Thoughts on AOC d2757Ph 1080p passive monitor?
I've been pondering getting one of these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-d2757Ph-inch-IPS-Monitor/dp/B008UHINRC/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top ...so I can get my 3D gaming on in the study and free up the LG 3DTV in the lounge room. It's time to move the PC back out of the lounge room, but I can't go back to 2D! User reviews I've seen are generally favourable for my purposes, was just wondering if anyone here has any experience with this specific monitor for gaming? Thanks!
I've been pondering getting one of these:


http://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-d2757Ph-inch-IPS-Monitor/dp/B008UHINRC/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top


...so I can get my 3D gaming on in the study and free up the LG 3DTV in the lounge room. It's time to move the PC back out of the lounge room, but I can't go back to 2D!

User reviews I've seen are generally favourable for my purposes, was just wondering if anyone here has any experience with this specific monitor for gaming?

Thanks!

#1
Posted 04/21/2014 09:57 AM   
I may be just talking out of my butt here, but it seems like I've heard from other users that passive screens have more ghosting issues.
I may be just talking out of my butt here, but it seems like I've heard from other users that passive screens have more ghosting issues.

|CPU: i7-2700k @ 4.5Ghz
|Cooler: Zalman 9900 Max
|MB: MSI Military Class II Z68 GD-80
|RAM: Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR3
|SSDs: Seagate 600 240GB; Crucial M4 128GB
|HDDs: Seagate Barracuda 1TB; Seagate Barracuda 500GB
|PS: OCZ ZX Series 1250watt
|Case: Antec 1200 V3
|Monitors: Asus 3D VG278HE; Asus 3D VG236H; Samsung 3D 51" Plasma;
|GPU:MSI 1080GTX "Duke"
|OS: Windows 10 Pro X64

#2
Posted 04/21/2014 01:52 PM   
Not recommended. https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/549469/help-compatibility-3d-display-with-nvidia-3d-vision/
[quote="SnickerSnack"]I may be just talking out of my butt here, but it seems like I've heard from other users that passive screens have more ghosting issues. [/quote] [quote="Pirateguybrush"]Not recommended. https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/549469/help-compatibility-3d-display-with-nvidia-3d-vision/[/quote] Thanks for the feedback. The only thing in there that would really be a deterrent to me though would be if the EDID override hack which I use with my TV to achieve passive "1080p" 3D @60Hz is unusable. My video card is not powerful enough for active 3D, and I think the passive 3D on my TV looks great. Everything else mentioned in that linked thread is applies equally to gaming through my passive 3D TV, and are not a problem for me. Even with a monitor I always lean back in a reclining chair and game with a controller, well over 90cm from the screen. I can establish a specific static viewing angle perfectly comfortably without any detriment to my gaming experience. So I guess the question becomes: has anyone used the EDID override on this AOC monitor? I can't really see any reason it wouldn't work.
SnickerSnack said:I may be just talking out of my butt here, but it seems like I've heard from other users that passive screens have more ghosting issues.


Pirateguybrush said:Not recommended.


https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/549469/help-compatibility-3d-display-with-nvidia-3d-vision/



Thanks for the feedback. The only thing in there that would really be a deterrent to me though would be if the EDID override hack which I use with my TV to achieve passive "1080p" 3D @60Hz is unusable. My video card is not powerful enough for active 3D, and I think the passive 3D on my TV looks great. Everything else mentioned in that linked thread is applies equally to gaming through my passive 3D TV, and are not a problem for me. Even with a monitor I always lean back in a reclining chair and game with a controller, well over 90cm from the screen. I can establish a specific static viewing angle perfectly comfortably without any detriment to my gaming experience.

So I guess the question becomes: has anyone used the EDID override on this AOC monitor? I can't really see any reason it wouldn't work.

