurred while looking at the above image.
I apologize for my earlier comments. I should never post when I have had a bad day. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Hopefully this will bring some understanding of what is happening here. (I know I said I was not commenting anymore... but I couldn't help myself)
Below is a cross eyed 3d picture of Skyrim. Now if you can manage to cross your eyes and focus on the image correctly this should put this subject to rest.
I view these by putting my finger about 3" from my nose. Then focus on your finger and move it in and out until the image on your monitor comes into focus. Once you get in focus you can pull your finger away.
When you get it right you will see 3 images side by side. Two ghosted 2d images on each side and a 3D image in the middle. It took lots of practice for me.
Make sure you view the image at actual size on your screen or the second image will be a mess.
The 1st image is what you would see with frame sequential 3d.
The 2nd image is what you would see with interleaved 3d. I simply masked the odd lines in one image and the evens in the other.
The 3rd image is the top image shrunk horizontally by 50% then stretched back to normal size. This is exactly what side by side mode does.
Skyrim 3d Modes.png
Now obviously the 1st image is best.
The 2nd image is darker(made up for because passive glasses don't cut out as much light as active) but IMO the resolution looks pretty close to the 1st image. NVidia and DDD both process the image to reduce interlacing artifacts to make it look better. I have not done that here.
The 3rd image is obviously half resolution and blurry.
Anyway I hope this proves to you guys that even though half the pixels are blocked in the second picture your eyes/brain can reconstitute the image to mostly full resolution. It is much better than SBS IMO.
I take no responsibility for the eyestrain incurred while looking at the above image.
Anyway I hope this proves to you guys that even though half the pixels are blocked in the second picture your eyes/brain can reconstitute the image to mostly full resolution. It is much better than SBS IMO.
I take no responsibility for the eyestrain incurred while looking at the above image.
[/quote]
I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye.
What's happening is that the TV is using the pixels it has and interpolates a full res, 1080p image out of them and shows that to one eye. Then it takes the other pixels, does its interpolating and scaling and shows it to the other eye.
For both checkerboard and side-by-side, you have to a downscaling before transmitting, cutting the resolution in half. You could do that just by cutting out half of the pixels, but that would certainly be suboptimal. Usually, there's at least some bilinear filtering involved, I'm pretty sure they're using a more elaborare algorithm for that.
I don't think that there is any visual difference between SBS or CB. The only slight difference that I can imagine might be caused by the fact, that for checkerboard you alternate the missing pixels for each line, while for SBS you'll lose the same pixel in each line.
If there were no intelligent downsampling, ie. if they would just drop the pixels they can't transmit, the following illustration would represent which pixels of the original image would be transmitted (x : Pixel transferred, - : lost pixel):
SBS:
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
CB:
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
But, again, I don't think that this difference makes any visual difference in the end result, because of the intelligent filtering when downscaling. You lose half the resolution using either SBS or CB anyway.
And that the other eye is also seeing the same scene (from a slightly different viewpoint), which is also shown using half the resolution, doesn't somehow make up for it. Even if both eyes would see exactly the same image (which is usually not the case in a 3D scene), each being half the resolution, you wouldn't somehow regain the lost resolution, just because the left eye sees the pixels that were skipped for the right eye. The brain doesn't work like this. And the whole downsampling and upsampling process doesn't reconstruct exact pixels anyway.
Summary:
[list][*]1080p in either 2D, frame sequential or frame packed results in the best and full resolution image quality on the screen.[/list][list][*]1080p used to transfer two [i][b]different[/b][/i] images (one for each eye), either using checkerboard, side-by-side, interleaved or any other technique is resulting in a visibly reduced resolution. There is just no doubt about that.[/list][list][*]I don't think that there is any visible difference, however, between using checkerboard or side-by-side. Interleaved/Interlaced will be looking slightly differnt, however, because here the resolution is cut vertically instead of horizontally. If that's actually better or worse than CB/SBS is mostly a matter of taste, I think.[/list][list][*]720p 3D is usually resulting in a worse image quality than 1080p CB or SBS, because the resolution is even lower. But, on the other hand, the image looks exactly like the game is rendering it, since there is no need for downscaling after the game has rendered the scene. That doesn't make any difference for most games, especially modern games also targetted for consoles.[/list][list][*]There are some games, however, where there are some fine, one pixel wide details (like texts or HUD details). Those are rendered using the full resolution available to the game, ie. the text is readable well enough, if you can actually see all 1920x1080 pixels. But because of the downscaling of the the rendered image (for CB resp. SBS), some of these details ARE lost, making the text harder to read and giving the HUD an overall blurred look.[/list][list][*]For those games it MIGHT be better to use 720p, because then the game renders the HUD and the texts matching for that resolution (using bigger text and HUD elements). There is no downscaling done for 720p images in 3D, so everything the game intends to render is visible on the screen in full detail.[/list]
That was my point from the beginning of this discussion. Not more and not less.
