Re: Why is checkerboard 3d inferior to standard 3d?
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:59 am
Unfortunately many legacy requirements preclude from following such a simple path as you describe. The problem is, computer displays and consumer televisions have evolved in very different directions for a very long time, and only recently there have been a strong trend for convergence.
As for 3D formats, 120 Hz frame alternative displays are not the only stereo displays in existence, so there can't be one single "fit it all" format such as top/bottom, "frame packing" or frame alternative (these three are essentially the same from the practical point of view). There are quite a few devices with dual-engine setup, so these are better served by a side-by-side format, and there are quite a few devices built around line-interleaved format... not to mention dual projection setups which require dual video interfaces, which is not even supported by HDMI 3D.
Hopefully VESA DisplayPort 1.2 will someday emerge as the ubiquitous full-resolution stereo interface for both 3D TVs and 3D monitors. I personally look forward to having a 27" 2560x1440 120 Hz monitor, which should only be possible with DisplayPort...
As for 3D formats, 120 Hz frame alternative displays are not the only stereo displays in existence, so there can't be one single "fit it all" format such as top/bottom, "frame packing" or frame alternative (these three are essentially the same from the practical point of view). There are quite a few devices with dual-engine setup, so these are better served by a side-by-side format, and there are quite a few devices built around line-interleaved format... not to mention dual projection setups which require dual video interfaces, which is not even supported by HDMI 3D.
Hopefully VESA DisplayPort 1.2 will someday emerge as the ubiquitous full-resolution stereo interface for both 3D TVs and 3D monitors. I personally look forward to having a 27" 2560x1440 120 Hz monitor, which should only be possible with DisplayPort...