#4
Posted 04/21/2014 11:24 PM   
I use one, actually. It works brilliantly with the EDID override, provided you make one of two adjustments: You either need to make a reversed set of glasses or, as I did, edit the registry and change the interlacing pattern from FF00FF to FF00FF00, else the resulting output will be reversed. If you edit the registry than make sure you set the properties such that the SYSTEM user has no write access to it, otherwise it will be set back each and every time you toggle 3D Vision. Oh, and don't enable SGSSAA at the same time else you get some pretty nasty cross-talk: [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/649448/driver-level-cross-talk-on-passive-3d-/[/url] Otherwise, as mentioned, they're brilliant. Angle the screen back a little bit from what you normally would or sit the screen up a little higher and the normally-associated-with-passive crosstalk is all but invisible, save for the highest contrast areas (eg Light sources against a dark background).
I use one, actually. It works brilliantly with the EDID override, provided you make one of two adjustments: You either need to make a reversed set of glasses or, as I did, edit the registry and change the interlacing pattern from FF00FF to FF00FF00, else the resulting output will be reversed. If you edit the registry than make sure you set the properties such that the SYSTEM user has no write access to it, otherwise it will be set back each and every time you toggle 3D Vision.

Oh, and don't enable SGSSAA at the same time else you get some pretty nasty cross-talk: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/649448/driver-level-cross-talk-on-passive-3d-/

Otherwise, as mentioned, they're brilliant. Angle the screen back a little bit from what you normally would or sit the screen up a little higher and the normally-associated-with-passive crosstalk is all but invisible, save for the highest contrast areas (eg Light sources against a dark background).

#5
Posted 04/22/2014 03:13 AM   
[quote="Thalyn"]I use one, actually. It works brilliantly with the EDID override, provided you make one of two adjustments: You either need to make a reversed set of glasses or, as I did, edit the registry and change the interlacing pattern from FF00FF to FF00FF00, else the resulting output will be reversed. If you edit the registry than make sure you set the properties such that the SYSTEM user has no write access to it, otherwise it will be set back each and every time you toggle 3D Vision. Oh, and don't enable SGSSAA at the same time else you get some pretty nasty cross-talk: [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/649448/driver-level-cross-talk-on-passive-3d-/[/url] Otherwise, as mentioned, they're brilliant. Angle the screen back a little bit from what you normally would or sit the screen up a little higher and the normally-associated-with-passive crosstalk is all but invisible, save for the highest contrast areas (eg Light sources against a dark background).[/quote] Thanks, that's great to hear! Regarding the reversed output, the same applies to my LG TV set, and I get around that by using a little .exe I found called 3DVisionEyeSwapper. You can find it a couple of posts down here: [url]http://3dvision-blog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2206[/url] I'm pretty sure that it just bumps each line up (or down?) by one, so you do get a single row of pixels at the very bottom or top that isn't quite right, but at least you can save convergence configurations on a per-game basis, which disabling write access to SYSTEM on those registry entries unfortunately doesn't allow. Passive 3D gaming at "1080p" and 60Hz is great. Presumably it's only half as good as active shutter at equivalent frame rate & resolution, but it still is a great immersive experience, and the barrier for entry is sooo much lower, what with passive monitors being much cheaper, and GPU requirements literally halved. I play games at near max on a single 670 GPU, the performance hit running in passive 3D is negligible compared to 2D. On top of that, no batteries or emitters to muck about with. It's just a shame you have to hack your way in. Even if you buy a 3DTV Play license, you can still only play in 720p/60Hz (ugly) or 1080p/24Hz (unplayable IMO). It would be nice if Nvidia weren't so unbelievably tight-fisted about these technologies.
Thalyn said:I use one, actually. It works brilliantly with the EDID override, provided you make one of two adjustments: You either need to make a reversed set of glasses or, as I did, edit the registry and change the interlacing pattern from FF00FF to FF00FF00, else the resulting output will be reversed. If you edit the registry than make sure you set the properties such that the SYSTEM user has no write access to it, otherwise it will be set back each and every time you toggle 3D Vision.

Oh, and don't enable SGSSAA at the same time else you get some pretty nasty cross-talk: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/649448/driver-level-cross-talk-on-passive-3d-/

Otherwise, as mentioned, they're brilliant. Angle the screen back a little bit from what you normally would or sit the screen up a little higher and the normally-associated-with-passive crosstalk is all but invisible, save for the highest contrast areas (eg Light sources against a dark background).


