Just bought 3dtv play..
  4 / 4    
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1323714245' post='1341274']
Checkerboard on a Samsung can only be done in PC input, so it's a direct comparison (no video processing).[/quote]
Right, but one can do FP on the PC input. My point is that what you are describing is 100% consistant with a FP/CB comparison, and 0% consistant with a CB/FS comparison.
[quote]Checkerboard is still half resolution no matter which way you slice it, it's absurd to deny otherwise.[/quote]
Where did you see my " absurd denial"?
If one "slices it" by pixel count, of course there are half as many pixels in CB vs FS or FP. If one slices it by visual perception, there is vanishingly small *perceived* resolution loss, certainly not half.

[quote]Likewise, there ARE other scenes where differences between checkerboard/FS resolution is QUITE significant (in my opinion).[/quote]
Well of course you are talking in purely arbitrary terms, so nobody can say you're wrong. I will say that if your characterization of "quite significant" is 1-2%, then I would not disagree.
[quote]The difference in resolution is noticable, to deny that is equally futile.[/quote]
I'm not denying the fact that given the right conditions, the right scene, 2-3 hours of time to examine two side by side scenes, and a large enough microscope, one can find 4-5 pixels in the FS shot that are missing in the CB shot of the same scene. I know this because I went back and forth in ten or so games before I found the "smoking gun", a scene where sure enough, there was a tiny bit of aliasing in CB that didn't exist in FS. Mind you, this was on exactly one diagonal line about two inches long, maybe .01% of the entire screen. On every other scene I compared, no difference whatsoever. I would characterize this difference as 'tiny'. If you want to characterize the same comparison as HUGE, go right ahead.
[quote]I haven't read any technical reasons from you why they there shouldn't be a difference other than "eyeballing" it. If that's the case, then what's stopping 640x360 checkerboard from looking as good as 1920x1080p full HD?[/quote]
Let me see if I understand you....you're saying that if I'm right, then 640x360 would be indistinguishable from 1920x1080? By this logic, the absurdity of 640x360 looking like 1920x1080 is proof that the proposition that native res CB looking very close to native res FS is absurd. Is this your stradegy to prove my claim is absurd?
Your parallel is bogus for the most obvious of reasons. These other res are not native resolution, in fact, they are scaled. Of course scaled low res images will show a big difference vs native res, but that does not prove anything about native res CB vs native res FS.
I'm pressing this point for one reason: while mathematics suggest that there is a visual 50% degradation when going from FS to CB, the difference in percieved res loss is only 1-2%. Noobies and other unsuspecting people who don't understand this may be fooled into making a very big mistake when making a considerable purchase. These people are my audience, not you, not your agenda.
To these people, I would say do your own research an see that the "Huge difference" charactreization is in sharp contradiction to what others are reporting, and don't be swayed by "proof by mathematics". So while there is a 50% loss in pixel count, the actual visual loss is tiny.
Here is a good place to start:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925

Try to find a single post that agrees with the "Huge difference" characterization.
And most importantly, notice that exposed has failed to provide a screen shot that illustrates this "Huge difference" even though I requested one.
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1323714245' post='1341274']

Checkerboard on a Samsung can only be done in PC input, so it's a direct comparison (no video processing).

Right, but one can do FP on the PC input. My point is that what you are describing is 100% consistant with a FP/CB comparison, and 0% consistant with a CB/FS comparison.

Checkerboard is still half resolution no matter which way you slice it, it's absurd to deny otherwise.


Where did you see my " absurd denial"?

If one "slices it" by pixel count, of course there are half as many pixels in CB vs FS or FP. If one slices it by visual perception, there is vanishingly small *perceived* resolution loss, certainly not half.



Likewise, there ARE other scenes where differences between checkerboard/FS resolution is QUITE significant (in my opinion).


Well of course you are talking in purely arbitrary terms, so nobody can say you're wrong. I will say that if your characterization of "quite significant" is 1-2%, then I would not disagree.

The difference in resolution is noticable, to deny that is equally futile.


I'm not denying the fact that given the right conditions, the right scene, 2-3 hours of time to examine two side by side scenes, and a large enough microscope, one can find 4-5 pixels in the FS shot that are missing in the CB shot of the same scene. I know this because I went back and forth in ten or so games before I found the "smoking gun", a scene where sure enough, there was a tiny bit of aliasing in CB that didn't exist in FS. Mind you, this was on exactly one diagonal line about two inches long, maybe .01% of the entire screen. On every other scene I compared, no difference whatsoever. I would characterize this difference as 'tiny'. If you want to characterize the same comparison as HUGE, go right ahead.

I haven't read any technical reasons from you why they there shouldn't be a difference other than "eyeballing" it. If that's the case, then what's stopping 640x360 checkerboard from looking as good as 1920x1080p full HD?


Let me see if I understand you....you're saying that if I'm right, then 640x360 would be indistinguishable from 1920x1080? By this logic, the absurdity of 640x360 looking like 1920x1080 is proof that the proposition that native res CB looking very close to native res FS is absurd. Is this your stradegy to prove my claim is absurd?

Your parallel is bogus for the most obvious of reasons. These other res are not native resolution, in fact, they are scaled. Of course scaled low res images will show a big difference vs native res, but that does not prove anything about native res CB vs native res FS.

I'm pressing this point for one reason: while mathematics suggest that there is a visual 50% degradation when going from FS to CB, the difference in percieved res loss is only 1-2%. Noobies and other unsuspecting people who don't understand this may be fooled into making a very big mistake when making a considerable purchase. These people are my audience, not you, not your agenda.

To these people, I would say do your own research an see that the "Huge difference" charactreization is in sharp contradiction to what others are reporting, and don't be swayed by "proof by mathematics". So while there is a 50% loss in pixel count, the actual visual loss is tiny.

Here is a good place to start:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925



Try to find a single post that agrees with the "Huge difference" characterization.

And most importantly, notice that exposed has failed to provide a screen shot that illustrates this "Huge difference" even though I requested one.

#46
Posted 12/13/2011 12:42 AM   
[quote name='roller11' date='12 December 2011 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1323736953' post='1341487']
Right, but one can do FP on the PC input.
[/quote]

I thought that was plainly obvious. What did you think I was comparing it to?

