LCD or DLP...need DLP info please

[citocito]

Hello all. I am about to buy the amazon LG package

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/r ... B003BI6W0K" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but every time I want to hit the buy button I start to worry and google another limitation with 3dTV. These limitations are mostly due to Nvidia being very greedy and locking the tech as there trademark.
What I mean by that is the fact that not even a few years ago, the stereo drivers where practically universal, with almost no limits on what display your using, or what resolution your in.
Not to mention the drivers supported a hell of a lot more. Namely all my screensavers. But I liked having the eDimentional switch for a 3d desktop background as well.

Whats bugging me is my latest find. I read that most of these new 3dtvs are limited to 720p when in 3d mode using the pc. Am I mistaken ?
This is something I really can not look past.

I really wanted to get a mitsu DLP. But how can I pass on a deal like the one above.

If I am not mistaken (this is where I can use some data from people that have one/are using one for 3d pc and movies) If I buy a DLP screen, I will be able to continue using my current setup.
Or if I go LCD, how will it affect me more or less. What kind of limits will be there. Nvision is the most limited btw.

20" CRT 22" CRT 37" TV
7950 GX2 for XP w/ 6 eDimentional glasses and dongle
8800 GT for vista w/ 1 Nvision glasses
I also have the VirtualFX converter.

I have the 8800 GT connected to the 2 CRTs . The 7950 to all 3 . In xp I can switch around and use the tv as 3d.


I'm looking for a monitor replacement. I wont have room for the 20" after so it mite be gone.

I would like to know if I go DLP will i be able to use my ED glasses with it?

Will I be able to use 1920x1200 more or less ?

Will I be able to switch my primary around for 3d ?

Are they bound by the same limits as a LCD LED screen is ?
Is there a max 3d mode or something

I love my crts...

Looking for any data from anyone that has and uses a DLP screen in there 3d setup

Thank you

I have till the end of the week, then I will just bite the bullet and buy. Sale ends 10/30

Edited:
Just thought of something.
What if i use the Virtualfx converter box between the pc and 3dtv.
It would make the pc output to the converter box, then to the tv in what ever rez I choose(maybe).
What does that sound like?
I already tested it this way for the 37" tv.
But the tv cant be in HD ofcourse

[Fredz]

Whats bugging me is my latest find. I read that most of these new 3dtvs are limited to 720p when in 3d mode using the pc. Am I mistaken ?

That's almost true, the HDMI 1.4a specifications require displays to support frame packing in 720p at 60 fps per eye but in 1080p they only require 24 fps per eye, which is enough for Blu-Ray 3D but not for 3D gaming.

I would like to know if I go DLP will i be able to use my ED glasses with it?

I don't see any reason why your eDimensional glasses wouldn't work with your 7950 graphics card on a DLP if they do work on your CRTs using the old NVIDIA stereo driver. For your 3D Vision setup, you should verify that the DLP is in the list of supported projectors on NVIDIA site.

Will I be able to use 1920x1200 more or less ?

Not with current DLP projectors, the highest resolution available at an acceptable cost is 1280x720 for now.

Are they bound by the same limits as a LCD LED screen is ?

The only limit is the compatibility with your graphics card and your glasses I guess. But they have the great advantage of showing a lot less ghosting than LCD displays though. Plasma TVs are also a lot better than LCD TVs ghosting-wise but still not up to par with DLP TVs and projectors.

I love my crts...

Yeah, so do I... And they are still a little bit better than LCDs in terms of ghosting, despite what can often be read on the Web...

[citocito]

Thank you Fredz

Your answers were full of useful information.
They made me understand quite a few things.

Anyone wish to concur ?

