home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
MediaPortal 1 Plugins
Auto3D plugin for MediaPortal 1.2 - 1.12 (GUI & TV/Beamer)
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="u095538" data-source="post: 1077107" data-attributes="member: 79639"><p>Thank you very much for your reply. So the TVs are clever enough then to take a 1920x1080 TAB and alternate the upper and lower rows of pixels for a final 1920x540 frame for each eye. That's what I had hoped! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If I did that I'd still only end up with a 1920x540 frame for each eye. So I'd effectively be storing 1080 redundant rows of pixels every frame, i.e., 1080 pixel rows that I would /never/ be able to see with my passive 3DTV. That's 2,073,600 pixels of data wasted every frame (540x1920 + 540x1920).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right you are.</p><p></p><p>FWIW, I'll tend to not try and "future proof" myself like that because it seems that the technology moves along past the point of your source. An example would be DVD images. A long time ago my mate asked why I bother to recode in XviD considering I had a fair whack of storage, why not keep the DVD ISOs for future times?</p><p></p><p>Well when HD displays came around we ended up getting HD content too, the ISOs would not have been worth the storage. When I get a 4K telly I'm sure I'll be interested in 4K resolution for each eye's frame rather than the (then) meagre 1920x1080.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="u095538, post: 1077107, member: 79639"] Thank you very much for your reply. So the TVs are clever enough then to take a 1920x1080 TAB and alternate the upper and lower rows of pixels for a final 1920x540 frame for each eye. That's what I had hoped! :) If I did that I'd still only end up with a 1920x540 frame for each eye. So I'd effectively be storing 1080 redundant rows of pixels every frame, i.e., 1080 pixel rows that I would /never/ be able to see with my passive 3DTV. That's 2,073,600 pixels of data wasted every frame (540x1920 + 540x1920). Right you are. FWIW, I'll tend to not try and "future proof" myself like that because it seems that the technology moves along past the point of your source. An example would be DVD images. A long time ago my mate asked why I bother to recode in XviD considering I had a fair whack of storage, why not keep the DVD ISOs for future times? Well when HD displays came around we ended up getting HD content too, the ISOs would not have been worth the storage. When I get a 4K telly I'm sure I'll be interested in 4K resolution for each eye's frame rather than the (then) meagre 1920x1080. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
MediaPortal 1 Plugins
Auto3D plugin for MediaPortal 1.2 - 1.12 (GUI & TV/Beamer)
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom