[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']
Interpolation is not identical to stretching. Stretching is the idea of taking what would be a given set of data say at 1,1 to 1,2 and then stretching it to say 1,1 to 2,4.
Interpolation is the idea of constructing NEW data points from WITHIN a fixed set. Such that if I had a fixed curve based on a fixed data set, I would be filling WITHIN the curve or enhancing the curve in a polynomial or spline interpolation vis. a linear interpolation.[/QUOTE]
Interpolation is a WAY to do stretching. But it's still stretching - then that's what's happening, you stretch the image.
There are many different ways to do the stretching. The simplest being just to repeat a pixel (nearest neighbour). And there are more elaborate ways, se the Wikipedia article for details: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)[/url]
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']Now, in regards to what we are discussing here, the reason why 1080p checkerboard looks better than 720p60 framepacking (on a 1080p display) is because the overall and general topology of the 3D model does not change between 1080p checkerboard and 1080p framesequential, you only have a loss of information "in between" something that is so fine that those who have seen 1080p24 or 1080p120 framesequential on one hand and 1080p60 checkerboard on the other hand are unable to give a definite quantifying change to their viewing quality experience. The defined topology of how the 3D world "looks" is still intact, something that is observablely a distorted image, overall, in 720p60 via a 1080p display.[/quote]If you actualy READ what I wrote, then you'd know then I NEVER disputed that.
What I said is that the previous DOWNSAMPLING is the problem. Because you lose some information there.
Read, then reply again, please.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']Now where I believe 1080p checkerboard is inferior is in its ability to give good textual quality to small in-game text (Counter-Strike?) and that is solely by dint of the process since small text isn't going to garner many pixels in the first place, such that this information "in between" that is lost contributes to image degradation due to the size of the text. In games where the dialogue text is much larger like Skyrim, one does not witness a textual degradation because the size of the text has enough pixels to keep the toplogy of the letters in-tact.
[/quote]
Well, EXCATLY. If you realize that, then we actually agree completely on that. But next time please read what I wrote instead of thinking that I'm stupid. Thanks :)
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']
Interpolation is not identical to stretching. Stretching is the idea of taking what would be a given set of data say at 1,1 to 1,2 and then stretching it to say 1,1 to 2,4.
Interpolation is the idea of constructing NEW data points from WITHIN a fixed set. Such that if I had a fixed curve based on a fixed data set, I would be filling WITHIN the curve or enhancing the curve in a polynomial or spline interpolation vis. a linear interpolation.[/QUOTE]
Interpolation is a WAY to do stretching. But it's still stretching - then that's what's happening, you stretch the image.
There are many different ways to do the stretching. The simplest being just to repeat a pixel (nearest neighbour). And there are more elaborate ways, se the Wikipedia article for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']Now, in regards to what we are discussing here, the reason why 1080p checkerboard looks better than 720p60 framepacking (on a 1080p display) is because the overall and general topology of the 3D model does not change between 1080p checkerboard and 1080p framesequential, you only have a loss of information "in between" something that is so fine that those who have seen 1080p24 or 1080p120 framesequential on one hand and 1080p60 checkerboard on the other hand are unable to give a definite quantifying change to their viewing quality experience. The defined topology of how the 3D world "looks" is still intact, something that is observablely a distorted image, overall, in 720p60 via a 1080p display.If you actualy READ what I wrote, then you'd know then I NEVER disputed that.
What I said is that the previous DOWNSAMPLING is the problem. Because you lose some information there.
Read, then reply again, please.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']Now where I believe 1080p checkerboard is inferior is in its ability to give good textual quality to small in-game text (Counter-Strike?) and that is solely by dint of the process since small text isn't going to garner many pixels in the first place, such that this information "in between" that is lost contributes to image degradation due to the size of the text. In games where the dialogue text is much larger like Skyrim, one does not witness a textual degradation because the size of the text has enough pixels to keep the toplogy of the letters in-tact.
Well, EXCATLY. If you realize that, then we actually agree completely on that. But next time please read what I wrote instead of thinking that I'm stupid. Thanks :)
[quote name='Grestorn' date='27 January 2012 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1327690242' post='1361471']
Interpolation is a WAY to do stretching. But it's still stretching - then that's what's happening, you stretch the image.
There are many different ways to do the stretching. The simplest being just to repeat a pixel (nearest neighbour). And there are more elaborate ways, se the Wikipedia article for details: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)[/url]
If you actualy READ what I wrote, then you'd know then I NEVER disputed that.
What I said is that the previous DOWNSAMPLING is the problem. Because you lose some information there.
Read, then reply again, please.
Well, EXCATLY. If you realize that, then we actually agree completely on that. But next time please read what I wrote instead of thinking that I'm stupid. Thanks :)
[/quote]
I never implied that you were stupid, I implied that you were equivocating on certain terms in the sense of how you are able to arrive at a quantifiable case for 720p60 framepacking vis. 1080p checkerboard. Those are philosophical claims, not a claim of your character.
1) My claim was to state that interpolation is not identical to stretching ex hypothesi. While you are correct that certain interpolation techniques manages to stretch an image as a means to an end, Interpolation qua interpolation does not mean stretching.
and
2) To show you that you don't have the kind of stretching of 1 to 2 pixels as you imagine with checkerboard as you keep arguing with roller11. You have a loss of "information" per eye while maintaining the exact same topological structure at certain fixed data points left/right (and collectively they have all the information of the 2D image). That's what checkerboard DOES and that's why it's able to run at native resolution of a display.
If you agree with me on the salient points, then I'm at a loss as to why you call what we've been claiming "bull****" and/or arguing with roller11. That might be a personality conflict between you two, but the truth tracking in the controversey has been sorely missing.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='27 January 2012 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1327690242' post='1361471']
Interpolation is a WAY to do stretching. But it's still stretching - then that's what's happening, you stretch the image.
There are many different ways to do the stretching. The simplest being just to repeat a pixel (nearest neighbour). And there are more elaborate ways, se the Wikipedia article for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)
If you actualy READ what I wrote, then you'd know then I NEVER disputed that.
What I said is that the previous DOWNSAMPLING is the problem. Because you lose some information there.
Read, then reply again, please.
Well, EXCATLY. If you realize that, then we actually agree completely on that. But next time please read what I wrote instead of thinking that I'm stupid. Thanks :)
I never implied that you were stupid, I implied that you were equivocating on certain terms in the sense of how you are able to arrive at a quantifiable case for 720p60 framepacking vis. 1080p checkerboard. Those are philosophical claims, not a claim of your character.
1) My claim was to state that interpolation is not identical to stretching ex hypothesi. While you are correct that certain interpolation techniques manages to stretch an image as a means to an end, Interpolation qua interpolation does not mean stretching.
and
2) To show you that you don't have the kind of stretching of 1 to 2 pixels as you imagine with checkerboard as you keep arguing with roller11. You have a loss of "information" per eye while maintaining the exact same topological structure at certain fixed data points left/right (and collectively they have all the information of the 2D image). That's what checkerboard DOES and that's why it's able to run at native resolution of a display.
If you agree with me on the salient points, then I'm at a loss as to why you call what we've been claiming "bull****" and/or arguing with roller11. That might be a personality conflict between you two, but the truth tracking in the controversey has been sorely missing.
[quote name='mocca' date='27 January 2012 - 03:14 AM' timestamp='1327659248' post='1361288']
I'd just like to piont something out here.
Roller11, it is you that's the liar, or your misinformed, i'd say your miss informed.
Checkerboard is'nt native 1080p 3d on a 3dtv!