I think the way I feel is mostly due to the fact that I am forced to game at 720p and it upsets me.
Now I can't prove it but I am pretty sure it doesn't take much of a grfx card to game at that rez.
I wanted to buy a GTX 480 but a GTX 295 should be fine. Even for Hi Anti-aliasing witch is something
I will need. I just can't imagine gaming at that rez.
Batman Arkham Asylum looks terribly jagged. Even 16x AA can not get rid of them.
And then 720p stretched up to 47". I dont want to imagine ! ugh...
I'm looking at it now, even the textures look fuzzy and low rez.

Here's a question: Should I wait till the next HDMI spec comes out ? Maybe it will support 3d 1080p ?
(might be a while )

[Dom]

Have you considered getting 3 24'' 3d ready monitors and 2 gtx 480's with 3d vision for 3d vision surround? It would equal more than 1080p and the price = 3 x 3d monitor 400 = 1200 + 2 gtx480 x 500 = 2200 + 1 x 3d vision or bundle 180 = 2380 or less, alot cheaper than a 50 inch 1.4a hdmi tv unless you are looking at those for 1400 dollars then that might be a 1000 more for a way higher gameing resolution. I hear its the next best thing for pc gaming its just you won't be able to play a ps3 or xbox to it and only do pc stuff.

If you have the room you could also get 3 3d ready projectors and use them for nvidia surround as they pretty much cost the same as a 3 24 inch monitors. Maybe a 100 dollar difference. Sometimes resolution is not worth the extra money unless you think it is.

[cybereality]

Yes, all of the new 3DTVs only support 720P for 3D gaming. I have not heard of anything announced that supports 1080P 3D so it will probably be at least a year or more before anything is available. The DLP 3DTVs, like the Mitsubishi ones that have gotten good reviews, support 1080P 3D, but with checkerboarding (half-resolution for each eye). So the pixel detail is about equal to 720P, although the checkerboarding algorithm likely does a better job of upsampling the image. DLP is also supposed to have very low ghosting compared to LCD 3D. The LG seems like an OK deal, but its not anything so crazy. Especially when you can get a Mitsu DLP for under $1000 at a larger size and arguably better quality. Although you would still need to get the converter box to hook up a PS3 or 3D Blu-Ray player.

Also, what is it you are looking for? First you say you want a 3D HDTV, then you say you want a monitor replacement. I don't think a 55" LCD is really that great to use as a PC monitor. Great for the living room, but for a monitor you may want something smaller, like the ASUS 24" 120Hz monitor. Then you can use a PC with Nvidia 3D Vision and get the full quality 1080P 60fps 3D. Much better than the quality on a 3DTV. And you can still play 3D Blu-Ray and the like. So that could be an option as well.

[Fredz]

If you really want true 1080p gaming with bigger diagonals than monitors, the only solution for now is a dual LCD projector setup with polarized glasses as shown here : http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=11320" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The ghosting seems to be quite low with such setups, comparable to the one found in Plasma TVs from the ghosting tests I've seen on the Web.

The intermediate solution with TVs supporting the checkerboard format (Mitsubishi DLPs) should still be better in most cases than 1280x720 like cybereality said, contrary to what I first thought (see this thread : http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 165#p44165" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Mitsubishi 3D DLP TVs are officially supported by NVIDIA 3D Vision and Samsung DLPs have been reported to work by some people too. Maybe other 3D TVs which support the checkerboard format (Plasma, LCD) could be made to work with 3D Vision too.

There is also the Infitec solution which isn't affected by problems related to polarization (grain, hotspots, angle of vision) and does real 1080p @ 60 fps but it does only work for video and not games for now : http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthre ... st18859059" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tritosine5G]

I think the way I feel is mostly due to the fact that I am forced to game at 720p and it upsets me.

, and you know only so little about displays, but resolution
You buy loudspeaker based on watts?

I just can't imagine gaming at that rez.
Batman Arkham Asylum looks terribly jagged. Even 16x AA can not get rid of them.

unreal3 engine plus AA , funny , funny. Lets talk about this issue again in 1-2 months.

