[quote name='boke' date='25 January 2012 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1327502049' post='1360417']
No it wouldn't. And that right there proves that you also should not be discussing this.
I have done a lot of 3d programming. You can easily adjust the aspect ratio so that it does not look stretched when the display stretches the image. That's a fact. Anyone who has done any programing related to 3d or 2d for that matter will tell you that.
[/quote]
Yes, you certainly CAN do that if you write the rendering engine.
Most rendering engines I know don't do that, they either use an all wrong FOV and/or use wrong scaling for the HUD if you use such a resolution, because they aim for one of the usual aspect ratios.
That's why if you make custom resolution, it's always a good idea to stick to the common aspect ratios the game is expecting, i.e. 5:4, 16:10 or 16:9.
Since the driver is trying to be compatible, the game is still rendering into a 1920x1080 buffer. Do you actually defute that? Then why are the games still showing a resolution setting of 1920x1080, when using 1080p CB and not 960x1080?
[quote name='boke' date='25 January 2012 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1327502049' post='1360417']
No it wouldn't. And that right there proves that you also should not be discussing this.
I have done a lot of 3d programming. You can easily adjust the aspect ratio so that it does not look stretched when the display stretches the image. That's a fact. Anyone who has done any programing related to 3d or 2d for that matter will tell you that.
Yes, you certainly CAN do that if you write the rendering engine.
Most rendering engines I know don't do that, they either use an all wrong FOV and/or use wrong scaling for the HUD if you use such a resolution, because they aim for one of the usual aspect ratios.
That's why if you make custom resolution, it's always a good idea to stick to the common aspect ratios the game is expecting, i.e. 5:4, 16:10 or 16:9.
Since the driver is trying to be compatible, the game is still rendering into a 1920x1080 buffer. Do you actually defute that? Then why are the games still showing a resolution setting of 1920x1080, when using 1080p CB and not 960x1080?
[quote name='simongski' date='25 January 2012 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1327502247' post='1360422']
So you're saying that when I use checkerboard by PC is actually rendering 1080p at 120 frames per second, and discarding half of each frame in order to be able combine frames to make 1080p at 60fps?
EDIT - this is aimed at grestorn.
[/quote]
A game doesn't render at a given framerate. It renders as many pictures as it can in a certain amount of time (disregarding VSync here to keep it simple).
Limiting the TRANSFER of the images to 24 frames per second will also LIMIT the game to that framerate.
With 3D Vision, each frame is rendered twice (one for each eye), but the game doesn't even realize that (the rendering pipeline is executed once, but the driver generates two separate images out of it).
The target frame buffer MUST have 1920x1080 for each image, otherwise you'd break the compatibility with the game completely, because that's what the game expects it to be.
After both images have been rendered, the driver combines them into a single 1920x1080 frame, using pixels alternating from each of the generated images.
[quote name='simongski' date='25 January 2012 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1327502247' post='1360422']
So you're saying that when I use checkerboard by PC is actually rendering 1080p at 120 frames per second, and discarding half of each frame in order to be able combine frames to make 1080p at 60fps?
EDIT - this is aimed at grestorn.
A game doesn't render at a given framerate. It renders as many pictures as it can in a certain amount of time (disregarding VSync here to keep it simple).
Limiting the TRANSFER of the images to 24 frames per second will also LIMIT the game to that framerate.
With 3D Vision, each frame is rendered twice (one for each eye), but the game doesn't even realize that (the rendering pipeline is executed once, but the driver generates two separate images out of it).
The target frame buffer MUST have 1920x1080 for each image, otherwise you'd break the compatibility with the game completely, because that's what the game expects it to be.
After both images have been rendered, the driver combines them into a single 1920x1080 frame, using pixels alternating from each of the generated images.
LOL why are people trying to convince people they are wrong. That people who have tried 720p mode and 1080 checkerboard and found that they enjoyed 1080 checkerboard more. That they are wrong.
@grestorn
It doesnt matter how tech. it is bad. If you haven't tried it you have no right to speak ill of it. This is how the negativity of 3d gaming is. People speak ill of it and haven't even tried it. Set it up, try it out, then post. Maybe what you say is true. Till then its ignorance.
I had no problem with op having a problem and not liking rollermod. I have a problem with his incorrect facts. I had a problem with him telling everyone that they are wrong and he is right. That though they like 1080 checker board more then 720p they are wrong. You are doing the same thing grestorn.
Do I use 1080 checkermode?Nope. Do I believe people enjoy 1080checkermode over 720p(especially since they have to sacrifice fps)?Yes.
Will I listen to someone who rants and hasn't even tried it?Nope
LOL why are people trying to convince people they are wrong. That people who have tried 720p mode and 1080 checkerboard and found that they enjoyed 1080 checkerboard more. That they are wrong.
@grestorn
It doesnt matter how tech. it is bad. If you haven't tried it you have no right to speak ill of it. This is how the negativity of 3d gaming is. People speak ill of it and haven't even tried it. Set it up, try it out, then post. Maybe what you say is true. Till then its ignorance.
I had no problem with op having a problem and not liking rollermod. I have a problem with his incorrect facts. I had a problem with him telling everyone that they are wrong and he is right. That though they like 1080 checker board more then 720p they are wrong. You are doing the same thing grestorn.
Do I use 1080 checkermode?Nope. Do I believe people enjoy 1080checkermode over 720p(especially since they have to sacrifice fps)?Yes.