Anyway I hope this proves to you guys that even though half the pixels are blocked in the second picture your eyes/brain can reconstitute the image to mostly full resolution. It is much better than SBS IMO.
I take no responsibility for the eyestrain incurred while looking at the above image.
I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye.
What's happening is that the TV is using the pixels it has and interpolates a full res, 1080p image out of them and shows that to one eye. Then it takes the other pixels, does its interpolating and scaling and shows it to the other eye.
For both checkerboard and side-by-side, you have to a downscaling before transmitting, cutting the resolution in half. You could do that just by cutting out half of the pixels, but that would certainly be suboptimal. Usually, there's at least some bilinear filtering involved, I'm pretty sure they're using a more elaborare algorithm for that.
I don't think that there is any visual difference between SBS or CB. The only slight difference that I can imagine might be caused by the fact, that for checkerboard you alternate the missing pixels for each line, while for SBS you'll lose the same pixel in each line.
If there were no intelligent downsampling, ie. if they would just drop the pixels they can't transmit, the following illustration would represent which pixels of the original image would be transmitted (x : Pixel transferred, - : lost pixel):
SBS:
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
x-x-x-x-x
CB:
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
x-x-x-x-x
-x-x-x-x-
But, again, I don't think that this difference makes any visual difference in the end result, because of the intelligent filtering when downscaling. You lose half the resolution using either SBS or CB anyway.
And that the other eye is also seeing the same scene (from a slightly different viewpoint), which is also shown using half the resolution, doesn't somehow make up for it. Even if both eyes would see exactly the same image (which is usually not the case in a 3D scene), each being half the resolution, you wouldn't somehow regain the lost resolution, just because the left eye sees the pixels that were skipped for the right eye. The brain doesn't work like this. And the whole downsampling and upsampling process doesn't reconstruct exact pixels anyway.
Summary:
[*]I don't think that there is any visible difference, however, between using checkerboard or side-by-side. Interleaved/Interlaced will be looking slightly differnt, however, because here the resolution is cut vertically instead of horizontally. If that's actually better or worse than CB/SBS is mostly a matter of taste, I think.
[*]720p 3D is usually resulting in a worse image quality than 1080p CB or SBS, because the resolution is even lower. But, on the other hand, the image looks exactly like the game is rendering it, since there is no need for downscaling after the game has rendered the scene. That doesn't make any difference for most games, especially modern games also targetted for consoles.
[*]There are some games, however, where there are some fine, one pixel wide details (like texts or HUD details). Those are rendered using the full resolution available to the game, ie. the text is readable well enough, if you can actually see all 1920x1080 pixels. But because of the downscaling of the the rendered image (for CB resp. SBS), some of these details ARE lost, making the text harder to read and giving the HUD an overall blurred look.
[*]For those games it MIGHT be better to use 720p, because then the game renders the HUD and the texts matching for that resolution (using bigger text and HUD elements). There is no downscaling done for 720p images in 3D, so everything the game intends to render is visible on the screen in full detail.
That was my point from the beginning of this discussion. Not more and not less.
Either way, take some photos people comon! THeres no need for all this theorizing...
Either way, take some photos people comon! THeres no need for all this theorizing...
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
SBS doesn't hurt framerate nearly as much as full 1080p, so i assumed it processes a 960x1080 image for each eye, not downcales at 1080p processed image. Or at least skips every other pixel somehow.
[/quote]
It doesn't make any difference whether those pixels are actually rendered and then downscaled or if the driver just renders directly to 960x1080. The problem is, that the game is [i][u]scaling[/u][/i] everything for a target of 1920x1080. Including the HUD and the texts. If the driver renders the text and HUD directly to a 960x1080 frame buffer, it still has to downscale it, losing the same details as if it were downsampling in a separate step.
