I am extremely excited for this as it could well be my first 3D setup. Just wanted to start a Debate on Active vs Passive 3D.
120Hz Monitor + 3Dvision Kit : [b]600$[/b] EXTRA Glasses : [b]100$+[/b] each
LG D2342P Cinema 3D Monitor : [b]350$[/b] EXTRA Glasses : [b] 5$[/b] each
You also get Tridef Software bundled with it(I wish it could have been 3DTV Play). The 2011 LG Cinema 3DTVs which use the same Tech have got some nice reviews. Do you guys think this is the beginning of 3D coming to the mainstream and passive would be the future( No Crosstalk, Flicker Free, 2 Times Brighter, Lightweight Glasses).
I am extremely excited for this as it could well be my first 3D setup. Just wanted to start a Debate on Active vs Passive 3D.
120Hz Monitor + 3Dvision Kit : 600$ EXTRA Glasses : 100$+ each
LG D2342P Cinema 3D Monitor : 350$ EXTRA Glasses : 5$ each
You also get Tridef Software bundled with it(I wish it could have been 3DTV Play). The 2011 LG Cinema 3DTVs which use the same Tech have got some nice reviews. Do you guys think this is the beginning of 3D coming to the mainstream and passive would be the future( No Crosstalk, Flicker Free, 2 Times Brighter, Lightweight Glasses).
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.
The "no crosstalk" thing is a bit overrated with passive polarization, there is still crosstalk, because removing the active glasses from the equation means you just get rid of the crosstalk issues that might be caused by the shutter glasses and the LCD panel itself is also responsible for crosstalk.
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.
The "no crosstalk" thing is a bit overrated with passive polarization, there is still crosstalk, because removing the active glasses from the equation means you just get rid of the crosstalk issues that might be caused by the shutter glasses and the LCD panel itself is also responsible for crosstalk.
[quote name='Bloody' date='25 April 2011 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1303738649' post='1230062']
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.
The "no crosstalk" thing is a bit overrated with passive polarization, there is still crosstalk, because removing the active glasses from the equation means you just get rid of the crosstalk issues that might be caused by the shutter glasses and the LCD panel itself is also responsible for crosstalk.
[/quote]
First up, Big fan of your Blog and Reviews. Secondly, the people who have seen the Cinema 3D TVs say that the lines are noticeable if you are closer than 4-5 feet (for a 47 inch Screen), so I am hoping that it wont be much of an issue on the 23 inch screen. I would sincerely like to request you to Review this monitor as soon as you can. The reason I am so impressed by the monitor is that it is crazy cheap( almost half of other TRUE3D solutions and according to me will bring stereoscopic gaming, movies and videos to the mainstream).
[quote name='Bloody' date='25 April 2011 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1303738649' post='1230062']
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.
The "no crosstalk" thing is a bit overrated with passive polarization, there is still crosstalk, because removing the active glasses from the equation means you just get rid of the crosstalk issues that might be caused by the shutter glasses and the LCD panel itself is also responsible for crosstalk.
First up, Big fan of your Blog and Reviews. Secondly, the people who have seen the Cinema 3D TVs say that the lines are noticeable if you are closer than 4-5 feet (for a 47 inch Screen), so I am hoping that it wont be much of an issue on the 23 inch screen. I would sincerely like to request you to Review this monitor as soon as you can. The reason I am so impressed by the monitor is that it is crazy cheap( almost half of other TRUE3D solutions and according to me will bring stereoscopic gaming, movies and videos to the mainstream).
[quote name='Bloody' date='25 April 2011 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1303738649' post='1230062']
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.[/quote]
It would be interesting to test the case when the vertical resolution is truly halved, i.e. when pairs of lines are the same, versus the case with passive monitors when each eye gets an interlaced half of the original information.
I would guess the second case is still better, our brains being able to partly recombine the information ...
[quote name='Bloody' date='25 April 2011 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1303738649' post='1230062']
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.
It would be interesting to test the case when the vertical resolution is truly halved, i.e. when pairs of lines are the same, versus the case with passive monitors when each eye gets an interlaced half of the original information.
I would guess the second case is still better, our brains being able to partly recombine the information ...
I can personally confirm about the lines and the new LG Cinema 3D TVs and they do have ghosting visible and I'm expecting the same from this monitor too. LG claims that the fact that the vertical resolution per eye being halved is not an issue at all, because the brain rebuilds it into Full HD resolution, but that is just marketing in action. This creates a problem with the perception of some finer details and small text for example, may be an issue also when you have aliased objects displayed on the screen etc. But who know, with a more attractive price and overall good performance it can become a good alternative for some users...
And unlike with a 3D HDTV where you may need more glasses, with a 3D LCD monitor you probably won't need more than two pairs at most... the screen is too small for more users to watch 3D content at the same time and I presume that most people won't ever need a second pair anyway.
I can personally confirm about the lines and the new LG Cinema 3D TVs and they do have ghosting visible and I'm expecting the same from this monitor too. LG claims that the fact that the vertical resolution per eye being halved is not an issue at all, because the brain rebuilds it into Full HD resolution, but that is just marketing in action. This creates a problem with the perception of some finer details and small text for example, may be an issue also when you have aliased objects displayed on the screen etc. But who know, with a more attractive price and overall good performance it can become a good alternative for some users...
And unlike with a 3D HDTV where you may need more glasses, with a 3D LCD monitor you probably won't need more than two pairs at most... the screen is too small for more users to watch 3D content at the same time and I presume that most people won't ever need a second pair anyway.
HDMI 1.4 or 1.4a is a bad thing as it doesn't support more than 1280x720p at 60hz/eye, so would you be halving that?. Or does the "DVI-D" do full 1080p at 60hz/eye? I'd make sure.
HDMI 1.4 or 1.4a is a bad thing as it doesn't support more than 1280x720p at 60hz/eye, so would you be halving that?. Or does the "DVI-D" do full 1080p at 60hz/eye? I'd make sure.
hdmi supports full 120Hz with halved HD, is the same spec of checkerboard monitors.
for gaming, with those monitors (like checkerboards ones) you get better resolution than using 720p @ 120Hz, as you see about 82000 pixels more.
the only big drop is that you can't achieve 1920*1080 full hd, even at 30hz, so even blu-ray3d will be watched at half vertical lines (imho not a big drop for a 50 inch or less monitor)
BUT most important thing i would like to know if is possible to use Nvidia 3DTV Play with those passive TVs.
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
hdmi supports full 120Hz with halved HD, is the same spec of checkerboard monitors.
for gaming, with those monitors (like checkerboards ones) you get better resolution than using 720p @ 120Hz, as you see about 82000 pixels more.
the only big drop is that you can't achieve 1920*1080 full hd, even at 30hz, so even blu-ray3d will be watched at half vertical lines (imho not a big drop for a 50 inch or less monitor)
BUT most important thing i would like to know if is possible to use Nvidia 3DTV Play with those passive TVs.
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
[quote name='tigerman' date='04 May 2011 - 06:53 AM' timestamp='1304517193' post='1233374']
BUT most important thing i would like to know if is possible to use Nvidia 3DTV Play with those passive TVs.
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
[/quote]
Mocca is using a passive TV with 3DTV Play here: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=198189
+1 on the 3840x1080 3DTV/monitor with the dual link dvi.
[quote name='tigerman' date='04 May 2011 - 06:53 AM' timestamp='1304517193' post='1233374']
BUT most important thing i would like to know if is possible to use Nvidia 3DTV Play with those passive TVs.
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
Mocca is using a passive TV with 3DTV Play here: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=198189
+1 on the 3840x1080 3DTV/monitor with the dual link dvi.
Maybe after Apple's TV comes out , this stinking PR company will disappear like Philips.
Damn that'd be cool. /shifty.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':shifty:' />
hdmi supports full 120Hz with halved HD, is the same spec of checkerboard monitors.
for gaming, with those monitors (like checkerboards ones) you get better resolution than using 720p @ 120Hz, as you see about 82000 pixels more.
[/quote]
LOL! How about filling both spatial and temporal resolution into that equation , we'd see how wrong you are.
[quote name='Bloody' date='25 April 2011 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1303759520' post='1230196']
LG claims that the fact that the vertical resolution per eye being halved is not an issue at all, because the brain rebuilds it into Full HD resolution, but that is just marketing in action. This creates a problem with the perception of some finer details and small text for example, may be an issue also when you have aliased objects displayed on the screen etc. But who know, with a more attractive price and overall good performance it can become a good alternative for some users...
[/quote]
With proper processing and scaling algorithms, small text can become surprisingly well readable, you can notice this instantly when playing Avater:the game on such a display or when using drivers such as the iZ3D driver (which offer both the raw interlacing and optimized interlacing modes).
The main issue is that computer UI designers take for granted that the user is sitting very close to a computer monitor and can read ultra-small pixel-sharp text, whereas this is simply not possible with other displays such as TVs and most projectors.
Generic content designed to be used on any display (TV or monitor) will never have this problem, whereas PC-only content will often get into trouble.
[quote name='tigerman' date='04 May 2011 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1304517193' post='1233374']
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
[/quote]
It's a vertical interlacing, not a horizontal interlacing, you mean a 1920x2160 panel, or more probably a full 4K panel so that you can also have 4K when using the display in 2D.
The problem with using finer resolution is viewing angles.
Since these displays rely on a filter added on top of the panel, if you watch the display at an angle, you'll see the light coming from the wrong pixel (crosstalk).
The smaller the pixels, the smaller the view angle becomes.
On a large 80" display, the view angle is quite large so it isn't an issue, but on a small computer monitor it's a serious problem.
These 1080p displays already have a very very small view angle (aprox +/-6° vertical) due to the interleaved pattern. It is usable but it's really tight.
If you were to make it a 4K panel, you'd get half that view angle, this becomes unacceptable.
In order to make it small, manufacturers will have to improve significantly the thickness of the LCD pixels and of the filters, or use a different way of polarizing the screen, but this defeats the purpose of this type of 3D display technology : FPR is designed to be cheap to make with very little R&D, by reusing the current panel technology.
[quote name='Bloody' date='25 April 2011 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1303759520' post='1230196']
LG claims that the fact that the vertical resolution per eye being halved is not an issue at all, because the brain rebuilds it into Full HD resolution, but that is just marketing in action. This creates a problem with the perception of some finer details and small text for example, may be an issue also when you have aliased objects displayed on the screen etc. But who know, with a more attractive price and overall good performance it can become a good alternative for some users...
With proper processing and scaling algorithms, small text can become surprisingly well readable, you can notice this instantly when playing Avater:the game on such a display or when using drivers such as the iZ3D driver (which offer both the raw interlacing and optimized interlacing modes).
The main issue is that computer UI designers take for granted that the user is sitting very close to a computer monitor and can read ultra-small pixel-sharp text, whereas this is simply not possible with other displays such as TVs and most projectors.
Generic content designed to be used on any display (TV or monitor) will never have this problem, whereas PC-only content will often get into trouble.
[quote name='tigerman' date='04 May 2011 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1304517193' post='1233374']
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
It's a vertical interlacing, not a horizontal interlacing, you mean a 1920x2160 panel, or more probably a full 4K panel so that you can also have 4K when using the display in 2D.
The problem with using finer resolution is viewing angles.
Since these displays rely on a filter added on top of the panel, if you watch the display at an angle, you'll see the light coming from the wrong pixel (crosstalk).
The smaller the pixels, the smaller the view angle becomes.
On a large 80" display, the view angle is quite large so it isn't an issue, but on a small computer monitor it's a serious problem.
These 1080p displays already have a very very small view angle (aprox +/-6° vertical) due to the interleaved pattern. It is usable but it's really tight.
If you were to make it a 4K panel, you'd get half that view angle, this becomes unacceptable.
In order to make it small, manufacturers will have to improve significantly the thickness of the LCD pixels and of the filters, or use a different way of polarizing the screen, but this defeats the purpose of this type of 3D display technology : FPR is designed to be cheap to make with very little R&D, by reusing the current panel technology.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
You heard all the scrutinizers arguments - now here is the low down
This is a Great monitor. I bought one last week.
I've been using shutter glasses for years since revelators & X3D, and also professional crystal eyes compatible systems.
Then nvidia 3D vision when I had no other choice.
In my honest opinion, this is MUCH better than the shutterglasses.
Don't care about PR specs or this -vs- that technology.
This monitor really is GREAT LOOKING!
Even my little boy who could not see 3d that well is now awed by it.
So from a guy that has both 3d systems - The LG D2342P is a great choice.
Here's some help to get the best setup out of it:
I use IZ3D on interlaced horizontal with this setup. I have heard 3D vision will work if you set it to use 3D DLP.
If you have any ghosting, the Left & Right views on the monitor need to be swapped via the monitor menu.
If the 3d depth is missing, IZ3D's or the software Left & Right views need to be swapped press CTRL-F8 in IZ3D to swap.
I believe this is the best choice until good glasses free 3d develops
I remember in early 2000's , how everything far east , non-japan was called simply "junk" . Thought how unfair it was. But then, the trend shifted. /biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':biggrin:' />
I remember in early 2000's , how everything far east , non-japan was called simply "junk" . Thought how unfair it was. But then, the trend shifted. /biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':biggrin:' />
Great argument dude! Over the top cool, just like ur monitor. How can LG pack so much coolness into that tiny flatscreen while others can't , I dunt understand? LOL.
Great argument dude! Over the top cool, just like ur monitor. How can LG pack so much coolness into that tiny flatscreen while others can't , I dunt understand? LOL.
I am extremely excited for this as it could well be my first 3D setup. Just wanted to start a Debate on Active vs Passive 3D.
120Hz Monitor + 3Dvision Kit : [b]600$[/b] EXTRA Glasses : [b]100$+[/b] each
LG D2342P Cinema 3D Monitor : [b]350$[/b] EXTRA Glasses : [b] 5$[/b] each
You also get Tridef Software bundled with it(I wish it could have been 3DTV Play). The 2011 LG Cinema 3DTVs which use the same Tech have got some nice reviews. Do you guys think this is the beginning of 3D coming to the mainstream and passive would be the future( No Crosstalk, Flicker Free, 2 Times Brighter, Lightweight Glasses).
I am extremely excited for this as it could well be my first 3D setup. Just wanted to start a Debate on Active vs Passive 3D.
120Hz Monitor + 3Dvision Kit : 600$ EXTRA Glasses : 100$+ each
LG D2342P Cinema 3D Monitor : 350$ EXTRA Glasses : 5$ each
You also get Tridef Software bundled with it(I wish it could have been 3DTV Play). The 2011 LG Cinema 3DTVs which use the same Tech have got some nice reviews. Do you guys think this is the beginning of 3D coming to the mainstream and passive would be the future( No Crosstalk, Flicker Free, 2 Times Brighter, Lightweight Glasses).
The "no crosstalk" thing is a bit overrated with passive polarization, there is still crosstalk, because removing the active glasses from the equation means you just get rid of the crosstalk issues that might be caused by the shutter glasses and the LCD panel itself is also responsible for crosstalk.
The "no crosstalk" thing is a bit overrated with passive polarization, there is still crosstalk, because removing the active glasses from the equation means you just get rid of the crosstalk issues that might be caused by the shutter glasses and the LCD panel itself is also responsible for crosstalk.
My 3D Vision Blog - 3dvision-blog.com
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.
The "no crosstalk" thing is a bit overrated with passive polarization, there is still crosstalk, because removing the active glasses from the equation means you just get rid of the crosstalk issues that might be caused by the shutter glasses and the LCD panel itself is also responsible for crosstalk.
[/quote]
First up, Big fan of your Blog and Reviews. Secondly, the people who have seen the Cinema 3D TVs say that the lines are noticeable if you are closer than 4-5 feet (for a 47 inch Screen), so I am hoping that it wont be much of an issue on the 23 inch screen. I would sincerely like to request you to Review this monitor as soon as you can. The reason I am so impressed by the monitor is that it is crazy cheap( almost half of other TRUE3D solutions and according to me will bring stereoscopic gaming, movies and videos to the mainstream).
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.
The "no crosstalk" thing is a bit overrated with passive polarization, there is still crosstalk, because removing the active glasses from the equation means you just get rid of the crosstalk issues that might be caused by the shutter glasses and the LCD panel itself is also responsible for crosstalk.
First up, Big fan of your Blog and Reviews. Secondly, the people who have seen the Cinema 3D TVs say that the lines are noticeable if you are closer than 4-5 feet (for a 47 inch Screen), so I am hoping that it wont be much of an issue on the 23 inch screen. I would sincerely like to request you to Review this monitor as soon as you can. The reason I am so impressed by the monitor is that it is crazy cheap( almost half of other TRUE3D solutions and according to me will bring stereoscopic gaming, movies and videos to the mainstream).
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.[/quote]
It would be interesting to test the case when the vertical resolution is truly halved, i.e. when pairs of lines are the same, versus the case with passive monitors when each eye gets an interlaced half of the original information.
I would guess the second case is still better, our brains being able to partly recombine the information ...
With passive 3D solutions you get half the horizontal number of lines (vertical resolution) in 3D mode and it is noticeable.
It would be interesting to test the case when the vertical resolution is truly halved, i.e. when pairs of lines are the same, versus the case with passive monitors when each eye gets an interlaced half of the original information.
I would guess the second case is still better, our brains being able to partly recombine the information ...