Thanks, that's great to hear! Regarding the reversed output, the same applies to my LG TV set, and I get around that by using a little .exe I found called 3DVisionEyeSwapper. You can find it a couple of posts down here:

http://3dvision-blog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2206

I'm pretty sure that it just bumps each line up (or down?) by one, so you do get a single row of pixels at the very bottom or top that isn't quite right, but at least you can save convergence configurations on a per-game basis, which disabling write access to SYSTEM on those registry entries unfortunately doesn't allow.

Passive 3D gaming at "1080p" and 60Hz is great. Presumably it's only half as good as active shutter at equivalent frame rate & resolution, but it still is a great immersive experience, and the barrier for entry is sooo much lower, what with passive monitors being much cheaper, and GPU requirements literally halved. I play games at near max on a single 670 GPU, the performance hit running in passive 3D is negligible compared to 2D. On top of that, no batteries or emitters to muck about with. It's just a shame you have to hack your way in. Even if you buy a 3DTV Play license, you can still only play in 720p/60Hz (ugly) or 1080p/24Hz (unplayable IMO). It would be nice if Nvidia weren't so unbelievably tight-fisted about these technologies.

#6
Posted 04/22/2014 08:16 AM   
A simple "This is an unsupported/untested setup - are you sure you want to enable 3D Vision anyway?" dialogue would be sufficient, IMO. Include a link to the list of actually supported stuff on the same dialogue if they must. The facilities are already there to tweak the interlacing pattern and it's clearly capable of doing it when tricked, so I honestly can't figure out what is stopping them from allowing it beyond dollars. I don't necessarily know that it's only "half as good" as active 3D, though. The halving of resolution only matters spacially (non-moving elements) - text and other parts of the UI being the prime places to see it. All the temporal data (moving parts - the bits you actually give a damn about) are effectively the same because of how your brain sees the image. And, yes, the performance is better as you're effectively rendering only half the pixels, resulting in less rasterizer and pixel shader time. Supposedly 4K passive screens don't even have visible loss of detail on the special elements as a result of the smaller scanlines. Though there aren't any reasonably-sized 4K 3D screens coming (that I know of - the upcoming 28" jobs are all 2D-only) they'll likely be coming long before active ones due to the throughput limitations of DP1.2, so it would be in NVidia's best interests to get support for as many of them as they can as early as possible (such as the aforementioned dialogue box). Incidentally you can still do per-title convergence by protecting the registry. You simply deny System access to [u]only[/u] the main key - don't apply it to the sub-keys. It does still give you the one errant line, however, where the picture loops back around.
A simple "This is an unsupported/untested setup - are you sure you want to enable 3D Vision anyway?" dialogue would be sufficient, IMO. Include a link to the list of actually supported stuff on the same dialogue if they must. The facilities are already there to tweak the interlacing pattern and it's clearly capable of doing it when tricked, so I honestly can't figure out what is stopping them from allowing it beyond dollars.

I don't necessarily know that it's only "half as good" as active 3D, though. The halving of resolution only matters spacially (non-moving elements) - text and other parts of the UI being the prime places to see it. All the temporal data (moving parts - the bits you actually give a damn about) are effectively the same because of how your brain sees the image. And, yes, the performance is better as you're effectively rendering only half the pixels, resulting in less rasterizer and pixel shader time.

Supposedly 4K passive screens don't even have visible loss of detail on the special elements as a result of the smaller scanlines. Though there aren't any reasonably-sized 4K 3D screens coming (that I know of - the upcoming 28" jobs are all 2D-only) they'll likely be coming long before active ones due to the throughput limitations of DP1.2, so it would be in NVidia's best interests to get support for as many of them as they can as early as possible (such as the aforementioned dialogue box).

Incidentally you can still do per-title convergence by protecting the registry. You simply deny System access to only the main key - don't apply it to the sub-keys. It does still give you the one errant line, however, where the picture loops back around.

