Any reason the Optoma EH500 couldn't do 1080p 60hz 3D over displayport?
  5 / 5    
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]So what's displayed? Two images? A 2d image? Because that red text can be disabled. If it needs to hit 120hz, could the resolution be lowered a little more to achieve this? What pixel clock have you been using?[/quote] The refresh rate just has to be 110hz or above, lower than that can still be forced to work, but will severely strain your eyes. The pixel clock, resolution, and timings have been listed above for the maximum pixel clock of the EH500. The red text can indeed be removed as discussed, and 3D vision timings can be forced with a little trickery. [quote="D-Man11"]1600x900@120Hz has a pixel clock of 201.2736 using CVT Reduced Blank. 100Hz comes in at 166.1440[/quote] For my resolution (1600x900 @ 112hz) timings lower than CVT Reduced Blank, I provided the proper timings above. [quote="CeeJayII"]Yes, 1600x900 100hz with red text from graphics card output. It doesn't matter though as it seems the projector only enables frame sequential at 120hz. CaptainTaco's timings actually work for the w1070 at 100hz, can't hit the same 112hz he got on the eh501. [/quote] You could try making a slightly smaller resolution, such as 1584x891 or 1568x882. This should allow you to reach higher timings, reduce further as needed, just keep the proper ratio. Your projector should still read it as 1600x900 but underscan the image, some projectors will not read it as 1600x900 but display the actual resolution instead, this is fine. The only problem with this method is the projector likely does not have a good scaling processor in it, this is the cause of 1280x720 looking bad on your 1920x1080 screen as another poster mentioned. The scaling algorithm in your projector is usually only just passable, this is why people use surround processors, or AV processors (whatever you want to call them). Think of that processor as an image resizer in a computer, for example; if you were to open a jpg in paint and select "resize" and resize the image to 1.7x the size, it is going to look... less than passable... it will basically look like you zoomed in on a jagged photo. Now, open the same photo in Photoshop (or similar) and resize the image using one of the "increase size" algorithms to 1.7x the size. The image resized in photoshop will look SIGNIFICANTLY better, smoother, proper. The same applies to video, when your projector receives a signal (such as 1280x720) it has to resize that image to fill the 1920x1080 pixel space. Due to the projectors main focus being its native resolution, and the company not wanting to spend a ton of extra money on high quality processors that would just increase the price of the projector; the skimp on this, and put a passable processor in it. It gets the job done. In movies, most will only moderately notice this (though videophiles certainly will) most will pass it off as "well the image was way smaller, it is 1080p so it obviously isn't going to look as good. These same people also never saw that same image projected onto the same screen through a native 1280x720 projector, if they did they would have noticed the image isn't nearly as bad as they thought it was. Suddenly, when the 1280x720 signal is passed with a 1:1 pixel mapping to a native 1280x720 projector the image looked, well, good... Smoother, no jagged edges, no distortion, just a slightly less detailed version of the 1920x1080 version. Enter Video Processors. Long gone are the days of separate "Video" processors. Technology the way it is, most video processors have now conjoined with audio processors creating the AV Processor. These video processors run a much higher quality algorithm to reduce and or expand video signals (similar to the Paint vs Photoshop example). This is why proponents of 3D Vision via projectors usually just recommend getting a native 1280x720 projector. Eliminate the need for a video processor, until such time as a proper 1080p 120hz projector comes out.
Pirateguybrush said:So what's displayed? Two images? A 2d image? Because that red text can be disabled.

If it needs to hit 120hz, could the resolution be lowered a little more to achieve this?

What pixel clock have you been using?


The refresh rate just has to be 110hz or above, lower than that can still be forced to work, but will severely strain your eyes. The pixel clock, resolution, and timings have been listed above for the maximum pixel clock of the EH500.

The red text can indeed be removed as discussed, and 3D vision timings can be forced with a little trickery.



D-Man11 said:1600x900@120Hz has a pixel clock of 201.2736 using CVT Reduced Blank. 100Hz comes in at 166.1440


For my resolution (1600x900 @ 112hz) timings lower than CVT Reduced Blank, I provided the proper timings above.



CeeJayII said:Yes, 1600x900 100hz with red text from graphics card output. It doesn't matter though as it seems the projector only enables frame sequential at 120hz. CaptainTaco's timings actually work for the w1070 at 100hz, can't hit the same 112hz he got on the eh501.