[quote]
My point is that what you are describing is 100% consistant with a FP/CB comparison, and 0% consistant with a CB/FS comparison.
[/quote]

What I describe is 100% consistent with checkerboard AND frame packing comparisons. Using the emitter emulation dll I got Nvidia's checkerboard working. There is no difference visually (other than stereoscopic methods) than IZ3D's and DDD's checkerboard outputs. Let me ask you, have YOU used checkerboard output from IZ3D/DDD extensively? Are there any difference's in Nvidia's implementation that you can specifically point out that I'm not aware of? Coming from a Radeon 5870, i used checkerboard and SBS from IZ3D/DDD on my Samsung 7000 series 3DTV for nearly a year. Switching over to a GTX 570 and trying your mod (good job by the way, but you seem too overly sensitive to anyone that disagrees with your 1-2% findings), I'm letting you know I see a sizable improvement from checkerboard to frame packing AND frame sequential (there is much less of a difference in certain situations, which I explained already) ...this is coming from gaming almost exclusively with CB/SBS for practically a year. Does this have something to do with Nvidia possibly not having great full HD in the first place? (Maybe it's just me, but i thought AMD HD3D had better overall picture quality and color saturation regardless of video processing/PC mode, too bad AMD HD3D is basically worth **** and too buggy, even with DDD). Still, after starting with Skyrim with IZ3D/SBS and DDD/CB, I found Nvidia's FP AND FS to be much more pleasing to the eye, even when compared to Nvidia's CB. Only when the environment/screen is dark/monochromatic does the difference fall considerably.

[quote]
Where did you see my " absurd denial"?
If one "slices it" by pixel count, of course there are half as many pixels in CB vs FS or FP. If one slices it by visual perception, there is vanishingly small *perceived* resolution loss, certainly not half.


Well of course you are talking in purely arbitrary terms, so nobody can say you're wrong. I will say that if your characterization of "quite significant" is 1-2%, then I would not disagree.

I'm not denying the fact that given the right conditions, the right scene, 2-3 hours of time to examine two side by side scenes, and a large enough microscope, one can find 4-5 pixels in the FS shot that are missing in the CB shot of the same scene. I know this because I went back and forth in ten or so games before I found the "smoking gun", a scene where sure enough, there was a tiny bit of aliasing in CB that didn't exist in FS. Mind you, this was on exactly one diagonal line about two inches long, maybe .01% of the entire screen. On every other scene I compared, no difference whatsoever. I would characterize this difference as 'tiny'. If you want to characterize the same comparison as HUGE, go right ahead.
[/quote]

Care to share what specific games? And more precisely, what environments? You know, I all ready explained myself in detail regarding the differences I found. You simply choose to be as vague and beligerant as possible. PLEASE give specifics. Not only that, please DIRECTLY respond to my post here, which you've ignored for some reason:


[i]What I've noticed is that darker, somewhat monochromatic game environments (like caves, dungeons, industrial settings, etc..) offer neglible differences between checkerboard (or any half resolution mode for that matter)and full HD. This is because the darker pixels (or pixels within the same color variance)are swaddled amongst each other with nearly the same pixel accuracy as a full HD frame. Since I'm playing Skyrim I notice this effect in the underground caves, I'm amazed how similar checkboard and 1080p 3D @ 24hz look (both high quality).

However, in environments with huge differences in pixel contrast and color hue (like rocky/grassy/road textures in daylight), there is a sizable difference in resolution quality that goes beyond aliased geometry. This is more noticable in some games than others. Gothic 3 and Gothic Forsaken Gods shows this most in my playing experience, there is a HUGE difference in checkerboard, side by side (tested with IZ3D, DDD) and 1080p 24hz (IZ3D, DDD, Nvidia) on my Samsung TV. I also notice this in the outside landscape in Skyrim, half resolution does make a difference (the only exception to this is when it snows, because again the pixels are basically monochromatic and the differences in resolution suddenly becomes much less noticable).[/i]

[quote]

Let me see if I understand you....you're saying that if I'm right, then 640x360 would be indistinguishable from 1920x1080? By this logic, the absurdity of 640x360 looking like 1920x1080 is proof that the proposition that native res CB looking very close to native res FS is absurd. Is this your stradegy to prove my claim is absurd?
Your parallel is bogus for the most obvious of reasons. These other res are not native resolution, in fact, they are scaled. Of course scaled low res images will show a big difference vs native res, but that does not prove anything about native res CB vs native res FS.
[/quote]

No you did not understand me. Since you can't qualify your statements with qualitative data and can only provide subjective reasoning, I wanted to uncover where the line is drawn according to your logic. If you can't tell the visual difference between CB at full HD FS at 1920x1080, then when does the difference occur? Notice I used correct aspect ratio resolutions that scale properly to a native resolution of 1920x1080. Scaling non-native images will not show a difference as long as the pixel mapping is proportionate...it's the reason why 1280x720 movies and games look picture perfect on a 1080p screen while 1366x768 looks like ass. Did you not know this? Basic LCD tech information.

So read my question again...[i]"I haven't read any technical reasons from you why they there shouldn't be a difference other than "eyeballing" it. If that's the case, then what's stopping 640x360 checkerboard from looking as good as 1920x1080p full HD?[/i]"

I'll even make it easier for you. Use 1280x720 checkerboard instead (I already know the answer to this, I want to see how you explain yourself).

[quote]

I'm pressing this point for one reason: while mathematics suggest that there is a visual 50% degradation when going from FS to CB, the difference in percieved res loss is only 1-2%. Noobies and other unsuspecting people who don't understand this may be fooled into making a very big mistake when making a considerable purchase. These people are my audience, not you, not your agenda.
To these people, I would say do your own research an see that the "Huge difference" charactreization is in sharp contradiction to what others are reporting, and don't be swayed by "proof by mathematics". So while there is a 50% loss in pixel count, the actual visual loss is tiny.

[/quote]


And what agenda is that? I'm trying to let you know YOUR opinion doesn't correlate to my own. In fact, I find your stance rather insulting to anyone who has enjoyed 3D gaming for years (like I have, since before 3D Vision). Anyone who has used checkerboard for years knows exactly what I'm talking about, it's even rather (ironically) insulting for you to insinuate that "noobs" should just take your opinion at face value (great marketing).

[quote]Here is a good place to start:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925

Try to find a single post that agrees with the "Huge difference" characterization.
And most importantly, notice that exposed has failed to provide a screen shot that illustrates this "Huge difference" even though I requested one.
[/quote]

Peddling your own mod thread with a just a fractional consortium as "evidence" is reaching. I am one of the people that don't share your "it's only a 1-2%" difference. I can see a bigger once. What's the problem? I have the same TV as you, the same software, we have the same Nvidia graphic card series, why's it so hard to accept? You want an unbiased debate in a neutral site? Start up a new thread at MTBS3D where an entire community of experienced personnel can give you proper input/feedback. Especially your thoughts on checkerboard vs full HD. You know, there was a Tom's Hardware reviewer that swore up and down that Tridef's Virtual 3D mode (z buffer based depth, or fake depth a la Crysis 2) was just as good as 3D Vision, even at high depth. Like you, despite putting down specifics and using analytical data, he simply "eyeballed" his findings, and backed up his beliefs within the comfort of his own forums. On MTBS3D however, common sense bore that thick fog ignorance.