Will I listen to someone who rants and hasn't even tried it?Nope
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Sigh. You are saying 720p is better then 1080checkermode but are unwilling to test the theory/facts whatever.
You are speaking ill of people who think 1080checkermode is better then 720p. That you know better then people who actually attempted it. I see tons of people on that huge thread about the mode where people have tried it and enjoyed it more.
I give up on this unproductive thread though so whatever.
Sigh. You are saying 720p is better then 1080checkermode but are unwilling to test the theory/facts whatever.
You are speaking ill of people who think 1080checkermode is better then 720p. That you know better then people who actually attempted it. I see tons of people on that huge thread about the mode where people have tried it and enjoyed it more.
I give up on this unproductive thread though so whatever.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
I just want to add a point (theorizing, i'm open for corrections): Checkerboard-3d @1080x1920 is half resolution. It's called checkerboard because half the squares are white (right) and the other half black (left).
The reason why checkerboard looks so much better than other interleaved/upscaled half-sbs etc is probably because the algorithm that upscales and filters the image works better with checkerboard interleaved. I can very well imagine that the result looks very close to full hd, both eyes.
I just want to add a point (theorizing, i'm open for corrections): Checkerboard-3d @1080x1920 is half resolution. It's called checkerboard because half the squares are white (right) and the other half black (left).
The reason why checkerboard looks so much better than other interleaved/upscaled half-sbs etc is probably because the algorithm that upscales and filters the image works better with checkerboard interleaved. I can very well imagine that the result looks very close to full hd, both eyes.
As a gamer, I don't care about theory, upscaling or "1920/1280 = 1080/720 = 1.5 /wallbash.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wallbash:' />". I only want the best experience when playing in 3D.
I've tried both 720p@60hz with 3DTVplay and 1080pCB with rollermod.
My EYES -not my brain- said that 1080pCB is A LOT better than 720p (actually, 3DTVplay sucks). Simple as that.
So people, [i]just test it[/i] and see it by yourself. Today, 1080pCB is the best way to play on a 3DTV (best balance between visual quality and FPS).
As a gamer, I don't care about theory, upscaling or "1920/1280 = 1080/720 = 1.5 /wallbash.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wallbash:' />". I only want the best experience when playing in 3D.
I've tried both 720p@60hz with 3DTVplay and 1080pCB with rollermod.
My EYES -not my brain- said that 1080pCB is A LOT better than 720p (actually, 3DTVplay sucks). Simple as that.
So people, just test it and see it by yourself. Today, 1080pCB is the best way to play on a 3DTV (best balance between visual quality and FPS).
Interesting discussion guys, there's definitely a lot of great information mixed in with the heated debate and definitely merits to both sides of the argument. I would agree though, that much like anything else with 3D it will come down to the individual user's preference based on what their eyes tell their brain rather than the other way around.
I personally think CB is the better method because it avoids one of the greatest pitfalls we've seen since LCDs became mainstream, non-native resolution scaling, but it doesn't come without a cost, as it incurs full performance penalty of 1080p compared to the 720p modes.
Also, to the guy calling out Grestorn's credibility....you may not agree with him, but he's been far more credible in the GeForce community for a lot longer than most people around here....
[quote name='Likay' date='25 January 2012 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1327507312' post='1360468']
I just want to add a point (theorizing, i'm open for corrections): Checkerboard-3d @1080x1920 is half resolution. It's called checkerboard because half the squares are white (right) and the other half black (left).
The reason why checkerboard looks so much better than other interleaved/upscaled half-sbs etc is probably because the algorithm that upscales and filters the image works better with checkerboard interleaved. I can very well imagine that the result looks very close to full hd, both eyes.
[/quote]
I think Nobsi explained it very well, anything natively rendered at 720p must scale at a factor of 1.5x for 1080p, and since the pixel array is fixed on LCDs, this will inevitably lead to blurring as a result of the interpolation. That's the biggest hurdle to overcome with 720p upscaling.
The second portion with the actual interleaved pixel array also favors CB because if you look at it conceptually, with a CB grid each interpolated pixel still has 4 pixels of actual data to sample. Unlike vertical or horizontal interlaced, which will only have 2 pixels to sample from as the 2 pixels above or below will also be blanks. If we apply what we know from anti-aliasing sampling methods, the obviously better result will come from 4 samples over 2, especially with ordered grids.
But there are still potential problems with text or UI elements or any line primitives which is what Grestorn was referring to using any interlaced method over framepacked 720p upscaled to 1080p.
Interesting discussion guys, there's definitely a lot of great information mixed in with the heated debate and definitely merits to both sides of the argument. I would agree though, that much like anything else with 3D it will come down to the individual user's preference based on what their eyes tell their brain rather than the other way around.
I personally think CB is the better method because it avoids one of the greatest pitfalls we've seen since LCDs became mainstream, non-native resolution scaling, but it doesn't come without a cost, as it incurs full performance penalty of 1080p compared to the 720p modes.
Also, to the guy calling out Grestorn's credibility....you may not agree with him, but he's been far more credible in the GeForce community for a lot longer than most people around here....
[quote name='Likay' date='25 January 2012 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1327507312' post='1360468']
I just want to add a point (theorizing, i'm open for corrections): Checkerboard-3d @1080x1920 is half resolution. It's called checkerboard because half the squares are white (right) and the other half black (left).
