A 3D-TV schould always recognise SBS, TAB or Frame Packing also without the plugin.
The Auto-3D plugin increase the usabillity by automaticly swithing your TV an MP OSD in 3D Mode.
Some 3D TV's claim to detect SBS and TAB 3D. I imagine they do it by process the image and comparing the two halves.
Both MP1 (via 3rd party plugin) & MP2 are having non-optimal 3D quality for the video playback. In both cases 50% of the pixels get lost as the image is scaled. To overcome this limitation we should do a proper 3D support. This can be done with Windows 8 natively with OS API (requires DX11.1 based renderer) or with olders OSes with GPU manufacturer specific APIs. It is propably only worth to go with the Windows 8 route.
Both MP1 (via 3rd party plugin) & MP2 are having non-optimal 3D quality for the video playback. In both cases 50% of the pixels get lost as the image is scaled. To overcome this limitation we should do a proper 3D support. This can be done with Windows 8 natively with OS API (requires DX11.1 based renderer) or with olders OSes with GPU manufacturer specific APIs. It is propably only worth to go with the Windows 8 route.
Yes and no. The problem is, that most 3D TVs that are currently sold are using polarized glasses. They are much cheaper, that the ones with the shutter glasses. Especially if one needs more glassed for the family members. The drawback of this technology is, that the pictures have only the half resolution, because the images for the left/right eye are shown simulaneously on different polarization planes.
If you are playing a 3D BluRay in Windows 8 with framepacking support, you won't get a better quality or higher resolution on those TVs. Currently it looks the polarized glasses will dominate the market in the future.
This might be the reason why the manufacturers start the push the new 4K TVs, because they can display a 3D movie in the full quality, but I think it will take a while till they are affordable for the most of us.
So I won't sign that MP1/MP2 have non-optimal 3D quality, at least not for the moment. But that might change in the future.
Despite of that it makes sense to get frame packing support with Windows 8 into MP1/MP2, but I won't get a Windows 8 license for my HTPC just for that. So for Windows 7 it is necessary to support at least a correct display for 3D SBS/TAB movies.
Both MP1 (via 3rd party plugin) & MP2 are having non-optimal 3D quality for the video playback. In both cases 50% of the pixels get lost as the image is scaled. To overcome this limitation we should do a proper 3D support. This can be done with Windows 8 natively with OS API (requires DX11.1 based renderer) or with olders OSes with GPU manufacturer specific APIs. It is propably only worth to go with the Windows 8 route.
Yes and no. The problem is, that most 3D TVs that are currently sold are using polarized glasses. They are much cheaper, that the ones with the shutter glasses. Especially if one needs more glassed for the family members. The drawback of this technology is, that the pictures have only the half resolution, because the images for the left/right eye are shown simulaneously on different polarization planes.
If you are playing a 3D BluRay in Windows 8 with framepacking support, you won't get a better quality or higher resolution on those TVs. Currently it looks the polarized glasses will dominate the market in the future.
This might be the reason why the manufacturers start the push the new 4K TVs, because they can display a 3D movie in the full quality, but I think it will take a while till they are affordable for the most of us.
So I won't sign that MP1/MP2 have non-optimal 3D quality, at least not for the moment. But that might change in the future.
Despite of that it makes sense to get frame packing support with Windows 8 into MP1/MP2, but I won't get a Windows 8 license for my HTPC just for that. So for Windows 7 it is necessary to support at least a correct display for 3D SBS/TAB movies.
The industry says, that our brain is able to fill this half-side pics together to "see" a full HD pic at the end in our brains. I can confirm this! Picture is clear than it is in common shutter TVs, but much more quiet and smoother for my eyes!
The industry says, that our brain is able to fill this half-side pics together to "see" a full HD pic at the end in our brains. I can confirm this! Picture is clear than it is in common shutter TVs, but much more quiet and smoother for my eyes!
This is pretty much same with the interlaced content - half of the image data is trown away and then "regenerated" either by brain or deinterlasing algorithms. Both are not 100% same quality as the real progressive content. Of course it is a bit bad comparision since interlacing is good for some fast movement like sports as it allows the double fps with some loss of detail.