3D projector using Infitec method? - Page 6

I was talking about 1080P120 Dual Link DVI input for nVidia 3DVision. It would work with just the 120Hz input, but of course if nVidia isn't crazy on pricing you could pay to put the nVidia 3D Vision compatible sticker on it.
Can't ATI also can do 1080p120 output for 3D over DVI?

ATI does 1080p120 over DVI dual link but you have to pass their auto-detect system to get it : you can't just ask the driver to use it, and the display also cannot identify itself as 3D compatible like hdmi 1.4 and Display Port 1.2 do.
So ATI must add your display (or the converter in this case) to their internal list of
supported DVI -DL 3D displays.

I thought it was the same with nvidia 3D vision drivers where the driver needs to identify your display from it's 3D vision ready white list before accepting to activate the frame sequential 120Hz mode. I read lots of people complaining about detection issues over at nvidia forums.

iZ3D also managed to get independent working frame sequential (without using the AMD HD3D drivers) but they took years to get it working and it only works if the application goes though the iZ3D driver (does not work for AMD HD3D ready apps)

You would need to use inks (or whatever represents the colours in the photograph) that corresponded to the correct wavelengths. And their bandwidths would have to be as narrow as those emerging from the filters/glasses. Any inks these days will have spectra that carry both the L and R wavelengths seen by the filters. Using inks is never going to work

First version of the box definitely goes with dual single-link inputs. That was also suggested to us by Infitec. It still covers 1080p60 3D gaming, though admittedly not as elegant as when using a single cable. Dual-link inputs might be available later and would be implemented in agreement with Nvidia and/or AMD, there is nothing to worry about. Display Port and SDI inputs will be added if there is demand.

Could you please explain more about non-synchronized outputs from a PC, that sounds like something we could solve, perhaps very easily, in the box? Is the difference between 2 corresponding frames less than 1/2 frame duration, that would make things simpler?

Some information about pricing... we've paid about 10000 euros for 5 prototype boards, just materials and production. Anyway, we would like the most simple version of final products to be about $500 (USD).
Usual disclaimers apply: no guarantees, forward looking statements, etc...

Having 2x single link DVI inputs would work but it wouldn't benefit polarised Dual-projectors users. It only would be useful for Infitec/Dolby colour correction, but apart from that : it doesn't solve any compatibility problem with the sources.
The only source that provides such a dual input is a PC, and PCs suffer from serious issues using this method :
1 - no BluRay 3D support (you have to rip and re-encode the movies into a compaitble format)
2 - zero compatibility with native 3D games trough Nvidia 3D Vision and ATI HD3D APIs (these are the way future application will exclusively output stereo pictures)
3 - sync issues on consumer cards

The sync issues I'm talking about comes from the fact that consumer graphics card drivers don't provide sync lock between the outputs : each DVI out is managed independently : the driver can refresh one output independently from the other : this is not good for stereo 3D where both outputs mush be refreshed simultaneously.
In practice the the DVI outputs drift in and out of sync depending on the application used, the content being displayed, the CPU load and the GPU load.
Sometimes, when the application is fast, the cpu and gpu load are low and that the content is able to render quicker than the refresh rate, the graphics card has the time to gather both the next left and right eye views, and both eye views are refreshed properly.
When any of these conditions are not met (and it happens in most of the applications and especially games where the cpu/gpu load and framerates fluctuate), one the the eye views will update immediately while the other one will not be updated in time and the picture will show up with a delay in this eye.
This delay is variable, sometimes it's less than a frame, sometimes it's more than one frame. When the game has a low framerate, it can reach 2 frames delay or more.

The only way i have discovered to provide frame-lock on consumer cards is to use ATI's Eyefinity feature (using a virtual single-block side by side spanned desktop) but this mode is supported by even less applications than traditional dual-projectors.

Again, I'd like to point out that I don't need your product at this point, the reason why i'm interested by your product is to future-proof my dual-projectors setup by making sure i'll be able to use these upcoming native 3D applications that only support the GPU manufacturer API outputs.

StereoScopic player works with 3D Blu-ray and any output method under the sun. (Provided you have AnyDVD HD)

Ummm, not quite... One or both of our inputs will be HDMI 1.4a compatible. We have already successfully tested this, perhaps I haven't explained it clearly (DVI, HDMI, HDCP, EDID... it's all the same ). Especially for polarized projectors, the box would include hotspot brightness compensation and compensation for loss of light at edges.

