Finally....
Just bought the Asus PG278QR, and I'm in love :)
Captain007 I agree with your description, it has LESS ghosting than my old Asus VG248QE, actually close to none !!!
Not a single dead pixel, and no visible scanlines !!
Just one issue though, I'm not that pleased with 1080P upscaling, it looks blurry to me, but I guess there's nothing I can do about it - except upgrading my 980TI :P
Captain007 I agree with your description, it has LESS ghosting than my old Asus VG248QE, actually close to none !!!
Not a single dead pixel, and no visible scanlines !!
Just one issue though, I'm not that pleased with 1080P upscaling, it looks blurry to me, but I guess there's nothing I can do about it - except upgrading my 980TI :P
Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Asus Geforce RTX 2080 TI Rog Strix OC
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)
[quote="Blacksmith56"]
Not a single dead pixel, and no visible scanlines !![/quote]
Congratulations! I'm feeling jealous. I had to get used to vertical scanlines in my Dell S2716DG, and to more ghosting than in the BenQ XL2411Z (which was already worse than the VG248QE, according to some people). Back when it was new there were a few times where I thought "is this a haloing issue that I have to fix in a shader or is it my monitor?".
[quote="Blacksmith56"]I guess there's nothing I can do about it - except upgrading my 980TI :P[/quote]
Or playing with black borders and putting your face closer to the monitor :p.
Blacksmith56 said:
Not a single dead pixel, and no visible scanlines !!
Congratulations! I'm feeling jealous. I had to get used to vertical scanlines in my Dell S2716DG, and to more ghosting than in the BenQ XL2411Z (which was already worse than the VG248QE, according to some people). Back when it was new there were a few times where I thought "is this a haloing issue that I have to fix in a shader or is it my monitor?".
Blacksmith56 said:I guess there's nothing I can do about it - except upgrading my 980TI :P
Or playing with black borders and putting your face closer to the monitor :p.
Can you do the Rabbit Test and get back to us?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqpXQVkiJic[/url]
Here some posts about the Rabbit Crosstalk (Ghost) Test:
[url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/950640/3d-vision/lg-oled-4k-tv-crosstalk-ghosting-/post/4937795/#4937795[/url]
[url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/828986/3d-vision/which-is-the-best-3d-monitor-/post/4518896/#4518896[/url]
[url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/828986/3d-vision/which-is-the-best-3d-monitor-/post/4520351/#4520351[/url]
[url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/953347/3d-vision/is-the-rog-swift-pg278q-the-last-great-3d-monitor-/post/4942488/#4942488[/url]
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
Well, I'm returning my ASUS PG278QR and keeping my LG 49UB8500. The PG278QR is the best 3D vision monitor I've tried but still has issues. Scanlines are still there, they are better than the 1440p Dell but still there. Crosstalk is handled well, I'd say as good as the PG248QE from what I remember. You can still see doubling here and there, buildings against a blue sky and such. My passive LG has less but that's to be expected I suppose.
I'm not sure the last issue is a monitor problem or a problem with my setup. SLI seems broken when using the PG278QR with the Witcher 3 fix. I played Witcher 3 in 3D and frames drop to 10-20 per second in the title screen, then in game it's 20-30 fps. Disable SLI and it's a smooth 60. This frame drop does not occur in SLI with my LG. SLI and 3D didn't give me issues on any other game I tested on the PG278QR but Witcher 3 is my favorite 3D game.
EDIT: The SLI issue may not be a monitor issue. I rolled back to 378.78 drivers and SLI is performing better in general. I went from 40 FPS in Witcher 3 on med-high settings to 55-60 fps on all high settings in 4K3D.
Well, I'm returning my ASUS PG278QR and keeping my LG 49UB8500. The PG278QR is the best 3D vision monitor I've tried but still has issues. Scanlines are still there, they are better than the 1440p Dell but still there. Crosstalk is handled well, I'd say as good as the PG248QE from what I remember. You can still see doubling here and there, buildings against a blue sky and such. My passive LG has less but that's to be expected I suppose.
I'm not sure the last issue is a monitor problem or a problem with my setup. SLI seems broken when using the PG278QR with the Witcher 3 fix. I played Witcher 3 in 3D and frames drop to 10-20 per second in the title screen, then in game it's 20-30 fps. Disable SLI and it's a smooth 60. This frame drop does not occur in SLI with my LG. SLI and 3D didn't give me issues on any other game I tested on the PG278QR but Witcher 3 is my favorite 3D game.