The reason why checkerboard looks so much better than other interleaved/upscaled half-sbs etc is probably because the algorithm that upscales and filters the image works better with checkerboard interleaved. I can very well imagine that the result looks very close to full hd, both eyes.
I think Nobsi explained it very well, anything natively rendered at 720p must scale at a factor of 1.5x for 1080p, and since the pixel array is fixed on LCDs, this will inevitably lead to blurring as a result of the interpolation. That's the biggest hurdle to overcome with 720p upscaling.
The second portion with the actual interleaved pixel array also favors CB because if you look at it conceptually, with a CB grid each interpolated pixel still has 4 pixels of actual data to sample. Unlike vertical or horizontal interlaced, which will only have 2 pixels to sample from as the 2 pixels above or below will also be blanks. If we apply what we know from anti-aliasing sampling methods, the obviously better result will come from 4 samples over 2, especially with ordered grids.
But there are still potential problems with text or UI elements or any line primitives which is what Grestorn was referring to using any interlaced method over framepacked 720p upscaled to 1080p.
[quote name='Laast' date='25 January 2012 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1327507594' post='1360472']
Hi all,
As a gamer, I don't care about theory, upscaling or "1920/1280 = 1080/720 = 1.5 /wallbash.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wallbash:' />". I only want the best experience when playing in 3D.
I've tried both 720p@60hz with 3DTVplay and 1080pCB with rollermod.
My EYES -not my brain- said that 1080pCB is A LOT better than 720p (actually, 3DTVplay sucks). Simple as that.
So people, [i]just test it[/i] and see it by yourself. Today, 1080pCB is the best way to play on a 3DTV (best balance between visual quality and FPS).
[/quote]
+1!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cound't have said any better.
Come on, folks should actually try out something before assuming things. Stop this non sense theory and try out Checkerboard at least once. See if you like better, stop with this technical non sense bogus. Nothing beats a field experience, not even hours and hours of reading the history of 3D and how it works. Try out, Experiment than comment about it.
I believe what my eyes and my brain tells me is more important than any other technical explanation based on pixels and mapping. My eyes tell me that CB 1080p is far superior to 720p frame packing. I can also see a quality difference compared to 1080p CB and 1080p frame packing or frame sequential (Generic CRT mode). Off course with full resolution per eye like Frame Packing or Frame Sequential we will have the crispy eye candy effect when playing games in 3D and graphics quality will look a lot a nicer for sure compared to CB or Interleaved modes that are half resolution per eye.
Now, I can see a HUGE difference comparing 720p frame packing vs 1080p Checkerboard, a big deal of difference. It doesn't matter 720p FP is full resolution per eye, cause it still 1280x720, so CB 1080p, will look like 1920x1080, not 720. Our eyes can notice a much bigger difference in native resolution vs 720p, than actaully the deal about full resolution per eye vs half. Thats my point!!!!
I'm not into so many technical details and english is not my native language, so I won't discuss these details, I just don't agree that 720p FP is better than 1080p CB and I bet anyone who actually have a chance to try out those 2 options will choose CB. The difference is so obvious!!!!
[quote name='Laast' date='25 January 2012 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1327507594' post='1360472']
Hi all,
As a gamer, I don't care about theory, upscaling or "1920/1280 = 1080/720 = 1.5 /wallbash.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wallbash:' />". I only want the best experience when playing in 3D.
I've tried both 720p@60hz with 3DTVplay and 1080pCB with rollermod.
My EYES -not my brain- said that 1080pCB is A LOT better than 720p (actually, 3DTVplay sucks). Simple as that.
So people, just test it and see it by yourself. Today, 1080pCB is the best way to play on a 3DTV (best balance between visual quality and FPS).
+1!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cound't have said any better.
Come on, folks should actually try out something before assuming things. Stop this non sense theory and try out Checkerboard at least once. See if you like better, stop with this technical non sense bogus. Nothing beats a field experience, not even hours and hours of reading the history of 3D and how it works. Try out, Experiment than comment about it.
I believe what my eyes and my brain tells me is more important than any other technical explanation based on pixels and mapping. My eyes tell me that CB 1080p is far superior to 720p frame packing. I can also see a quality difference compared to 1080p CB and 1080p frame packing or frame sequential (Generic CRT mode). Off course with full resolution per eye like Frame Packing or Frame Sequential we will have the crispy eye candy effect when playing games in 3D and graphics quality will look a lot a nicer for sure compared to CB or Interleaved modes that are half resolution per eye.
Now, I can see a HUGE difference comparing 720p frame packing vs 1080p Checkerboard, a big deal of difference. It doesn't matter 720p FP is full resolution per eye, cause it still 1280x720, so CB 1080p, will look like 1920x1080, not 720. Our eyes can notice a much bigger difference in native resolution vs 720p, than actaully the deal about full resolution per eye vs half. Thats my point!!!!
I'm not into so many technical details and english is not my native language, so I won't discuss these details, I just don't agree that 720p FP is better than 1080p CB and I bet anyone who actually have a chance to try out those 2 options will choose CB. The difference is so obvious!!!!