BTW, how do you propose I take a screenshot? Screenshots don't capture the output method, as far as I know. Furthermore, have you bothered to test the specific games and situations that [b]I/b] requested?
[quote name='roller11' date='12 December 2011 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1323736953' post='1341487']

Right, but one can do FP on the PC input.





I thought that was plainly obvious. What did you think I was comparing it to?





My point is that what you are describing is 100% consistant with a FP/CB comparison, and 0% consistant with a CB/FS comparison.





What I describe is 100% consistent with checkerboard AND frame packing comparisons. Using the emitter emulation dll I got Nvidia's checkerboard working. There is no difference visually (other than stereoscopic methods) than IZ3D's and DDD's checkerboard outputs. Let me ask you, have YOU used checkerboard output from IZ3D/DDD extensively? Are there any difference's in Nvidia's implementation that you can specifically point out that I'm not aware of? Coming from a Radeon 5870, i used checkerboard and SBS from IZ3D/DDD on my Samsung 7000 series 3DTV for nearly a year. Switching over to a GTX 570 and trying your mod (good job by the way, but you seem too overly sensitive to anyone that disagrees with your 1-2% findings), I'm letting you know I see a sizable improvement from checkerboard to frame packing AND frame sequential (there is much less of a difference in certain situations, which I explained already) ...this is coming from gaming almost exclusively with CB/SBS for practically a year. Does this have something to do with Nvidia possibly not having great full HD in the first place? (Maybe it's just me, but i thought AMD HD3D had better overall picture quality and color saturation regardless of video processing/PC mode, too bad AMD HD3D is basically worth **** and too buggy, even with DDD). Still, after starting with Skyrim with IZ3D/SBS and DDD/CB, I found Nvidia's FP AND FS to be much more pleasing to the eye, even when compared to Nvidia's CB. Only when the environment/screen is dark/monochromatic does the difference fall considerably.





Where did you see my " absurd denial"?

If one "slices it" by pixel count, of course there are half as many pixels in CB vs FS or FP. If one slices it by visual perception, there is vanishingly small *perceived* resolution loss, certainly not half.





Well of course you are talking in purely arbitrary terms, so nobody can say you're wrong. I will say that if your characterization of "quite significant" is 1-2%, then I would not disagree.



I'm not denying the fact that given the right conditions, the right scene, 2-3 hours of time to examine two side by side scenes, and a large enough microscope, one can find 4-5 pixels in the FS shot that are missing in the CB shot of the same scene. I know this because I went back and forth in ten or so games before I found the "smoking gun", a scene where sure enough, there was a tiny bit of aliasing in CB that didn't exist in FS. Mind you, this was on exactly one diagonal line about two inches long, maybe .01% of the entire screen. On every other scene I compared, no difference whatsoever. I would characterize this difference as 'tiny'. If you want to characterize the same comparison as HUGE, go right ahead.





Care to share what specific games? And more precisely, what environments? You know, I all ready explained myself in detail regarding the differences I found. You simply choose to be as vague and beligerant as possible. PLEASE give specifics. Not only that, please DIRECTLY respond to my post here, which you've ignored for some reason:





What I've noticed is that darker, somewhat monochromatic game environments (like caves, dungeons, industrial settings, etc..) offer neglible differences between checkerboard (or any half resolution mode for that matter)and full HD. This is because the darker pixels (or pixels within the same color variance)are swaddled amongst each other with nearly the same pixel accuracy as a full HD frame. Since I'm playing Skyrim I notice this effect in the underground caves, I'm amazed how similar checkboard and 1080p 3D @ 24hz look (both high quality).



However, in environments with huge differences in pixel contrast and color hue (like rocky/grassy/road textures in daylight), there is a sizable difference in resolution quality that goes beyond aliased geometry. This is more noticable in some games than others. Gothic 3 and Gothic Forsaken Gods shows this most in my playing experience, there is a HUGE difference in checkerboard, side by side (tested with IZ3D, DDD) and 1080p 24hz (IZ3D, DDD, Nvidia) on my Samsung TV. I also notice this in the outside landscape in Skyrim, half resolution does make a difference (the only exception to this is when it snows, because again the pixels are basically monochromatic and the differences in resolution suddenly becomes much less noticable).








Let me see if I understand you....you're saying that if I'm right, then 640x360 would be indistinguishable from 1920x1080? By this logic, the absurdity of 640x360 looking like 1920x1080 is proof that the proposition that native res CB looking very close to native res FS is absurd. Is this your stradegy to prove my claim is absurd?

Your parallel is bogus for the most obvious of reasons. These other res are not native resolution, in fact, they are scaled. Of course scaled low res images will show a big difference vs native res, but that does not prove anything about native res CB vs native res FS.





No you did not understand me. Since you can't qualify your statements with qualitative data and can only provide subjective reasoning, I wanted to uncover where the line is drawn according to your logic. If you can't tell the visual difference between CB at full HD FS at 1920x1080, then when does the difference occur? Notice I used correct aspect ratio resolutions that scale properly to a native resolution of 1920x1080. Scaling non-native images will not show a difference as long as the pixel mapping is proportionate...it's the reason why 1280x720 movies and games look picture perfect on a 1080p screen while 1366x768 looks like ass. Did you not know this? Basic LCD tech information.



So read my question again..."I haven't read any technical reasons from you why they there shouldn't be a difference other than "eyeballing" it. If that's the case, then what's stopping 640x360 checkerboard from looking as good as 1920x1080p full HD?"



I'll even make it easier for you. Use 1280x720 checkerboard instead (I already know the answer to this, I want to see how you explain yourself).







I'm pressing this point for one reason: while mathematics suggest that there is a visual 50% degradation when going from FS to CB, the difference in percieved res loss is only 1-2%. Noobies and other unsuspecting people who don't understand this may be fooled into making a very big mistake when making a considerable purchase. These people are my audience, not you, not your agenda.

To these people, I would say do your own research an see that the "Huge difference" charactreization is in sharp contradiction to what others are reporting, and don't be swayed by "proof by mathematics". So while there is a 50% loss in pixel count, the actual visual loss is tiny.