SBS doesn't hurt framerate nearly as much as full 1080p, so i assumed it processes a 960x1080 image for each eye, not downcales at 1080p processed image. Or at least skips every other pixel somehow.
It doesn't make any difference whether those pixels are actually rendered and then downscaled or if the driver just renders directly to 960x1080. The problem is, that the game is scaling everything for a target of 1920x1080. Including the HUD and the texts. If the driver renders the text and HUD directly to a 960x1080 frame buffer, it still has to downscale it, losing the same details as if it were downsampling in a separate step.
Can someone please point me to it or send it to me directly?
/edit: Nevermind, found it.
/edit2: I think there's just no way of doing that for me. I can connect my LG TV (which supports both SBS and CB), but I cannot get Roller's rollermod to work. Primarily because I don't have a separate 3DVision set (my Acer monitor has an intergrated 3DVision emitter). When using the 3DVision wizard on the faked Samsung monitor (which is in fact my LG TV), I'm asked to enable the emitter. Since I don't have any emitter, I can't enable it, and I can't complete the wizard. Yes, the Acer monitor is still connected, and 3DTVPlay is working fine (when allowing the LG to be detected properly).
I've tried this with a 280er and a 285 driver too, without any success.
So, sorry, someone else has to make these pictures. Everything I can do would be simulations instead of the real thing, and that really wouldn't prove anything.
Can someone please point me to it or send it to me directly?
/edit: Nevermind, found it.
/edit2: I think there's just no way of doing that for me. I can connect my LG TV (which supports both SBS and CB), but I cannot get Roller's rollermod to work. Primarily because I don't have a separate 3DVision set (my Acer monitor has an intergrated 3DVision emitter). When using the 3DVision wizard on the faked Samsung monitor (which is in fact my LG TV), I'm asked to enable the emitter. Since I don't have any emitter, I can't enable it, and I can't complete the wizard. Yes, the Acer monitor is still connected, and 3DTVPlay is working fine (when allowing the LG to be detected properly).
I've tried this with a 280er and a 285 driver too, without any success.
So, sorry, someone else has to make these pictures. Everything I can do would be simulations instead of the real thing, and that really wouldn't prove anything.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye."
Not your display no. But a display that uses passive glasses absolutely does block half the pixels to one eye. The glasses do the blocking. I take it you have never used a passive display?
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye."
Not your display no. But a display that uses passive glasses absolutely does block half the pixels to one eye. The glasses do the blocking. I take it you have never used a passive display?
"I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye."
Not your display no. But a display that uses passive glasses absolutely does block half the pixels to one eye. The glasses do the blocking. I take it you have never used a passive display?
[/quote]
A passive display uses LINES to separate between the left and the right eye. Ie. every other line is shown to the left and the right eye.
As many tests have proved, this is very well visible, not only because of the black lines but also the reduced resolution.
And it's also in no way similar to a checkerboard pattern.
"I think there is a very basic misconception here.
It's not like the TV is showing only half the pixels with holes between them to each eye, i.e. it doesn't black or grey out the missing pixels which are not visible for the respective eye."
Not your display no. But a display that uses passive glasses absolutely does block half the pixels to one eye. The glasses do the blocking. I take it you have never used a passive display?
A passive display uses LINES to separate between the left and the right eye. Ie. every other line is shown to the left and the right eye.
As many tests have proved, this is very well visible, not only because of the black lines but also the reduced resolution.
And it's also in no way similar to a checkerboard pattern.
A passive display uses LINES to separate between the left and the right eye. Ie. every other line is shown to the left and the right eye.
As many tests have proved, this is very well visible, not only because of the black lines but also the reduced resolution.
And it's also in no way similar to a checkerboard pattern.
[/quote]
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
A passive display uses LINES to separate between the left and the right eye. Ie. every other line is shown to the left and the right eye.
As many tests have proved, this is very well visible, not only because of the black lines but also the reduced resolution.
And it's also in no way similar to a checkerboard pattern.
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
[/quote]
Boke,
Grestorn has boxed himself into a corner by claiming that CB mode is scaled 1 to 2 mapped video. Remember that he has never seen CB mode so he has absolutely NO IDEA what it looks like, hence is absurd comments. He isn't about to admit that he is wrong no matter how contradictory his comments.
Your comments/observations/logic are consistent with what everyone else is seeing, so best ignore Grestorn's rants.
