Originally Posted by Josh Z
I don't think I ever tried it that high. I will give another look the next time I have a chance. I have the latest Spears & Munsil disc with 3D test patterns now, so that should prove useful as well.
After some extensive testing of the "3D TV Size" setting while using the Spears & Munsil HD Benchmark 2nd Edition, I've come to the conclusion that the "3D TV Size" setting is actually a Stereoscopic 3D visible
depth setting. The Default "46 inches" is approximately @ 15% Depth-of-field and is set for what is considered as the consumer adjusted stereoscopic 3D viewing comfort level. The optimum 999 setting allows 100% Depth-of-field
for actual real-world 3D depth ability. 100% is also what I apply in my NVIDIA Control panel on my 3D laptop and is why I recognize the real-world range difference changes for closest to farthest objects in a scene.
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau
As best I've been able to figure out, the 3D screen size setting has to do with insuring the 0 depth plane of the 3D image aligns with the surface of the displays screen and is not in front or in back of that.
This is necessary to minimize eye strain. The 3D effect is not "real" 3D of course -- the imagery is being generated on the surface of the display. That means the eyes need to focus at the distance of the display screen.
You are right that the comfort for the majority of consumers is the key reason, but the Spears & Munsil Stereoscopic test confirms that at 999 = 100% depth-of-field, stereoscopic position is 0% at the surface of the display screen, just as accurate as the default setting.