You could try making a slightly smaller resolution, such as 1584x891 or 1568x882. This should allow you to reach higher timings, reduce further as needed, just keep the proper ratio. Your projector should still read it as 1600x900 but underscan the image, some projectors will not read it as 1600x900 but display the actual resolution instead, this is fine. The only problem with this method is the projector likely does not have a good scaling processor in it, this is the cause of 1280x720 looking bad on your 1920x1080 screen as another poster mentioned.

The scaling algorithm in your projector is usually only just passable, this is why people use surround processors, or AV processors (whatever you want to call them). Think of that processor as an image resizer in a computer, for example; if you were to open a jpg in paint and select "resize" and resize the image to 1.7x the size, it is going to look... less than passable... it will basically look like you zoomed in on a jagged photo. Now, open the same photo in Photoshop (or similar) and resize the image using one of the "increase size" algorithms to 1.7x the size. The image resized in photoshop will look SIGNIFICANTLY better, smoother, proper. The same applies to video, when your projector receives a signal (such as 1280x720) it has to resize that image to fill the 1920x1080 pixel space. Due to the projectors main focus being its native resolution, and the company not wanting to spend a ton of extra money on high quality processors that would just increase the price of the projector; the skimp on this, and put a passable processor in it. It gets the job done. In movies, most will only moderately notice this (though videophiles certainly will) most will pass it off as "well the image was way smaller, it is 1080p so it obviously isn't going to look as good. These same people also never saw that same image projected onto the same screen through a native 1280x720 projector, if they did they would have noticed the image isn't nearly as bad as they thought it was. Suddenly, when the 1280x720 signal is passed with a 1:1 pixel mapping to a native 1280x720 projector the image looked, well, good... Smoother, no jagged edges, no distortion, just a slightly less detailed version of the 1920x1080 version.

Enter Video Processors. Long gone are the days of separate "Video" processors. Technology the way it is, most video processors have now conjoined with audio processors creating the AV Processor. These video processors run a much higher quality algorithm to reduce and or expand video signals (similar to the Paint vs Photoshop example).

This is why proponents of 3D Vision via projectors usually just recommend getting a native 1280x720 projector. Eliminate the need for a video processor, until such time as a proper 1080p 120hz projector comes out.

#61
Posted 07/17/2014 12:23 AM   
So if a slightly lower resolution is possible, would you expect it to look better than 720p, given the drawbacks you've listed? If I've understood you correctly, those drawbacks would apply equally to 720 and (whatever resolution works), so it should be an improvement?
So if a slightly lower resolution is possible, would you expect it to look better than 720p, given the drawbacks you've listed? If I've understood you correctly, those drawbacks would apply equally to 720 and (whatever resolution works), so it should be an improvement?

#62
Posted 07/17/2014 03:11 AM   
@CaptainTaco, could you upload the inf file you are using with your projector to achieve 1600x900 112hz? Is it just the inf from earlier in the thread or did you tweak it? If you could upload it would be much appreciated.
@CaptainTaco, could you upload the inf file you are using with your projector to achieve 1600x900 112hz? Is it just the inf from earlier in the thread or did you tweak it? If you could upload it would be much appreciated.

Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.

#63
Posted 07/17/2014 03:09 PM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]So if a slightly lower resolution is possible, would you expect it to look better than 720p, given the drawbacks you've listed? If I've understood you correctly, those drawbacks would apply equally to 720 and (whatever resolution works), so it should be an improvement?[/quote] Yes, those drawbacks will apply, but the higher the resolution the better it is going to look, period. One way to combat this is to set the projector to native, this will apply a 1:1 pixel ratio, which obviously will make the image much smaller on your screen, but will look better as it will not be plagued by the same issues. If you have the brightness (like the eh501 and eh500 do) and have a large zoom ratio (like the eh501 does) you could then zoom the projector to make the 720 native larger. Though this may get annoying performing this action every time you want to play a game. [quote="CeeJayII"]@CaptainTaco, could you upload the inf file you are using with your projector to achieve 1600x900 112hz? Is it just the inf from earlier in the thread or did you tweak it? If you could upload it would be much appreciated. [/quote] I was just using the inf on this thread, any modifications were done through CRU or nvidia control panel. I do not plan on playing at this resolution so I did not mod an inf for it, but would be easy to do with the previously mentioned utilities.
Pirateguybrush said:So if a slightly lower resolution is possible, would you expect it to look better than 720p, given the drawbacks you've listed? If I've understood you correctly, those drawbacks would apply equally to 720 and (whatever resolution works), so it should be an improvement?