There are no displays apart from true 120hz that can display a full 1080p60hz 3d image![/quote]
You are very mixed up. You are confusing bandwidth with native resolution, they are two entirely different things. Of course your lack of understanding explains your bizzare posts.
I'll say it again. CB, SBS, TB, IL are all 1 to 1 mapped so they are, by definition, native resolution. This has NOTHING TO DO with bandwidth.
[quote name='mocca' date='27 January 2012 - 03:14 AM' timestamp='1327659248' post='1361288']
I'd just like to piont something out here.
Roller11, it is you that's the liar, or your misinformed, i'd say your miss informed.
Checkerboard is'nt native 1080p 3d on a 3dtv!
There are no displays apart from true 120hz that can display a full 1080p60hz 3d image!
You are very mixed up. You are confusing bandwidth with native resolution, they are two entirely different things. Of course your lack of understanding explains your bizzare posts.
I'll say it again. CB, SBS, TB, IL are all 1 to 1 mapped so they are, by definition, native resolution. This has NOTHING TO DO with bandwidth.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1327692387' post='1361484']
If you agree with me on the salient points, then I'm at a loss as to why you call what we've been claiming "bull****" and/or arguing with roller11. That might be a personality conflict between you two, but the truth tracking in the controversey has been sorely missing.
photios
[/quote]
No, you just didn't read properly. Roller claimed that there is NO loss, that 1080p CB is LOSSLESS, ie. identical to direct 1080p. Which is bull****.
I think I wrote everything in detail in that posting: [url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=221494&view=findpost&p=1360310"]http://forums.nvidia...dpost&p=1360310[/url]
Do you disagree with that posting? Then please do so, but do write some points I'm missing or where I'm thinking wrong.
/edit: Roller just repeated this in the posting above this... :) Thanks Roller, for making your claim so clear for everyone to read.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1327692387' post='1361484']
If you agree with me on the salient points, then I'm at a loss as to why you call what we've been claiming "bull****" and/or arguing with roller11. That might be a personality conflict between you two, but the truth tracking in the controversey has been sorely missing.
photios
No, you just didn't read properly. Roller claimed that there is NO loss, that 1080p CB is LOSSLESS, ie. identical to direct 1080p. Which is bull****.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='27 January 2012 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1327693867' post='1361496']
No, you just didn't read properly. Roller claimed that there is NO loss, that 1080p CB is LOSSLESS, ie. identical to direct 1080p. Which is bull****.
I think I wrote everything in detail in that posting: [url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=221494&view=findpost&p=1360310"]http://forums.nvidia...dpost&p=1360310[/url]
Do you disagree with that posting? Then please do so, but do write some points I'm missing or where I'm thinking wrong.
/edit: Roller just repeated this in the posting above this... :) Thanks Roller, for making your claim so clear for everyone to read.
[/quote]
I know exactly what roller claims.
I'm gonna wax Socractic here:
Does roller11 think that it is lossless per frame, per eye, or both?
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1327695748' post='1361509']
I know exactly what roller claims.
I'm gonna wax Socractic here:
Does roller11 think that it is lossless per frame, per eye, or both?
[/quote]
There is no difference, it doesn't matter what he thinks.
Each eye sees half the resolution. You can't say that because you have two eyes, and each eye sees "the other pixels" you somehow compensate the loss.
In the end the brain sees two images, each having half the resolution. So the end result is a 3 dimensional image, but still with half the resolution.
Or would you claim that 1080p frame sequential would somehow double the resolution, because both eyes get an image with full 1080p? That would be the logic consequence...
If he's actually saing, because the resolution of the transferred frame would be native resolution, the end result is somehow better, you should know that this doesn't say ANYthing at all.
You could transfer the image in 1080p (ie native) and still cut the resolution by 3 or whatever else before you display the image and get a ****ty end result. Yes, you could feed three monitors that way, but each monitor would still only have a third of the original resolution.
In the end, it *is* all about bandwidth. You can only get so much data over the line in a given amount of time.
The image quality using 1080 CB is without any doubt worse than when using 1080 frame sequential or frame packed. Anyone who claims something different is just SO WRONG.
That the 1080p CB, SBS or IL is still offering a better resolution than 720p was never in dispute, by the way. Even the scaling is easier and cleaner with 1080p/2, noone disputed that either. What I said is that there could be a loss of information, because the game rendered at full resolution originally before it is downscaled to half the resolution. That's exactly what you wrote with your Counter Strike example. That's not happening if the game is rendering in 720 in the first place.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1327695748' post='1361509']
I know exactly what roller claims.
I'm gonna wax Socractic here:
Does roller11 think that it is lossless per frame, per eye, or both?
There is no difference, it doesn't matter what he thinks.
Each eye sees half the resolution. You can't say that because you have two eyes, and each eye sees "the other pixels" you somehow compensate the loss.
In the end the brain sees two images, each having half the resolution. So the end result is a 3 dimensional image, but still with half the resolution.
Or would you claim that 1080p frame sequential would somehow double the resolution, because both eyes get an image with full 1080p? That would be the logic consequence...
If he's actually saing, because the resolution of the transferred frame would be native resolution, the end result is somehow better, you should know that this doesn't say ANYthing at all.
You could transfer the image in 1080p (ie native) and still cut the resolution by 3 or whatever else before you display the image and get a ****ty end result. Yes, you could feed three monitors that way, but each monitor would still only have a third of the original resolution.
In the end, it *is* all about bandwidth. You can only get so much data over the line in a given amount of time.
The image quality using 1080 CB is without any doubt worse than when using 1080 frame sequential or frame packed. Anyone who claims something different is just SO WRONG.
That the 1080p CB, SBS or IL is still offering a better resolution than 720p was never in dispute, by the way. Even the scaling is easier and cleaner with 1080p/2, noone disputed that either. What I said is that there could be a loss of information, because the game rendered at full resolution originally before it is downscaled to half the resolution. That's exactly what you wrote with your Counter Strike example. That's not happening if the game is rendering in 720 in the first place.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='27 January 2012 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1327696602' post='1361514']
There is no difference.
Each eye sees half the resolution. You can't say that because you have two eyes, and each eye sees "the other pixels" you somehow compensate the loss.
In the end the brain sees two images, each having half the resolution. So the end result is a 3 dimensional image, but still with half the resolution.
Or would you claim that 1080p frame sequential would somehow double the resolution, because both eyes get an image with full 1080p? That would be the logic consequence...
[/quote]
No that is not the logical consequence nor a successful [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i].
What I'm trying to get you to admit or understand is careful distinctions that have to made to quantify and assess the problem.
Frame Sequential is both 1080p alternating frame with each ("per eye") left and right image being 1080p. It's lossless throughout. I take it you know this. So 1080p frame sequential is an example of both 1080p pixels per frame and 1080p pixels per eye. That doesn't amount to doubling the revolution, that's why it runs at 120hz theoretically. Each alternating frame the screen displays left (60 hz) and right (60hz) just is 1080p no more, no less.
1080p Checkerboard is not split into two seperate alternating *frames* indexed to the left and right image. It is rather two gpu rendered images decimated into a single checkerboard array and sent as one single frame (60 hz) that is 1080p per frame and half the resolution per eye.
1080p checkerboard is an example of 3D that is 1080p per frame and not 1080p per eye.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='27 January 2012 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1327696602' post='1361514']
There is no difference.
Each eye sees half the resolution. You can't say that because you have two eyes, and each eye sees "the other pixels" you somehow compensate the loss.
In the end the brain sees two images, each having half the resolution. So the end result is a 3 dimensional image, but still with half the resolution.
Or would you claim that 1080p frame sequential would somehow double the resolution, because both eyes get an image with full 1080p? That would be the logic consequence...
No that is not the logical consequence nor a successful reductio ad absurdum.