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
[quote]The second portion with the actual interleaved pixel array also favors CB because if you look at it conceptually, with a CB grid each interpolated pixel still has 4 pixels of actual data to sample. Unlike vertical or horizontal interlaced, which will only have 2 pixels to sample from as the 2 pixels above or below will also be blanks. If we apply what we know from anti-aliasing sampling methods, the obviously better result will come from 4 samples over 2, especially with ordered grids.[/quote]
Very good explanation. This may be the reason why I can sometimes hardly differ between checkerboard and full HD page flipping.
[quote]But there are still potential problems with text or UI elements or any line primitives which is what Grestorn was referring to using any interlaced method over framepacked 720p upscaled to 1080p.[/quote]
I understand this problem, but it will only occur with really very fine HUD elements. I did not notice this in any game I play though.
[quote]Come on, folks should actually try out something before assuming things.[/quote]
Well spoken! I will end my technical explanation here. Seeing is believing..
The second portion with the actual interleaved pixel array also favors CB because if you look at it conceptually, with a CB grid each interpolated pixel still has 4 pixels of actual data to sample. Unlike vertical or horizontal interlaced, which will only have 2 pixels to sample from as the 2 pixels above or below will also be blanks. If we apply what we know from anti-aliasing sampling methods, the obviously better result will come from 4 samples over 2, especially with ordered grids.
Very good explanation. This may be the reason why I can sometimes hardly differ between checkerboard and full HD page flipping.
But there are still potential problems with text or UI elements or any line primitives which is what Grestorn was referring to using any interlaced method over framepacked 720p upscaled to 1080p.
I understand this problem, but it will only occur with really very fine HUD elements. I did not notice this in any game I play though.
Come on, folks should actually try out something before assuming things.
Well spoken! I will end my technical explanation here. Seeing is believing..
Can someone with a display that can do all these modes please take some photos?
What we need is a camera, mounted on a Tripod (or totally unmoved and stable), to take a photograph, through the lens of a pair of 3D glasses (which also remain unmoved), at a small section of the screen, of the exact same image. Metro 2033s menu screen would be a good one since it doesn't move, yet i think the lights flicker in intensity, so its not the most ideal, but you get the idea. Contrary to what Roller11 says about a camera not being able to take a photo of the image, its not true and i've already disproved it with my own tinkering around with a cheap camera. I tried taking a photo of the whole screen and it clearly showed differences between 3D 1080p and 720p. A photo taken of a smaller portion of the screen should show much more detail.
To me in theory CB could be better looking than SBS, yet Roller has said they look the same. I'd really like to see a real comparison of these modes, and a [#$%!] camera is the only way to do it.
I'd also love to see all the modes with MSAA applied too.
ps. If anyone does this, make sure to experiment with what camera mode takes the clearest images first, then shoot all the photographs with that mode.
Can someone with a display that can do all these modes please take some photos?
What we need is a camera, mounted on a Tripod (or totally unmoved and stable), to take a photograph, through the lens of a pair of 3D glasses (which also remain unmoved), at a small section of the screen, of the exact same image. Metro 2033s menu screen would be a good one since it doesn't move, yet i think the lights flicker in intensity, so its not the most ideal, but you get the idea. Contrary to what Roller11 says about a camera not being able to take a photo of the image, its not true and i've already disproved it with my own tinkering around with a cheap camera. I tried taking a photo of the whole screen and it clearly showed differences between 3D 1080p and 720p. A photo taken of a smaller portion of the screen should show much more detail.
To me in theory CB could be better looking than SBS, yet Roller has said they look the same. I'd really like to see a real comparison of these modes, and a [#$%!] camera is the only way to do it.
I'd also love to see all the modes with MSAA applied too.
ps. If anyone does this, make sure to experiment with what camera mode takes the clearest images first, then shoot all the photographs with that mode.
Maybe it's just me but I can't tell any difference between Checkerboard vs Interleaved vs side-by-side. I own a 2010 Samsung TV Plasma C7000 that supports all 3D modes available in the market and I've played many games in these 3D modes. I'm not a technical guy that can explain details of how each 3D mode works like Nobsi and other clever users from thos thread, but I have a lot of field experience trying out games in all these 3D modes. CB, Interleaved and SBS are all half resolution per eye and I can't get really see any graphics difference. I've tried Batman AC and Just Cause 2 in Checkerboard using rollermod and also Interleaved using Zalman mod and I cound't see any difference at all using this 2 modes. I have also played Crysis 2 that have a in game 3D mode and supports interleaved and SBS modes, I've played the game using these 2 modes and still coudn't see any noticeable quality difference between these 2 modes. Maybe my eyes are not that sensitive.
But I can see a considerable difference in graphics quality when playing games using my Samsung 3DTV in Generic CRT mode (frame sequential 1920x1080 per eye) 1080p60hz = 30fps comparing it to DLP mode (Checkerboard 960x1080 per eye) 1080p60hz = 60fps
Checkerboard is really good for gaming, but the quality is not as good as page flipping frame sequentail mode. I can see the difference in details, for example playing Batman Arkham City, I can see much better the details in Batman's face, and other details that are really close to the screen, off course de scenario and building I can't really tell any difference between these modes. I guess full resolutiom per eye has a crispy eye candy effect so the image looks cleaner, you can see more details. Checkerboard is also good, but there's a difference, it doesn't look as good as frame sequential, I can tell the difference, but it's not really a big deal, but it's there.
Sorry for my english, it's hard to express my thoughts in another language when it comes to such a complicated subject like 3D modes and technical details.