Yes, those drawbacks will apply, but the higher the resolution the better it is going to look, period. One way to combat this is to set the projector to native, this will apply a 1:1 pixel ratio, which obviously will make the image much smaller on your screen, but will look better as it will not be plagued by the same issues. If you have the brightness (like the eh501 and eh500 do) and have a large zoom ratio (like the eh501 does) you could then zoom the projector to make the 720 native larger. Though this may get annoying performing this action every time you want to play a game.

CeeJayII said:@CaptainTaco, could you upload the inf file you are using with your projector to achieve 1600x900 112hz? Is it just the inf from earlier in the thread or did you tweak it? If you could upload it would be much appreciated.


I was just using the inf on this thread, any modifications were done through CRU or nvidia control panel. I do not plan on playing at this resolution so I did not mod an inf for it, but would be easy to do with the previously mentioned utilities.

#64
Posted 07/24/2014 05:01 AM   
I don't understand, why would you not play at this resolution?
I don't understand, why would you not play at this resolution?

#65
Posted 07/24/2014 06:41 AM   
I've just gone with downsampling (at the suggestion of D-Man), which is a pretty decent improvement. The w1070 refuses to make frame sequential an option at any resolution above 1280x720. Downsampling makes it comparable to my Samsung, which does 1080p checkerboard, though.
I've just gone with downsampling (at the suggestion of D-Man), which is a pretty decent improvement. The w1070 refuses to make frame sequential an option at any resolution above 1280x720. Downsampling makes it comparable to my Samsung, which does 1080p checkerboard, though.

Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.

#66
Posted 07/24/2014 03:48 PM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]I don't understand, why would you not play at this resolution?[/quote] I may in the future, but currently I am using the EH501. It is 50 feet from my PC, and has two ports. An HDMI and a DVI. I require the use of the non-modified EDID in order to run 3D Play, this is preferable for me for movies as the movies run in 1080 24hz, which in turns activates 144hz in the projector (triple flash). This is my preferred setting for movies as it matches the frame rate movies are filmed in, and is faster than 120hz as far as the refresh for the glasses goes. Gaming in this mode is obviously terrible. I then game in 720 60hz framepacked using the built in INF and set the projector to native while expanding the image via zoom. The reason for this is I do not currently have (or feel like running) a 50 foot long DVI cord in order to have a second, modified EDID in which to enable 3D Vision rather than 3D Play. So, in short, laziness and lack of a long enough DVI cable. I do have another option of which I just thought of involving taking up a second port on my Model 975 Receiver, running two cables from the computer to the Receiver, applying the modified EDID to one of those ports, and disabling it when not in use via the computer... Which come to think of it would be the better option as it allows me to output sound to the Receiver via HDMI natively... But again... Laziness... and time. I have very little time for gaming now-a-days anyways, last game I played was 1 month ago, unfortunately. Oh, and lastly, my eyes are unfortunately able to detect flicker up to 118hz, so this poses a problem with 112hz, though I could probably block it out eventually if immersed in the game. So I would have to play in slightly less than 1600x900 in order to reach 118 or 120hz. Lastly, while the projector can technically hit this rate, it is severely overclocking the pixel clock of the projector, which could (theoretically) result in damage to the color wheel and/or DMD chip. Though it is usually constant changes between resolutions that causes this (rapid switching from one refresh rate to another, over and over... like what I did to test all this...) and both the projectors (EH500 and EH501) still live, so... take it how you will. As I said, perhaps I will game at that (or close to that) resolution in the future. But it will always be displayed natively, not expanded. (since I don't have a great visual processor, mine is meant for audio alone essentially (the Outlaw Audio Model 975)
Pirateguybrush said:I don't understand, why would you not play at this resolution?


I may in the future, but currently I am using the EH501. It is 50 feet from my PC, and has two ports. An HDMI and a DVI. I require the use of the non-modified EDID in order to run 3D Play, this is preferable for me for movies as the movies run in 1080 24hz, which in turns activates 144hz in the projector (triple flash). This is my preferred setting for movies as it matches the frame rate movies are filmed in, and is faster than 120hz as far as the refresh for the glasses goes. Gaming in this mode is obviously terrible. I then game in 720 60hz framepacked using the built in INF and set the projector to native while expanding the image via zoom. The reason for this is I do not currently have (or feel like running) a 50 foot long DVI cord in order to have a second, modified EDID in which to enable 3D Vision rather than 3D Play.