1 - full blu-ray 3D support, both for PC and standalone players
2 - I understand why you formulated it like this, but my subjective opinion is more like "fair compatibility". With Nvidia 3DTV Play and HDMI 1.4a output (and equivalent solution from AMD), we support all games up to 1080p24 and 720p60; with third party dual-output drivers we support up to 1080p60.
3 - the box should immediately help somewhat, as it's outputs will be perfectly synced. Large timing errors seem repairable as well, but we need to check if needed effort can be economical.

Some other stuff: we plan enhanced version of the box with support for any 4D effects (chair motion control, "wind", "mist", strobe lights...) better and cheaper than currently widely used solution; and blending of any subtitles into any movie (for standalone players too, perfect timing, correct 3D depth if 3D content, ...).

I just checked around a bit and apparently there are now NVIDIA GTX570 & GTX580 cards from Asus and EVGA as well as planned 590s that have a displayport on it. It's only displayport 1.1a, but I believe that supports 1080p frame packing at 60hz, doesn't it?

Now if I could only find confirmation that it works with Nvidia 3D vision or at least with playing 3D blu rays etc...

Yes Display Port 1.1a does have stereo 1080p60, however so far Nvidia clearly announced that their 3DTV play mode was exclusively for hdmi1.4 output. All other outputs are controlled tightly by Nvidia and need to be approved in order to work. So far Nvidia has never used Display Port for 3D, so you should bet it's disabled until nvidia allows it.


I have never tested Stereoscopic player's BluRay 3D capability (i've got the limited version that came with my Zalman monitor).
From what I read (that was a while ago) it can decode MVC compressed video stored in individual ssif files as used by BluRay 3D but I don't think it can play the disc like an actual BluRay 3D player would.


I understand and appreciate to have hdmi1.4 compatibility. Third party driver 1080p is what I currently use to play games. It kind of works with a few bugs here and there but it's on the way out. Having first party hdmi1.4 is a very nice safety net to make sure that at least I'd be able to use the dual-projectors at 720p60 (it's something I currently do not have).
But the magic thing that would make me spend prime money is that full stereo 1080p60 with full first party support since that's what is currently being pushed by manufacturers and which will dominate within the next few years.

If you could fix the output sync that's a nice compatibility improvement but it's only a small improvement (i can use both iZ3D and DDD instead of only iZ3D, but still no first party AMD or Nvidia APIs). Such a feature will only be useful for the very short term.
From my personal point of view, I'd say avoid spending too much time on dual-inputs, the benefits aren't worth the time.
Open standardized formats (hdmi 1.4 and Display Port 1.2) are the only thing that seem worth it at this time and for the forseeable future.

Whaaaaaaaaat?

Please. Go on.

I would have to disagree strongly with Blackshark's last statement. Although displayport 1.2 might be the future of 3d it certainly isn't the best option at the moment and it looks like Nvidia will continue to use DL DVI for 3D gaming until the bandwidth isn't sufficient and they are forced to move to a different standard. That might not be until monitors with 2560x1440 resolutions etc... go 3d and that won't be for a few years yet.

As Blackshark mentioned he isn't interested in buying your product at the moment only in future proofing his setup, many users are looking for a solution now to 1080p@60Hz 3d gaming on dual projectors.

wnielsenbb has it pretty much spot on:


To be honest I'm not tied to either Nvidia or AMD, I'm just looking for the best 3d gaming experience (films etc aswell). Yes I agree Nvidia are tedious with their propreitary setup, however Nvidia has a lot more impetus behind their setup, the games are very well supported, without having to resort to iffy 3rd party drivers and they also have support for 3d vision surround and multi gpu's for 3d where AMD don't.

If your convertor box worked with Nvidia then we wouldn't have to hope that one of the main graphics card companies would one day add support for dual projector. Your hardware solution would get round that.
That would mean that it would be the complete 3d setup solution, 3d gaming at 1080p@60Hz (per eye), with dual projector support, multiscreen and worked with multigpu's. That something that would work immediately if your box was available and supported Nvidia DL DVI, not something that may work if everyone gets behind displayport 1.2.

If it does that then I'll buy as soon as its ready.

That's not entirely true. It seems that Nvidia already does support some 3D through displayport capabilities on laptops with mobile GPUs, but only for their supported dual link div monitors off course. That's why they are ironicly selling a displayport to dual link dvi adaptor to connect their laptops with their white listed monitors, while perfectly good 120hz monitors with a native displayport input can't even get the drivers to turn on.

I think what that means though, is that they can turn on their 3D over displayport capabilities any time they want. At least on cards that have a displayport off course. They just don't want to at this point in time, although I think they will if 3D tvs with a displayport start showing up.

