Meant to be Seen

Would there be any issues unique to using two 120hz displays for a planar set up?

Thanks

Nope!

That would be sick. 120Hz 3D!

A planar stereomirror rig (i assume you mean this?) operates with passive glasses which means that the vertical refresh has no significance. Polarization has though and in this case it'll only work without modifications if the polarizationangle of the screen is 45° or 135°.

-you only going to get better input lag , motion blur stays nearly the same because of hold operation in LCD.

I saw research about this, want it ? Wont be easy to dig up, I don't deal with LCD usually.

operates with passive glasses which means that the vertical refresh has no significance

barf

gotcha:
http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/3DT ... mpling.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

they are not talking about "stereo3d" there, watch out, but 3d rendered scene

@tritosine2k: What? Elaborate.

Why eleborate? You guys downplay motion blur each-and-every-time, seems habitual.

Check the paper , its good.

We don't downplay motion blur, we downplay motion resolution. This article is about motion blur and has nothing to do with the subject.

Fredz wrote:We don't downplay motion blur, we downplay motion resolution. This article is about motion blur and has nothing to do with the subject.

Yes. I didn't find the connection either.

you know you are twisting words now too, right?

You really think CRT is going to be better than two 120hz monitors for 3D in a planar setup?

I mean, it gives you 120hz per eye, full resolution for each eye, and no shuttering. Seems pretty ideal to me, not even a 240hz CRT can match that.

I really wish I had some way to record Batman: Arkham Asylum running on the 120Hz Acer monitor. It really does look amazing, almost no motion blur at all. Not sure whats special about this game, but it is simply breath-taking. Don't really care too much for reading specs and theoretical mumbo-jumbo. I've seen it with my own eyes, and it works. Thats all the proof I need.

tritosine2k wrote:you know you are twisting words now too, right?

Hem, no, I'm not twisting words at all, motion blur has nothing to do with motion resolution.

Motion blur happens when an object moves faster than the frequency at which it is filmed, hence exhibiting blur around it depending on the exposure time. It can be simulated in 3D rendering to produce images that look more natural or continuous to the eye, although this creates a loss in sharpness. This effect can be observed by anyone.



Wrong motion blur :


True Motion blur :


Motion resolution is a theory alleging that the perceived vertical resolution of a display can be different from its native resolution when an image is moving on the screen, but not necessarily moving faster than the frequency of the display, so not related to motion blur. It has been shown by CNET that nobody has the same appreciation of this alledged effect, so I classify it as a bogus theory. We already had a discussion about this in another thread and I've provided all the background to show this, the case is closed for me.

See : http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10020262-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok , well, my explanation goes like this:

"motion blur" in a post processing sense, can be thought of, as a form of image *distortion.*
So if you apply motion blur to an image sequence, & you have hold type display, you effectively make use of , *pre-distortion*.

Take hold blur, add Human Visual System, what you get, blurred motion , hence "motion blur" type of distortion, again .

-its wholly interchangeable once you add the HVS, and ironically, hold blur is the very same type of distortion, as color breakup in DLP.
But, DLP "lag" goes by colors , one after another, & it is receiving worse press!!

Not fair!!

PalmerTech wrote:You really think CRT is going to be better than two 120hz monitors for 3D in a planar setup?

I mean, it gives you 120hz per eye, full resolution for each eye, and no shuttering. Seems pretty ideal to me, not even a 240hz CRT can match that.

Hold type operation is still a problem,
-if you can't feed it with 120fps... You gain nothing with a hold display.... Thats the whole point of that article...

Yup , I think pulse display + 21st century grade shutters can kill that, easily.

tritosine2k wrote: Hold type operation is still a problem,
-if you can't feed it with 120fps... You gain nothing with a hold display.... Thats the whole point of that article...

I just read that article, and it confirms that high refresh rates are a solution to the blur on hold type displays. Assuming you are playing a game that can render above 120fps, you should be fine.