Maybe it's just me but I can't tell any difference between Checkerboard vs Interleaved vs side-by-side. I own a 2010 Samsung TV Plasma C7000 that supports all 3D modes available in the market and I've played many games in these 3D modes. I'm not a technical guy that can explain details of how each 3D mode works like Nobsi and other clever users from thos thread, but I have a lot of field experience trying out games in all these 3D modes. CB, Interleaved and SBS are all half resolution per eye and I can't get really see any graphics difference. I've tried Batman AC and Just Cause 2 in Checkerboard using rollermod and also Interleaved using Zalman mod and I cound't see any difference at all using this 2 modes. I have also played Crysis 2 that have a in game 3D mode and supports interleaved and SBS modes, I've played the game using these 2 modes and still coudn't see any noticeable quality difference between these 2 modes. Maybe my eyes are not that sensitive.
But I can see a considerable difference in graphics quality when playing games using my Samsung 3DTV in Generic CRT mode (frame sequential 1920x1080 per eye) 1080p60hz = 30fps comparing it to DLP mode (Checkerboard 960x1080 per eye) 1080p60hz = 60fps
Checkerboard is really good for gaming, but the quality is not as good as page flipping frame sequentail mode. I can see the difference in details, for example playing Batman Arkham City, I can see much better the details in Batman's face, and other details that are really close to the screen, off course de scenario and building I can't really tell any difference between these modes. I guess full resolutiom per eye has a crispy eye candy effect so the image looks cleaner, you can see more details. Checkerboard is also good, but there's a difference, it doesn't look as good as frame sequential, I can tell the difference, but it's not really a big deal, but it's there.
Sorry for my english, it's hard to express my thoughts in another language when it comes to such a complicated subject like 3D modes and technical details.
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
I am almost completely lost to all that your talking about (everyone). This is what i know, 3d vision on my asus 3d monitor looks good,, really good and i want as close to that as i can get with my new samsung 6420 3dtv AND i know from trying that 3d play sucks so bad its not even worth play games with, junk in a trash can is has more value than 3dtv play imo. I really dont care if rollermod is this, that or the next thing. If the rollermod offers an acceptable gaming experiance than im all for it, anything is better than 3dtv play at this point. So if someone would answer this i would be most grateful DOES THE ROLLERMOD LOOK BETTER THAN 3DTV PLAY.
I am almost completely lost to all that your talking about (everyone). This is what i know, 3d vision on my asus 3d monitor looks good,, really good and i want as close to that as i can get with my new samsung 6420 3dtv AND i know from trying that 3d play sucks so bad its not even worth play games with, junk in a trash can is has more value than 3dtv play imo. I really dont care if rollermod is this, that or the next thing. If the rollermod offers an acceptable gaming experiance than im all for it, anything is better than 3dtv play at this point. So if someone would answer this i would be most grateful DOES THE ROLLERMOD LOOK BETTER THAN 3DTV PLAY.
No it wouldn't. And that right there proves that you also should not be discussing this.
I have done a lot of 3d programming. You can easily adjust the aspect ratio so that it does not look stretched when the display stretches the image. That's a fact. Anyone who has done any programing related to 3d or 2d for that matter will tell you that.
[/quote]
Yes, you certainly CAN do that if you write the rendering engine.
Most rendering engines I know don't do that, they either use an all wrong FOV and/or use wrong scaling for the HUD if you use such a resolution, because they aim for one of the usual aspect ratios.
That's why if you make custom resolution, it's always a good idea to stick to the common aspect ratios the game is expecting, i.e. 5:4, 16:10 or 16:9.
Since the driver is trying to be compatible, the game is still rendering into a 1920x1080 buffer. Do you actually defute that? Then why are the games still showing a resolution setting of 1920x1080, when using 1080p CB and not 960x1080?
No it wouldn't. And that right there proves that you also should not be discussing this.
I have done a lot of 3d programming. You can easily adjust the aspect ratio so that it does not look stretched when the display stretches the image. That's a fact. Anyone who has done any programing related to 3d or 2d for that matter will tell you that.
Yes, you certainly CAN do that if you write the rendering engine.
Most rendering engines I know don't do that, they either use an all wrong FOV and/or use wrong scaling for the HUD if you use such a resolution, because they aim for one of the usual aspect ratios.
That's why if you make custom resolution, it's always a good idea to stick to the common aspect ratios the game is expecting, i.e. 5:4, 16:10 or 16:9.
Since the driver is trying to be compatible, the game is still rendering into a 1920x1080 buffer. Do you actually defute that? Then why are the games still showing a resolution setting of 1920x1080, when using 1080p CB and not 960x1080?
So you're saying that when I use checkerboard by PC is actually rendering 1080p at 120 frames per second, and discarding half of each frame in order to be able combine frames to make 1080p at 60fps?
EDIT - this is aimed at grestorn.
[/quote]
A game doesn't render at a given framerate. It renders as many pictures as it can in a certain amount of time (disregarding VSync here to keep it simple).
Limiting the TRANSFER of the images to 24 frames per second will also LIMIT the game to that framerate.
With 3D Vision, each frame is rendered twice (one for each eye), but the game doesn't even realize that (the rendering pipeline is executed once, but the driver generates two separate images out of it).
The target frame buffer MUST have 1920x1080 for each image, otherwise you'd break the compatibility with the game completely, because that's what the game expects it to be.
