3D MVC Option

[docchris]

To do it you simply must alternate even and odd fields for each eye yet still maintain 60fps. Well, with 240hz, you have the speed you need.

you cant alternate , they are fixed

for example even numbered lines always go to the left eye, odd numbered lines always go to the right eye (or vice versa, it makes no difference)

there is no way to swap that

[docchris]

and you dont even need to maintain 60fps! with passive you could easily drop lower and its still fine!

[fetef]

fetef ~

Not if you consider the 4th dimension, time. Just read what I said about 240hz passive. It IS possible to show full HD in passive at that speed. How comfortable it will be to watch is of the question.

This has been discussed on the avs forums at length. the passive TV manufacturers won't and can't do what you would ideally want them to do, as much as that may infuriate you :/ 24 540p frames are still show to each eye each second, as that is what the source material is. the tv can't do anything else as the left and right eye lines are set when the Tv is manufactured, they can't switch i'm afraid. time has nothing to do with it chum

[docchris]

So reading what he wrote about "alternating" eyes...

his solution to getting passive TVs to display full res.. is to make them active???

thats hysterical

[sinious]

docchris ~

I'm not making passive TVs active. I'm reiterating what AVS has discussed to use refresh speed to increase detail.

Since you never read what I said (or anyone else on the subject) the 900 times I've said it, HTAB is BETTER THAN HSBS. It has more resolution. This is a fact. Get it through your skull. Then maybe you can understand why people might not like being forced to use HSBS. There is no reason a TV cannot take 2 full frames and composite HTAB or HSBS from them. Only you, who won't bother to read this either, thinks your TV has no part in actually processing a picture. Thus I'm not even going to continue to repeat to you.

This has been discussed on the avs forums at length. .. the left and right eye lines are set when the Tv is manufactured, they can't switch i'm afraid. time has nothing to do with it chum

I never got there in any of the threads, just to Full HD OU giving passive SBS 1920x540 as being about the latest.

What you seem to be saying is it requires showing the left eye in both the upper and lower field, interlacing back and forth. Is that truly necessary however? What was the big obstacle to it?

If you display: even field left upper -> odd field right lower -> odd field left upper -> even field right lower, you're still showing all the data available in the frame, up to 60fps speed (if required) via 240hz. The main ingredient which can be overlooked here is of course, your eyes and brain. The only way 3d works is your brain puts all this information together. Are you saying they attempted something that simple and people honestly didn't notice any increase in perceived picture detail? There may only be 540 lines but you're using those 540 vertical lines twice as much with different data, for the same frame.

Why are there even 240hz passive sets then? Is it literally so I can hook up my PC and attempt to run 1080p games at 240fps? haha

[fetef]

So reading what he wrote about "alternating" eyes...

his solution to getting passive TVs to display full res.. is to make them active???

thats hysterical

there was a lot of confusion like this on the avs forum a few years ago, people insiting that passive tvs could switch polarisation on individual rows, allowing the TV to overcome the loss in resolution with refresh rate. doesn't work like that, the rows are fixed to a particular polarisation, so you'll never get better than 540p24 times a second to each eye

[docchris]

i totally agree, thats why they are passive, because its a large , cheap, fixed polarising screen, plastered over the front of a bog standard tv, halving the available resolution to each eye

and no insanely high refresh rate will ever change that

[docchris]

HTAB is BETTER THAN HSBS. It has more resolution.

they both contain exactly 2,073,600 pixels?

There may only be 540 lines but you're using those 540 vertical lines twice as much with different data, for the same frame.

so you want to show the odd lines of the picture on the odd lines of the tv, then show the even lines of the picture on the odd lines of the tv?

thereby display 1080 lines, albeit overlapping each other and not at the same time, only ever 540 lines per eye

1) that is how LG TVs do passive 3d...

2) i'd have expected the end result of this is the the whole picture jumps up a single pixel?

3) how is this better than just blending those two lines together, since that is essentially what your eye will be doing, to still only give you 540p to each eye in the end?

[docchris]

From a CNEt article entitled active-3d-vs-passive-3d-whats-better

LG claims they show all the resolution in the 1080p signal to each eye temporally. As in, the TV shows the odd lines of resolution on the odd lines of the TV, then flash the even lines of resolution on the odd lines of the TV (and the opposite for the even lines).

[docchris]

there is no reason a TV cannot take 2 full frames and composite HTAB or HSBS from them.

the TV isn't compositing either of those from anything, its either displaying active or passive 3D. i think your insistence on misusing the terms HSBS and HTAB is not helping. unless your tv is actually displaying one picture stacked on top of the other, or plonked side by side, when you take your glasses off, it is not doing either of those things.

if anything passive TVs are closer to HTAB, since they only have 540 lines per eye, which you prefer

[sinious]

if anything passive TVs are closer to HTAB, since they only have 540 lines per eye, which you prefer

Take your own advice now that apparently you've given the concept more than a second worth of thought.

If passive is forced to 540 vertical, then what sense does it make compressing horizontal and maximizing vertical resolution with HSBS? You have 1080 lines vertically, of which you can show half to each eye. That removed half the vertical resolution and left you with only 940 lines horizontally that need to stretch. Hence the overall effective resolution of HSBS: 960x540.

In contrast, HTAB. You have 540 usable lines for both left and right eye, exactly like HSBS is reduced to. However, you have 1920 lines of horizontal resolution. Making your effective resolution of HTAB: 1920x540.

Clearly you have an active display and haven't needed to think about this because this is extremely basic math and it entirely eludes you.

[sinious]

Requiring a moderator to edit is, a pain.

*940 = 960, like I said in my final resolution.

[fetef]

I think anyone could agree that in HTAB vs HSBS, HtAB is gonna work better on passive, but you were talking about converting MVC or HSBS to HTAB originally.

[docchris]

I've got a Masters Degree in Imaging and a PhD in experiential X-Ray Physics, FYI,

I can do mathematics

yes, i entirely get what you are saying about HSBS and HTAB on a passive display but that is not what you are taking about you are talking about when the TV is sent FULL FRAMES from MVC, HSBS and HTAB never feature in the process anywhere

as fetef said... you are sending two full frames to the TV... the only resolution that is lost is because your display PHYSICALLY only has 540 lines per eye! there will never be any setting on the TV that can do it, i do not understand why you keep talk about compositing things and HSBS vs HTAB

THAT is what i cannot understand! and evidently you are not explaining

[docchris]

OK, lets try this another way

You said you wanted the TV to give you the choice between HSBS and HTAB

The TV is being supplied with two full 1080p images from the MVC source, via frame packed HDMI

The TV screen is two lots of 540p lines, one for each eye, interlaced, and that cannot be changed (because that is how they are physically constructed).

Explain HOW exactly HSBS would work in this instance? if your TV did give you a choice, and you picked the HSBS option.. how would it process and display the image?