Asus VG248QE, VG278HE & HR, BenQ XL270T checkerboard-pattern in 3D-mode (no FullHD per Frame)
2 / 12
Mine does it, I think it is normal. It's there if I look. But you can see the pixels on any display if you get close enough.
It has more to do with the ppi of the monitor in relation to it's size I think.
You can not zoom in x100 and not expect to see something.
I have this too, but I think it must be somewhat of an illusion. The reason I say this is because if I count the number of pixels along the side of my mouse cursor with one eye closed, it's the same in 2d and 3d. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that would be the case if there was a true checkerboard effect going on.
I have this too, but I think it must be somewhat of an illusion. The reason I say this is because if I count the number of pixels along the side of my mouse cursor with one eye closed, it's the same in 2d and 3d. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that would be the case if there was a true checkerboard effect going on.
The problem appears to be well established during your tests.
Any more tests on my end seems pointless but neither my benq TX2410T or VG278H has that problem so things could be better. Best case scenario, cabling issue (unlikely). You can't test hdmi 3D either as that isn't supported on the HE model.
The problem appears to be well established during your tests.
Any more tests on my end seems pointless but neither my benq TX2410T or VG278H has that problem so things could be better. Best case scenario, cabling issue (unlikely). You can't test hdmi 3D either as that isn't supported on the HE model.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
@Pirate:
Even if the number of pixels are correct the pattern is not straight but resembles checkerboard.
A straight downward line wouldn't be straight.
[quote="Flugan"]The problem appears to be well established during your tests.
Any more tests on my end seems pointless but neither my benq TX2410T or VG278H has that problem so things could be better. Best case scenario, cabling issue (unlikely). You can't test hdmi 3D either as that isn't supported on the HE model.[/quote]
But you also have a third monitor that shows the problem? Yet it's not on the two you mentioned?
I tried my Samsung S23A700D since generic is supported in the drivers now and it shows the same thing as my 23 inch Acer at 1920x1080P@120Hz. I think it's normal, but I certainly could be wrong.
I also observed this and just tested in Doom 3 BFG, it bypasses Nvidias 3D Vision. So that rules out a driver problem. I'm on 306.97 atm
Flugan said:The problem appears to be well established during your tests.
Any more tests on my end seems pointless but neither my benq TX2410T or VG278H has that problem so things could be better. Best case scenario, cabling issue (unlikely). You can't test hdmi 3D either as that isn't supported on the HE model.
But you also have a third monitor that shows the problem? Yet it's not on the two you mentioned?
I tried my Samsung S23A700D since generic is supported in the drivers now and it shows the same thing as my 23 inch Acer at 1920x1080P@120Hz. I think it's normal, but I certainly could be wrong.
I also observed this and just tested in Doom 3 BFG, it bypasses Nvidias 3D Vision. So that rules out a driver problem. I'm on 306.97 atm
[quote="Flugan"]Considering the issue has resurfaced I thought I might as well double check my own results.
http://sdrv.ms/1bnfjLs[/quote]
[b]Flugan[/b], I did a double-take and can confirm, that your 2D screen looks fine. However, I feel like you took the wrong picture to test the 3D-mode (moreover, I provided an image with wrong resolution ... sorry).
Take the image below to test your 3D mode. If everything works fine your left eye should get a smooth red and your right eye a smooth green image. Without glasses it should be yellow! (Don't forget to change JPG to JPS)
[URL=http://imageshack.us/a/img546/5923/qffn.jpg][IMG]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/5923/qffn.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[quote="Flugan"]
According to quadronyx posts or what his name was the signal degradation was caused by them using a certain chip inside the monitor which might be good enough for TV usage but not full hd 120hz pc usage.
If given the choice I would replace the monitor as you otherwise will be stuck with the problem "forever".[/quote]
Yes, this was what I read as well.
Considering your replacement advise, which monitor would you recommend me?
[b]@D-Man11[/b], thank you for your insightful information about how checkerboard might work. It was interesting to read.
[quote="D-Man11"]Mine does it, I think it is normal. It's there if I look. But you can see the pixels on any display if you get close enough.
It has more to do with the ppi of the monitor in relation to it's size I think.
You can not zoom in x100 and not expect to see something.[/quote]
You are absolutely right, when claiming that one cannot zoom in and expect nothing to see. However, I think the difference between FullHD and Checkerboard-Interlacing is quite obvious to see even without getting your nose to touch the screen.
Furthermore I do not like the thought, that all monitors work that way and that checkerboard-interlacing is rather a feature than a bug.
I already have seen multiple examples of monitors, which support FullHD within each frame and hence for each eye. Hence, I still believe that there are monitors which are capable of real FullHD-3D. (Hope dies last)
[quote="CeeJayII"]So is this something every 120hz 3D monitor has or not?[/quote]
In my opinion (see above), it is not what every 120hz 3D monitor has. I think that it is a bug.
[quote="CeeJayII"]What I would like to know is why the pixels appear smaller in 2D and larger in 3D.[/quote]
Please have a look at the image below. The right image shows the viewing of a plane red image in 2D mode and the left image shows the left eyes view of this image.
Whereas in 2D [b]every pixel[/b] is activated, in 3D [b]only every other red pixel[/b] is activated.
[URL=http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8246/5z76.jpg][IMG]http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8246/5z76.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]I have this too, but I think it must be somewhat of an illusion. The reason I say this is because if I count the number of pixels along the side of my mouse cursor with one eye closed, it's the same in 2d and 3d. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that would be the case if there was a true checkerboard effect going on.[/quote]
Unfortunately, this is not a proof that checkerboard is not going on. Let me provide you with some background information to explain it.