After both images have been rendered, the driver combines them into a single 1920x1080 frame, using pixels alternating from each of the generated images.
So you're saying that when I use checkerboard by PC is actually rendering 1080p at 120 frames per second, and discarding half of each frame in order to be able combine frames to make 1080p at 60fps?
EDIT - this is aimed at grestorn.
A game doesn't render at a given framerate. It renders as many pictures as it can in a certain amount of time (disregarding VSync here to keep it simple).
Limiting the TRANSFER of the images to 24 frames per second will also LIMIT the game to that framerate.
With 3D Vision, each frame is rendered twice (one for each eye), but the game doesn't even realize that (the rendering pipeline is executed once, but the driver generates two separate images out of it).
The target frame buffer MUST have 1920x1080 for each image, otherwise you'd break the compatibility with the game completely, because that's what the game expects it to be.
After both images have been rendered, the driver combines them into a single 1920x1080 frame, using pixels alternating from each of the generated images.
@grestorn
It doesnt matter how tech. it is bad. If you haven't tried it you have no right to speak ill of it. This is how the negativity of 3d gaming is. People speak ill of it and haven't even tried it. Set it up, try it out, then post. Maybe what you say is true. Till then its ignorance.
I had no problem with op having a problem and not liking rollermod. I have a problem with his incorrect facts. I had a problem with him telling everyone that they are wrong and he is right. That though they like 1080 checker board more then 720p they are wrong. You are doing the same thing grestorn.
Do I use 1080 checkermode?Nope. Do I believe people enjoy 1080checkermode over 720p(especially since they have to sacrifice fps)?Yes.
Will I listen to someone who rants and hasn't even tried it?Nope
@grestorn
It doesnt matter how tech. it is bad. If you haven't tried it you have no right to speak ill of it. This is how the negativity of 3d gaming is. People speak ill of it and haven't even tried it. Set it up, try it out, then post. Maybe what you say is true. Till then its ignorance.
I had no problem with op having a problem and not liking rollermod. I have a problem with his incorrect facts. I had a problem with him telling everyone that they are wrong and he is right. That though they like 1080 checker board more then 720p they are wrong. You are doing the same thing grestorn.
Do I use 1080 checkermode?Nope. Do I believe people enjoy 1080checkermode over 720p(especially since they have to sacrifice fps)?Yes.
Will I listen to someone who rants and hasn't even tried it?Nope
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
You are speaking ill of people who think 1080checkermode is better then 720p. That you know better then people who actually attempted it. I see tons of people on that huge thread about the mode where people have tried it and enjoyed it more.
I give up on this unproductive thread though so whatever.
You are speaking ill of people who think 1080checkermode is better then 720p. That you know better then people who actually attempted it. I see tons of people on that huge thread about the mode where people have tried it and enjoyed it more.
I give up on this unproductive thread though so whatever.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
The reason why checkerboard looks so much better than other interleaved/upscaled half-sbs etc is probably because the algorithm that upscales and filters the image works better with checkerboard interleaved. I can very well imagine that the result looks very close to full hd, both eyes.
The reason why checkerboard looks so much better than other interleaved/upscaled half-sbs etc is probably because the algorithm that upscales and filters the image works better with checkerboard interleaved. I can very well imagine that the result looks very close to full hd, both eyes.
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.
As a gamer, I don't care about theory, upscaling or "1920/1280 = 1080/720 = 1.5
I've tried both 720p@60hz with 3DTVplay and 1080pCB with rollermod.
My EYES -not my brain- said that 1080pCB is A LOT better than 720p (actually, 3DTVplay sucks). Simple as that.
So people, [i]just test it[/i] and see it by yourself. Today, 1080pCB is the best way to play on a 3DTV (best balance between visual quality and FPS).
As a gamer, I don't care about theory, upscaling or "1920/1280 = 1080/720 = 1.5
I've tried both 720p@60hz with 3DTVplay and 1080pCB with rollermod.
My EYES -not my brain- said that 1080pCB is A LOT better than 720p (actually, 3DTVplay sucks). Simple as that.
So people, just test it and see it by yourself. Today, 1080pCB is the best way to play on a 3DTV (best balance between visual quality and FPS).
I personally think CB is the better method because it avoids one of the greatest pitfalls we've seen since LCDs became mainstream, non-native resolution scaling, but it doesn't come without a cost, as it incurs full performance penalty of 1080p compared to the 720p modes.
Also, to the guy calling out Grestorn's credibility....you may not agree with him, but he's been far more credible in the GeForce community for a lot longer than most people around here....
[quote name='Likay' date='25 January 2012 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1327507312' post='1360468']
I just want to add a point (theorizing, i'm open for corrections): Checkerboard-3d @1080x1920 is half resolution. It's called checkerboard because half the squares are white (right) and the other half black (left).
The reason why checkerboard looks so much better than other interleaved/upscaled half-sbs etc is probably because the algorithm that upscales and filters the image works better with checkerboard interleaved. I can very well imagine that the result looks very close to full hd, both eyes.
[/quote]
I think Nobsi explained it very well, anything natively rendered at 720p must scale at a factor of 1.5x for 1080p, and since the pixel array is fixed on LCDs, this will inevitably lead to blurring as a result of the interpolation. That's the biggest hurdle to overcome with 720p upscaling.