EDIT: The SLI issue may not be a monitor issue. I rolled back to 378.78 drivers and SLI is performing better in general. I went from 40 FPS in Witcher 3 on med-high settings to 55-60 fps on all high settings in 4K3D.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
Sorry Dugom but I don't have Youtube set up for 3D :/ But can confirm after a lot of adjustments and calibrating, that it has less ghosting than my previous monitor !
About scanlines - they are present in some conditions, but I have to look after them to see it, and it's not a gamebreaker in any way.
What I've also noticed is the improved blacklevel, which really makes dark scenaries look detailed and impressive !!
I've also been fidling with my system settings in order to achieve a decent performance with my single 980TI in 1440P.
This isn't exactly rocketscience but I found that by disabling both V-sync and AA in game, and instead enable them in NVCP, I could run even FO4 just as smooth as before..
EG. Tombraider 2013 this way I have 60 fps solid with every setting maxed out, thats quite OK I think !
Sorry Dugom but I don't have Youtube set up for 3D :/ But can confirm after a lot of adjustments and calibrating, that it has less ghosting than my previous monitor !
About scanlines - they are present in some conditions, but I have to look after them to see it, and it's not a gamebreaker in any way.
What I've also noticed is the improved blacklevel, which really makes dark scenaries look detailed and impressive !!
I've also been fidling with my system settings in order to achieve a decent performance with my single 980TI in 1440P.
This isn't exactly rocketscience but I found that by disabling both V-sync and AA in game, and instead enable them in NVCP, I could run even FO4 just as smooth as before..
EG. Tombraider 2013 this way I have 60 fps solid with every setting maxed out, thats quite OK I think !
Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Asus Geforce RTX 2080 TI Rog Strix OC
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)
Newly announced 4K 144Hz monitors (to be released later this year) supposedly have ULBM mode, so should be technically possible to support 3D Vision. But I am afraid there will never be 3D Vision 4K monitor. I was going through this pain when old analog version of 3D Vision was basically destroyed when CRT monitors stopped being popular, and now probably Nvidia will prefer to kill the tech instead of opening it up.
3D isn't trendy anymore, so I don't expect to see it in any of new gaming monitors, but I really, really want to be proven wrong. I wish I could at least see how 4K 3D gaming looks like. 1080p 3D is awesome, but the pixels are just too big to unleash the whole potential current games have. Even older games. And from the brief look at posts above, I guess there's still problem with 1440p monitors (image quality problem and price "problem")?
Newly announced 4K 144Hz monitors (to be released later this year) supposedly have ULBM mode, so should be technically possible to support 3D Vision. But I am afraid there will never be 3D Vision 4K monitor. I was going through this pain when old analog version of 3D Vision was basically destroyed when CRT monitors stopped being popular, and now probably Nvidia will prefer to kill the tech instead of opening it up.
3D isn't trendy anymore, so I don't expect to see it in any of new gaming monitors, but I really, really want to be proven wrong. I wish I could at least see how 4K 3D gaming looks like. 1080p 3D is awesome, but the pixels are just too big to unleash the whole potential current games have. Even older games. And from the brief look at posts above, I guess there's still problem with 1440p monitors (image quality problem and price "problem")?
[quote="RonsonPL"]Newly announced 4K 144Hz monitors (to be released later this year) supposedly have ULBM mode, so should be technically possible to support 3D Vision. But I am afraid there will never be 3D Vision 4K monitor. I was going through this pain when old analog version of 3D Vision was basically destroyed when CRT monitors stopped being popular, and now probably Nvidia will prefer to kill the tech instead of opening it up.
3D isn't trendy anymore, so I don't expect to see it in any of new gaming monitors, but I really, really want to be proven wrong. I wish I could at least see how 4K 3D gaming looks like. 1080p 3D is awesome, but the pixels are just too big to unleash the whole potential current games have. Even older games. And from the brief look at posts above, I guess there's still problem with 1440p monitors (image quality problem and price "problem")?[/quote]
Im not sure that I can follow you..
1. In another thread you uncovered that your GPU is an Old GTX780, so why do you want 4K 3D ??
2. Actually Asus and others? is still releasing new models with 3D Vision..
3. And your "brief look" didn't include my or captain007 posts ?
4. Price problem ?? Why are you even speculating about 4K 3D then, it will most likely be a double up compared to 1440P..