Then you can use a PC with Nvidia 3D Vision and get the full quality 1080P 60fps 3D. Much better than the quality on a 3DTV.

the only solution for now is a dual LCD projector setup with polarized glasses as shown here

The intermediate solution with TVs supporting the checkerboard format (Mitsubishi DLPs) should still be better in most cases than 1280x720 like cybereality said,

How can you know, when you guys have no idea about wobulation stuff either...

There is also the Infitec solution which isn't affected by problems related to polarization (grain, hotspots, angle of vision)

...and ppl say image quality is just not good, but current colorfilter LCD arent good either on the other hand, you guys still like it, so what the heck.

[tritosine5G]

-dont you guys want to learn about hold time vs motion resolution spec at least.

1. standard 60hz LCD, gives 300 motion resolution

2. 300 motion resolution means, you have 300 lines left of the 1080 vertical resolution!

3. shorter hold time due shutterglasses = twice , triple times better motion resolution!!!

so, funny , funny, you have better motion resolution on 720p shutterglasses DLP than your fullHD monitor !!!!
" i can't imagine gaming at that rez "
HA-HA-HA

[Fredz]

Tritosine, there is no need to be so cynical and aggressive, it's not helpful at all. If you know things we don't, you could at least try to explain them in terms anyone can understand.

-dont you guys want to learn about hold time vs motion resolution spec at least.
1. standard 60hz LCD, gives 300 motion resolution
2. 300 motion resolution means, you have 300 lines left of the 1080 vertical resolution!
3. shorter hold time due shutterglasses = twice , triple times better motion resolution!!!

These sentences make absolutely no sense, would you care to explain that more precisely, with some technical references and in quite better english, preferably without annoying sarcastic remarks and smileys ? I know english is not your mother tongue, but neither is it mine and I still try to make the best efforts to be understood.

Thank you.

[citocito]

Thank you all for the help.

You all added something different for me/us to think about.
Including the wannabe student bashing teacher up there.

Really tritosine. You just walked in as a substitute teacher. Saw the kids doing math.
Start laughing at how they think 2 + 2 = 5. Tell them they are stupid as hell and there
mothers smell like your farts on Tuesday. At this point they should slap your face off.
Then you try to teach them how it goes like they still give a damn about what you say.
But we are adults here and are going to ignore your rudeness. You are no teacher,
but do have something valuable to add to the topic. So please, have some respect
so this doesn't turn into just another flame post. Others can learn from what we are
talking about. I'm sure someone else is searching right now and will come across this post.
I'll get back to you in a min

Dom: I have dreamt of all those possibilities. I have dreamt of playing
Super Mario 1 on an IMAX screen just so I can see Mario and Luigi
go from 20 feet to 50 feet after eating a mushroom. World of Warcraft
at actual size/to scale, just to see Onyxia deep breath. But it was a
dream for now. My current job will not allow me to fund dreams like that.
I know that I blew things out of proportion, but you get the idea. lol

All: Don't I want a higher rez the larger the screen gets ?
720p must look like 1080p on a 15" monitor fullscreen
I want some thing big. But they dont sell 50" CRTs.
(I wouldn't care how much it weighs btw)
22" crt, 1920x1200...I dont need AA enabled.
Larger and im sure i will ??

cybereality: I'm looking for the tv to be my rooms main screen really.
Going to mount it with a swivel arm so I can pull it out, or push it back,
or even turn it sometimes. The fact that its a tv and not just a monitor
is an added feature for me mostly. I can have everything connected
to a single display. Cable, the free 3D Bluray player(upgrade from old dvd),
my VCR, the gaming consoles. And in the middle of them all, my pc.
When I finally decide to get a tuner card, these will all connect to the
pc first instead of the screen. You dont recommend such a large screen? Why?