The second portion with the actual interleaved pixel array also favors CB because if you look at it conceptually, with a CB grid each interpolated pixel still has 4 pixels of actual data to sample. Unlike vertical or horizontal interlaced, which will only have 2 pixels to sample from as the 2 pixels above or below will also be blanks. If we apply what we know from anti-aliasing sampling methods, the obviously better result will come from 4 samples over 2, especially with ordered grids.
But there are still potential problems with text or UI elements or any line primitives which is what Grestorn was referring to using any interlaced method over framepacked 720p upscaled to 1080p.
I personally think CB is the better method because it avoids one of the greatest pitfalls we've seen since LCDs became mainstream, non-native resolution scaling, but it doesn't come without a cost, as it incurs full performance penalty of 1080p compared to the 720p modes.
Also, to the guy calling out Grestorn's credibility....you may not agree with him, but he's been far more credible in the GeForce community for a lot longer than most people around here....
[quote name='Likay' date='25 January 2012 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1327507312' post='1360468']
I just want to add a point (theorizing, i'm open for corrections): Checkerboard-3d @1080x1920 is half resolution. It's called checkerboard because half the squares are white (right) and the other half black (left).
The reason why checkerboard looks so much better than other interleaved/upscaled half-sbs etc is probably because the algorithm that upscales and filters the image works better with checkerboard interleaved. I can very well imagine that the result looks very close to full hd, both eyes.
I think Nobsi explained it very well, anything natively rendered at 720p must scale at a factor of 1.5x for 1080p, and since the pixel array is fixed on LCDs, this will inevitably lead to blurring as a result of the interpolation. That's the biggest hurdle to overcome with 720p upscaling.
The second portion with the actual interleaved pixel array also favors CB because if you look at it conceptually, with a CB grid each interpolated pixel still has 4 pixels of actual data to sample. Unlike vertical or horizontal interlaced, which will only have 2 pixels to sample from as the 2 pixels above or below will also be blanks. If we apply what we know from anti-aliasing sampling methods, the obviously better result will come from 4 samples over 2, especially with ordered grids.
But there are still potential problems with text or UI elements or any line primitives which is what Grestorn was referring to using any interlaced method over framepacked 720p upscaled to 1080p.
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W
Hi all,
As a gamer, I don't care about theory, upscaling or "1920/1280 = 1080/720 = 1.5
I've tried both 720p@60hz with 3DTVplay and 1080pCB with rollermod.
My EYES -not my brain- said that 1080pCB is A LOT better than 720p (actually, 3DTVplay sucks). Simple as that.
So people, [i]just test it[/i] and see it by yourself. Today, 1080pCB is the best way to play on a 3DTV (best balance between visual quality and FPS).
[/quote]
+1!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cound't have said any better.
Come on, folks should actually try out something before assuming things. Stop this non sense theory and try out Checkerboard at least once. See if you like better, stop with this technical non sense bogus. Nothing beats a field experience, not even hours and hours of reading the history of 3D and how it works. Try out, Experiment than comment about it.
I believe what my eyes and my brain tells me is more important than any other technical explanation based on pixels and mapping. My eyes tell me that CB 1080p is far superior to 720p frame packing. I can also see a quality difference compared to 1080p CB and 1080p frame packing or frame sequential (Generic CRT mode). Off course with full resolution per eye like Frame Packing or Frame Sequential we will have the crispy eye candy effect when playing games in 3D and graphics quality will look a lot a nicer for sure compared to CB or Interleaved modes that are half resolution per eye.
Now, I can see a HUGE difference comparing 720p frame packing vs 1080p Checkerboard, a big deal of difference. It doesn't matter 720p FP is full resolution per eye, cause it still 1280x720, so CB 1080p, will look like 1920x1080, not 720. Our eyes can notice a much bigger difference in native resolution vs 720p, than actaully the deal about full resolution per eye vs half. Thats my point!!!!
I'm not into so many technical details and english is not my native language, so I won't discuss these details, I just don't agree that 720p FP is better than 1080p CB and I bet anyone who actually have a chance to try out those 2 options will choose CB. The difference is so obvious!!!!
Hi all,
As a gamer, I don't care about theory, upscaling or "1920/1280 = 1080/720 = 1.5
I've tried both 720p@60hz with 3DTVplay and 1080pCB with rollermod.
My EYES -not my brain- said that 1080pCB is A LOT better than 720p (actually, 3DTVplay sucks). Simple as that.
So people, just test it and see it by yourself. Today, 1080pCB is the best way to play on a 3DTV (best balance between visual quality and FPS).
+1!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cound't have said any better.
Come on, folks should actually try out something before assuming things. Stop this non sense theory and try out Checkerboard at least once. See if you like better, stop with this technical non sense bogus. Nothing beats a field experience, not even hours and hours of reading the history of 3D and how it works. Try out, Experiment than comment about it.
I believe what my eyes and my brain tells me is more important than any other technical explanation based on pixels and mapping. My eyes tell me that CB 1080p is far superior to 720p frame packing. I can also see a quality difference compared to 1080p CB and 1080p frame packing or frame sequential (Generic CRT mode). Off course with full resolution per eye like Frame Packing or Frame Sequential we will have the crispy eye candy effect when playing games in 3D and graphics quality will look a lot a nicer for sure compared to CB or Interleaved modes that are half resolution per eye.