And what agenda is that? I'm trying to let you know YOUR opinion doesn't correlate to my own. In fact, I find your stance rather insulting to anyone who has enjoyed 3D gaming for years (like I have, since before 3D Vision). Anyone who has used checkerboard for years knows exactly what I'm talking about, it's even rather (ironically) insulting for you to insinuate that "noobs" should just take your opinion at face value (great marketing).



Here is a good place to start:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925



Try to find a single post that agrees with the "Huge difference" characterization.

And most importantly, notice that exposed has failed to provide a screen shot that illustrates this "Huge difference" even though I requested one.





Peddling your own mod thread with a just a fractional consortium as "evidence" is reaching. I am one of the people that don't share your "it's only a 1-2%" difference. I can see a bigger once. What's the problem? I have the same TV as you, the same software, we have the same Nvidia graphic card series, why's it so hard to accept? You want an unbiased debate in a neutral site? Start up a new thread at MTBS3D where an entire community of experienced personnel can give you proper input/feedback. Especially your thoughts on checkerboard vs full HD. You know, there was a Tom's Hardware reviewer that swore up and down that Tridef's Virtual 3D mode (z buffer based depth, or fake depth a la Crysis 2) was just as good as 3D Vision, even at high depth. Like you, despite putting down specifics and using analytical data, he simply "eyeballed" his findings, and backed up his beliefs within the comfort of his own forums. On MTBS3D however, common sense bore that thick fog ignorance.



BTW, how do you propose I take a screenshot? Screenshots don't capture the output method, as far as I know. Furthermore, have you bothered to test the specific games and situations that [b]I/b] requested?

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#47
Posted 12/13/2011 02:12 AM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1323742331' post='1341533']
Let me ask you, have YOU used checkerboard output from IZ3D/DDD extensively? Are there any difference's in Nvidia's implementation that you can specifically point out that I'm not aware of?[/quote]
Yes and yes, significant differences. that's why I don't recommend triDef 3D or iZ3D (especially iZ3D). But this is a nvidia CB vs nvidia FS comparison, not a TD/iZ3D comparison so what's the relevance?
[quote]you seem too overly sensitive to anyone that disagrees with your 1-2% findings)[/quote]
"Anyone"?? You mean those hordes of people who claim that there's a "big difference"? Oh wait, no one making that claim except you! No one else is disagreeing with me!
FrancoMG quote:
"I also tried FS 1080p60hz and couldn't tell the difference between CB and FS in overall 3D quality"
see this and other similar posts here:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925

[quote] I'm letting you know I see a sizable improvement from checkerboard to frame packing AND frame sequential (there is much less of a difference in certain situations, which I explained already) ...this is coming from gaming almost exclusively with CB/SBS for practically a year.[/quote]
So you conveniently left out the part that you're really comparing DDD and iZ3D CB to nvidia FS. And on AMD hardware no less! I'd say your "Huge difference" claim is pretty much irrelevant here in the nvidia forum.

[quote]Still, after starting with Skyrim with IZ3D/SBS and DDD/CB, I found Nvidia's FP AND FS to be much more pleasing to the eye, even when compared to Nvidia's CB. Only when the environment/screen is dark/monochromatic does the difference fall considerably.[/quote]
So, this entire discussion is invalid.

[quote]Care to share what specific games? And more precisely, what environments? You know, I all ready explained myself in detail regarding the differences I found.[/quote]
Portal2, MW2, Bulletstorm, DukeNukem, Metro2033, Fear 2, CoD Black ops, Medal of Honor 2010, Bioshock, Bioshock 2....these come to mind right away, there are others.
[quote]You simply choose to be as vague and beligerant as possible.[/quote]
How so?
[quote] please DIRECTLY respond to my post here, which you've ignored for some reason:[/quote]
I didn't ignore it. I'm in agreement so there was no reason to respond:
[i]
What I've noticed is that darker, somewhat monochromatic game environments (like caves, dungeons, industrial settings, etc..) offer neglible differences between checkerboard (or any half resolution mode for that matter)and full HD. This is because the darker pixels (or pixels within the same color variance)are swaddled amongst each other with nearly the same pixel accuracy as a full HD frame. Since I'm playing Skyrim I notice this effect in the underground caves, I'm amazed how similar checkboard and 1080p 3D @ 24hz look (both high quality).[/i]

I said that *every game* is virtually the same quality CB vs FS. Sure, I didn't list every game I've played, but my statement applied to all games in all types of scenes so lack of the list isn't being evasive.

[quote][i]However, in environments with huge differences in pixel contrast and color hue (like rocky/grassy/road textures in daylight), there is a sizable difference in resolution quality that goes beyond aliased geometry. This is more noticable in some games than others. Gothic 3 and Gothic Forsaken Gods shows this most in my playing experience, there is a HUGE difference in checkerboard, side by side (tested with IZ3D, DDD) and 1080p 24hz (IZ3D, DDD, Nvidia) on my Samsung TV. I also notice this in the outside landscape in Skyrim, half resolution does make a difference (the only exception to this is when it snows, because again the pixels are basically monochromatic and the differences in resolution suddenly becomes much less noticable).[/i][/quote]
No comment on non-Nvidia comparisons.
[quote]No you did not understand me. Since you can't qualify your statements with qualitative data[/quote]
What???? These are CHARACTERIZATIONS....There is no qualitative data, it's all subjective and arbitrary!

[quote]So read my question again...[i]"I haven't read any technical reasons from you why they there shouldn't be a difference other than "eyeballing" it. If that's the case, then what's stopping 640x360 checkerboard from looking as good as 1920x1080p full HD?[/i]"[/quote]
I answered this already. 640x360 isn't 1 to 1 mapped, that's why your example is bogus.
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1323742331' post='1341533']

Let me ask you, have YOU used checkerboard output from IZ3D/DDD extensively? Are there any difference's in Nvidia's implementation that you can specifically point out that I'm not aware of?

Yes and yes, significant differences. that's why I don't recommend triDef 3D or iZ3D (especially iZ3D). But this is a nvidia CB vs nvidia FS comparison, not a TD/iZ3D comparison so what's the relevance?

you seem too overly sensitive to anyone that disagrees with your 1-2% findings)


"Anyone"?? You mean those hordes of people who claim that there's a "big difference"? Oh wait, no one making that claim except you! No one else is disagreeing with me!

