Page 2 of 2

Re: Why is checkerboard 3d inferior to standard 3d?

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:59 am
by DmitryKo
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...

Re: Why is checkerboard 3d inferior to standard 3d?

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:20 pm
by GoldChain
Good stuff, man!

I think we're on the same page as far as a future ubiquitous standard. It's funny as we still refer to TVs and computer monitors as if they're separate, which only for the fact we consider them separate could be a single category called "Displays".

That's kind of the point of my original "gripe" was that if a display (PC, TV, whatever) simply accepted a bitstream of video data to display that stream at a given resolution and refresh rate, then you've just removed any role the display would need to play in displaying any content. Then it would simply be the device that streams the content to determine if it's non-3D content, or 3D frame alternate (i.e. at that point there would be no need for any other 3D delivery format, as frame alternate would work great with shutterglasses, etc) then send that stream to the display. Boom - done.

Alas, I realize I can't change history, nor the path displays have taken to get where they are. It seems to me it would be beneficial (not perhaps for manufacturers that was to distinguish their products from competitors) to start fresh with displays and formats so that everyone's on the same page :D

GC

Re: Why is checkerboard 3d inferior to standard 3d?

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:39 am
by tritosine5G
Neo42 wrote:
EDIT: My Mitsu C9 series DLP allegedly has 3 DarkChip4 DMDs which are supposedly natively 1080p panels, which effectively would give this display an advantage of not losing resolution while wobulating for 3D.
lol . The amount of wishful thinking there :lol:

What do you think of that checkerboard +plasma craze over nvidia forums?

How's it better than 720p + 16x MSAA ? I don't even ....

Btw its very good now nvidia is forced to innovate something for 720p. We can avait their answer to mlaa and for 3d its particulary important.