[3DBuff]

It's true looking at the screen and trying to decide if the previous set up was better specially after it takes a while to change the setup could be very subjective. You tend to like brand new shiny toy better then the old dusty one, no matter what Unless you see something really striking wrong with the image it's hard to tell if image from 20 min. before was better. True test would be 2 identical screens side by side playing the same content but we don't have this luxury.

However if people in this forum agree that 4K interlaced over HDMI 2.0 is better compared to 1.4 port with hardware 3D then most likely it is. This may even be the fact that new video card and HDMI 2.0 has faster electronics that can produce better sharper image. When the image is full size 3D 4k on the TV screen then scaling and interlacing had to be done one way or another by computer or TV. We are trying to decide if sending unprocessed Frame Packing (2 x 1080p frames) at 24 fps and let TV make it into interlaced 3D 4K display is better then processing it into interlaced ready frame 3840x2160 at the source and send to TV as is at 24 fps is better.