#7
Posted 04/23/2014 03:56 AM   
[quote="Thalyn"] I don't necessarily know that it's only "half as good" as active 3D, though. The halving of resolution only matters spacially (non-moving elements) - text and other parts of the UI being the prime places to see it. All the temporal data (moving parts - the bits you actually give a damn about) are effectively the same because of how your brain sees the image. And, yes, the performance is better as you're effectively rendering only half the pixels, resulting in less rasterizer and pixel shader time.[/quote] Sure, well 'good'ness is vague and subjective anyway, I just came to that conclusion based on the amount of visual info transmitted per unit time. I haven't ever used active S3D, so I have no clue how they compare in the real world :) For anyone else wondering about image quality in line-interleaved/passive 3D, in my anecdotal experience, details in the foreground and middle distance in passive 3D are comparable in perceived detail to standard 2D; not equivalent, but much better than 'half' as good. I'd give them 75-95%, depending. Distant detail however definitely suffers noticeably from the per-eye halving of the resolution, often appearing as a crunchy mess of pixels when examined consciously, although applying moderate to high anti-aliasing does go a long way to mitigating this effect. For me it's a small price to pay though, considering I have currently invested exactly $0 into 3D gaming specifically. I guess I think Nvidia could make much more money out of the 3D thing by opening up a 1080p60Hz option for 3DTV Play, and lowering the price somewhat (if not just including the license in with the GPU purchase, which many would say they should always have done anyway), but I suppose that would mean more 'casual' adopters, which would mean they would need to invest more in support and development, which they couldn't justify financially because there aren't enough adopters. Kind of a big chicken-and-the-egg bummer. Oh well, I'm just grateful that the community's work, on top of the bare-bones ingredients Nvidia offers, allows me to play so many amazing modern games in authentic, high quality stereoscopic 3D, especially with the door creaking open on DX11 fixes now. Good times :)
Thalyn said:
I don't necessarily know that it's only "half as good" as active 3D, though. The halving of resolution only matters spacially (non-moving elements) - text and other parts of the UI being the prime places to see it. All the temporal data (moving parts - the bits you actually give a damn about) are effectively the same because of how your brain sees the image. And, yes, the performance is better as you're effectively rendering only half the pixels, resulting in less rasterizer and pixel shader time.


Sure, well 'good'ness is vague and subjective anyway, I just came to that conclusion based on the amount of visual info transmitted per unit time. I haven't ever used active S3D, so I have no clue how they compare in the real world :)

For anyone else wondering about image quality in line-interleaved/passive 3D, in my anecdotal experience, details in the foreground and middle distance in passive 3D are comparable in perceived detail to standard 2D; not equivalent, but much better than 'half' as good. I'd give them 75-95%, depending. Distant detail however definitely suffers noticeably from the per-eye halving of the resolution, often appearing as a crunchy mess of pixels when examined consciously, although applying moderate to high anti-aliasing does go a long way to mitigating this effect. For me it's a small price to pay though, considering I have currently invested exactly $0 into 3D gaming specifically.

I guess I think Nvidia could make much more money out of the 3D thing by opening up a 1080p60Hz option for 3DTV Play, and lowering the price somewhat (if not just including the license in with the GPU purchase, which many would say they should always have done anyway), but I suppose that would mean more 'casual' adopters, which would mean they would need to invest more in support and development, which they couldn't justify financially because there aren't enough adopters. Kind of a big chicken-and-the-egg bummer. Oh well, I'm just grateful that the community's work, on top of the bare-bones ingredients Nvidia offers, allows me to play so many amazing modern games in authentic, high quality stereoscopic 3D, especially with the door creaking open on DX11 fixes now. Good times :)

#8
Posted 04/23/2014 04:54 AM   
"Crunchy mess of pixels" That's a great expression.
"Crunchy mess of pixels"

That's a great expression.

#9
Posted 04/23/2014 06:38 AM   
Haha, thanks! Yep, as I said anti-aliasing helps a lot, by making the crunchy a bit more... smooshy; with a bit of double-think you can convince yourself it's just a kind of depth-of-field blurring ;)
Haha, thanks!

Yep, as I said anti-aliasing helps a lot, by making the crunchy a bit more... smooshy; with a bit of double-think you can convince yourself it's just a kind of depth-of-field blurring ;)

#10
Posted 04/23/2014 06:51 AM   
Scroll To Top