Added to that is the fact that AMD already supports 1080p120 over displayport, either with the few games that are certified through their HD3D initiative or through a third party driver. More games are bound to be certified with their technology though.

That being said, I don't disagree with what you said. Nvidia does have the best support for 3D gaming at this moment and a 3Dvision compatible box would be absolutely great. If this can't be competed in time or if it's costly for the basic model, perhaps it can be released as a different (more advanced) version. If that's the case though, I think a displayport input would still make a very valuable addition to the first version, even if it's just for possible AMD HD3D support, now or in the future.

On an unrelated note, how does the box handle scaling? For example, if I hook a PS3 up through hdmi 1.4, which delivers 720p60 I believe in 3D mode, will the box be able to output 2x1080p or will it let the projectors do the scaling?

Thanks for all the inputs. I am trying to get more information from Nvidia regarding their requirements for 3D Vision certification/logo/compatibility.

The box can scale 720p60 to 1080p60 and similar, but it's just one of usually used scaling algorithms (it tries to preserve details and sharpness in video while upscaling), nothing too advanced.

4D: I admit it's unfair to compare a proven product with an only imagined one, but here is what we would like to do:
- lower the price of electronics from ~$3000 to ~$1-1500
- instead of just few actuators per chair, unlimited number of actuators and any other effects; if a system doesn't support some programmed effect, it falls back to a simpler replacement or ignores it
- not dependable upon legacy audio formats; will work with any video including dvd, blu-ray, video files, television, 3D
- not vendor locked, anyone can create programs; simplified, the idea is to suggest people to buy more movies (ok, and our boxes) because of enjoyable experience
- hardware not vendor locked as well, this might lower the price of chairs from ~$5000 to about half of that in short term, maybe to less than $1000 in longer term
- USB port so it can be used with games too, but a game must explicitly support it
It will not be able to recognize a movie automatically, user would have to find exact or close version (e.g. The Abyss directors cut) and download about 10-20 MB file (or copy it from a bluray) with programming and synchronization.
Effects include anything reasonable: movements, bass rumble, "wind" direction and temperature, fog, water droplets, physical touch, strobe lights, acid for alien blood...

Ok, not the last item. 4D might be an upgrade for Infitec-style box. As usual, development and financing of the first series is a problem; also at the moment we don't have connections with any big movie studio. As usual, no guarantees.

Even if you don't get the 3D Vision certification we can force a driver. It can't cost too much though. Acer sells the 5360 projector with 3D Vision certification for 500 bucks on sale. I think nVidia would be excited about your box too. Go to their home page. 3 articles on 3D. I imagine a game changing box like this will get headline. The only downside for them is not getting to sell overpriced 3D Glasses. Maybe they can start selling Infitec glasses.

The thing with Nvidia is that they no longer support 3D for free like they used to in the good old days. They want to be paid one way or an other.

The only known external 3D display that worked in the recent years with Nvidia stereoscopic drivers were Zalman screens, and those were only supported because Zalman made a deal with Nvidia. The price hasn't been disclosed but it was high enough for Zalman to not renew it the following year and switch to iZ3D instead.

For Nvidia 3D Vision certified hardware, they already make money on the glasses and emitter, it allows royalties on the displays to be lower.
Since Nvidia 3D vision emitter and glasses aren't required for dual-projectors, they'll probably ask the highest price.

If you can get Nvidia support for 1080p60 (through DVI-DL or Display Port), that is great, my next graphics card would then probably be an Nvidia one then. Having access to Nvidia's 3D Vision drivers is really interesting given how much effort they put into it.
The frightening part is how much control they keep and their history of backstabbing both hardware manufacturers and users when they decide to change their policy. If they decide to no longer support your product, they can block it just like they did for Zalman displays and Samsung's DLP rear projection TVs. I can't trust Nvidia as long as they keep pushing their proprietary solution (3D Vision). On the other hand, AMD being the underdog would have much more interest in supporting your product than Nvidia would and no interest to abandon it as well.

4D : i'm not interested by this feature. I don't know this market at all, I don't even know how much content is available for consumers.

Well technically, to even turn the driver on, you need to have the emitter plugged in, but I think we all know how that usually works out.

Unfortunately I couldn't agree with you more. It feels to me like they won't be satisfied until they collect the jackpot. As things stand now, there's no way I'm going to use an Nvidia card for my dual projector project. Which I actually find a real shame, because I've been using their cards for as long as I can remember. Mostly for their drivers too. It just always works the way it's supposed to, unlike the drivers of their competitors. Heck, I would have gladly paid that $120(?) that you pay for an emitter+glasses set for a 3d vision license that let's me use their software with any display hardware I want, but it looks like that's just not going to happen any time soon.