21'th century shutters against nowadays lcd's... And where's lcd's gonna be at the 2100's? It's a really irrelevant comparison. Maybe even both will be replaced by other techs at this time. Nonethless this is way offtopic. The op asked about compability about 120Hz screens and Palmertech answered and i gave some additinal info.
To add some more: If the screen is an lcd (polarized at 0° or 90°) you can still use it for planar but one lcd-monitor needs to be modified (one or to be entirely correct 2 quarterwave retarders+polarizer) for 0/90° linear glasses. Or: One qw-retarder in front of each lcd-screen for use with circular polarized glasses. Maybe more appealing since standard real-d glasses will work with it. Circular polarization in this form will ghost more though (with decent qw-retarders equal to the zalman displays).
Crt-monitors allways needs to have a polarizer in front of the screen to work in a "planar" stereomirror rig.

Extra note: Personally i've lately quit using the expression "planar" for these rigs since it's the actual company (http://www.planarsystems.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) that's named planar and who lately also introduced 120Hz lcd-monitors which will cause confusion if planar is still used in regards of stereomirror rigs... Maybe some other could shed some light what to really call this...
The worst problem with a homemade stereomirror rig is finding a good semitransparent mirror but if you spend some time searching around you should find some good tips from others. About polarizationissues, you could ask me.

Well I have tested the Acer 120Hz monitor I have, and it does have issues when using linear polarized glasses. With my head normal, one eye is transparent, and the other opaque. I can rotate 45 degrees, and then they are both transparent. But I don't know what the angle is on the glasses, so that doesn't tell me much. Only that this could be a problem. With circular polarized glasses (RealD) both eyes are transparent, but there is just some slight color-shifting as I rotate my head. I am assuming the Viewsonic and Acer both use the same polarization (since they both work with 3D Vision) but that may not be the case. Who knows?

Yeah. I know a relatively simple method of finding out the necessary angles of a specific monitor if you only have a standalone linear polarizer (angle not needed to be known). Well, at least if they are 0/90 or 45/135° screens which is what matters here. This will determine what next step that's necessary.

Post the steps. I would be interested to know what it is for this Acer monitor, though it may or may not be the same for Viewsonic. But it would be good to know.

It's easy but you need one linear polarizer. As said it doesn't matter if the angle of it is unknown.
Just adding: Since the zalman is circularly polarized it's of course impossible to run this test on it.
1: Put the polarizer between yourself and the monitor and turn (like a merry-go-round from above) it until you completely black out the light from the monitor.
2: Then rotate the polarizer 180° HORISONTALLY (like a merry-go-round from the side) and check what happens.

If the image still stays dark the monitor is a 0/90° (as well as the polarizer at that angle).

If the polarizer becomes transparent it's a 45/135° monitor (as well as the polarizer).

You can try this "in reverse" by rotating the monitor 45° and doing the test again, just to verify that it works.

The test doesn't give any info about if the angle is 0 or 90 resp 45 or 135° but for those trying to find stereomirror direct compatible displays it gives all the necessary information.

Ok, I did the test on the Acer HN274H. I guess its 45/135°, since the glasses became transparent on step 2. Is that good?

For a planar stereomirror setup, absolutely! If you plan to use them in a stereomirror setup it will work with linear 45/135 glasses if you only manage to get hold on a working semitransparent mirror.

Well I have tested the Acer 120Hz monitor I have, and it does have issues when using linear polarized glasses. With my head normal, one eye is transparent, and the other opaque. I can rotate 45 degrees, and then they are both transparent. But I don't know what the angle is on the glasses, so that doesn't tell me much. Only that this could be a problem. With circular polarized glasses (RealD) both eyes are transparent, but there is just some slight color-shifting as I rotate my head. I am assuming the Viewsonic and Acer both use the same polarization (since they both work with 3D Vision) but that may not be the case. Who knows?

According to this it seems like 3d-vision glasses are compatible with 45/135 monitors (3d-vision glasses main polarizer at 0 or 90). The glasses you tested with are also 45/135 and will suit a planar rig excellently.