There will NOT in our lifetime be released a 100% flawless 3D Vision monitor without ghosting, no matter the resolution, so my advice is - just enjoy the present tech, who knows what tommorow brings ! (perhaps nothing:)
[quote="Blacksmith56"]Finally....
Just bought the Asus PG278QR, and I'm in love :)
Captain007 I agree with your description, it has LESS ghosting than my old Asus VG248QE, actually close to none !!!
Not a single dead pixel, and no visible scanlines !!
Just one issue though, I'm not that pleased with 1080P upscaling, it looks blurry to me, but I guess there's nothing I can do about it - except upgrading my 980TI :P[/quote]
RonsonPL said:Newly announced 4K 144Hz monitors (to be released later this year) supposedly have ULBM mode, so should be technically possible to support 3D Vision. But I am afraid there will never be 3D Vision 4K monitor. I was going through this pain when old analog version of 3D Vision was basically destroyed when CRT monitors stopped being popular, and now probably Nvidia will prefer to kill the tech instead of opening it up.
3D isn't trendy anymore, so I don't expect to see it in any of new gaming monitors, but I really, really want to be proven wrong. I wish I could at least see how 4K 3D gaming looks like. 1080p 3D is awesome, but the pixels are just too big to unleash the whole potential current games have. Even older games. And from the brief look at posts above, I guess there's still problem with 1440p monitors (image quality problem and price "problem")?
Im not sure that I can follow you..
1. In another thread you uncovered that your GPU is an Old GTX780, so why do you want 4K 3D ??
2. Actually Asus and others? is still releasing new models with 3D Vision..
3. And your "brief look" didn't include my or captain007 posts ?
4. Price problem ?? Why are you even speculating about 4K 3D then, it will most likely be a double up compared to 1440P..
There will NOT in our lifetime be released a 100% flawless 3D Vision monitor without ghosting, no matter the resolution, so my advice is - just enjoy the present tech, who knows what tommorow brings ! (perhaps nothing:)
Blacksmith56 said:Finally....
Just bought the Asus PG278QR, and I'm in love :)
Captain007 I agree with your description, it has LESS ghosting than my old Asus VG248QE, actually close to none !!!
Not a single dead pixel, and no visible scanlines !!
Just one issue though, I'm not that pleased with 1080P upscaling, it looks blurry to me, but I guess there's nothing I can do about it - except upgrading my 980TI :P
Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Asus Geforce RTX 2080 TI Rog Strix OC
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)
Blacksmith56
1. I'm a tech geek, it would make me happier if it even was available, even if I cannot afford it. It would be awesome to just see 4K 3D Vision in action.
2. I was talking about 4K. And I see the trend is to go ultra-wide and I saw no 3D Vision support in last 3 reviews of such monitors, which I've recently read.
3. Brief look was enough to see someone having to get used to more ghosting than XL2411Z. I'm really demanding in this regard. Even 2720Z had motion clarity which annoyed me at times (although it's not that much worse than XL2411Z)
4. If we have the same 1440p monitor, same flaws, same quality, and it still is at the price it was 3-4 years ago, then I call it "a problem". Gaming monitor prices, gaming GPU prices, all "gaming" prices are the problem. To ask 600€ for 24" 1080p screen in 2017 is just absolutely terrible and a huge problem. And that's for what? For 240Hz which doesn't even work with 3D or low persistence, so the value of it doesn't exceed 1$ for me. And all the other crap resolution monitors? 4x the price cause the 1920x1080p got a little wider now and it's 2560x1440, whereas even potato equipped consoles start to have some smaller games in 4K? This is a problem, and extrapolating from this, 4K 120Hz 3D monitor can cost waay too much for waaaaay too long. That's what I meant. But anyway, if the first 1440p 3D monitor (Asus) that came out years ago, isn't the best 3D monitor anymore, in terms of motion clarity and the problem with the smaller (sub)pixel count active while in 3D mode, then sorry for being lazy and thanx in advance for the good news if that's the case. :)
1. I'm a tech geek, it would make me happier if it even was available, even if I cannot afford it. It would be awesome to just see 4K 3D Vision in action.