Until something changes there, I don't think Nvidia is a really viable choice for anyone with any budget constrains whatsoever. I mean, unless you wanna pay a lot of royalties on a splitter box, on top of the royalties on your 120hz screen, on top of the premiums on your video card, on top of the premiums on your emitter and every pair of glasses that you buy extra. Bummer. Though, if you have the money, I can see how some people might very well still want to buy it, just don't expect it to be cheap.

They did do 3DTV Play. You don't need an emitter and glasses. You just have to pay 50 bucks for the driver. I would gladly pay 50 bucks to have all my games well supported in 3D.
Sure I wish it was free. The companies that don't try to make money don't last. I am a programmer, we aren't cheap. nVidia is putting a lot of development time into 3D. Why should they not profit from it?

Check your PMs.

Off course they should profit from it. My gripe in my last post isn't about them trying to make money from the products they make, it's about them trying to make money off the products that others make or forcing customers to buy products they don't need. As I said, I would gladly pay for their card and software, if that meant I could use it the way I want to. 3DTV is great value, but only supports 1080p24 or 720p60, no checkerboard, SBS and certainly no 1080p60. Which is what we were talking about. If you want the best and game at 1080p60, so far, they don't allow any hardware in the display chain that they can't control or ask licensing fees for. We'll have to wait and see how things evolve, maybe Nvidia will change their policies over time or evolving hardware will force them to, but right now, I see no reason not to expect them asking very hefty licensing fees for any splitter box to be made compatible with 3D vision, if they will even allow it at all.

If they would at least allow a dual-DVI output, so that I could have 1080p60 for each projector, I'd be thrilled.

I'd happily buy two cards or whatever else they want to get this working.

Pterodactyl,
Check your PMs again, if you didn't see my last one.

It seems I've posted this link to every thread at AVS Forums except this one, so here it is again: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post21179639

The short version is this: After a 2 week fling with both an Optoma HD33 and an Epson 3010, I'm returning my primary interest to a Dolby/Infitec dual PJ system.
There were some really attractive elements to these two:
plug-and-play
no filters
no special screen
low cost
not having to build special mounts
not having to alternate projectors to keep the bulbs in relative synch

But the detractors were too high (for my own use)
Input lag for gamers on the 3010
Rainbow Effect for everything on the HD33
And then the standard:
Battery operated, expensive glasses
shutter effect while watching through active glasses
Lack of customization options.

As the dual rig will cost me about $1000 more, I'm saving my pennies for a little longer and waiting to see what other competitors will enter the 3DXL field. Pterodactyl, I'm looking at you!

I am doing what I can to speed up things...

Is everyone here aware of the community at Meant to Be Seen in 3D?

mtbs3d.com

Some good folks over there. Some of them are also over here, but some of them are not.

yes. I had some interesting discussions there
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopi...11320&start=23

Hi Pterodactyl,

Quick question about the audio functions of the box. Will it be able to split the audio from a frame packed signal of a blue ray player or ps3 and route it to my receiver? Or should I run the signal through my receiver first (requiring a 3d compatible receiver) before sending to the splitter box?

If it can split the audio, what kind of audio-out options will the box support? hdmi or optical?

We haven't decided yet. Of course I understand that adding audio support increases versatility of the box, as well as means less cables and complications, but we need first to have primary functionality working well and can only later add other stuff.

The possible options we've been discussing are:
- ignore/drop all audio packets
- do not interpret, just duplicate audio to all outputs
- D/A converters and analog outputs for LPCM audio, possibly with delay and bass management, up to and including 7.1 192/24

In other news... we expect to start sales during next year, possibly together with one of our customers that needs nearly identical electronics, only for different purpose.

Don't know if this has been mentioned but how much will this be

We would like the price for basic device to be around 400 euros ($500), but it could be significantly more. It could be less as well. We are still negotiating with possible manufacturers, one of the promising currently is from China (they have all capabilities, certificates, experience with related products, etc.).

Web site for taking preorders has been greenlighted. We would like to also offer projection screens (of higher quality than usual, according to manufacturer's specifications - we should get a sample within several weeks; they should be reasonably priced).

While I cannot speak for Infitec, they seem to have decided to become actively involved in development.

I will pay more to not have it made in China. Plus, plan on it's design being stolen and cheaper copies sold on ebay before yours even gets to market. It happens.