FrancoMG quote:

"I also tried FS 1080p60hz and couldn't tell the difference between CB and FS in overall 3D quality"

see this and other similar posts here:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925



I'm letting you know I see a sizable improvement from checkerboard to frame packing AND frame sequential (there is much less of a difference in certain situations, which I explained already) ...this is coming from gaming almost exclusively with CB/SBS for practically a year.


So you conveniently left out the part that you're really comparing DDD and iZ3D CB to nvidia FS. And on AMD hardware no less! I'd say your "Huge difference" claim is pretty much irrelevant here in the nvidia forum.



Still, after starting with Skyrim with IZ3D/SBS and DDD/CB, I found Nvidia's FP AND FS to be much more pleasing to the eye, even when compared to Nvidia's CB. Only when the environment/screen is dark/monochromatic does the difference fall considerably.


So, this entire discussion is invalid.



Care to share what specific games? And more precisely, what environments? You know, I all ready explained myself in detail regarding the differences I found.


Portal2, MW2, Bulletstorm, DukeNukem, Metro2033, Fear 2, CoD Black ops, Medal of Honor 2010, Bioshock, Bioshock 2....these come to mind right away, there are others.

You simply choose to be as vague and beligerant as possible.


How so?

please DIRECTLY respond to my post here, which you've ignored for some reason:


I didn't ignore it. I'm in agreement so there was no reason to respond:



What I've noticed is that darker, somewhat monochromatic game environments (like caves, dungeons, industrial settings, etc..) offer neglible differences between checkerboard (or any half resolution mode for that matter)and full HD. This is because the darker pixels (or pixels within the same color variance)are swaddled amongst each other with nearly the same pixel accuracy as a full HD frame. Since I'm playing Skyrim I notice this effect in the underground caves, I'm amazed how similar checkboard and 1080p 3D @ 24hz look (both high quality).




I said that *every game* is virtually the same quality CB vs FS. Sure, I didn't list every game I've played, but my statement applied to all games in all types of scenes so lack of the list isn't being evasive.



However, in environments with huge differences in pixel contrast and color hue (like rocky/grassy/road textures in daylight), there is a sizable difference in resolution quality that goes beyond aliased geometry. This is more noticable in some games than others. Gothic 3 and Gothic Forsaken Gods shows this most in my playing experience, there is a HUGE difference in checkerboard, side by side (tested with IZ3D, DDD) and 1080p 24hz (IZ3D, DDD, Nvidia) on my Samsung TV. I also notice this in the outside landscape in Skyrim, half resolution does make a difference (the only exception to this is when it snows, because again the pixels are basically monochromatic and the differences in resolution suddenly becomes much less noticable).


No comment on non-Nvidia comparisons.

No you did not understand me. Since you can't qualify your statements with qualitative data


What???? These are CHARACTERIZATIONS....There is no qualitative data, it's all subjective and arbitrary!



So read my question again..."I haven't read any technical reasons from you why they there shouldn't be a difference other than "eyeballing" it. If that's the case, then what's stopping 640x360 checkerboard from looking as good as 1920x1080p full HD?"


I answered this already. 640x360 isn't 1 to 1 mapped, that's why your example is bogus.

#48
Posted 12/13/2011 05:27 AM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1323742331' post='1341533']Use 1280x720 checkerboard instead (I already know the answer to this, I want to see how you explain yourself).[/quote]
1280x720 isn't CB or even an integral divisor of 1920x1080, there's nothing to explain.

[quote] it's even rather (ironically) insulting for you to insinuate that "noobs" should just take your opinion at face value (great marketing).[/quote]
I never said "just take my word for it". In fact, I said the opposite. I said to read what others have said on this matter and note that nobody agrees with

you.
[quote]BTW, how do you propose I take a screenshot? Screenshots don't capture the output method, as far as I know. Furthermore, have you bothered to test the

specific games and situations that [b]I/b] requested?
[/quote]
You're asking me to quantify something that can't be quantified, and yet you refuse to post an objective CB vs FS screen shot that will conclusively prove your case?
In game, hit Alt + F1. The pic will be a seperate L and R image stored here:
C:\Users\name\Documents\NVStereoscopic3D.IMG
If there really is a BIG difference, we'll see a difference in the pixel map independant of the output method. I don't have any of the games you mentioned, and it wouldn't help if I did because I couldn't duplicate the particular scene you are refering to.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not impeaching you, that's impossible because you are speaking in purely arbitrary terms, so there's no metric to hold up to see who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'. That's the nature of arbitrary subjective characterizations.
If you want to tell people there's a HUGE difference between DDD/iZ3D CB mode and nvidia FS, go right ahead. I would say there's a tiny difference. I just want unsuspecting people who are conditioned to the mantra "50% less pixles = 50% visual degradation" to know it isn't so, don't buy into this "proof by mathematics".
[quote name='Exposed' date='12 December 2011 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1323742331' post='1341533']Use 1280x720 checkerboard instead (I already know the answer to this, I want to see how you explain yourself).

1280x720 isn't CB or even an integral divisor of 1920x1080, there's nothing to explain.



it's even rather (ironically) insulting for you to insinuate that "noobs" should just take your opinion at face value (great marketing).


I never said "just take my word for it". In fact, I said the opposite. I said to read what others have said on this matter and note that nobody agrees with



you.

BTW, how do you propose I take a screenshot? Screenshots don't capture the output method, as far as I know. Furthermore, have you bothered to test the



specific games and situations that [b]I/b] requested?



You're asking me to quantify something that can't be quantified, and yet you refuse to post an objective CB vs FS screen shot that will conclusively prove your case?

In game, hit Alt + F1. The pic will be a seperate L and R image stored here:

C:\Users\name\Documents\NVStereoscopic3D.IMG

If there really is a BIG difference, we'll see a difference in the pixel map independant of the output method. I don't have any of the games you mentioned, and it wouldn't help if I did because I couldn't duplicate the particular scene you are refering to.



Don't misunderstand me, I'm not impeaching you, that's impossible because you are speaking in purely arbitrary terms, so there's no metric to hold up to see who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'. That's the nature of arbitrary subjective characterizations.

If you want to tell people there's a HUGE difference between DDD/iZ3D CB mode and nvidia FS, go right ahead. I would say there's a tiny difference. I just want unsuspecting people who are conditioned to the mantra "50% less pixles = 50% visual degradation" to know it isn't so, don't buy into this "proof by mathematics".

#49
Posted 12/13/2011 05:37 AM   
[quote name='roller11' date='13 December 2011 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1323754051' post='1341604']
Yes and yes, significant differences. that's why I don't recommend triDef 3D or iZ3D (especially iZ3D). But this is a nvidia CB vs nvidia FS comparison, not a TD/iZ3D comparison so what's the relevance?
[/quote]

Skimming through my posts again? I see you've been arguing with others as well. Please try to stay on topic in the threads you do participate, like this one.