So, in short, laziness and lack of a long enough DVI cable. I do have another option of which I just thought of involving taking up a second port on my Model 975 Receiver, running two cables from the computer to the Receiver, applying the modified EDID to one of those ports, and disabling it when not in use via the computer... Which come to think of it would be the better option as it allows me to output sound to the Receiver via HDMI natively... But again... Laziness... and time. I have very little time for gaming now-a-days anyways, last game I played was 1 month ago, unfortunately.

Oh, and lastly, my eyes are unfortunately able to detect flicker up to 118hz, so this poses a problem with 112hz, though I could probably block it out eventually if immersed in the game. So I would have to play in slightly less than 1600x900 in order to reach 118 or 120hz.

Lastly, while the projector can technically hit this rate, it is severely overclocking the pixel clock of the projector, which could (theoretically) result in damage to the color wheel and/or DMD chip. Though it is usually constant changes between resolutions that causes this (rapid switching from one refresh rate to another, over and over... like what I did to test all this...) and both the projectors (EH500 and EH501) still live, so... take it how you will.

As I said, perhaps I will game at that (or close to that) resolution in the future. But it will always be displayed natively, not expanded. (since I don't have a great visual processor, mine is meant for audio alone essentially (the Outlaw Audio Model 975)

#67
Posted 07/24/2014 03:56 PM   
Hm, so it looks like there's just no way to force the projector to enable frame sequential 3d at resolutions above 720p. This is a long shot, but I'm going to try contacting BenQ support and ask if they can provide a firmware image to enable it. Their website forces me to contact a local support email in Australia, but perhaps it's worth you trying as well.
Hm, so it looks like there's just no way to force the projector to enable frame sequential 3d at resolutions above 720p. This is a long shot, but I'm going to try contacting BenQ support and ask if they can provide a firmware image to enable it. Their website forces me to contact a local support email in Australia, but perhaps it's worth you trying as well.

#68
Posted 07/24/2014 04:07 PM   
Anyone got an/willing to test an InFocus IN3138HD ? Due to DC3 + DisplayPort it might be worth a try and our best bet (DP-Resolutions aren't even listed, yet they are at higher class IN5316HDA with still 60Hz either it is sold as "Full 3D support for PCs, Blu-Ray, cable boxes and more" compared to "3D support for Blu-ray, cable boxes and more" for IN3138HD). Another option would be Vivitek D966HD or 968U or any here https://geizhals.at/eu/?cat=beam&xf=74_1920x1080~81_DisplayPort~3370_2014~73_DLP~74_1920x1200&sort=p or the ones here http://www.projectorcentral.com/projectors.cfm?g=1&hide=0&st=1&mfg=&p=1&p=3000&w_m=&r=&br=&ll=&ltg=&t=&db=&dt=&c=&ar=Wide+%2816%3A9-10%29&dvi=-36&wr=&exp=1&pjl_m=&pjw_m=&pjh_m=&td_m=&i=d&is_m=&sort=%24&sz=15 (that are able to project Full HD+ and 3D - search criteria here are a bit lazy)
Anyone got an/willing to test an InFocus IN3138HD ? Due to DC3 + DisplayPort it might be worth a try and our best bet (DP-Resolutions aren't even listed, yet they are at higher class IN5316HDA with still 60Hz either it is sold as "Full 3D support for PCs, Blu-Ray, cable boxes and more" compared to "3D support for Blu-ray, cable boxes and more" for IN3138HD).

Another option would be Vivitek D966HD or 968U or any here https://geizhals.at/eu/?cat=beam&xf=74_1920x1080~81_DisplayPort~3370_2014~73_DLP~74_1920x1200&sort=p or the ones here http://www.projectorcentral.com/projectors.cfm?g=1&hide=0&st=1&mfg=&p=1&p=3000&w_m=&r=&br=&ll=&ltg=&t=&db=&dt=&c=&ar=Wide+%2816%3A9-10%29&dvi=-36&wr=&exp=1&pjl_m=&pjw_m=&pjh_m=&td_m=&i=d&is_m=&sort=%24&sz=15 (that are able to project Full HD+ and 3D - search criteria here are a bit lazy)

#69
Posted 11/17/2014 12:13 PM   
Has anybody seen the optima hd151x? This is 1080p with a dvi-d port. I'd appreciate if somebody with some knowledge could look into it as if it will work I'll be buying one!
Has anybody seen the optima hd151x? This is 1080p with a dvi-d port. I'd appreciate if somebody with some knowledge could look into it as if it will work I'll be buying one!