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Boke,
Grestorn has boxed himself into a corner by claiming that CB mode is scaled 1 to 2 mapped video. Remember that he has never seen CB mode so he has absolutely NO IDEA what it looks like, hence is absurd comments. He isn't about to admit that he is wrong no matter how contradictory his comments.
Your comments/observations/logic are consistent with what everyone else is seeing, so best ignore Grestorn's rants.
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
[/quote]
What you write about interleaved 3D, that the brain somehow adds up the information from the left and right eye to reconstruct the full resolution is just a pure speculation, I'd even say, wishfull thinking on your part. However, I can't directly dispute it, since I don't have a passive 3D display myself.
Still, you can read in all tests about passive 3D TVs all over the internet, that the reduction in vertical resolution is very visible (if you're sitting close enough to the display) and that the black lines can be seen clearly, which would contradict your speculation.
By the way, the resampling you used in your bottom pics is very badly suited for this task. Here's the result of a simple doubling of the scanlines, which already looks much better, but still makes the loss of information very obvious: [attachment=24020:linearScale.png]
Anyway, this discussion was about checkerboard. And you transfer your speculation about passive interleaved displays, where the lines are indeed masked out, to checkerboard, where the pixels are definitely NOT blacked out. That makes your speculation even more dubious... you're claiming that even though the display already DOES fill in the missing pixels the brain still somehow ignores these fill-ins and uses those two interpolated images, which, on top, are even showing the scene from different angles, to recreate the full resolution image.
You're trying to have a reasonable discussion here, I grant you that. But you have to admit, that your reasoning is a bit flawed and far fetched here.
[quote name='roller11' date='28 January 2012 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1327766990' post='1361848']
Boke,
Grestorn has boxed himself into a corner by claiming that CB mode is scaled 1 to 2 mapped video. Remember that he has never seen CB mode so he has absolutely NO IDEA what it looks like, hence is absurd comments. He isn't about to admit that he is wrong no matter how contradictory his comments.
Your comments/observations/logic are consistent with what everyone else is seeing, so best ignore Grestorn's rants.
[/quote]
Roller, this is really funny, dude, I have to give you credit for that!... :) But I don't think you're helping Boke at all.
Never said it was similar. You obviously did not even try the picture I provided because it does use LINES.
Are you seriously going to tell me my line interleaved pic does not look much better than the half resolution one?
There is almost no resolution loss in the characters armor. There are some interlacing artifacts in the rocks & text.
My point here is that if the LINES look better than half-res. Then checkboard which looks better than line interleaved will be even closer to looking 1080p. It does not appear to your eyes to be half resolution.
Anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
What you write about interleaved 3D, that the brain somehow adds up the information from the left and right eye to reconstruct the full resolution is just a pure speculation, I'd even say, wishfull thinking on your part. However, I can't directly dispute it, since I don't have a passive 3D display myself.
Still, you can read in all tests about passive 3D TVs all over the internet, that the reduction in vertical resolution is very visible (if you're sitting close enough to the display) and that the black lines can be seen clearly, which would contradict your speculation.
By the way, the resampling you used in your bottom pics is very badly suited for this task. Here's the result of a simple doubling of the scanlines, which already looks much better, but still makes the loss of information very obvious: [attachment=24020:linearScale.png]
Anyway, this discussion was about checkerboard. And you transfer your speculation about passive interleaved displays, where the lines are indeed masked out, to checkerboard, where the pixels are definitely NOT blacked out. That makes your speculation even more dubious... you're claiming that even though the display already DOES fill in the missing pixels the brain still somehow ignores these fill-ins and uses those two interpolated images, which, on top, are even showing the scene from different angles, to recreate the full resolution image.
You're trying to have a reasonable discussion here, I grant you that. But you have to admit, that your reasoning is a bit flawed and far fetched here.
[quote name='roller11' date='28 January 2012 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1327766990' post='1361848']
Boke,
Grestorn has boxed himself into a corner by claiming that CB mode is scaled 1 to 2 mapped video. Remember that he has never seen CB mode so he has absolutely NO IDEA what it looks like, hence is absurd comments. He isn't about to admit that he is wrong no matter how contradictory his comments.
Your comments/observations/logic are consistent with what everyone else is seeing, so best ignore Grestorn's rants.
Roller, this is really funny, dude, I have to give you credit for that!... :) But I don't think you're helping Boke at all.