Let me ask again: [i]Let me ask you, have YOU used checkerboard output from IZ3D/DDD extensively? Are there any difference's in Nvidia's implementation that you can specifically point out that I'm not aware of?[/i]

You said there were significant differences in checkerboard output between the three. Please list them as requested.

[quote]

"Anyone"?? You mean those hordes of people who claim that there's a "big difference"? Oh wait, no one making that claim except you! No one else is disagreeing with me!
FrancoMG quote:
"I also tried FS 1080p60hz and couldn't tell the difference between CB and FS in overall 3D quality"
see this and other similar posts here:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925

[/quote]

Hordes of people??

You have ONE person (Francomg) that's championing your cause, the 3 or 4 others that also used your mod did so for the faster framerates that checkerboard offers or 1080p 30hz full HD. Where are these "hordes" of people claiming checkerboard is just as good as FS 1080p? Not only that, you managed to argue with a few people who doubt your claims!?!?

You know, there are also countless people who also claim Zalman's 3D monitor (also half resolution interlaced) is just as good as a full HD monitor. And there are Tri-def enthusiasts who claim Tridef's Virtual 3D mode is just as good as 3D Vision. And there are some individuals that claim checkerboard is just as good as full resolution HD (like yourself). Does it make it overwhelmingly true because you and a small sampling of people feel the same way compared to another sampling of people who feel otherwise?

Guess what, I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO USED YOUR MOD AND CAN SEE A SIZEABLE DIFFERENCE IN CB AND FS!!

So why do you ignore me in your (tiny) sampling?

There's alot of views on checkerboard vs full HD 1080P. Covered quite extensively in fact across various forums over the years. Maybe you should read some of them to gain a bit of understanding as to why people have varying views using the same technology.

[quote]

So you conveniently left out the part that you're really comparing DDD and iZ3D CB to nvidia FS. And on AMD hardware no less! I'd say your "Huge difference" claim is pretty much irrelevant here in the nvidia forum.


So, this entire discussion is invalid.

[/quote]

Umm no. There's that skim reading again. I'm comparing Nvidia's checkerboard to Frame Sequential using your very own mod. I used prior experience as a reference to relate and correlate my findings. Nvidia's checkerboard output is identical to IZ3D/DDD (the only difference being the methods of stereoscopic separation). This is important because it stresses there is nothing "special" going on with Nvidia to make checkerboard "look just as good" as full resolution FS. Want to prove me wrong? Then please tell me the technical differences between Nvidia's checkerboard pattern to IZ3D's or DDD's that makes it so "special."

[quote]
Portal2, MW2, Bulletstorm, DukeNukem, Metro2033, Fear 2, CoD Black ops, Medal of Honor 2010, Bioshock, Bioshock 2....these come to mind right away, there are others.

[/quote]

Getting closer. You're still not giving me specific details like I did for my game examples. BTW, games like Bioshock 1 @ 2, Fear 2, Metro 2033 have alot of darker or monochromatic environments that lessens the resolution difference impact during 3D gaming, as I explained in my examples above.

[quote]
How so?

I didn't ignore it. I'm in agreement so there was no reason to respond:
[i]
What I've noticed is that darker, somewhat monochromatic game environments (like caves, dungeons, industrial settings, etc..) offer neglible differences between checkerboard (or any half resolution mode for that matter)and full HD. This is because the darker pixels (or pixels within the same color variance)are swaddled amongst each other with nearly the same pixel accuracy as a full HD frame. Since I'm playing Skyrim I notice this effect in the underground caves, I'm amazed how similar checkboard and 1080p 3D @ 24hz look (both high quality).[/i]

[/quote]

Well now there's a contradiction. You AGREE with my findings, yet you also state:

[i]
I said that *every game* is virtually the same quality CB vs FS. Sure, I didn't list every game I've played, but my statement applied to all games in all types of scenes so lack of the list isn't being evasive.]/i]

How could every game be virtually the same quality CB vs FS if you agree with my findings on various texture detail/environments?

[quote]

No comment on non-Nvidia comparisons.

[/quote]

This is evasive. Applies to 100% Nvidia CB vs FS. Same artifacts (or texture aliasing I should say) occurs with Gothic 4/Gothic 3 Skyrim daylight outdoors that's just plainly eliminated with full HD FS.

[quote]

What???? These are CHARACTERIZATIONS....There is no qualitative data, it's all subjective and arbitrary!
[/quote]

If it's all subjective and arbitrary then why do you not only insist FS is only 1-2% better than CB, but also lambasts anyone that disagrees with that notion? Such as bullish stance REQUIRES you to provide qualitive data, otherwise simply respect other people's opinions and don't force your opinion as fact.

[quote]
I answered this already. 640x360 isn't 1 to 1 mapped, that's why your example is bogus.
[/quote]

Evading my point again. I simply want to explore the boundaries of your logic. 1080p CB as good as 1080p FS? How about 720p CB? 480p CB? Where is the boundary? These resolutions don't have to be 1:1 mapped. 720p looks "perfect" on a 1080p display (with no non-native artifacts) despite not being mapped 1:1 (do yourself a favor a read why this is a possible). So tell me again, and don't evade this time, what's stopping 1280x720 CB from looking as good 1080p FS? Or 640x360? Where is the boundary drawn from 1080 CB to 640 CB and WHY is it that way? (Has nothing to do with 1:1 mapping, so please don't bring it up).
[quote name='roller11' date='13 December 2011 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1323754051' post='1341604']

Yes and yes, significant differences. that's why I don't recommend triDef 3D or iZ3D (especially iZ3D). But this is a nvidia CB vs nvidia FS comparison, not a TD/iZ3D comparison so what's the relevance?





Skimming through my posts again? I see you've been arguing with others as well. Please try to stay on topic in the threads you do participate, like this one.



Let me ask again: Let me ask you, have YOU used checkerboard output from IZ3D/DDD extensively? Are there any difference's in Nvidia's implementation that you can specifically point out that I'm not aware of?



You said there were significant differences in checkerboard output between the three. Please list them as requested.







"Anyone"?? You mean those hordes of people who claim that there's a "big difference"? Oh wait, no one making that claim except you! No one else is disagreeing with me!

FrancoMG quote:

"I also tried FS 1080p60hz and couldn't tell the difference between CB and FS in overall 3D quality"

see this and other similar posts here:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=200925







Hordes of people??