#70
Posted 12/15/2014 12:28 PM   
Can you find a local retailer that will let you test it? Otherwise, you could always ask the retailer, and if they say yes you could test it out. Where I live, if a retailer makes an incorrect claim you can return the product for a refund. EDIT: From the Optoma website, these are the supported 3D modes. Doesn't look promising. http://www.optoma.co.uk/projectordetailshc.aspx?PTypeDB=Home%20Entertainment&PC=HD151X Side-by-Side:1080i50 / 60, 720p50 / 60 Frame-pack: 1080p24, 720p50 / 60 Over-Under: 1080p24, 720p50 / 60
Can you find a local retailer that will let you test it?

Otherwise, you could always ask the retailer, and if they say yes you could test it out. Where I live, if a retailer makes an incorrect claim you can return the product for a refund.

EDIT:

From the Optoma website, these are the supported 3D modes. Doesn't look promising.

http://www.optoma.co.uk/projectordetailshc.aspx?PTypeDB=Home%20Entertainment&PC=HD151X

Side-by-Side:1080i50 / 60, 720p50 / 60
Frame-pack: 1080p24, 720p50 / 60
Over-Under: 1080p24, 720p50 / 60

#71
Posted 12/15/2014 01:35 PM   
I thought the 3d compatibility was for the HDMI 1.4? My understanding was that full 3d vision isnt actually 3d. Its just 120hz video input as the PC is doing the work hence the need for the nvidia ir control via usb. Unfurtunatley I've only seen it online so far so no way of testing. I may still buy one online as I think I could return it under the distance selling regs?
I thought the 3d compatibility was for the HDMI 1.4? My understanding was that full 3d vision isnt actually 3d. Its just 120hz video input as the PC is doing the work hence the need for the nvidia ir control via usb. Unfurtunatley I've only seen it online so far so no way of testing. I may still buy one online as I think I could return it under the distance selling regs?

#72
Posted 12/15/2014 04:12 PM   
[quote="sherriff82"]I thought the 3d compatibility was for the HDMI 1.4? My understanding was that full 3d vision isnt actually 3d. Its just 120hz video input as the PC is doing the work hence the need for the nvidia ir control via usb. ..... I may still buy one online as I think I could return it under the distance selling regs?[/quote]I am not sure if 3DTV Play would run through DVI-D (On your mentioned beamer model: I hardly believe it's Single Link - you would need Double Link for 1080p120Hz) - at least DVI-D is not officially supported and I doubt it would work (as I think it is soft-locked). Other as 3D Vision that accepts nearly any output. What do you mean with the second sentence? What do you understand under "actually 3d"? Yeah, with full 3D Vision technically speaking these are 120 frames per second (optimum case speaking) transferred over the cable (that is quite dumb, it doesn't care which data is transferred). But they have to be interpreted as 60 frames per eye sent frame sequential. (if there wouldn't be lightboost & co so if you take a look on "3D Vision v1" also the monitor doesn't know it's an 3D picture - it just get's & only needs the high amount of rapidly changing colour data) But there are 2 pictures alternately drawn that result in the 3D effect. That is because we see 3D in RL (only) because of 2 different pictures each eye gets too (well there is a bit more but let's keep easy). You could experiment: if you blind one eye long enough it will be hard to estimate distances per eye (people blind on one eye from begin with can't even imagine 3D, I remember a docum. about an op where someone who had strabismus got his eyesight fixed described how things popped out of his flat world). The main reason why it is not "as" good is caused by technical factor's (f.e. like immersion that is going to be covered by VR (virtual reality) and so on. Or f.e. what you may mean: speaking of the shuttered technology there is a small time shift between each picture an eye get's - that is something some ppl have problems with.) So yeah - it's just some stack of pictures but our mind "more-less correctly" mixes it to a scene in motion in 3D. If you think your mind is being tricked (you are right, but then) - don't watch a movie or play a game ever again (that is already a mind-trick with a stack of pictures - watching 3D is just a new level of an actually old mind-trick). On that buy and send it back if the trick doesn't work - yeah you could do that. That's you choice (and not something to ask someone else if you ask me). Just check the terms if there are any customer-unfriendly-rules before you buy.
sherriff82 said:I thought the 3d compatibility was for the HDMI 1.4? My understanding was that full 3d vision isnt actually 3d. Its just 120hz video input as the PC is doing the work hence the need for the nvidia ir control via usb. ..... I may still buy one online as I think I could return it under the distance selling regs?
I am not sure if 3DTV Play would run through DVI-D (On your mentioned beamer model: I hardly believe it's Single Link - you would need Double Link for 1080p120Hz) - at least DVI-D is not officially supported and I doubt it would work (as I think it is soft-locked). Other as 3D Vision that accepts nearly any output.