What I'm trying to get you to admit or understand is careful distinctions that have to made to quantify and assess the problem.
Frame Sequential is both 1080p alternating frame with each ("per eye") left and right image being 1080p. It's lossless throughout. I take it you know this. So 1080p frame sequential is an example of both 1080p pixels per frame and 1080p pixels per eye. That doesn't amount to doubling the revolution, that's why it runs at 120hz theoretically. Each alternating frame the screen displays left (60 hz) and right (60hz) just is 1080p no more, no less.
1080p Checkerboard is not split into two seperate alternating *frames* indexed to the left and right image. It is rather two gpu rendered images decimated into a single checkerboard array and sent as one single frame (60 hz) that is 1080p per frame and half the resolution per eye.
1080p checkerboard is an example of 3D that is 1080p per frame and not 1080p per eye.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']
Interpolation is not identical to stretching. Stretching is the idea of taking what would be a given set of data say at 1,1 to 1,2 and then stretching it to say 1,1 to 2,4.
Interpolation is the idea of constructing NEW data points from WITHIN a fixed set. Such that if I had a fixed curve based on a fixed data set, I would be filling WITHIN the curve or enhancing the curve in a polynomial or spline interpolation vis. a linear interpolation.
Stretching involves a definite topological change to its structure in which the image quality can be distorted. Interpolation does not necessarily distort because it does not necessitate a general change to the toplogy, it involves understanding a data from within the fixed topological points.
Now, in regards to what we are discussing here, the reason why 1080p checkerboard looks better than 720p60 framepacking (on a 1080p display) is because the overall and general topology of the 3D model does not change between 1080p checkerboard and 1080p framesequential, you only have a loss of information "in between" something that is so fine that those who have seen 1080p24 or 1080p120 framesequential on one hand and 1080p60 checkerboard on the other hand are unable to give a definite quantifying change to their viewing quality experience. The defined topology of how the 3D world "looks" is still intact, something that is observablely a distorted image, overall, in 720p60 via a 1080p display.
Now where I believe 1080p checkerboard is inferior is in its ability to give good textual quality to small in-game text (Counter-Strike?) and that is solely by dint of the process since small text isn't going to garner many pixels in the first place, such that this information "in between" that is lost contributes to image degradation due to the size of the text. In games where the dialogue text is much larger like Skyrim, one does not witness a textual degradation because the size of the text has enough pixels to keep the toplogy of the letters in-tact.
[/quote]
I don't know much about a tv or monitor, but what I do know about is trigonometry, which is what you are talking about concerning interpolating or stretching. Interpolating is most definitely not the same thing as stretching. Linear interpolation is calculating the x axis(ex.1920)and y axis (ex.1080)from a given point on a right triangle to arrive at a predetermined point in space. Circular interpolation is simply dividing a circle into equal parts and then applying linear interpolation (points on circle from center as hypotenuse) to calculate the length of the sides from the known radius.
Stretching would be the same as taking the previously unknown sides (x and y)and multiplying their distances by a fixed amount, which would introduce blur on an image. The same thing as blowing up a picture until it is bigger with the trade off of having it blurier. "Blurier"---is that even a word?
Basically, I am agreeing with you in more "lay" terms.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']
Interpolation is not identical to stretching. Stretching is the idea of taking what would be a given set of data say at 1,1 to 1,2 and then stretching it to say 1,1 to 2,4.
Interpolation is the idea of constructing NEW data points from WITHIN a fixed set. Such that if I had a fixed curve based on a fixed data set, I would be filling WITHIN the curve or enhancing the curve in a polynomial or spline interpolation vis. a linear interpolation.
Stretching involves a definite topological change to its structure in which the image quality can be distorted. Interpolation does not necessarily distort because it does not necessitate a general change to the toplogy, it involves understanding a data from within the fixed topological points.
Now, in regards to what we are discussing here, the reason why 1080p checkerboard looks better than 720p60 framepacking (on a 1080p display) is because the overall and general topology of the 3D model does not change between 1080p checkerboard and 1080p framesequential, you only have a loss of information "in between" something that is so fine that those who have seen 1080p24 or 1080p120 framesequential on one hand and 1080p60 checkerboard on the other hand are unable to give a definite quantifying change to their viewing quality experience. The defined topology of how the 3D world "looks" is still intact, something that is observablely a distorted image, overall, in 720p60 via a 1080p display.
Now where I believe 1080p checkerboard is inferior is in its ability to give good textual quality to small in-game text (Counter-Strike?) and that is solely by dint of the process since small text isn't going to garner many pixels in the first place, such that this information "in between" that is lost contributes to image degradation due to the size of the text. In games where the dialogue text is much larger like Skyrim, one does not witness a textual degradation because the size of the text has enough pixels to keep the toplogy of the letters in-tact.
I don't know much about a tv or monitor, but what I do know about is trigonometry, which is what you are talking about concerning interpolating or stretching. Interpolating is most definitely not the same thing as stretching. Linear interpolation is calculating the x axis(ex.1920)and y axis (ex.1080)from a given point on a right triangle to arrive at a predetermined point in space. Circular interpolation is simply dividing a circle into equal parts and then applying linear interpolation (points on circle from center as hypotenuse) to calculate the length of the sides from the known radius.
Stretching would be the same as taking the previously unknown sides (x and y)and multiplying their distances by a fixed amount, which would introduce blur on an image. The same thing as blowing up a picture until it is bigger with the trade off of having it blurier. "Blurier"---is that even a word?
Basically, I am agreeing with you in more "lay" terms.
[quote name='churnobull' date='27 January 2012 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1327699542' post='1361530']
I don't know much about a tv or monitor, but what I do know about is trigonometry, which is what you are talking about concerning interpolating or stretching. Interpolating is most definitely not the same thing as stretching. Linear interpolation is calculating the x axis(ex.1920) and y axis (ex.1080)from a given point on a right triangle to arrive at a predetermined point in space. Circular interpolation is simply dividing a circle into equal parts and then applying linear interpolation to calculate the length of the sides from the known radius.
Stretching would be the same as taking the previously unknown sides (x and y)and multiplying their distances by a fixed amount, which would introduce blur on an image. The same thing as blowing up a picture until it is bigger with the trade off of having it blurrier. "Blurrier"---is that even a word?
[/quote]
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
[quote name='churnobull' date='27 January 2012 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1327699542' post='1361530']
I don't know much about a tv or monitor, but what I do know about is trigonometry, which is what you are talking about concerning interpolating or stretching. Interpolating is most definitely not the same thing as stretching. Linear interpolation is calculating the x axis(ex.1920) and y axis (ex.1080)from a given point on a right triangle to arrive at a predetermined point in space. Circular interpolation is simply dividing a circle into equal parts and then applying linear interpolation to calculate the length of the sides from the known radius.
Stretching would be the same as taking the previously unknown sides (x and y)and multiplying their distances by a fixed amount, which would introduce blur on an image. The same thing as blowing up a picture until it is bigger with the trade off of having it blurrier. "Blurrier"---is that even a word?
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
Let's keep it about the tech, and keep the personal attacks out of it. I pulled a couple of posts, but I would prefer to not have to go so far as to pull a couple of users. :(
Let's keep it about the tech, and keep the personal attacks out of it. I pulled a couple of posts, but I would prefer to not have to go so far as to pull a couple of users. :(
Amorphous
NVIDIA | Technical Marketing Manager
GeForce Forums - Special Counsel
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 10:05 PM' timestamp='1327698357' post='1361521']
No that is not the logical consequence nor a successful [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i].
What I'm trying to get you to admit or understand is careful distinctions that have to made to quantify and assess the problem.