Now about the checkerboarding. Pixel detail isnt the same here as pixel size right?
I would rather have the pc render more pixels then more detail per pixel. I think 1080p has smaller
pixels so more can fit on the screen at once. 720p have much larger pixels but the pc,
well the game has a set detail per pixel already so it would stretch. Some times past
the original pixel map and get ugly right? I'd rather have the pc outputing 1080p.
Do I make sense? Now correct me here too, checkerboarding is more like
two pictures with holes in them that when you put them together they form
a solid picture. If so then 3d picture viewing will take the major hit. But not
much so for video?

tritosine: I honestly dont care much about motion blur. I'm also pretty sure that
TruMotion 240Hz would help some there. If I can enable it when gaming.
Ghosting isnt really an issue for me either. Well, on crts that is. I'm pretty used
to it. I usually adjust gamma and brightness till its minimal.

[Fredz]

Now about the checkerboarding. Pixel detail isnt the same here as pixel size right?
I would rather have the pc render more pixels then more detail per pixel. I think 1080p has smaller
pixels so more can fit on the screen at once. 720p have much larger pixels but the pc,
well the game has a set detail per pixel already so it would stretch. Some times past
the original pixel map and get ugly right? I'd rather have the pc outputing 1080p.
Do I make sense?

As you said, pixel detail would be encoded in the checkerboard format as two half resolution 1920x1080 images per eye, interpolated to obtain two full resolution 1920x1080 images. I've no idea about the quality you can expect from the interpolation of two 1280x720 images on a 1080p DLP TV though.

Now correct me here too, checkerboarding is more like
two pictures with holes in them that when you put them together they form
a solid picture. If so then 3d picture viewing will take the major hit. But not
much so for video?

From what I've read, the interpolation is apparent for thin lines and small texts, but seemingly quite hard to detect in other cases for owner of these TVs.

tritosine: I honestly dont care much about motion blur. I'm also pretty sure that
TruMotion 240Hz would help some there. If I can enable it when gaming.

I've read some articles about motion resolution and it seems there is absolutely no consensus about its effects. Reviewers at CNET weren't even able to give consistent reports on several TVs using a test pattern and they couldn't discern differences in motion resolution between the best and worst displays with actual program material.

Ghosting isnt really an issue for me either. Well, on crts that is. I'm pretty used
to it. I usually adjust gamma and brightness till its minimal.

I've read several reports on the Web by LCD TVs owner who couldn't reduce ghosting by adjusting contrast/brightness. Since ghosting is pretty bad on some LCDs (Samsung especially), I'm not sure it's not going to be an issue for you. The best choice in this respect is still DLP, Plasma being quite good too, similar to CRTs from several ghosting tests I've seen.

As for what to buy, I would probably go for a Panasonic TX-P65VT20 or a 120 Hz DLP projector if I had to choose a 3D display now, since DLP 3D TVs can't be found in Europe. But I would probably wait some months before buying anything, when more content is available (Blu-Ray 3D), HDMI 3D requirements include 1080p@60Hz in frame packing format and for the prices to drop a little bit.

[tritosine5G]

Sorry, I love teasing resolution fans. Its such a fallacy. You don't want more pixels, you just want pixels that aren't visible. DLP pixels aren't very visible, because fill factor is very good. Wobulation is also about making pixels that just arent visible.

Then I especially dislike this "quality control" attitude where everything finds its place , BUT with very little before and aftertought. I hate that.

So how do I enter a discussion thats spoiled from start?
Wobulation:

<- there comes checkerboard.

Motion resolution:

Motion blur arises from the slow response time and hold-type rendering of liquid crystal displays, together with the motion pursuing function of the human visual system. This project focuses on a motion blur model, and methods to reduce the blurring effect.

-passive polarized 3d in itself is not very good at this, moreover, nothing stops you to use 2x fullHD DLP pj's.

[Fredz]

I don't see resolution fans here, only an anti-resolution fan and a bunch of good-manerred people trying to understand the respective merits of different technologies.

You come here, making fun of people with no reason and without giving the slightest argument to explain your point of view.

That's not the first time I see this kind of attitude from you on these forums, I really don't understand what you want to achieve by acting like this.