You have ONE person (Francomg) that's championing your cause, the 3 or 4 others that also used your mod did so for the faster framerates that checkerboard offers or 1080p 30hz full HD. Where are these "hordes" of people claiming checkerboard is just as good as FS 1080p? Not only that, you managed to argue with a few people who doubt your claims!?!?



You know, there are also countless people who also claim Zalman's 3D monitor (also half resolution interlaced) is just as good as a full HD monitor. And there are Tri-def enthusiasts who claim Tridef's Virtual 3D mode is just as good as 3D Vision. And there are some individuals that claim checkerboard is just as good as full resolution HD (like yourself). Does it make it overwhelmingly true because you and a small sampling of people feel the same way compared to another sampling of people who feel otherwise?



Guess what, I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO USED YOUR MOD AND CAN SEE A SIZEABLE DIFFERENCE IN CB AND FS!!



So why do you ignore me in your (tiny) sampling?



There's alot of views on checkerboard vs full HD 1080P. Covered quite extensively in fact across various forums over the years. Maybe you should read some of them to gain a bit of understanding as to why people have varying views using the same technology.







So you conveniently left out the part that you're really comparing DDD and iZ3D CB to nvidia FS. And on AMD hardware no less! I'd say your "Huge difference" claim is pretty much irrelevant here in the nvidia forum.





So, this entire discussion is invalid.







Umm no. There's that skim reading again. I'm comparing Nvidia's checkerboard to Frame Sequential using your very own mod. I used prior experience as a reference to relate and correlate my findings. Nvidia's checkerboard output is identical to IZ3D/DDD (the only difference being the methods of stereoscopic separation). This is important because it stresses there is nothing "special" going on with Nvidia to make checkerboard "look just as good" as full resolution FS. Want to prove me wrong? Then please tell me the technical differences between Nvidia's checkerboard pattern to IZ3D's or DDD's that makes it so "special."





Portal2, MW2, Bulletstorm, DukeNukem, Metro2033, Fear 2, CoD Black ops, Medal of Honor 2010, Bioshock, Bioshock 2....these come to mind right away, there are others.







Getting closer. You're still not giving me specific details like I did for my game examples. BTW, games like Bioshock 1 @ 2, Fear 2, Metro 2033 have alot of darker or monochromatic environments that lessens the resolution difference impact during 3D gaming, as I explained in my examples above.





How so?



I didn't ignore it. I'm in agreement so there was no reason to respond:



What I've noticed is that darker, somewhat monochromatic game environments (like caves, dungeons, industrial settings, etc..) offer neglible differences between checkerboard (or any half resolution mode for that matter)and full HD. This is because the darker pixels (or pixels within the same color variance)are swaddled amongst each other with nearly the same pixel accuracy as a full HD frame. Since I'm playing Skyrim I notice this effect in the underground caves, I'm amazed how similar checkboard and 1080p 3D @ 24hz look (both high quality).








Well now there's a contradiction. You AGREE with my findings, yet you also state:



[i]

I said that *every game* is virtually the same quality CB vs FS. Sure, I didn't list every game I've played, but my statement applied to all games in all types of scenes so lack of the list isn't being evasive.]/i]



How could every game be virtually the same quality CB vs FS if you agree with my findings on various texture detail/environments?







No comment on non-Nvidia comparisons.







This is evasive. Applies to 100% Nvidia CB vs FS. Same artifacts (or texture aliasing I should say) occurs with Gothic 4/Gothic 3 Skyrim daylight outdoors that's just plainly eliminated with full HD FS.







What???? These are CHARACTERIZATIONS....There is no qualitative data, it's all subjective and arbitrary!





If it's all subjective and arbitrary then why do you not only insist FS is only 1-2% better than CB, but also lambasts anyone that disagrees with that notion? Such as bullish stance REQUIRES you to provide qualitive data, otherwise simply respect other people's opinions and don't force your opinion as fact.





I answered this already. 640x360 isn't 1 to 1 mapped, that's why your example is bogus.





Evading my point again. I simply want to explore the boundaries of your logic. 1080p CB as good as 1080p FS? How about 720p CB? 480p CB? Where is the boundary? These resolutions don't have to be 1:1 mapped. 720p looks "perfect" on a 1080p display (with no non-native artifacts) despite not being mapped 1:1 (do yourself a favor a read why this is a possible). So tell me again, and don't evade this time, what's stopping 1280x720 CB from looking as good 1080p FS? Or 640x360? Where is the boundary drawn from 1080 CB to 640 CB and WHY is it that way? (Has nothing to do with 1:1 mapping, so please don't bring it up).

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#50
Posted 12/14/2011 10:55 AM   
[quote name='roller11' date='13 December 2011 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1323754641' post='1341608']
1280x720 isn't CB or even an integral divisor of 1920x1080, there's nothing to explain.


I never said "just take my word for it". In fact, I said the opposite. I said to read what others have said on this matter and note that nobody agrees with

you.

You're asking me to quantify something that can't be quantified, and yet you refuse to post an objective CB vs FS screen shot that will conclusively prove your case?
In game, hit Alt + F1. The pic will be a seperate L and R image stored here:
C:\Users\name\Documents\NVStereoscopic3D.IMG
If there really is a BIG difference, we'll see a difference in the pixel map independant of the output method. I don't have any of the games you mentioned, and it wouldn't help if I did because I couldn't duplicate the particular scene you are refering to.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not impeaching you, that's impossible because you are speaking in purely arbitrary terms, so there's no metric to hold up to see who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'. That's the nature of arbitrary subjective characterizations.
If you want to tell people there's a HUGE difference between DDD/iZ3D CB mode and nvidia FS, go right ahead. I would say there's a tiny difference. I just want unsuspecting people who are conditioned to the mantra "50% less pixles = 50% visual degradation" to know it isn't so, don't buy into this "proof by mathematics".
[/quote]

I'm not saying a 50% reduction in pixels results in a 50% reduction in visual quality, but I disagree with the notion that it's simply 1-2% either because I can detect noticable differences with my very own eyes. I don't even want to put a number on it. It's just THERE. In some scenes, it's not as noticeable due to the game environment as I described prior. In other scenes, it can be a distraction. The worse case scenarios are "noisy" textures where every pixel counts (roads, some grassy textures, detailed alpha textures) and distant backdrops. If there isn't alot of these, I can understand the opinion there's not much difference, but I just can't see how someone can claim only 1-2% difference for ALL games despite the shortcomings (which are not arbitrary) described above.