Frame Sequential is both 1080p alternating frame with each ("per eye") left and right image being 1080p. It's lossless throughout. I take it you know this. So 1080p frame sequential is an example of both 1080p pixels per frame and 1080p pixels per eye. That doesn't amount to doubling the revolution, that's why it runs at 120hz theoretically. Each alternating frame the screen displays left (60 hz) and right (60hz) just is 1080p no more, no less.
1080p Checkerboard is not split into two seperate alternating *frames* indexed to the left and right image. It is rather two gpu rendered images decimated into a single checkerboard array and sent as one single frame (60 hz) that is 1080p per frame and half the resolution per eye.
1080p checkerboard is an example of 3D that is 1080p per frame and not 1080p per eye.
[/quote]
Yes, and in what Way is that different from what I've been saying all along?
I think this is really a very obvious problem of some people just not wanting to read properly. Or my English is just not up to the task. But I really doubt that I didn't make myself clear enough.
Please, Photios, take the time and read carefully what I wrote. EVERY sentence. Don't just scan over the text and read what you THINK what I might mean in your opinion, ok?
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 10:05 PM' timestamp='1327698357' post='1361521']
No that is not the logical consequence nor a successful reductio ad absurdum.
What I'm trying to get you to admit or understand is careful distinctions that have to made to quantify and assess the problem.
Frame Sequential is both 1080p alternating frame with each ("per eye") left and right image being 1080p. It's lossless throughout. I take it you know this. So 1080p frame sequential is an example of both 1080p pixels per frame and 1080p pixels per eye. That doesn't amount to doubling the revolution, that's why it runs at 120hz theoretically. Each alternating frame the screen displays left (60 hz) and right (60hz) just is 1080p no more, no less.
1080p Checkerboard is not split into two seperate alternating *frames* indexed to the left and right image. It is rather two gpu rendered images decimated into a single checkerboard array and sent as one single frame (60 hz) that is 1080p per frame and half the resolution per eye.
1080p checkerboard is an example of 3D that is 1080p per frame and not 1080p per eye.
Yes, and in what Way is that different from what I've been saying all along?
I think this is really a very obvious problem of some people just not wanting to read properly. Or my English is just not up to the task. But I really doubt that I didn't make myself clear enough.
Please, Photios, take the time and read carefully what I wrote. EVERY sentence. Don't just scan over the text and read what you THINK what I might mean in your opinion, ok?
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1327700041' post='1361534']
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
[/quote]
Guys, the process of inserting missing data by using adjacent fix points is also called interpolation, even if it's not geometric. If you stretch an image, you NEED to do some kind of interpolation to fill in the data. That's why I wrote that stretching an image is practically the same thing as interpolating the missing data. If you don't believe me, then please read the Wikipedia about that topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation
And as far as I recall, I didn't introduce the term stretching. Unfortunately, the posting that brought that term in seems to be deleted now. I just said that interpolating is the same IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE because it seemed to me that there was some misunderstanding about that.
This is REALLY getting very ridiculous.
I don' want to tell you what kind of education I have, because I don't think it's necessary to brag with it. But please don't assume I'm stupid because you don't seem to be able to understand my point. Which is mostly caused by your unwillingness to read properly, as far as I can see.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1327700041' post='1361534']
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
Guys, the process of inserting missing data by using adjacent fix points is also called interpolation, even if it's not geometric. If you stretch an image, you NEED to do some kind of interpolation to fill in the data. That's why I wrote that stretching an image is practically the same thing as interpolating the missing data. If you don't believe me, then please read the Wikipedia about that topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation
And as far as I recall, I didn't introduce the term stretching. Unfortunately, the posting that brought that term in seems to be deleted now. I just said that interpolating is the same IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE because it seemed to me that there was some misunderstanding about that.
This is REALLY getting very ridiculous.
I don' want to tell you what kind of education I have, because I don't think it's necessary to brag with it. But please don't assume I'm stupid because you don't seem to be able to understand my point. Which is mostly caused by your unwillingness to read properly, as far as I can see.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1327700041' post='1361534']
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
[/quote]
Thanks to your posts I am beginning to grasp the idea behind checkerboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given a standard checkerboard as being red and black squares--one eye thru active glasses would see only the red squares and the other eye only the black squares. Thus having a loss "per eye" while maintaining the native resolution without the need for upscaling or stretching. Text of course losing quality because of the limited amount of pixels used.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1327700041' post='1361534']
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
Thanks to your posts I am beginning to grasp the idea behind checkerboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given a standard checkerboard as being red and black squares--one eye thru active glasses would see only the red squares and the other eye only the black squares. Thus having a loss "per eye" while maintaining the native resolution without the need for upscaling or stretching. Text of course losing quality because of the limited amount of pixels used.
[quote name='churnobull' date='27 January 2012 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1327702243' post='1361552']
Thanks to your posts I am beginning to grasp the idea behind checkerboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given a standard checkerboard as being red and black squares--one eye thru active glasses would see only the red squares and the other eye only the black squares. Thus having a loss "per eye" while maintaining the native resolution without the need for upscaling or stretching. Text of course losing quality because of the limited amount of pixels used.
[quote name='churnobull' date='27 January 2012 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1327702243' post='1361552']
Thanks to your posts I am beginning to grasp the idea behind checkerboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given a standard checkerboard as being red and black squares--one eye thru active glasses would see only the red squares and the other eye only the black squares. Thus having a loss "per eye" while maintaining the native resolution without the need for upscaling or stretching. Text of course losing quality because of the limited amount of pixels used.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='27 January 2012 - 04:09 PM' timestamp='1327702194' post='1361551']
Guys, the process of inserting missing data by using adjacent fix points is also called interpolation, even if it's not geometric. If you stretch an image, you NEED to do some kind of interpolation to fill in the data. That's why I wrote that stretching an image is practically the same thing as interpolating the missing data.
And as far as I recall, I didn't introduce the term stretching. Unfortunately, the posting that brought that term in seems to be deleted now. I just said that interpolating is the same IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE because it seemed to me that there was some misunderstanding about that.
This is REALLY getting very ridiculous.
I don' want to tell you what kind of education I have, because I don't think it's necessary to brag with it. But please don't assume I'm stupid because you don't seem to be able to understand my point. Which is mostly caused by your unwillingness to read properly, as far as I can see.
[/quote]
Of course. I agree, I was restating that you were articulating that stretching an image, by whatever modern algorithm that is used to accomplish the scaling, implies interpolation. Where I disagreed was your claim that stretching 'is' [the same as] interpolating. That form of predication is a little too strong and not something you would, hopefully, agree with, because the former implies the latter, the latter does not imply the former.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='27 January 2012 - 04:09 PM' timestamp='1327702194' post='1361551']
Guys, the process of inserting missing data by using adjacent fix points is also called interpolation, even if it's not geometric. If you stretch an image, you NEED to do some kind of interpolation to fill in the data. That's why I wrote that stretching an image is practically the same thing as interpolating the missing data.
And as far as I recall, I didn't introduce the term stretching. Unfortunately, the posting that brought that term in seems to be deleted now. I just said that interpolating is the same IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE because it seemed to me that there was some misunderstanding about that.
This is REALLY getting very ridiculous.
I don' want to tell you what kind of education I have, because I don't think it's necessary to brag with it. But please don't assume I'm stupid because you don't seem to be able to understand my point. Which is mostly caused by your unwillingness to read properly, as far as I can see.
Of course. I agree, I was restating that you were articulating that stretching an image, by whatever modern algorithm that is used to accomplish the scaling, implies interpolation. Where I disagreed was your claim that stretching 'is' [the same as] interpolating. That form of predication is a little too strong and not something you would, hopefully, agree with, because the former implies the latter, the latter does not imply the former.