[tritosine5G]

FullHD is overrated. This is pretty much established on AVSforums as well. Then, we are here with s3d, still arguing about resolution. What for?

At least you arent arguing about contrast numbers.

BTW can you compare CRT pixels to LCD pixels ?

How do you want to compare LCD pixels to DLP ???

BTW 720p anti aliasing will be solved for 1% perfomance hit:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.ph ... ost1483567" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-very cool stuff
http://igm.univ-mlv.fr/~biri/mlaa-gpu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you can buy DLP TV's here in europe:
http://www.vidimensio.eu/web/index.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fredz]

FullHD is overrated. This is pretty much established on AVSforums as well. Then, we are here with s3d, still arguing about resolution. What for?

First you say that motion resolution is important without citing any reference, and I gave a link from experimented reviewers saying that it's not the case.

Then I ask you to give a reference to support your assertion, but you simply transform the question into a resolution war.

After that you only give a vague reference : "people on AVS forums say full HD is overrated" when anyone owning an HDTV can clearly see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

And then you continue by talking about contrast numbers and by saying that 720p anti aliasing will be solved for 1% perfomance hit.

But what do these subjects have to do with what we were talking about in the first place ? Are you really unable to have a coherent conversation with other people ?

And most importantly, are you going to continue hijacking all the threads in these forums without adding anything valuable to them ?

[tritosine5G]

Well Yeah maybe 60fps per eye is important ! And motion resolution!

How much does Motion Resolution really matter?
Justin,

It is impossible for anyone other than you to answer this question. This is because the motion resolution number is a number that essentially tries to quantify motion blurring on digital displays. However, due to the nature of human perception (human visual system) and how we percieve SAH motion blurring, there is truly no way to tell if you will be affected by SAH blurring.

For instance, if we measure motion resolution correctly (see note below about this) and get the following:

display 1 = 1000 lines

display 2 = 800 lines

display 3 = 300 lines

and the difference between sets is solely due to SAH blur. Then there is a possibility that someone may see zero difference between them regarding blur. That person would be someone who has difficulty percieving SAH blur.

Note: that there is no standard for measuring motion resolution and therefore you cannot compare numbers between sources. In fact HD Guru is measuring it incorrectly as far as I can tell.

Motion blur (caused by the display, not in the signal) is due to two things:

1 - slow response of the pixel: an actual physical drawback that creates a blur onto the screen of the display

2 - hold time (SAH) : not a physical response but rather the conflict between our moving/tracking eyes and the sequential images of displays. There is no blur created on the display at all. The blur is created on your retina. And how your retina/brain system performs determines how perceptible this blur is.

I see the sample and hold blur at 60hz, 720p DLP gains a lot from 3d, SAH is gone, better perception comes, I cant see no goddamn jaggies, etc. LED's would be really cool though, not resolution.

[Dom]

In video games I would say the lighting has a huge factor in motion blur. Saying that human perception like retina clarity comes from a persons true lighting sight perfection and room atomosperic abience.

Just to add the video content that has alot of Filters may turn out bad just like low bitrate audio. It really depends on the hardware and software used for encoding and decoding and how well that it's clear and natural, as we see in living earth. Just think of "classical music" to "death metal or rock n roll" same can be said in movies like genres "action" and "documentary" , I guess mostly that fake material or fiction could seem less like an imagery perfection on a tv set.

[Fredz]

Ah, some meat at least, let's place this in context then. You got your references from a topic titled "How much does Motion Resolution really matter?" on the AVS forums that I happened to read already. Your selected citations :

This is because the motion resolution number is a number that essentially tries to quantify motion blurring on digital displays. However, due to the nature of human perception (human visual system) and how we percieve SAH motion blurring, there is truly no way to tell if you will be affected by SAH blurring.

This guy says two things :
- not everyone is concerned by motion resolution ;
- there is no way to tell if someone will be affected by motion resolution.