2. I was talking about 4K. And I see the trend is to go ultra-wide and I saw no 3D Vision support in last 3 reviews of such monitors, which I've recently read.
3. Brief look was enough to see someone having to get used to more ghosting than XL2411Z. I'm really demanding in this regard. Even 2720Z had motion clarity which annoyed me at times (although it's not that much worse than XL2411Z)
4. If we have the same 1440p monitor, same flaws, same quality, and it still is at the price it was 3-4 years ago, then I call it "a problem". Gaming monitor prices, gaming GPU prices, all "gaming" prices are the problem. To ask 600€ for 24" 1080p screen in 2017 is just absolutely terrible and a huge problem. And that's for what? For 240Hz which doesn't even work with 3D or low persistence, so the value of it doesn't exceed 1$ for me. And all the other crap resolution monitors? 4x the price cause the 1920x1080p got a little wider now and it's 2560x1440, whereas even potato equipped consoles start to have some smaller games in 4K? This is a problem, and extrapolating from this, 4K 120Hz 3D monitor can cost waay too much for waaaaay too long. That's what I meant. But anyway, if the first 1440p 3D monitor (Asus) that came out years ago, isn't the best 3D monitor anymore, in terms of motion clarity and the problem with the smaller (sub)pixel count active while in 3D mode, then sorry for being lazy and thanx in advance for the good news if that's the case. :)
There has never been an IPS 3D Vision monitor AFAIK. 3D Vision is the highest quality 3D I've ever seen (better than any TV, projector, or theatre) and they won't compromise on the quality, so it will probably be only on TN panels and maybe OLED in the future. The 3D hate from the general public is because all other forms of 3D are of significantly lower quality (blurry, ghosting, crosstalk, and too dark) than 3D Vision.
1080p on my PG278Q looks very bad upscaled and most games don't hit 60 fps in 3D at 1440p even with GTX 1080 SLI (I get 30 fps with a single GPU and 45 fps with SLI). I'm considering buying a PG258Q to run 1080p at 60 fps, and for 240 Hz on the desktop. If upscaling is acceptable for 60 fps, then the PG278QR is still the best 3D Vision monitor, since it also has a HDMI port for consoles, and has the same 100% accurate sRGB factory calibration as the PG278Q. The PG258Q on the other hand has poor calibration out of the box.
There has never been an IPS 3D Vision monitor AFAIK. 3D Vision is the highest quality 3D I've ever seen (better than any TV, projector, or theatre) and they won't compromise on the quality, so it will probably be only on TN panels and maybe OLED in the future. The 3D hate from the general public is because all other forms of 3D are of significantly lower quality (blurry, ghosting, crosstalk, and too dark) than 3D Vision.
1080p on my PG278Q looks very bad upscaled and most games don't hit 60 fps in 3D at 1440p even with GTX 1080 SLI (I get 30 fps with a single GPU and 45 fps with SLI). I'm considering buying a PG258Q to run 1080p at 60 fps, and for 240 Hz on the desktop. If upscaling is acceptable for 60 fps, then the PG278QR is still the best 3D Vision monitor, since it also has a HDMI port for consoles, and has the same 100% accurate sRGB factory calibration as the PG278Q. The PG258Q on the other hand has poor calibration out of the box.
Inno3D RTX 2080 Ti iChill Black (330W Power Limit / +50 MHz Core / +750 MHz Memory)
Intel Core i9-9900X (4.6 GHz Core / 3.0 GHz Mesh)
Corsair Vengeance LPX 32 GB (4 x 8 GB) DDR4 CMK32GX4M4Z3200C16 (4000 MHz 18-20-20-40-1T)
MSI MEG X299 Creation
Acer Predator X27 / Asus ROG Swift PG27VQ / Dell S2417DG / 3D Vision 2 / Oculus Rift S / Marantz SR6012 / LG OLED55B7T
Intel Optane 900P 280 GB / Tiered Storage Space (Samsung 950 PRO 512 GB / Seagate IronWolf Pro 10 TB)
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
[quote="Blacksmith56"]Sorry Dugom but I don't have Youtube set up for 3D :/ But can confirm after a lot of adjustments and calibrating, that it has less ghosting than my previous monitor ![/quote]The video download link is in the YT description.
Blacksmith56 said:Sorry Dugom but I don't have Youtube set up for 3D :/ But can confirm after a lot of adjustments and calibrating, that it has less ghosting than my previous monitor !