Interpolation is not identical to stretching. Stretching is the idea of taking what would be a given set of data say at 1,1 to 1,2 and then stretching it to say 1,1 to 2,4.
Interpolation is the idea of constructing NEW data points from WITHIN a fixed set. Such that if I had a fixed curve based on a fixed data set, I would be filling WITHIN the curve or enhancing the curve in a polynomial or spline interpolation vis. a linear interpolation.[/QUOTE]
Interpolation is a WAY to do stretching. But it's still stretching - then that's what's happening, you stretch the image.
There are many different ways to do the stretching. The simplest being just to repeat a pixel (nearest neighbour). And there are more elaborate ways, se the Wikipedia article for details: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)[/url]
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']Now, in regards to what we are discussing here, the reason why 1080p checkerboard looks better than 720p60 framepacking (on a 1080p display) is because the overall and general topology of the 3D model does not change between 1080p checkerboard and 1080p framesequential, you only have a loss of information "in between" something that is so fine that those who have seen 1080p24 or 1080p120 framesequential on one hand and 1080p60 checkerboard on the other hand are unable to give a definite quantifying change to their viewing quality experience. The defined topology of how the 3D world "looks" is still intact, something that is observablely a distorted image, overall, in 720p60 via a 1080p display.[/quote]If you actualy READ what I wrote, then you'd know then I NEVER disputed that.
What I said is that the previous DOWNSAMPLING is the problem. Because you lose some information there.
Read, then reply again, please.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']Now where I believe 1080p checkerboard is inferior is in its ability to give good textual quality to small in-game text (Counter-Strike?) and that is solely by dint of the process since small text isn't going to garner many pixels in the first place, such that this information "in between" that is lost contributes to image degradation due to the size of the text. In games where the dialogue text is much larger like Skyrim, one does not witness a textual degradation because the size of the text has enough pixels to keep the toplogy of the letters in-tact.
[/quote]
Well, EXCATLY. If you realize that, then we actually agree completely on that. But next time please read what I wrote instead of thinking that I'm stupid. Thanks :)
Interpolation is not identical to stretching. Stretching is the idea of taking what would be a given set of data say at 1,1 to 1,2 and then stretching it to say 1,1 to 2,4.
Interpolation is the idea of constructing NEW data points from WITHIN a fixed set. Such that if I had a fixed curve based on a fixed data set, I would be filling WITHIN the curve or enhancing the curve in a polynomial or spline interpolation vis. a linear interpolation.[/QUOTE]
Interpolation is a WAY to do stretching. But it's still stretching - then that's what's happening, you stretch the image.
There are many different ways to do the stretching. The simplest being just to repeat a pixel (nearest neighbour). And there are more elaborate ways, se the Wikipedia article for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']Now, in regards to what we are discussing here, the reason why 1080p checkerboard looks better than 720p60 framepacking (on a 1080p display) is because the overall and general topology of the 3D model does not change between 1080p checkerboard and 1080p framesequential, you only have a loss of information "in between" something that is so fine that those who have seen 1080p24 or 1080p120 framesequential on one hand and 1080p60 checkerboard on the other hand are unable to give a definite quantifying change to their viewing quality experience. The defined topology of how the 3D world "looks" is still intact, something that is observablely a distorted image, overall, in 720p60 via a 1080p display.If you actualy READ what I wrote, then you'd know then I NEVER disputed that.
What I said is that the previous DOWNSAMPLING is the problem. Because you lose some information there.
Read, then reply again, please.
[quote name='photios' date='27 January 2012 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1327686768' post='1361445']Now where I believe 1080p checkerboard is inferior is in its ability to give good textual quality to small in-game text (Counter-Strike?) and that is solely by dint of the process since small text isn't going to garner many pixels in the first place, such that this information "in between" that is lost contributes to image degradation due to the size of the text. In games where the dialogue text is much larger like Skyrim, one does not witness a textual degradation because the size of the text has enough pixels to keep the toplogy of the letters in-tact.
Well, EXCATLY. If you realize that, then we actually agree completely on that. But next time please read what I wrote instead of thinking that I'm stupid. Thanks :)
Interpolation is a WAY to do stretching. But it's still stretching - then that's what's happening, you stretch the image.
There are many different ways to do the stretching. The simplest being just to repeat a pixel (nearest neighbour). And there are more elaborate ways, se the Wikipedia article for details: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)[/url]
If you actualy READ what I wrote, then you'd know then I NEVER disputed that.
What I said is that the previous DOWNSAMPLING is the problem. Because you lose some information there.
Read, then reply again, please.
Well, EXCATLY. If you realize that, then we actually agree completely on that. But next time please read what I wrote instead of thinking that I'm stupid. Thanks :)
[/quote]
I never implied that you were stupid, I implied that you were equivocating on certain terms in the sense of how you are able to arrive at a quantifiable case for 720p60 framepacking vis. 1080p checkerboard. Those are philosophical claims, not a claim of your character.
1) My claim was to state that interpolation is not identical to stretching ex hypothesi. While you are correct that certain interpolation techniques manages to stretch an image as a means to an end, Interpolation qua interpolation does not mean stretching.
and
2) To show you that you don't have the kind of stretching of 1 to 2 pixels as you imagine with checkerboard as you keep arguing with roller11. You have a loss of "information" per eye while maintaining the exact same topological structure at certain fixed data points left/right (and collectively they have all the information of the 2D image). That's what checkerboard DOES and that's why it's able to run at native resolution of a display.
If you agree with me on the salient points, then I'm at a loss as to why you call what we've been claiming "bull****" and/or arguing with roller11. That might be a personality conflict between you two, but the truth tracking in the controversey has been sorely missing.
photios
Interpolation is a WAY to do stretching. But it's still stretching - then that's what's happening, you stretch the image.
There are many different ways to do the stretching. The simplest being just to repeat a pixel (nearest neighbour). And there are more elaborate ways, se the Wikipedia article for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(bitmap)
If you actualy READ what I wrote, then you'd know then I NEVER disputed that.
What I said is that the previous DOWNSAMPLING is the problem. Because you lose some information there.
Read, then reply again, please.
Well, EXCATLY. If you realize that, then we actually agree completely on that. But next time please read what I wrote instead of thinking that I'm stupid. Thanks :)
I never implied that you were stupid, I implied that you were equivocating on certain terms in the sense of how you are able to arrive at a quantifiable case for 720p60 framepacking vis. 1080p checkerboard. Those are philosophical claims, not a claim of your character.
1) My claim was to state that interpolation is not identical to stretching ex hypothesi. While you are correct that certain interpolation techniques manages to stretch an image as a means to an end, Interpolation qua interpolation does not mean stretching.
and
2) To show you that you don't have the kind of stretching of 1 to 2 pixels as you imagine with checkerboard as you keep arguing with roller11. You have a loss of "information" per eye while maintaining the exact same topological structure at certain fixed data points left/right (and collectively they have all the information of the 2D image). That's what checkerboard DOES and that's why it's able to run at native resolution of a display.
If you agree with me on the salient points, then I'm at a loss as to why you call what we've been claiming "bull****" and/or arguing with roller11. That might be a personality conflict between you two, but the truth tracking in the controversey has been sorely missing.
photios
I'd just like to piont something out here.
Roller11, it is you that's the liar, or your misinformed, i'd say your miss informed.
Checkerboard is'nt native 1080p 3d on a 3dtv!
There are no displays apart from true 120hz that can display a full 1080p60hz 3d image![/quote]
You are very mixed up. You are confusing bandwidth with native resolution, they are two entirely different things. Of course your lack of understanding explains your bizzare posts.