Note: that there is no standard for measuring motion resolution and therefore you cannot compare numbers between sources. In fact HD Guru is measuring it incorrectly as far as I can tell.

There he add three things :
- motion resolution can't be mesured in a standard way ;
- motion resolution numbers can't be compared between sources ;
- experimented reviewers are not even able to measure it correctly.

So, in order to assert your position you managed to cite an extract containing 5 proofs that motion resolution can be classified as irrelevant. Nice try...

If you continue to read the same thread, you'll see what other people think about motion resolution :

absolutely not a factor in the least.
if you actually read the article they state just that.
so subjective it was hard to tell between the best performer and the worst.

Gary from HDguru got lower numbers on the pioneer plasmas (900) while David Katzmaier measures 1080, and some "Panton" guy measured 1200 on the Kuro PDP-5020fd.
This is why this test is so useless in my opinion.

I don't blame Katzmaier for not buying additional equipment to test something that he doesn't think in real life viewing makes much difference at all...

Sure when you slow it down and tst for it you can see the difference. But under actual watching enviroment your eye and brain only process so much anyway.
Plain and simply making to much out of nothing. Its pretty much a dont care.

I ran the tvblink test and the pattern clearly showed blur, but the real world sample did not blur at all. The difference is that the patterns are pathological tests you would never see something that fast across the screen in a movie or tv show. It goes so fast that you can't even deal with it anyway!

Case closed.

[cybereality]

Well 1080P is unquestionably higher quality than 720P. There is not even an argument there. Next you will tell me there is not a difference between 60FPS and 30FPS.

[tritosine5G]

Well 1080P is unquestionably higher quality than 720P. There is not even an argument there. Next you will tell me there is not a difference between 60FPS and 30FPS.

uh oh!
what distance? You know , beyond a distance, it doesnt really matter if you re lookin at 1080, or 720p...
When metro2033 came out, dont you remember the dial back craze, they ran the game at 1280*800 +scaler on their LCD's and said it looks nearly , if , not as good.

Sony says:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/07/16/sony- ... ps3-games/

in 3D, even trained computer graphics artists could barely tell the difference between the resolutions. Still, for all you pixel counters out there who obsess over "full HD 1080p," here's another bit of technical trivia for you to argue over.

30fps vs 60fps is noticable at any distance, and I DO SEE that frickin SAH BLUR. Both on 2d LCD and 2d DLP!!! Also I had CRT for like until 2008, no blur there. In fact 2d 60hz DLP blur looks very cool, if you turn up the brightness, wow, it can look like , fluid with viscosity or IDK. Definately I dont want to play on a display that behaves like that. Perhaps with 24 frame movie material its fine, but definately not for gaming.
DLP+ shutter solves this issue very well, on the other hand for added benefits
Also blur as an effect, or depth of field as they call it nowdays should be implemented purely software, then you can judge it on high motion resolution display. Thats the way it should be done . ( I like the DOF in Borderlands).

Perhaps you guys should try those lowlife DLP pj's, before you write such satires about resolution. The only thing 1080p would be useful to me is sitting as close as 1,5 - 2 meter to a 100" screen ( im sitting 3.2 right now and i dont want no friggin 1080p).

Motion resolution test would be very expensive. They wrote something like ~100k usa dollars for camera equiptment. But meanwhile , this illustrates the issue imho
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ft9VDDPWb4[/youtube]

1.: LCD 60hz , 2nd: LCD 120hz , 3rd: DLP 60hz, 4th: DLP 120hz .

[Fredz]

what distance? You know , beyond a distance, it doesnt really matter if you re lookin at 1080, or 720p...

For once you are right, the advantages of 1080p over 720p only depend on the viewing distance. You can use the viewing distance calculator for HD TV to evaluate the best distance to be sitting from your HD TV.

Sony says:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/07/16/sony- ... ps3-games/
"in 3D, even trained computer graphics artists could barely tell the difference between the resolutions. Still, for all you pixel counters out there who obsess over "full HD 1080p," here's another bit of technical trivia for you to argue over."