I would argue that 3D on a 4K passive TV looks better than 3D vision on monitors. I just had the PG278QR and a 4K LG side by side. Less crosstalk on the LG, better colors, and better resolution/clarity. Input lag is what the monitor has going for it, although the lag isn't bad on the LG set. Also, you're going to need at least 1080s in SLI to push 4K 3D decently. Only now with my 1080 Ti's can I push 4K 3D without sacrificing quality, except in Witcher 3(high settings instead of ultra).
I would argue that 3D on a 4K passive TV looks better than 3D vision on monitors. I just had the PG278QR and a 4K LG side by side. Less crosstalk on the LG, better colors, and better resolution/clarity. Input lag is what the monitor has going for it, although the lag isn't bad on the LG set. Also, you're going to need at least 1080s in SLI to push 4K 3D decently. Only now with my 1080 Ti's can I push 4K 3D without sacrificing quality, except in Witcher 3(high settings instead of ultra).
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
CeeJayII
Isn't it kind of pointless to put passive 3D over active 3D, when the image clarity in motion is so much worse without low persistence (backlight strobe)? Unless you play games where most play time is with static images, of course ;)
Anyway. Can anyone tell me what (if any) improvement 1440p monitor has in 3D Vision 2 mode, in terms of perceivable resolution over 1080p? I mean the problem when monitor seems to have less active pixels or sub-pixels when in 3D mode.
In other words:
- in 2D image looks acceptable in 1080p
- in 3D it looks like lower res looked on CRT monitors back in the days. Not every side of each pixel touches the other pixels
It makes similar difference to watching 640x480 on 17" CRT or 800x600 on 19" CRTs, versus higher res which on CRTs helped hide the lines separating the pixels.
So I wonder if this stays the same or improves proportionally to the resolution bump, and also, if that makes 3D on 1440p more or less equally "solid" as 1080p in 2D, assuming the same display size and viewer's distance.
Right now it's sad to see how much detail I'm missing when using 3D, compared to 2D. I even (don't punch me for this! ;) ) sometimes switch to 2D to play a little in 120Hz 2D, just to see how the same locations look with higher res.
I've read a lot about "inversion problem" with 1440p monitors, but then stopped reading all about it, now I'm back, I've read this thread and still don't really know everything about this problem (or two different problems?).
Isn't it kind of pointless to put passive 3D over active 3D, when the image clarity in motion is so much worse without low persistence (backlight strobe)? Unless you play games where most play time is with static images, of course ;)
Anyway. Can anyone tell me what (if any) improvement 1440p monitor has in 3D Vision 2 mode, in terms of perceivable resolution over 1080p? I mean the problem when monitor seems to have less active pixels or sub-pixels when in 3D mode.
In other words:
- in 2D image looks acceptable in 1080p
- in 3D it looks like lower res looked on CRT monitors back in the days. Not every side of each pixel touches the other pixels
It makes similar difference to watching 640x480 on 17" CRT or 800x600 on 19" CRTs, versus higher res which on CRTs helped hide the lines separating the pixels.
So I wonder if this stays the same or improves proportionally to the resolution bump, and also, if that makes 3D on 1440p more or less equally "solid" as 1080p in 2D, assuming the same display size and viewer's distance.
Right now it's sad to see how much detail I'm missing when using 3D, compared to 2D. I even (don't punch me for this! ;) ) sometimes switch to 2D to play a little in 120Hz 2D, just to see how the same locations look with higher res.
I've read a lot about "inversion problem" with 1440p monitors, but then stopped reading all about it, now I'm back, I've read this thread and still don't really know everything about this problem (or two different problems?).
[quote="RonsonPL"]CeeJayII
Isn't it kind of pointless to put passive 3D over active 3D, when the image clarity in motion is so much worse without low persistence (backlight strobe)? Unless you play games where most play time is with static images, of course ;)
Anyway. Can anyone tell me what (if any) improvement 1440p monitor has in 3D Vision 2 mode, in terms of perceivable resolution over 1080p? I mean the problem when monitor seems to have less active pixels or sub-pixels when in 3D mode.
In other words:
- in 2D image looks acceptable in 1080p
- in 3D it looks like lower res looked on CRT monitors back in the days. Not every side of each pixel touches the other pixels
It makes similar difference to watching 640x480 on 17" CRT or 800x600 on 19" CRTs, versus higher res which on CRTs helped hide the lines separating the pixels.