I'll say it again. CB, SBS, TB, IL are all 1 to 1 mapped so they are, by definition, native resolution. This has NOTHING TO DO with bandwidth.
I'd just like to piont something out here.
Roller11, it is you that's the liar, or your misinformed, i'd say your miss informed.
Checkerboard is'nt native 1080p 3d on a 3dtv!
There are no displays apart from true 120hz that can display a full 1080p60hz 3d image!
You are very mixed up. You are confusing bandwidth with native resolution, they are two entirely different things. Of course your lack of understanding explains your bizzare posts.
I'll say it again. CB, SBS, TB, IL are all 1 to 1 mapped so they are, by definition, native resolution. This has NOTHING TO DO with bandwidth.
If you agree with me on the salient points, then I'm at a loss as to why you call what we've been claiming "bull****" and/or arguing with roller11. That might be a personality conflict between you two, but the truth tracking in the controversey has been sorely missing.
photios
[/quote]
No, you just didn't read properly. Roller claimed that there is NO loss, that 1080p CB is LOSSLESS, ie. identical to direct 1080p. Which is bull****.
I think I wrote everything in detail in that posting: [url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=221494&view=findpost&p=1360310"]http://forums.nvidia...dpost&p=1360310[/url]
Do you disagree with that posting? Then please do so, but do write some points I'm missing or where I'm thinking wrong.
/edit: Roller just repeated this in the posting above this... :) Thanks Roller, for making your claim so clear for everyone to read.
If you agree with me on the salient points, then I'm at a loss as to why you call what we've been claiming "bull****" and/or arguing with roller11. That might be a personality conflict between you two, but the truth tracking in the controversey has been sorely missing.
photios
No, you just didn't read properly. Roller claimed that there is NO loss, that 1080p CB is LOSSLESS, ie. identical to direct 1080p. Which is bull****.
I think I wrote everything in detail in that posting: http://forums.nvidia...dpost&p=1360310
Do you disagree with that posting? Then please do so, but do write some points I'm missing or where I'm thinking wrong.
/edit: Roller just repeated this in the posting above this... :) Thanks Roller, for making your claim so clear for everyone to read.
No, you just didn't read properly. Roller claimed that there is NO loss, that 1080p CB is LOSSLESS, ie. identical to direct 1080p. Which is bull****.
I think I wrote everything in detail in that posting: [url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=221494&view=findpost&p=1360310"]http://forums.nvidia...dpost&p=1360310[/url]
Do you disagree with that posting? Then please do so, but do write some points I'm missing or where I'm thinking wrong.
/edit: Roller just repeated this in the posting above this... :) Thanks Roller, for making your claim so clear for everyone to read.
[/quote]
I know exactly what roller claims.
I'm gonna wax Socractic here:
Does roller11 think that it is lossless per frame, per eye, or both?
No, you just didn't read properly. Roller claimed that there is NO loss, that 1080p CB is LOSSLESS, ie. identical to direct 1080p. Which is bull****.
I think I wrote everything in detail in that posting: http://forums.nvidia...dpost&p=1360310
Do you disagree with that posting? Then please do so, but do write some points I'm missing or where I'm thinking wrong.
/edit: Roller just repeated this in the posting above this... :) Thanks Roller, for making your claim so clear for everyone to read.
I know exactly what roller claims.
I'm gonna wax Socractic here:
Does roller11 think that it is lossless per frame, per eye, or both?
I know exactly what roller claims.
I'm gonna wax Socractic here:
Does roller11 think that it is lossless per frame, per eye, or both?
[/quote]
There is no difference, it doesn't matter what he thinks.
Each eye sees half the resolution. You can't say that because you have two eyes, and each eye sees "the other pixels" you somehow compensate the loss.
In the end the brain sees two images, each having half the resolution. So the end result is a 3 dimensional image, but still with half the resolution.
Or would you claim that 1080p frame sequential would somehow double the resolution, because both eyes get an image with full 1080p? That would be the logic consequence...
If he's actually saing, because the resolution of the transferred frame would be native resolution, the end result is somehow better, you should know that this doesn't say ANYthing at all.
You could transfer the image in 1080p (ie native) and still cut the resolution by 3 or whatever else before you display the image and get a ****ty end result. Yes, you could feed three monitors that way, but each monitor would still only have a third of the original resolution.
In the end, it *is* all about bandwidth. You can only get so much data over the line in a given amount of time.
The image quality using 1080 CB is without any doubt worse than when using 1080 frame sequential or frame packed. Anyone who claims something different is just SO WRONG.
That the 1080p CB, SBS or IL is still offering a better resolution than 720p was never in dispute, by the way. Even the scaling is easier and cleaner with 1080p/2, noone disputed that either. What I said is that there could be a loss of information, because the game rendered at full resolution originally before it is downscaled to half the resolution. That's exactly what you wrote with your Counter Strike example. That's not happening if the game is rendering in 720 in the first place.
I know exactly what roller claims.
I'm gonna wax Socractic here:
Does roller11 think that it is lossless per frame, per eye, or both?
There is no difference, it doesn't matter what he thinks.
Each eye sees half the resolution. You can't say that because you have two eyes, and each eye sees "the other pixels" you somehow compensate the loss.
In the end the brain sees two images, each having half the resolution. So the end result is a 3 dimensional image, but still with half the resolution.
Or would you claim that 1080p frame sequential would somehow double the resolution, because both eyes get an image with full 1080p? That would be the logic consequence...
If he's actually saing, because the resolution of the transferred frame would be native resolution, the end result is somehow better, you should know that this doesn't say ANYthing at all.
You could transfer the image in 1080p (ie native) and still cut the resolution by 3 or whatever else before you display the image and get a ****ty end result. Yes, you could feed three monitors that way, but each monitor would still only have a third of the original resolution.
In the end, it *is* all about bandwidth. You can only get so much data over the line in a given amount of time.
The image quality using 1080 CB is without any doubt worse than when using 1080 frame sequential or frame packed. Anyone who claims something different is just SO WRONG.
That the 1080p CB, SBS or IL is still offering a better resolution than 720p was never in dispute, by the way. Even the scaling is easier and cleaner with 1080p/2, noone disputed that either. What I said is that there could be a loss of information, because the game rendered at full resolution originally before it is downscaled to half the resolution. That's exactly what you wrote with your Counter Strike example. That's not happening if the game is rendering in 720 in the first place.
There is no difference.
Each eye sees half the resolution. You can't say that because you have two eyes, and each eye sees "the other pixels" you somehow compensate the loss.
In the end the brain sees two images, each having half the resolution. So the end result is a 3 dimensional image, but still with half the resolution.
Or would you claim that 1080p frame sequential would somehow double the resolution, because both eyes get an image with full 1080p? That would be the logic consequence...
[/quote]
No that is not the logical consequence nor a successful [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i].
What I'm trying to get you to admit or understand is careful distinctions that have to made to quantify and assess the problem.
Frame Sequential is both 1080p alternating frame with each ("per eye") left and right image being 1080p. It's lossless throughout. I take it you know this. So 1080p frame sequential is an example of both 1080p pixels per frame and 1080p pixels per eye. That doesn't amount to doubling the revolution, that's why it runs at 120hz theoretically. Each alternating frame the screen displays left (60 hz) and right (60hz) just is 1080p no more, no less.
1080p Checkerboard is not split into two seperate alternating *frames* indexed to the left and right image. It is rather two gpu rendered images decimated into a single checkerboard array and sent as one single frame (60 hz) that is 1080p per frame and half the resolution per eye.
1080p checkerboard is an example of 3D that is 1080p per frame and not 1080p per eye.
