PCGH tests hyundai 3D display w/ passive glasses - better than nv

[saaya]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,69...sion/LCD/Test/

heres a google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translat...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

what they didnt mention is that this technique actually cuts the horizontal resolution in half... as a result you basically see 1680x525 and not 1680x1050... that by itself is not as much of a problem as you might think, the problem is that it results in aliasing since half of the horizontal lines are basically missing/skipped...

it doesnt flicker like active shutter glass solutions, like the one nvidia uses, but cutting the res in half is a big drawback... i saw it on a 1080P display at computex and even there you DO notice the lower horizontal resolution, and especially if you look at light reflactions in games, like car racing, the aliasing is very obvious and stands out a lot... and im not even sure if this can be fixed in future drivers, and if they can somehow apply a new way of aa to solve this...

plus this costs even more than active shutter glasses... if you ask me active shutter glasses are the way to go, we just need even higher refresh rates and some tweaking in regards to shutter times to get rid of the flickering...

[>HyperlogiK<]

Can't some of the disadvantages of passive glasses be overcome by higher res displays? It can't be too long before there are some consumer level 4K displays and 1/2 of 2160-3112 horizontal res would still give plenty of detail.

I can't help thinking that passive glasses are the way forward for TV and console gaming just because you wont have to drop an extra $200+ for each additional viewer/player. I know this is a PC product, and PC gaming is a sizeable niche but if passive glasses become the dominant 3D technology in the market then I would imagine that it would eventually filter through to PC gaming.

[saaya]

yeah but
1.) you always end up with a weird aspect ratio cause you lose half the horizontal lines
2.) you have aliasing between the horizontal lines since each eye sees only every 2nd horizontal line

2 might be possible to work around with drivers, idk... thats up to ati and nvidia to comment on...
1... might not be such a big deal with resolutions going up, yes...
i dont know if it was just the way each tech was tweaked or if they really differ... but the active shutter stuff ive seen looked bet...

[[XC] Lead Head]

The best solution would be fairly complex unfortunately. I always thought that I-MAX had the best 3D, and their solution to do it is fairly complex. They have two projectors that are synchronized in a way so that when one project is displaying a frame, the other has the shutter closed. One projector has a horizontally polarized lens, the other a vertical , and they use the same type of passive glasses. So that way you get the same full resolution.

I'm not sure if that is even possible to do with LCDs as you'd need to be able to show alternating horizontally and vertically opposed images.

[Particle]

yeah but
1.) you always end up with a weird aspect ratio cause you lose half the horizontal lines
2.) you have aliasing between the horizontal lines since each eye sees only every 2nd horizontal line

I wouldn't worry too much about these concerns. As far as aspect is concerned, that's something that's determined by physical layout--not the video itself. You can see a historical example with NTSC video being 720x480 (3:2) but still displayed as a 4:3 ratio due to rectangular pixels in televisions. Since these displays are still in a regular aspect that you expect, nothing will change in that regard.

The second is possibly mitigated by pixel density. It's a problem that effects even normal displays. On a full-pixel basis, that's why we need anti-aliasing in the first place. If a 22" monitor had a physical resolution of 6720x4200, AA wouldn't hardly be necessary. The same thing would carry over to the alternate line theory. If you get every other row of pixels close enough, they won't look like there's a significant gap. After all, there's already a small gap even with regular displays.

[saaya]

well essentially what they do at imax is double the refresh rate at full resolution, which is what active shutter glass tech does as well, BUT, they polarize the full screen and use passive glasses, which is better as theres no flickering around the screen then...

to do this with a display youd need a display that can switch polarization from one frame to the next, and do that at 120hz+
which is obviously going to be a whole lot more expensive than to use tiny shutter glasses...

i think active shutter glasses would probably work fine with 200/240hz displays, you wouldnt notice any flickering outside of the screen that way... but even 120hz displays are quite expensive already... :/

i think right now, if you want 3d, this passive shutter glass 3d display stuff is probably the best... you lose resolution and you get some aliasing, plus it costs more... but it doesnt flicker at all...

[initialised]

Nice, but how is this different to the Zalman Trimon?

[mursaat]

Why does the title say "better than nv" if the post states it's actually worse in every aspect?

[saaya]

Nice, but how is this different to the Zalman Trimon?

it doesnt have the zalman sticker on it? ^^
the zalman display was rebranded... no idea if its made by hitachi was well though...

Why does the title say "better than nv" if the post states it's actually worse in every aspect?

cause they concluded its better than nvidia, and i wrote that in my opinion the active shutter glass tech seems to be the best solution...

[prosser13]

what they didnt mention is that this technique actually cuts the horizontal resolution in half... as a result you basically see 1680x525 and not 1680x1050... that by itself is not as much of a problem as you might think, the problem is that it results in aliasing since half of the horizontal lines are basically missing/skipped...

Wouldn't cutting the horizontal resolution in half make it 840x1050 as opposed to 1680x525? Apologies if I'm being dull

[saaya]

Wouldn't cutting the horizontal resolution in half make it 840x1050 as opposed to 1680x525? Apologies if I'm being dull

depends how you define it...

the amount of horizontal lines is cut in half, that why i said horizontal res is cut in half.
you can also say the resolution of a vertical line on the display is half as accurate and has half as many samples, so the vertical res is cut in half.
i guess i defined it against the common standard, so my bad

this tech turns a 1680x1050 into a 1680x525, thats what matters

[mursaat]

Ok point taken.

I remember 2-3 years ago Viewsonic used to sell double density monitors, like 19" 3200x2400, could be the solution if it becomes mainstream - cheap.

[saaya]

well in theory this tech, passive shutter glasses and polarizing every second horizontal line diferently is the cheapest solution... i really dont get why this hitachi display costs more than the active shutter glass stuff from nvidia... and its at way low res, only 1680x1050...

[mursaat]

Ok point taken.

I remember 2-3 years ago Viewsonic used to sell double density monitors, like 19" 3200x2400, could be the solution if it becomes mainstream - cheap.

[mursaat]

Ok point taken.

I remember 2-3 years ago Viewsonic used to sell double density monitors, like 19" 3200x2400, could be the solution if it becomes mainstream - cheap.

[zanzabar]

why cant they just stop bickering on 3d and make a good lcd monitor then bicker over 3d. if i cant get a good resonance time and good color or good resolution and 100+hrz why would i even want 3d.


as for the imax idea, we could use dual election gun arrays and move to low depth dlp, that would give us at least 200hrz with current tech at higher than 1080p resolution (i would guess like 2x)