Yep, "Sony says"... What did you expect from them, to say that 720p is bad compared to 1080p when their 3D games can't do 1080p ? And why do they sell 1080p HD TV if 720p is enough for everyone ?

The only thing 1080p would be useful to me is sitting as close as 1,5 - 2 meter to a 100" screen

The viewing distance for a 100" 1080p screen in regard to visual acuity is 3.98 m, at 1.5/2 m you'd clearly see the pixels. If it were a 720p screen you'd need to be at a distance equal or superior to 5.97 m to not see the pixels, so you'd better have a big living-room. See the Guru HDTV Seating Distance Chart.

im sitting 3.2 right now and i dont want no friggin 1080p).

In this case there is no problem with a 720p if the diagonal of your screen is not bigger than 53" which I assume is the case, else you'll start to see distinct pixels.

Motion resolution test would be very expensive. They wrote something like ~100k usa dollars for camera equiptment.

As has been said in the previous link, you can find the equipment to evaluate motion resolution for $100. But since nobody seem to be able to see the difference between good quality 720p and 1080p displays, what would be the point of buying it ?

[cybereality]

All I know is that I have a 720P 32" HDTV and I usually sit about 3 meters from it. I have been to the store and seen 1080P ~50" TVs and stood the same 3 meters away and I can see a huge difference. I have heard the arguments that you can't notice after a certain distance, and this is true to an extent, but its not the end of the story. Of course if you're 100 meters away you probably can't tell the difference between 1080P and 720P (or even SD for that matter). But at reasonable distances there is a difference and I have seen it with my own eyes.

[Fredz]

All I know is that I have a 720P 32" HDTV and I usually sit about 3 meters from it. I have been to the store and seen 1080P ~50" TVs and stood the same 3 meters away and I can see a huge difference.

The gain in quality was maybe not only related to the higher resolution. I mean, if you saw the TV in a store then it's probably more recent and advanced than yours and they probably used content well adapted to this resolution. That could explain the difference in quality independently of the higher resolution.

But at reasonable distances there is a difference and I have seen it with my own eyes.

The only factor than can allow someone to make a difference between a 720p or 1080p display is the visual acuity. It's calculated by mesuring the minimum angle at which two black points can be discriminated on a white background.

Someone with a normal vision (20/20) has a visual acuity of 1 arc minute (1/60°) and can discern points separated by 0.04445 inches at a distance of 20 feet. But a fighter pilot could have a much better vision (20/10) with an acuity of 30 arc seconds (1/120°). That would approach the 20 arc seconds theoretical limit of the human eye, calculated by dividing the wavelength of light by the diameter of the pupil.

The calculus made on the "viewing distance calculator for HD TV" and "HD Guru HDTV Seating Distance Chart" I gave links for are based on the standard visual acuity for humans (1 arc minute). You can adapt the formula to your own visual acuity if you know it, but there are good chances that it won't be much different from the normal one.

[Likay]

To add some cheap tricks to make hd looking better than old formats. For instance the subtexts being gigantic when viewing old formats on the new hd-box compared to hd-material, some funny imageformats sometimes etc... Makes comparison useless when using the same box to compare. Having higher resolution is of course desireable and the image looks better. There is a difference between 720/1080 but in my opinion the total experience is way overrated.

As is today there will always be sacrifices regarding resolution, effects, 3d and all other mumjumbs etc. If all criterias is met everyone will be happy but we're not there yet. Since the impression of resolution, effects, 3d etc are different for everyone, everyone will of course also have different opinions.
Personally i agree with Tritosine saying that higher resolutions are overrated but of course i wouldn't mind if the resolution is notched up a bit. I'm not willing to sacrifice too much framerate, aa or 3d for it though. This is my personal opinion though and far from everybody shares it. So it's basically no use saying that higher resolutions, aa, 3d etc aren't necessary because those impressions are based on individual opinions. Some respect for other opinions wouldn't hurt either.
Anyway: In a few years most nowadays criterias will be met but there will also be new things to be in vain for.