There is no difference.
Each eye sees half the resolution. You can't say that because you have two eyes, and each eye sees "the other pixels" you somehow compensate the loss.
In the end the brain sees two images, each having half the resolution. So the end result is a 3 dimensional image, but still with half the resolution.
Or would you claim that 1080p frame sequential would somehow double the resolution, because both eyes get an image with full 1080p? That would be the logic consequence...
No that is not the logical consequence nor a successful reductio ad absurdum.
What I'm trying to get you to admit or understand is careful distinctions that have to made to quantify and assess the problem.
Frame Sequential is both 1080p alternating frame with each ("per eye") left and right image being 1080p. It's lossless throughout. I take it you know this. So 1080p frame sequential is an example of both 1080p pixels per frame and 1080p pixels per eye. That doesn't amount to doubling the revolution, that's why it runs at 120hz theoretically. Each alternating frame the screen displays left (60 hz) and right (60hz) just is 1080p no more, no less.
1080p Checkerboard is not split into two seperate alternating *frames* indexed to the left and right image. It is rather two gpu rendered images decimated into a single checkerboard array and sent as one single frame (60 hz) that is 1080p per frame and half the resolution per eye.
1080p checkerboard is an example of 3D that is 1080p per frame and not 1080p per eye.
Interpolation is not identical to stretching. Stretching is the idea of taking what would be a given set of data say at 1,1 to 1,2 and then stretching it to say 1,1 to 2,4.
Interpolation is the idea of constructing NEW data points from WITHIN a fixed set. Such that if I had a fixed curve based on a fixed data set, I would be filling WITHIN the curve or enhancing the curve in a polynomial or spline interpolation vis. a linear interpolation.
Stretching involves a definite topological change to its structure in which the image quality can be distorted. Interpolation does not necessarily distort because it does not necessitate a general change to the toplogy, it involves understanding a data from within the fixed topological points.
Now, in regards to what we are discussing here, the reason why 1080p checkerboard looks better than 720p60 framepacking (on a 1080p display) is because the overall and general topology of the 3D model does not change between 1080p checkerboard and 1080p framesequential, you only have a loss of information "in between" something that is so fine that those who have seen 1080p24 or 1080p120 framesequential on one hand and 1080p60 checkerboard on the other hand are unable to give a definite quantifying change to their viewing quality experience. The defined topology of how the 3D world "looks" is still intact, something that is observablely a distorted image, overall, in 720p60 via a 1080p display.
Now where I believe 1080p checkerboard is inferior is in its ability to give good textual quality to small in-game text (Counter-Strike?) and that is solely by dint of the process since small text isn't going to garner many pixels in the first place, such that this information "in between" that is lost contributes to image degradation due to the size of the text. In games where the dialogue text is much larger like Skyrim, one does not witness a textual degradation because the size of the text has enough pixels to keep the toplogy of the letters in-tact.
[/quote]
I don't know much about a tv or monitor, but what I do know about is trigonometry, which is what you are talking about concerning interpolating or stretching. Interpolating is most definitely not the same thing as stretching. Linear interpolation is calculating the x axis(ex.1920)and y axis (ex.1080)from a given point on a right triangle to arrive at a predetermined point in space. Circular interpolation is simply dividing a circle into equal parts and then applying linear interpolation (points on circle from center as hypotenuse) to calculate the length of the sides from the known radius.
Stretching would be the same as taking the previously unknown sides (x and y)and multiplying their distances by a fixed amount, which would introduce blur on an image. The same thing as blowing up a picture until it is bigger with the trade off of having it blurier. "Blurier"---is that even a word?
Basically, I am agreeing with you in more "lay" terms.
Interpolation is not identical to stretching. Stretching is the idea of taking what would be a given set of data say at 1,1 to 1,2 and then stretching it to say 1,1 to 2,4.
Interpolation is the idea of constructing NEW data points from WITHIN a fixed set. Such that if I had a fixed curve based on a fixed data set, I would be filling WITHIN the curve or enhancing the curve in a polynomial or spline interpolation vis. a linear interpolation.
Stretching involves a definite topological change to its structure in which the image quality can be distorted. Interpolation does not necessarily distort because it does not necessitate a general change to the toplogy, it involves understanding a data from within the fixed topological points.
Now, in regards to what we are discussing here, the reason why 1080p checkerboard looks better than 720p60 framepacking (on a 1080p display) is because the overall and general topology of the 3D model does not change between 1080p checkerboard and 1080p framesequential, you only have a loss of information "in between" something that is so fine that those who have seen 1080p24 or 1080p120 framesequential on one hand and 1080p60 checkerboard on the other hand are unable to give a definite quantifying change to their viewing quality experience. The defined topology of how the 3D world "looks" is still intact, something that is observablely a distorted image, overall, in 720p60 via a 1080p display.
Now where I believe 1080p checkerboard is inferior is in its ability to give good textual quality to small in-game text (Counter-Strike?) and that is solely by dint of the process since small text isn't going to garner many pixels in the first place, such that this information "in between" that is lost contributes to image degradation due to the size of the text. In games where the dialogue text is much larger like Skyrim, one does not witness a textual degradation because the size of the text has enough pixels to keep the toplogy of the letters in-tact.
I don't know much about a tv or monitor, but what I do know about is trigonometry, which is what you are talking about concerning interpolating or stretching. Interpolating is most definitely not the same thing as stretching. Linear interpolation is calculating the x axis(ex.1920)and y axis (ex.1080)from a given point on a right triangle to arrive at a predetermined point in space. Circular interpolation is simply dividing a circle into equal parts and then applying linear interpolation (points on circle from center as hypotenuse) to calculate the length of the sides from the known radius.
Stretching would be the same as taking the previously unknown sides (x and y)and multiplying their distances by a fixed amount, which would introduce blur on an image. The same thing as blowing up a picture until it is bigger with the trade off of having it blurier. "Blurier"---is that even a word?
Basically, I am agreeing with you in more "lay" terms.
I don't know much about a tv or monitor, but what I do know about is trigonometry, which is what you are talking about concerning interpolating or stretching. Interpolating is most definitely not the same thing as stretching. Linear interpolation is calculating the x axis(ex.1920) and y axis (ex.1080)from a given point on a right triangle to arrive at a predetermined point in space. Circular interpolation is simply dividing a circle into equal parts and then applying linear interpolation to calculate the length of the sides from the known radius.
Stretching would be the same as taking the previously unknown sides (x and y)and multiplying their distances by a fixed amount, which would introduce blur on an image. The same thing as blowing up a picture until it is bigger with the trade off of having it blurrier. "Blurrier"---is that even a word?
[/quote]
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
I don't know much about a tv or monitor, but what I do know about is trigonometry, which is what you are talking about concerning interpolating or stretching. Interpolating is most definitely not the same thing as stretching. Linear interpolation is calculating the x axis(ex.1920) and y axis (ex.1080)from a given point on a right triangle to arrive at a predetermined point in space. Circular interpolation is simply dividing a circle into equal parts and then applying linear interpolation to calculate the length of the sides from the known radius.
Stretching would be the same as taking the previously unknown sides (x and y)and multiplying their distances by a fixed amount, which would introduce blur on an image. The same thing as blowing up a picture until it is bigger with the trade off of having it blurrier. "Blurrier"---is that even a word?
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
Amorphous
Amorphous
NVIDIA | Technical Marketing Manager
GeForce Forums - Special Counsel
No that is not the logical consequence nor a successful [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i].
What I'm trying to get you to admit or understand is careful distinctions that have to made to quantify and assess the problem.