Now, I can see a HUGE difference comparing 720p frame packing vs 1080p Checkerboard, a big deal of difference. It doesn't matter 720p FP is full resolution per eye, cause it still 1280x720, so CB 1080p, will look like 1920x1080, not 720. Our eyes can notice a much bigger difference in native resolution vs 720p, than actaully the deal about full resolution per eye vs half. Thats my point!!!!
I'm not into so many technical details and english is not my native language, so I won't discuss these details, I just don't agree that 720p FP is better than 1080p CB and I bet anyone who actually have a chance to try out those 2 options will choose CB. The difference is so obvious!!!!
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
Very good explanation. This may be the reason why I can sometimes hardly differ between checkerboard and full HD page flipping.
[quote]But there are still potential problems with text or UI elements or any line primitives which is what Grestorn was referring to using any interlaced method over framepacked 720p upscaled to 1080p.[/quote]
I understand this problem, but it will only occur with really very fine HUD elements. I did not notice this in any game I play though.
[quote]Come on, folks should actually try out something before assuming things.[/quote]
Well spoken! I will end my technical explanation here. Seeing is believing..
Very good explanation. This may be the reason why I can sometimes hardly differ between checkerboard and full HD page flipping.
I understand this problem, but it will only occur with really very fine HUD elements. I did not notice this in any game I play though.
Well spoken! I will end my technical explanation here. Seeing is believing..
Can someone with a display that can do all these modes please take some photos?
What we need is a camera, mounted on a Tripod (or totally unmoved and stable), to take a photograph, through the lens of a pair of 3D glasses (which also remain unmoved), at a small section of the screen, of the exact same image. Metro 2033s menu screen would be a good one since it doesn't move, yet i think the lights flicker in intensity, so its not the most ideal, but you get the idea. Contrary to what Roller11 says about a camera not being able to take a photo of the image, its not true and i've already disproved it with my own tinkering around with a cheap camera. I tried taking a photo of the whole screen and it clearly showed differences between 3D 1080p and 720p. A photo taken of a smaller portion of the screen should show much more detail.
To me in theory CB could be better looking than SBS, yet Roller has said they look the same. I'd really like to see a real comparison of these modes, and a [#$%!] camera is the only way to do it.
I'd also love to see all the modes with MSAA applied too.
ps. If anyone does this, make sure to experiment with what camera mode takes the clearest images first, then shoot all the photographs with that mode.
Can someone with a display that can do all these modes please take some photos?
What we need is a camera, mounted on a Tripod (or totally unmoved and stable), to take a photograph, through the lens of a pair of 3D glasses (which also remain unmoved), at a small section of the screen, of the exact same image. Metro 2033s menu screen would be a good one since it doesn't move, yet i think the lights flicker in intensity, so its not the most ideal, but you get the idea. Contrary to what Roller11 says about a camera not being able to take a photo of the image, its not true and i've already disproved it with my own tinkering around with a cheap camera. I tried taking a photo of the whole screen and it clearly showed differences between 3D 1080p and 720p. A photo taken of a smaller portion of the screen should show much more detail.
To me in theory CB could be better looking than SBS, yet Roller has said they look the same. I'd really like to see a real comparison of these modes, and a [#$%!] camera is the only way to do it.
I'd also love to see all the modes with MSAA applied too.
ps. If anyone does this, make sure to experiment with what camera mode takes the clearest images first, then shoot all the photographs with that mode.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
But I can see a considerable difference in graphics quality when playing games using my Samsung 3DTV in Generic CRT mode (frame sequential 1920x1080 per eye) 1080p60hz = 30fps comparing it to DLP mode (Checkerboard 960x1080 per eye) 1080p60hz = 60fps
Checkerboard is really good for gaming, but the quality is not as good as page flipping frame sequentail mode. I can see the difference in details, for example playing Batman Arkham City, I can see much better the details in Batman's face, and other details that are really close to the screen, off course de scenario and building I can't really tell any difference between these modes. I guess full resolutiom per eye has a crispy eye candy effect so the image looks cleaner, you can see more details. Checkerboard is also good, but there's a difference, it doesn't look as good as frame sequential, I can tell the difference, but it's not really a big deal, but it's there.
Sorry for my english, it's hard to express my thoughts in another language when it comes to such a complicated subject like 3D modes and technical details.
But I can see a considerable difference in graphics quality when playing games using my Samsung 3DTV in Generic CRT mode (frame sequential 1920x1080 per eye) 1080p60hz = 30fps comparing it to DLP mode (Checkerboard 960x1080 per eye) 1080p60hz = 60fps
Checkerboard is really good for gaming, but the quality is not as good as page flipping frame sequentail mode. I can see the difference in details, for example playing Batman Arkham City, I can see much better the details in Batman's face, and other details that are really close to the screen, off course de scenario and building I can't really tell any difference between these modes. I guess full resolutiom per eye has a crispy eye candy effect so the image looks cleaner, you can see more details. Checkerboard is also good, but there's a difference, it doesn't look as good as frame sequential, I can tell the difference, but it's not really a big deal, but it's there.
Sorry for my english, it's hard to express my thoughts in another language when it comes to such a complicated subject like 3D modes and technical details.
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
[img]http://forums.nvidia.com/public/style_emoticons/default/thanks.gif[/img]
All you guys and your big words Shezzzzz
All you guys and your big words Shezzzzz
Watercool any gpu cheap, AKA- "The Mod"