What do you mean with the second sentence? What do you understand under "actually 3d"? Yeah, with full 3D Vision technically speaking these are 120 frames per second (optimum case speaking) transferred over the cable (that is quite dumb, it doesn't care which data is transferred). But they have to be interpreted as 60 frames per eye sent frame sequential. (if there wouldn't be lightboost & co so if you take a look on "3D Vision v1" also the monitor doesn't know it's an 3D picture - it just get's & only needs the high amount of rapidly changing colour data) But there are 2 pictures alternately drawn that result in the 3D effect. That is because we see 3D in RL (only) because of 2 different pictures each eye gets too (well there is a bit more but let's keep easy).
You could experiment: if you blind one eye long enough it will be hard to estimate distances per eye (people blind on one eye from begin with can't even imagine 3D, I remember a docum. about an op where someone who had strabismus got his eyesight fixed described how things popped out of his flat world).
The main reason why it is not "as" good is caused by technical factor's (f.e. like immersion that is going to be covered by VR (virtual reality) and so on. Or f.e. what you may mean: speaking of the shuttered technology there is a small time shift between each picture an eye get's - that is something some ppl have problems with.) So yeah - it's just some stack of pictures but our mind "more-less correctly" mixes it to a scene in motion in 3D. If you think your mind is being tricked (you are right, but then) - don't watch a movie or play a game ever again (that is already a mind-trick with a stack of pictures - watching 3D is just a new level of an actually old mind-trick).

On that buy and send it back if the trick doesn't work - yeah you could do that. That's you choice (and not something to ask someone else if you ask me). Just check the terms if there are any customer-unfriendly-rules before you buy.