BTW, taking screenshots for this particular purpose is worthless if the checkerboard output isn't captured.
[quote name='roller11' date='13 December 2011 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1323754641' post='1341608']

1280x720 isn't CB or even an integral divisor of 1920x1080, there's nothing to explain.





I never said "just take my word for it". In fact, I said the opposite. I said to read what others have said on this matter and note that nobody agrees with



you.



You're asking me to quantify something that can't be quantified, and yet you refuse to post an objective CB vs FS screen shot that will conclusively prove your case?

In game, hit Alt + F1. The pic will be a seperate L and R image stored here:

C:\Users\name\Documents\NVStereoscopic3D.IMG

If there really is a BIG difference, we'll see a difference in the pixel map independant of the output method. I don't have any of the games you mentioned, and it wouldn't help if I did because I couldn't duplicate the particular scene you are refering to.



Don't misunderstand me, I'm not impeaching you, that's impossible because you are speaking in purely arbitrary terms, so there's no metric to hold up to see who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'. That's the nature of arbitrary subjective characterizations.

If you want to tell people there's a HUGE difference between DDD/iZ3D CB mode and nvidia FS, go right ahead. I would say there's a tiny difference. I just want unsuspecting people who are conditioned to the mantra "50% less pixles = 50% visual degradation" to know it isn't so, don't buy into this "proof by mathematics".





I'm not saying a 50% reduction in pixels results in a 50% reduction in visual quality, but I disagree with the notion that it's simply 1-2% either because I can detect noticable differences with my very own eyes. I don't even want to put a number on it. It's just THERE. In some scenes, it's not as noticeable due to the game environment as I described prior. In other scenes, it can be a distraction. The worse case scenarios are "noisy" textures where every pixel counts (roads, some grassy textures, detailed alpha textures) and distant backdrops. If there isn't alot of these, I can understand the opinion there's not much difference, but I just can't see how someone can claim only 1-2% difference for ALL games despite the shortcomings (which are not arbitrary) described above.



BTW, taking screenshots for this particular purpose is worthless if the checkerboard output isn't captured.

PC Console

Thermaltake Lanbox Lite

Sandy Bridge Core i5 2500

MSI mATX H67 /w 4GB DDR3

Gigabyte GTX 570 OC (780Mhz)

46" Samsung 240hz LED 3DTV

Nvidia 3DTV Play / IZ3D / Tridef (yes all 3!)

Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse

Wireless XBox 360 controller

#51
Posted 12/14/2011 11:25 AM   
[quote name='Exposed' date='14 December 2011 - 04:25 AM' timestamp='1323861933' post='1342143']
but I just can't see how someone can claim only 1-2% difference for ALL games despite the shortcomings (which are not arbitrary) described above.[/quote]
The pixel count is not arbitrary, but characterizations are. That is, I can look at the same scene you look at and use the adjective "tiny" whereas you use the adjective "huge". Both of us could have used different adjectives, so the choice is aribtrary. I can say one million is a huge number. You can say one million is a tiny number, tiny and huge are characterizations. But if I say "one million is a prime number" then I'm just wrong. One million is a composite number, so the choice of 'prime' and 'composite' is not arbitrary.
[quote]BTW, taking screenshots for this particular purpose is worthless if the checkerboard output isn't captured.
[/quote]
Not worthless at all, in fact the opposite. While the SS captures the same image whether CB or FS ( L+R images both 1920x1080), one can view the difference between FS and CB with 3D Vision Photo viewer. This is exactly what happens in-game. I know this because I just tested it. I captured an image then I observed it in both CB and FS independently. When I observe in FS mode, I see a FS mode image that looks exactly like the image I see in FS mode in-game. Ditto CB mode when I look at the same image. Of course one can't get a simultaneous side by side comparison because you can be in only one mode or the other at any given time.
To see this, set your 3D mode to either DLP or CRT in the nvidia control panel. open the attached file from Bulletstorm in 3DV Photo Viewer, then go to view > stereo view (full screen). You will see the ss in whatever mode your NCP is set to (DLP or CRT). Close, then go back to the NCP and make the other choice, repeat.
I'm not asking you to compare the attachment FS vs CB, of course you are going to say there's a HUGE difference. All I ask is that you send me a ss, either PM or in this thread, of these scenes you say illustrate these huge differences so I can see what you are talking about, I don't have any of those games (Skyrim would be cool, it's suppose to be awesome). Screenies are static so they amplify whatever differences there are. In-game, these differences all but disappear, that's why it took me so long to find any difference at all using in-game viewing.
[quote name='Exposed' date='14 December 2011 - 04:25 AM' timestamp='1323861933' post='1342143']

but I just can't see how someone can claim only 1-2% difference for ALL games despite the shortcomings (which are not arbitrary) described above.

The pixel count is not arbitrary, but characterizations are. That is, I can look at the same scene you look at and use the adjective "tiny" whereas you use the adjective "huge". Both of us could have used different adjectives, so the choice is aribtrary. I can say one million is a huge number. You can say one million is a tiny number, tiny and huge are characterizations. But if I say "one million is a prime number" then I'm just wrong. One million is a composite number, so the choice of 'prime' and 'composite' is not arbitrary.

BTW, taking screenshots for this particular purpose is worthless if the checkerboard output isn't captured.



Not worthless at all, in fact the opposite. While the SS captures the same image whether CB or FS ( L+R images both 1920x1080), one can view the difference between FS and CB with 3D Vision Photo viewer. This is exactly what happens in-game. I know this because I just tested it. I captured an image then I observed it in both CB and FS independently. When I observe in FS mode, I see a FS mode image that looks exactly like the image I see in FS mode in-game. Ditto CB mode when I look at the same image. Of course one can't get a simultaneous side by side comparison because you can be in only one mode or the other at any given time.

To see this, set your 3D mode to either DLP or CRT in the nvidia control panel. open the attached file from Bulletstorm in 3DV Photo Viewer, then go to view > stereo view (full screen). You will see the ss in whatever mode your NCP is set to (DLP or CRT). Close, then go back to the NCP and make the other choice, repeat.

I'm not asking you to compare the attachment FS vs CB, of course you are going to say there's a HUGE difference. All I ask is that you send me a ss, either PM or in this thread, of these scenes you say illustrate these huge differences so I can see what you are talking about, I don't have any of those games (Skyrim would be cool, it's suppose to be awesome). Screenies are static so they amplify whatever differences there are. In-game, these differences all but disappear, that's why it took me so long to find any difference at all using in-game viewing.

#52
Posted 12/14/2011 09:12 PM   
  4 / 4    
Scroll To Top