Frame Sequential is both 1080p alternating frame with each ("per eye") left and right image being 1080p. It's lossless throughout. I take it you know this. So 1080p frame sequential is an example of both 1080p pixels per frame and 1080p pixels per eye. That doesn't amount to doubling the revolution, that's why it runs at 120hz theoretically. Each alternating frame the screen displays left (60 hz) and right (60hz) just is 1080p no more, no less.
1080p Checkerboard is not split into two seperate alternating *frames* indexed to the left and right image. It is rather two gpu rendered images decimated into a single checkerboard array and sent as one single frame (60 hz) that is 1080p per frame and half the resolution per eye.
1080p checkerboard is an example of 3D that is 1080p per frame and not 1080p per eye.
[/quote]
Yes, and in what Way is that different from what I've been saying all along?
I think this is really a very obvious problem of some people just not wanting to read properly. Or my English is just not up to the task. But I really doubt that I didn't make myself clear enough.
Please, Photios, take the time and read carefully what I wrote. EVERY sentence. Don't just scan over the text and read what you THINK what I might mean in your opinion, ok?
No that is not the logical consequence nor a successful reductio ad absurdum.
What I'm trying to get you to admit or understand is careful distinctions that have to made to quantify and assess the problem.
Frame Sequential is both 1080p alternating frame with each ("per eye") left and right image being 1080p. It's lossless throughout. I take it you know this. So 1080p frame sequential is an example of both 1080p pixels per frame and 1080p pixels per eye. That doesn't amount to doubling the revolution, that's why it runs at 120hz theoretically. Each alternating frame the screen displays left (60 hz) and right (60hz) just is 1080p no more, no less.
1080p Checkerboard is not split into two seperate alternating *frames* indexed to the left and right image. It is rather two gpu rendered images decimated into a single checkerboard array and sent as one single frame (60 hz) that is 1080p per frame and half the resolution per eye.
1080p checkerboard is an example of 3D that is 1080p per frame and not 1080p per eye.
Yes, and in what Way is that different from what I've been saying all along?
I think this is really a very obvious problem of some people just not wanting to read properly. Or my English is just not up to the task. But I really doubt that I didn't make myself clear enough.
Please, Photios, take the time and read carefully what I wrote. EVERY sentence. Don't just scan over the text and read what you THINK what I might mean in your opinion, ok?
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
[/quote]
Guys, the process of inserting missing data by using adjacent fix points is also called interpolation, even if it's not geometric. If you stretch an image, you NEED to do some kind of interpolation to fill in the data. That's why I wrote that stretching an image is practically the same thing as interpolating the missing data. If you don't believe me, then please read the Wikipedia about that topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation
And as far as I recall, I didn't introduce the term stretching. Unfortunately, the posting that brought that term in seems to be deleted now. I just said that interpolating is the same IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE because it seemed to me that there was some misunderstanding about that.
This is REALLY getting very ridiculous.
I don' want to tell you what kind of education I have, because I don't think it's necessary to brag with it. But please don't assume I'm stupid because you don't seem to be able to understand my point. Which is mostly caused by your unwillingness to read properly, as far as I can see.
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
Guys, the process of inserting missing data by using adjacent fix points is also called interpolation, even if it's not geometric. If you stretch an image, you NEED to do some kind of interpolation to fill in the data. That's why I wrote that stretching an image is practically the same thing as interpolating the missing data. If you don't believe me, then please read the Wikipedia about that topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation
And as far as I recall, I didn't introduce the term stretching. Unfortunately, the posting that brought that term in seems to be deleted now. I just said that interpolating is the same IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE because it seemed to me that there was some misunderstanding about that.
This is REALLY getting very ridiculous.
I don' want to tell you what kind of education I have, because I don't think it's necessary to brag with it. But please don't assume I'm stupid because you don't seem to be able to understand my point. Which is mostly caused by your unwillingness to read properly, as far as I can see.
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
[/quote]
Thanks to your posts I am beginning to grasp the idea behind checkerboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given a standard checkerboard as being red and black squares--one eye thru active glasses would see only the red squares and the other eye only the black squares. Thus having a loss "per eye" while maintaining the native resolution without the need for upscaling or stretching. Text of course losing quality because of the limited amount of pixels used.
Therefore Roller is correct.
Yes correct. Like you, I have a mathematics as well as a philosophy academic background. While the kind of stretching that Grestorn was contextualizing uses and implies interpolation as a mathematical algorithm to achieve a result, interpolation qua interpolation does not imply stretching ex hypothesi.
Thanks to your posts I am beginning to grasp the idea behind checkerboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given a standard checkerboard as being red and black squares--one eye thru active glasses would see only the red squares and the other eye only the black squares. Thus having a loss "per eye" while maintaining the native resolution without the need for upscaling or stretching. Text of course losing quality because of the limited amount of pixels used.
Therefore Roller is correct.
Thanks to your posts I am beginning to grasp the idea behind checkerboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given a standard checkerboard as being red and black squares--one eye thru active glasses would see only the red squares and the other eye only the black squares. Thus having a loss "per eye" while maintaining the native resolution without the need for upscaling or stretching. Text of course losing quality because of the limited amount of pixels used.
Therefore Roller is correct.
[/quote]
Yes your gloss is exactly what is going on.
Thanks to your posts I am beginning to grasp the idea behind checkerboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given a standard checkerboard as being red and black squares--one eye thru active glasses would see only the red squares and the other eye only the black squares. Thus having a loss "per eye" while maintaining the native resolution without the need for upscaling or stretching. Text of course losing quality because of the limited amount of pixels used.
Therefore Roller is correct.
Yes your gloss is exactly what is going on.
Guys, the process of inserting missing data by using adjacent fix points is also called interpolation, even if it's not geometric. If you stretch an image, you NEED to do some kind of interpolation to fill in the data. That's why I wrote that stretching an image is practically the same thing as interpolating the missing data.
And as far as I recall, I didn't introduce the term stretching. Unfortunately, the posting that brought that term in seems to be deleted now. I just said that interpolating is the same IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE because it seemed to me that there was some misunderstanding about that.
This is REALLY getting very ridiculous.
I don' want to tell you what kind of education I have, because I don't think it's necessary to brag with it. But please don't assume I'm stupid because you don't seem to be able to understand my point. Which is mostly caused by your unwillingness to read properly, as far as I can see.
[/quote]
Of course. I agree, I was restating that you were articulating that stretching an image, by whatever modern algorithm that is used to accomplish the scaling, implies interpolation. Where I disagreed was your claim that stretching 'is' [the same as] interpolating. That form of predication is a little too strong and not something you would, hopefully, agree with, because the former implies the latter, the latter does not imply the former.
Guys, the process of inserting missing data by using adjacent fix points is also called interpolation, even if it's not geometric. If you stretch an image, you NEED to do some kind of interpolation to fill in the data. That's why I wrote that stretching an image is practically the same thing as interpolating the missing data.
And as far as I recall, I didn't introduce the term stretching. Unfortunately, the posting that brought that term in seems to be deleted now. I just said that interpolating is the same IN THE CONTEXT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE because it seemed to me that there was some misunderstanding about that.
This is REALLY getting very ridiculous.
I don' want to tell you what kind of education I have, because I don't think it's necessary to brag with it. But please don't assume I'm stupid because you don't seem to be able to understand my point. Which is mostly caused by your unwillingness to read properly, as far as I can see.
Of course. I agree, I was restating that you were articulating that stretching an image, by whatever modern algorithm that is used to accomplish the scaling, implies interpolation. Where I disagreed was your claim that stretching 'is' [the same as] interpolating. That form of predication is a little too strong and not something you would, hopefully, agree with, because the former implies the latter, the latter does not imply the former.