#73
Posted 01/03/2015 04:25 PM   
Sorry to beat a dead horse into the ground, but I'd like to bring this back from the dead. Specifically, I've been trying my luck at getting anything over 720P/120hz (preferably 900P) working on the new BenQ HT1075, which is the successor to the W1070 (which is, from what I've gathered, probably EXACTLY the same as a W1070 in terms of chipsets/internal components and what have you based on the fact the image quality is identical). Now I've read this whole thread through about 5 times over, so I know that CeeJayII and others have tried extensively on their W1070's to no avail, but of course I was optimistic that a) either the HT1075 may have slightly higher capabilities than then W1070, and/or b) that there may have been some missight or lack of perseverence on their part (no offense :D) that I might overcome. Sadly, I've run into the same challenges, but I'm not ready to give up yet and hopefully putting all our minds together we may be able to crack this nut. So for starters, I'm running the coveted Acer H5360 EDID. I've also gotten quite familiar with using Windows' Custom Resolution utility, CRU, and have even been toying around with the AW EDID Editor that was pointed out in another thread. From all those, I've managed to get 1600x900 working at 112hz using Captain Taco's timings, as well as 120hz using various timings pixel counts between 1440-1600 (essentially anything under 175Mhz pixel clock, even though I used the Toasty Pixel unlocker). The problem is when I fire up the test 3D application, I get the lovely red message and no stereo 3D activity on the display, it just looked like a regular 2D image, although at one point I did get the image shifting back and forth between left and right sides, but not at 120hz, more like 4-5hz. Just like how CeeJay mentioned, I tried to go into the projector menu to change the 3D settings to enable Frame Sequential (like I had to do to get 720P/120hz working after installing the H5360 EDID override), but the 3D option is completely greyed out at any of these resolutions. So at this point is where I started trying to mess around with the AW EDID Editor, when I noticed it had some options to set up detailed resolutions, very similarly to CRU, but I noticed it also has a "Stereo Viewing Support" section, which options for No Stereo, FS - R on Sync, FS - L on Sync, Side by Side, 2Way - R on Even, 2Way - L on Even, and 4Way. So, obviously I figured FS stood for Frame Sequential (which is what I assume is essentially all that we need to get turned on at this point), so I tried editing the .bin file that I exported from CRU to create such a resolution with FS enabled, and then reimported it back in CRU. It recognized the resolution I created, and I could set that in the Nvidia Control Panel, but sadly the 3D menu on the projector was still greyed out. I pretty much called it quits at this point, but still have a few questions/theories. -For starters, since I used the Toasty pixel clock unlocker but was still limited to 175Mhz, is that likely a limitation imposed by the HDMI bus (or entire chipset) on the projector itself? Is there no way to overclock this? -I have it pretty far away from my PC (and use a 25' cable), so it would be hard for me to test using a VGA cable, but would there be any possibility of that helping in any regard? Or using a DVI to HDMI adapter on the PC end? (really just grasping at anything at this point) -What are those other 3D resolutions, like 2way and 4way? Are any of those the same as Frame Packing? Would this be equally as viable of an option as frame sequential? -Is it possible that I was on the right track when I edited the EDID with AW EDID Editor, but then possibly the 3D support options I set got stripped when it was imported back into CRU since it does not seem to have those options itself? Any ideas on how I might import the bin file another way that will preserve these settings if that's the case? -Where is the limitation of what 3D options are available to me on the projector being imposed? Is that in the driver for the display (in other words, could hacking the EDID further help), or is it deeply embedded into the NVidia display drivers? Or is it programmed into the projector's bios, and can only be triggered by specific resolutions/frequencies/etc (and if so, is there any way that a hacked bios could enable these options)? -CaptainTaco had mentioned that when running at resolutions lower than the projector's native resolution it's ideal to run the projector in "native" mode, so the pixels are output on a 1 to 1 basis, however I've been unable to locate an option for this anywhere (on both this and even another projector I had tested recently before). Is this a pretty standard option in most projectors, or is it possible that it would not be available? (or should I actually be looking in the Nvidia Control Panel to disable scaling? I literally just thought of that now) I, uhhhh, think that's it for now. I'll update as I think of and/or discover more.
Sorry to beat a dead horse into the ground, but I'd like to bring this back from the dead. Specifically, I've been trying my luck at getting anything over 720P/120hz (preferably 900P) working on the new BenQ HT1075, which is the successor to the W1070 (which is, from what I've gathered, probably EXACTLY the same as a W1070 in terms of chipsets/internal components and what have you based on the fact the image quality is identical).

Now I've read this whole thread through about 5 times over, so I know that CeeJayII and others have tried extensively on their W1070's to no avail, but of course I was optimistic that a) either the HT1075 may have slightly higher capabilities than then W1070, and/or b) that there may have been some missight or lack of perseverence on their part (no offense :D) that I might overcome. Sadly, I've run into the same challenges, but I'm not ready to give up yet and hopefully putting all our minds together we may be able to crack this nut.

So for starters, I'm running the coveted Acer H5360 EDID. I've also gotten quite familiar with using Windows' Custom Resolution utility, CRU, and have even been toying around with the AW EDID Editor that was pointed out in another thread. From all those, I've managed to get 1600x900 working at 112hz using Captain Taco's timings, as well as 120hz using various timings pixel counts between 1440-1600 (essentially anything under 175Mhz pixel clock, even though I used the Toasty Pixel unlocker). The problem is when I fire up the test 3D application, I get the lovely red message and no stereo 3D activity on the display, it just looked like a regular 2D image, although at one point I did get the image shifting back and forth between left and right sides, but not at 120hz, more like 4-5hz. Just like how CeeJay mentioned, I tried to go into the projector menu to change the 3D settings to enable Frame Sequential (like I had to do to get 720P/120hz working after installing the H5360 EDID override), but the 3D option is completely greyed out at any of these resolutions.