So I wonder if this stays the same or improves proportionally to the resolution bump, and also, if that makes 3D on 1440p more or less equally "solid" as 1080p in 2D, assuming the same display size and viewer's distance.
Right now it's sad to see how much detail I'm missing when using 3D, compared to 2D. I even (don't punch me for this! ;) ) sometimes switch to 2D to play a little in 120Hz 2D, just to see how the same locations look with higher res.
I've read a lot about "inversion problem" with 1440p monitors, but then stopped reading all about it, now I'm back, I've read this thread and still don't really know everything about this problem (or two different problems?).[/quote]
I've been looking to upgrade from my 1080p passive 3D monitor to a proper 3D Vision monitor, and have been leaning towards 1080p as I don't want to spend too much on a GPU upgrade anytime soon.
You mentioned the problem of less active pixels, I assumed that going from 1080p passive to active would effectively double my 3D resolution and make things look less like an old sci-fi hologram. Is that not really the case?
Isn't it kind of pointless to put passive 3D over active 3D, when the image clarity in motion is so much worse without low persistence (backlight strobe)? Unless you play games where most play time is with static images, of course ;)
Anyway. Can anyone tell me what (if any) improvement 1440p monitor has in 3D Vision 2 mode, in terms of perceivable resolution over 1080p? I mean the problem when monitor seems to have less active pixels or sub-pixels when in 3D mode.
In other words:
- in 2D image looks acceptable in 1080p
- in 3D it looks like lower res looked on CRT monitors back in the days. Not every side of each pixel touches the other pixels
It makes similar difference to watching 640x480 on 17" CRT or 800x600 on 19" CRTs, versus higher res which on CRTs helped hide the lines separating the pixels.
So I wonder if this stays the same or improves proportionally to the resolution bump, and also, if that makes 3D on 1440p more or less equally "solid" as 1080p in 2D, assuming the same display size and viewer's distance.
Right now it's sad to see how much detail I'm missing when using 3D, compared to 2D. I even (don't punch me for this! ;) ) sometimes switch to 2D to play a little in 120Hz 2D, just to see how the same locations look with higher res.
I've read a lot about "inversion problem" with 1440p monitors, but then stopped reading all about it, now I'm back, I've read this thread and still don't really know everything about this problem (or two different problems?).
I've been looking to upgrade from my 1080p passive 3D monitor to a proper 3D Vision monitor, and have been leaning towards 1080p as I don't want to spend too much on a GPU upgrade anytime soon.
You mentioned the problem of less active pixels, I assumed that going from 1080p passive to active would effectively double my 3D resolution and make things look less like an old sci-fi hologram. Is that not really the case?
NVicious
No, I was talking about 3DV2 1080p vs. 3DV2 1440p.
I can't say anything about passive, since I don't use it or even seen it in action much (after reading about the flaws I am not interested)
No, I was talking about 3DV2 1080p vs. 3DV2 1440p.
I can't say anything about passive, since I don't use it or even seen it in action much (after reading about the flaws I am not interested)
Just bought the Asus PG278QR, and I'm in love :)
Captain007 I agree with your description, it has LESS ghosting than my old Asus VG248QE, actually close to none !!!
Not a single dead pixel, and no visible scanlines !!
Just one issue though, I'm not that pleased with 1080P upscaling, it looks blurry to me, but I guess there's nothing I can do about it - except upgrading my 980TI :P
Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Asus Geforce RTX 2080 TI Rog Strix OC
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)
Congratulations! I'm feeling jealous. I had to get used to vertical scanlines in my Dell S2716DG, and to more ghosting than in the BenQ XL2411Z (which was already worse than the VG248QE, according to some people). Back when it was new there were a few times where I thought "is this a haloing issue that I have to fix in a shader or is it my monitor?".
Or playing with black borders and putting your face closer to the monitor :p.
CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: MSI GeForce RTX 2080Ti Gaming X Trio
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com
" rel="nofollow" target = "_blank">
Here some posts about the Rabbit Crosstalk (Ghost) Test:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/950640/3d-vision/lg-oled-4k-tv-crosstalk-ghosting-/post/4937795/#4937795
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/828986/3d-vision/which-is-the-best-3d-monitor-/post/4518896/#4518896
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/828986/3d-vision/which-is-the-best-3d-monitor-/post/4520351/#4520351
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/953347/3d-vision/is-the-rog-swift-pg278q-the-last-great-3d-monitor-/post/4942488/#4942488
i7 4790K @4.8Ghz / 2x 1080 8GB SLI @2000Mhz / 16GB @2400Mhz
Just click:
My 3D videos and crosstalk test pattern
3DVision Fixes:
HelixMod Site
Universal fix for UnrealEngine 4 Games
Universal fix for Unity Games
Universal fix for FrostBite 3 Games
Universal fix for TellTales Games
Compability Mode Unleashed
Please donate if you can:
-----> Donations to 3DVision Fixers
.
Which variant is best for 3D Vision?
TN or IPS???
Gaming Rig 1
i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO
Gaming Rig 2
My new build
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
I'm not sure the last issue is a monitor problem or a problem with my setup. SLI seems broken when using the PG278QR with the Witcher 3 fix. I played Witcher 3 in 3D and frames drop to 10-20 per second in the title screen, then in game it's 20-30 fps. Disable SLI and it's a smooth 60. This frame drop does not occur in SLI with my LG. SLI and 3D didn't give me issues on any other game I tested on the PG278QR but Witcher 3 is my favorite 3D game.
EDIT: The SLI issue may not be a monitor issue. I rolled back to 378.78 drivers and SLI is performing better in general. I went from 40 FPS in Witcher 3 on med-high settings to 55-60 fps on all high settings in 4K3D.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
About scanlines - they are present in some conditions, but I have to look after them to see it, and it's not a gamebreaker in any way.
What I've also noticed is the improved blacklevel, which really makes dark scenaries look detailed and impressive !!
I've also been fidling with my system settings in order to achieve a decent performance with my single 980TI in 1440P.
This isn't exactly rocketscience but I found that by disabling both V-sync and AA in game, and instead enable them in NVCP, I could run even FO4 just as smooth as before..
EG. Tombraider 2013 this way I have 60 fps solid with every setting maxed out, thats quite OK I think !
Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Asus Geforce RTX 2080 TI Rog Strix OC
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)
3D isn't trendy anymore, so I don't expect to see it in any of new gaming monitors, but I really, really want to be proven wrong. I wish I could at least see how 4K 3D gaming looks like. 1080p 3D is awesome, but the pixels are just too big to unleash the whole potential current games have. Even older games. And from the brief look at posts above, I guess there's still problem with 1440p monitors (image quality problem and price "problem")?
Im not sure that I can follow you..
1. In another thread you uncovered that your GPU is an Old GTX780, so why do you want 4K 3D ??
2. Actually Asus and others? is still releasing new models with 3D Vision..
3. And your "brief look" didn't include my or captain007 posts ?
4. Price problem ?? Why are you even speculating about 4K 3D then, it will most likely be a double up compared to 1440P..
There will NOT in our lifetime be released a 100% flawless 3D Vision monitor without ghosting, no matter the resolution, so my advice is - just enjoy the present tech, who knows what tommorow brings ! (perhaps nothing:)
Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Asus Geforce RTX 2080 TI Rog Strix OC
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)
1. I'm a tech geek, it would make me happier if it even was available, even if I cannot afford it. It would be awesome to just see 4K 3D Vision in action.
2. I was talking about 4K. And I see the trend is to go ultra-wide and I saw no 3D Vision support in last 3 reviews of such monitors, which I've recently read.
3. Brief look was enough to see someone having to get used to more ghosting than XL2411Z. I'm really demanding in this regard. Even 2720Z had motion clarity which annoyed me at times (although it's not that much worse than XL2411Z)
4. If we have the same 1440p monitor, same flaws, same quality, and it still is at the price it was 3-4 years ago, then I call it "a problem". Gaming monitor prices, gaming GPU prices, all "gaming" prices are the problem. To ask 600€ for 24" 1080p screen in 2017 is just absolutely terrible and a huge problem. And that's for what? For 240Hz which doesn't even work with 3D or low persistence, so the value of it doesn't exceed 1$ for me. And all the other crap resolution monitors? 4x the price cause the 1920x1080p got a little wider now and it's 2560x1440, whereas even potato equipped consoles start to have some smaller games in 4K? This is a problem, and extrapolating from this, 4K 120Hz 3D monitor can cost waay too much for waaaaay too long. That's what I meant. But anyway, if the first 1440p 3D monitor (Asus) that came out years ago, isn't the best 3D monitor anymore, in terms of motion clarity and the problem with the smaller (sub)pixel count active while in 3D mode, then sorry for being lazy and thanx in advance for the good news if that's the case. :)
1080p on my PG278Q looks very bad upscaled and most games don't hit 60 fps in 3D at 1440p even with GTX 1080 SLI (I get 30 fps with a single GPU and 45 fps with SLI). I'm considering buying a PG258Q to run 1080p at 60 fps, and for 240 Hz on the desktop. If upscaling is acceptable for 60 fps, then the PG278QR is still the best 3D Vision monitor, since it also has a HDMI port for consoles, and has the same 100% accurate sRGB factory calibration as the PG278Q. The PG258Q on the other hand has poor calibration out of the box.