[tritosine5G]

2meter 1080p 100" would be perfectly cool in 3d, not in 2d maybe, but in 3d, it'd be cool.

For me the sweet spot is 100" 720p at 3.2meter, this is really a sweet spot here ( I can't complain!!!) , pixel perception is really different in 3d, as usual noone beleives Sony ( I agree they are some greedy basterds), but this time I think they are right ( to a degree they are right, most definately).

When I first saw 3d on my pj I compared the result to 8x MSAA, due to the perception is different.

Also the perfomance hit is like 8x MSAA

There may be something going on in terms of perception of image quality, possibly a reduction in granular noise and maybe improvements in sharpness.

+ aliasing / jaggies won't hurt your eyes as much.

Im dying to see laser or wobulation 3d (without checkerboard ofc).

[Fredz]

2meter 1080p 100" would be perfectly cool in 3d, not in 2d maybe, but in 3d, it'd be cool. For me the sweet spot is 100" 720p at 3.2meter, this is really a sweet spot here ( I can't complain!!!) , pixel perception is really different in 3d

I've seen many articles arguing that resolution is less important in 3D than in 2D, but they're probably interpreting the fact that a normal stereoacuity is often considered to be 2 arc minutes (twice the normal visual acuity). But this value doesn't correspond to the stereoacuity of a person with a 1 arc minute visual acuity, in fact visual acuity and stereoacuity should be equivalent for a same person.

All this is in fact a lot more complicated than it appears, the vision tests are only arbitrarily based on the ability of the eye to discriminate two points because that's what is needed to evaluate eye correction. But with the help of our visual cortex we are much better at discriminating two parallel lines for example, with up to 8 arc seconds for visual acuity and 2 arc seconds for stereoacuity.

And we are even better at determining if a single point or line is visible or not, at 1 arc second for most people and up to 0.5 arc seconds for experimented observers.

You can easily test this on your screen by showing an image with black pair of dots and lines on a white background and measure the distance at which you can't discriminate them or see them anymore (see attachement). I defy anyone not to see a unique vertical black line on his screen at whatever distance in his room.

[BlackShark]

2 metres for a 100" display ?? This isn't cinema or gaming that's a cave environment : at such a distance the screen is way bigger than your field of view.
Unless your application is designed for such a screen, your content will looks horrible, you'll have to move your head all the time.

Event at my current 3 metres on my 100" I sometimes wish I could push the couch about half a metre into the wall to be more comfortable.

[tritosine5G]

Yeah this would be cool with simulator/ cockpit stuff.
yeah, also maybe 2 meter is streching it , but 2.3 -2.5m "1080p" would be easily possible, with CRT projector, LASER BEAM STEERING, or diamond "wobulation" pixel structure.

Also , think about DIY anamorphic lenses 16:9 1080p -> 21: 9

[Fredz]

Yeah this would be cool with simulator/ cockpit stuff.

Except that this type of content is not designed for stereoscopy at all since you don't feel depth perception after 200 yards, a racing simulation with this FOV should look quite impressive though.

yeah, also maybe 2 meter is streching it , but 2.3 -2.5m "1080p" would be easily possible

As BlackShark said it all depends on the content, if it's designed for orthostereoscopy at a sensible viewing distance it should be quite immersive, just like Omnimax 3D movies which is the best stereoscopy I've ever had the chance to experience so far.

[tritosine5G]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4Fx3pHQ ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(notice no anti aliasing)

in this game you can also control the Anti Air artillery, and cars, tanks, train ! Im def playing this in 3d. Pretty sure they are going for a true sense of stereoscopy, since ppl with serious multidisplay (projector) systems are sim players/fans.

Also this game is made in soviet russia with Putin money

oh man:

http://www.abload.de/img/valrumlaa-sc2uths.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;