So at this point is where I started trying to mess around with the AW EDID Editor, when I noticed it had some options to set up detailed resolutions, very similarly to CRU, but I noticed it also has a "Stereo Viewing Support" section, which options for No Stereo, FS - R on Sync, FS - L on Sync, Side by Side, 2Way - R on Even, 2Way - L on Even, and 4Way. So, obviously I figured FS stood for Frame Sequential (which is what I assume is essentially all that we need to get turned on at this point), so I tried editing the .bin file that I exported from CRU to create such a resolution with FS enabled, and then reimported it back in CRU. It recognized the resolution I created, and I could set that in the Nvidia Control Panel, but sadly the 3D menu on the projector was still greyed out.

I pretty much called it quits at this point, but still have a few questions/theories.

-For starters, since I used the Toasty pixel clock unlocker but was still limited to 175Mhz, is that likely a limitation imposed by the HDMI bus (or entire chipset) on the projector itself? Is there no way to overclock this?

-I have it pretty far away from my PC (and use a 25' cable), so it would be hard for me to test using a VGA cable, but would there be any possibility of that helping in any regard? Or using a DVI to HDMI adapter on the PC end? (really just grasping at anything at this point)

-What are those other 3D resolutions, like 2way and 4way? Are any of those the same as Frame Packing? Would this be equally as viable of an option as frame sequential?

-Is it possible that I was on the right track when I edited the EDID with AW EDID Editor, but then possibly the 3D support options I set got stripped when it was imported back into CRU since it does not seem to have those options itself? Any ideas on how I might import the bin file another way that will preserve these settings if that's the case?

-Where is the limitation of what 3D options are available to me on the projector being imposed? Is that in the driver for the display (in other words, could hacking the EDID further help), or is it deeply embedded into the NVidia display drivers? Or is it programmed into the projector's bios, and can only be triggered by specific resolutions/frequencies/etc (and if so, is there any way that a hacked bios could enable these options)?

-CaptainTaco had mentioned that when running at resolutions lower than the projector's native resolution it's ideal to run the projector in "native" mode, so the pixels are output on a 1 to 1 basis, however I've been unable to locate an option for this anywhere (on both this and even another projector I had tested recently before). Is this a pretty standard option in most projectors, or is it possible that it would not be available? (or should I actually be looking in the Nvidia Control Panel to disable scaling? I literally just thought of that now)

I, uhhhh, think that's it for now. I'll update as I think of and/or discover more.

3D Gaming Rig: CPU: i7 7700K @ 4.9Ghz | Mobo: Asus Maximus Hero VIII | RAM: Corsair Dominator 16GB | GPU: 2 x GTX 1080 Ti SLI | 3xSSDs for OS and Apps, 2 x HDD's for 11GB storage | PSU: Seasonic X-1250 M2| Case: Corsair C70 | Cooling: Corsair H115i Hydro cooler | Displays: Asus PG278QR, BenQ XL2420TX & BenQ HT1075 | OS: Windows 10 Pro + Windows 7 dual boot

Like my fixes? Dontations can be made to: www.paypal.me/DShanz or rshannonca@gmail.com
Like electronic music? Check out: www.soundcloud.com/dj-ryan-king

#74
Posted 03/20/2015 12:31 AM   
I think all of those stereo settings in the EDID editor carried over from VGA CRT days and are pre HDMI 1.3. I'm not positive, but I've messed with them extensively in the past to no avail. Also your extension block/windows update trumps everything anyways. When the options are greyed out in your projector, that's because of the software it shipped with. A lot of projector and tv software is open source and can be hacked if you are skilled enough. (I'm not) You can also easily brick your display. I used to use 3 to 4 editors to convert from bin to other file types such as .hex and .dat. If you use Monitor asset Manager, it will allow you import various file types. Extron EDID Manarger was one that I used and Phoenix also. I was always running into problems with incorrect checksums though and the different editors didn't always play nice together.
I think all of those stereo settings in the EDID editor carried over from VGA CRT days and are pre HDMI 1.3. I'm not positive, but I've messed with them extensively in the past to no avail. Also your extension block/windows update trumps everything anyways.

When the options are greyed out in your projector, that's because of the software it shipped with. A lot of projector and tv software is open source and can be hacked if you are skilled enough. (I'm not) You can also easily brick your display.

I used to use 3 to 4 editors to convert from bin to other file types such as .hex and .dat. If you use Monitor asset Manager, it will allow you import various file types. Extron EDID Manarger was one that I used and Phoenix also.

I was always running into problems with incorrect checksums though and the different editors didn't always play nice together.

#75
Posted 03/20/2015 01:05 AM   
  5 / 5    
Scroll To Top