And unlike with a 3D HDTV where you may need more glasses, with a 3D LCD monitor you probably won't need more than two pairs at most... the screen is too small for more users to watch 3D content at the same time and I presume that most people won't ever need a second pair anyway.
And unlike with a 3D HDTV where you may need more glasses, with a 3D LCD monitor you probably won't need more than two pairs at most... the screen is too small for more users to watch 3D content at the same time and I presume that most people won't ever need a second pair anyway.
My 3D Vision Blog - 3dvision-blog.com
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
960*1080 = 1036800 pixels
hdmi supports full 120Hz with halved HD, is the same spec of checkerboard monitors.
for gaming, with those monitors (like checkerboards ones) you get better resolution than using 720p @ 120Hz, as you see about 82000 pixels more.
the only big drop is that you can't achieve 1920*1080 full hd, even at 30hz, so even blu-ray3d will be watched at half vertical lines (imho not a big drop for a 50 inch or less monitor)
BUT most important thing i would like to know if is possible to use Nvidia 3DTV Play with those passive TVs.
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
960*1080 = 1036800 pixels
hdmi supports full 120Hz with halved HD, is the same spec of checkerboard monitors.
for gaming, with those monitors (like checkerboards ones) you get better resolution than using 720p @ 120Hz, as you see about 82000 pixels more.
the only big drop is that you can't achieve 1920*1080 full hd, even at 30hz, so even blu-ray3d will be watched at half vertical lines (imho not a big drop for a 50 inch or less monitor)
BUT most important thing i would like to know if is possible to use Nvidia 3DTV Play with those passive TVs.
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
BUT most important thing i would like to know if is possible to use Nvidia 3DTV Play with those passive TVs.
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
[/quote]
Mocca is using a passive TV with 3DTV Play here: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=198189
+1 on the 3840x1080 3DTV/monitor with the dual link dvi.
BUT most important thing i would like to know if is possible to use Nvidia 3DTV Play with those passive TVs.
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
Mocca is using a passive TV with 3DTV Play here: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=198189
+1 on the 3840x1080 3DTV/monitor with the dual link dvi.
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
Damn that'd be cool.
Damn that'd be cool.
1280*720 = 921600 pixels
960*1080 = 1036800 pixels
hdmi supports full 120Hz with halved HD, is the same spec of checkerboard monitors.
for gaming, with those monitors (like checkerboards ones) you get better resolution than using 720p @ 120Hz, as you see about 82000 pixels more.
[/quote]
LOL! How about filling both spatial and temporal resolution into that equation , we'd see how wrong you are.
1280*720 = 921600 pixels
960*1080 = 1036800 pixels
hdmi supports full 120Hz with halved HD, is the same spec of checkerboard monitors.
for gaming, with those monitors (like checkerboards ones) you get better resolution than using 720p @ 120Hz, as you see about 82000 pixels more.
LOL! How about filling both spatial and temporal resolution into that equation , we'd see how wrong you are.
LG claims that the fact that the vertical resolution per eye being halved is not an issue at all, because the brain rebuilds it into Full HD resolution, but that is just marketing in action. This creates a problem with the perception of some finer details and small text for example, may be an issue also when you have aliased objects displayed on the screen etc. But who know, with a more attractive price and overall good performance it can become a good alternative for some users...
[/quote]
With proper processing and scaling algorithms, small text can become surprisingly well readable, you can notice this instantly when playing Avater:the game on such a display or when using drivers such as the iZ3D driver (which offer both the raw interlacing and optimized interlacing modes).
The main issue is that computer UI designers take for granted that the user is sitting very close to a computer monitor and can read ultra-small pixel-sharp text, whereas this is simply not possible with other displays such as TVs and most projectors.
Generic content designed to be used on any display (TV or monitor) will never have this problem, whereas PC-only content will often get into trouble.
[quote name='tigerman' date='04 May 2011 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1304517193' post='1233374']
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
[/quote]
It's a vertical interlacing, not a horizontal interlacing, you mean a 1920x2160 panel, or more probably a full 4K panel so that you can also have 4K when using the display in 2D.
The problem with using finer resolution is viewing angles.
Since these displays rely on a filter added on top of the panel, if you watch the display at an angle, you'll see the light coming from the wrong pixel (crosstalk).
The smaller the pixels, the smaller the view angle becomes.
On a large 80" display, the view angle is quite large so it isn't an issue, but on a small computer monitor it's a serious problem.
These 1080p displays already have a very very small view angle (aprox +/-6° vertical) due to the interleaved pattern. It is usable but it's really tight.
If you were to make it a 4K panel, you'd get half that view angle, this becomes unacceptable.
In order to make it small, manufacturers will have to improve significantly the thickness of the LCD pixels and of the filters, or use a different way of polarizing the screen, but this defeats the purpose of this type of 3D display technology : FPR is designed to be cheap to make with very little R&D, by reusing the current panel technology.
LG claims that the fact that the vertical resolution per eye being halved is not an issue at all, because the brain rebuilds it into Full HD resolution, but that is just marketing in action. This creates a problem with the perception of some finer details and small text for example, may be an issue also when you have aliased objects displayed on the screen etc. But who know, with a more attractive price and overall good performance it can become a good alternative for some users...
With proper processing and scaling algorithms, small text can become surprisingly well readable, you can notice this instantly when playing Avater:the game on such a display or when using drivers such as the iZ3D driver (which offer both the raw interlacing and optimized interlacing modes).
The main issue is that computer UI designers take for granted that the user is sitting very close to a computer monitor and can read ultra-small pixel-sharp text, whereas this is simply not possible with other displays such as TVs and most projectors.
Generic content designed to be used on any display (TV or monitor) will never have this problem, whereas PC-only content will often get into trouble.
[quote name='tigerman' date='04 May 2011 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1304517193' post='1233374']
AND, why they don't just make a passive monitor with 3840*1080?
I see LG have released an 82''with 3840 vertical lines, why don't do it also for smaller sizes? and maybe with a dual DVI input ? if normal ones are so cheap, maybe this ones should cost like shutter-glasses ones, in this case for the same price i would go for sure to polarized technology, no doubts!
It's a vertical interlacing, not a horizontal interlacing, you mean a 1920x2160 panel, or more probably a full 4K panel so that you can also have 4K when using the display in 2D.
The problem with using finer resolution is viewing angles.
Since these displays rely on a filter added on top of the panel, if you watch the display at an angle, you'll see the light coming from the wrong pixel (crosstalk).
The smaller the pixels, the smaller the view angle becomes.
On a large 80" display, the view angle is quite large so it isn't an issue, but on a small computer monitor it's a serious problem.
These 1080p displays already have a very very small view angle (aprox +/-6° vertical) due to the interleaved pattern. It is usable but it's really tight.
If you were to make it a 4K panel, you'd get half that view angle, this becomes unacceptable.
In order to make it small, manufacturers will have to improve significantly the thickness of the LCD pixels and of the filters, or use a different way of polarizing the screen, but this defeats the purpose of this type of 3D display technology : FPR is designed to be cheap to make with very little R&D, by reusing the current panel technology.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
This is a Great monitor. I bought one last week.
I've been using shutter glasses for years since revelators & X3D, and also professional crystal eyes compatible systems.
Then nvidia 3D vision when I had no other choice.
In my honest opinion, this is MUCH better than the shutterglasses.
Don't care about PR specs or this -vs- that technology.
This monitor really is GREAT LOOKING!
Even my little boy who could not see 3d that well is now awed by it.
So from a guy that has both 3d systems - The LG D2342P is a great choice.
Here's some help to get the best setup out of it:
I use IZ3D on interlaced horizontal with this setup. I have heard 3D vision will work if you set it to use 3D DLP.
If you have any ghosting, the Left & Right views on the monitor need to be swapped via the monitor menu.
If the 3d depth is missing, IZ3D's or the software Left & Right views need to be swapped press CTRL-F8 in IZ3D to swap.
I believe this is the best choice until good glasses free 3d develops
This is a Great monitor. I bought one last week.
I've been using shutter glasses for years since revelators & X3D, and also professional crystal eyes compatible systems.
Then nvidia 3D vision when I had no other choice.
In my honest opinion, this is MUCH better than the shutterglasses.
Don't care about PR specs or this -vs- that technology.
This monitor really is GREAT LOOKING!
Even my little boy who could not see 3d that well is now awed by it.
So from a guy that has both 3d systems - The LG D2342P is a great choice.
Here's some help to get the best setup out of it:
I use IZ3D on interlaced horizontal with this setup. I have heard 3D vision will work if you set it to use 3D DLP.
If you have any ghosting, the Left & Right views on the monitor need to be swapped via the monitor menu.
If the 3d depth is missing, IZ3D's or the software Left & Right views need to be swapped press CTRL-F8 in IZ3D to swap.
I believe this is the best choice until good glasses free 3d develops
Enjoy your interlaced tiny3d.
Enjoy your interlaced tiny3d.