Inno3D RTX 2080 Ti iChill Black (330W Power Limit / +50 MHz Core / +750 MHz Memory)
Intel Core i9-9900X (4.6 GHz Core / 3.0 GHz Mesh)
Corsair Vengeance LPX 32 GB (4 x 8 GB) DDR4 CMK32GX4M4Z3200C16 (4000 MHz 18-20-20-40-1T)
MSI MEG X299 Creation
Acer Predator X27 / Asus ROG Swift PG27VQ / Dell S2417DG / 3D Vision 2 / Oculus Rift S / Marantz SR6012 / LG OLED55B7T
Intel Optane 900P 280 GB / Tiered Storage Space (Samsung 950 PRO 512 GB / Seagate IronWolf Pro 10 TB)
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
i7 4790K @4.8Ghz / 2x 1080 8GB SLI @2000Mhz / 16GB @2400Mhz
Just click:
My 3D videos and crosstalk test pattern
3DVision Fixes:
HelixMod Site
Universal fix for UnrealEngine 4 Games
Universal fix for Unity Games
Universal fix for FrostBite 3 Games
Universal fix for TellTales Games
Compability Mode Unleashed
Please donate if you can:
-----> Donations to 3DVision Fixers
.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
Isn't it kind of pointless to put passive 3D over active 3D, when the image clarity in motion is so much worse without low persistence (backlight strobe)? Unless you play games where most play time is with static images, of course ;)
Anyway. Can anyone tell me what (if any) improvement 1440p monitor has in 3D Vision 2 mode, in terms of perceivable resolution over 1080p? I mean the problem when monitor seems to have less active pixels or sub-pixels when in 3D mode.
In other words:
- in 2D image looks acceptable in 1080p
- in 3D it looks like lower res looked on CRT monitors back in the days. Not every side of each pixel touches the other pixels
It makes similar difference to watching 640x480 on 17" CRT or 800x600 on 19" CRTs, versus higher res which on CRTs helped hide the lines separating the pixels.
So I wonder if this stays the same or improves proportionally to the resolution bump, and also, if that makes 3D on 1440p more or less equally "solid" as 1080p in 2D, assuming the same display size and viewer's distance.
Right now it's sad to see how much detail I'm missing when using 3D, compared to 2D. I even (don't punch me for this! ;) ) sometimes switch to 2D to play a little in 120Hz 2D, just to see how the same locations look with higher res.
I've read a lot about "inversion problem" with 1440p monitors, but then stopped reading all about it, now I'm back, I've read this thread and still don't really know everything about this problem (or two different problems?).
I've been looking to upgrade from my 1080p passive 3D monitor to a proper 3D Vision monitor, and have been leaning towards 1080p as I don't want to spend too much on a GPU upgrade anytime soon.
You mentioned the problem of less active pixels, I assumed that going from 1080p passive to active would effectively double my 3D resolution and make things look less like an old sci-fi hologram. Is that not really the case?
OS & Driver: Win 10 w/417.35
CPU & GPU: i7 4790k, Gigabyte 980Ti G1 Gaming
MB & RAM: Asrock Z97 Extreme4, GSkill Trident 16Gb DDR3 2400Mhz
Audio: Realtek HD, Steinberg UR44
Display: Acer XB271HUA w/3D Vision 2 Kit
No, I was talking about 3DV2 1080p vs. 3DV2 1440p.
I can't say anything about passive, since I don't use it or even seen it in action much (after reading about the flaws I am not interested)