An object which appears to be behind the screen, has to representations on the screen, namely one for the left eye and one for the right eye. The greater the distance of the object from the screen, the greater the separation of the left and right eye's representation (see [url=http://paulbourke.net/stereographics/stereorender/positive.gif]this image[/url])
Your mouse, for example, does not have any depth. It appears to be on the same level as the screen. Hence the left eye and the right eye perceive the mouse [b]at the exact same position[/b] (see [url=http://paulbourke.net/stereographics/stereorender/zero.gif]this image[/url]). In fact, the separation of the left and righ eye's [b]separation is 0[/b].
Try following: Start any 3D application and observe your mouse. Your mouse looks the same as in 2D even without the use of shutter glasses.
Hence your mouse is unfortunately no prove, that you are free from a checkerboard effect. I am sorry ...
Flugan, I did a double-take and can confirm, that your 2D screen looks fine. However, I feel like you took the wrong picture to test the 3D-mode (moreover, I provided an image with wrong resolution ... sorry).
Take the image below to test your 3D mode. If everything works fine your left eye should get a smooth red and your right eye a smooth green image. Without glasses it should be yellow! (Don't forget to change JPG to JPS)
Flugan said:
According to quadronyx posts or what his name was the signal degradation was caused by them using a certain chip inside the monitor which might be good enough for TV usage but not full hd 120hz pc usage.
If given the choice I would replace the monitor as you otherwise will be stuck with the problem "forever".
Yes, this was what I read as well.
Considering your replacement advise, which monitor would you recommend me?
@D-Man11, thank you for your insightful information about how checkerboard might work. It was interesting to read.
D-Man11 said:Mine does it, I think it is normal. It's there if I look. But you can see the pixels on any display if you get close enough.
It has more to do with the ppi of the monitor in relation to it's size I think.
You can not zoom in x100 and not expect to see something.
You are absolutely right, when claiming that one cannot zoom in and expect nothing to see. However, I think the difference between FullHD and Checkerboard-Interlacing is quite obvious to see even without getting your nose to touch the screen.
Furthermore I do not like the thought, that all monitors work that way and that checkerboard-interlacing is rather a feature than a bug.
I already have seen multiple examples of monitors, which support FullHD within each frame and hence for each eye. Hence, I still believe that there are monitors which are capable of real FullHD-3D. (Hope dies last)
CeeJayII said:So is this something every 120hz 3D monitor has or not?
In my opinion (see above), it is not what every 120hz 3D monitor has. I think that it is a bug.
CeeJayII said:What I would like to know is why the pixels appear smaller in 2D and larger in 3D.
Please have a look at the image below. The right image shows the viewing of a plane red image in 2D mode and the left image shows the left eyes view of this image.
Whereas in 2D every pixel is activated, in 3D only every other red pixel is activated.
Pirateguybrush said:I have this too, but I think it must be somewhat of an illusion. The reason I say this is because if I count the number of pixels along the side of my mouse cursor with one eye closed, it's the same in 2d and 3d. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that would be the case if there was a true checkerboard effect going on.
Unfortunately, this is not a proof that checkerboard is not going on. Let me provide you with some background information to explain it.
An object which appears to be behind the screen, has to representations on the screen, namely one for the left eye and one for the right eye. The greater the distance of the object from the screen, the greater the separation of the left and right eye's representation (see this image)
Your mouse, for example, does not have any depth. It appears to be on the same level as the screen. Hence the left eye and the right eye perceive the mouse at the exact same position (see this image). In fact, the separation of the left and righ eye's separation is 0.
Try following: Start any 3D application and observe your mouse. Your mouse looks the same as in 2D even without the use of shutter glasses.
Hence your mouse is unfortunately no prove, that you are free from a checkerboard effect. I am sorry ...
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Processor: Intel i7-4770k
Memory: 16GB with 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance
Graphics: MSI GeForce GTX 770 Twin Frozr
Mainboard: Asus Z87-Plus
You need to make a red line, a blue line and a green line stacked on top of each other that are each one pixel in height and the width of the screen. Then see how each pixel in each line, lines up in their respective colors/positions/relations.
Checkerboard is an interlaced format.
Checkerboard displayed in a progressive format can not be seen stereoscopically, it can only be seen as 2D.
You need to make a red line, a blue line and a green line stacked on top of each other that are each one pixel in height and the width of the screen. Then see how each pixel in each line, lines up in their respective colors/positions/relations.
Checkerboard is an interlaced format.
Checkerboard displayed in a progressive format can not be seen stereoscopically, it can only be seen as 2D.
I just used your test image (red/green) the original was plain red dual width.
I'm getting the same pattern as you in 3D mode pretty much through both left and right lens.
Have you noticed how the 3D pattern is more dense and there is really Little room for blue and green inbetween.
[quote="D-Man11"]You need to make a red line, a blue line and a green line stacked on top of each other that are each one pixel in height and the width of the screen. Then see how each pixel in each line, lines up in their respective colors/positions/relations.
Checkerboard is an interlaced format.
Checkerboard displayed in a progressive format can not be seen stereoscopically, it can only be seen as 2D.[/quote]
D-Man11. I am sorry, but I do not understand your suggestion (maybe my English is to weak here). Do you mean such a pattern: http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1953/l5i9.jpg (zoom in to see it!)
For 3D. What would be the left eyes image and what would be the right eyes image? Do they both get the same patterned image?
[quote="Flugan"]I just used your test image (red/green) the original was plain red dual width.
I'm getting the same pattern as you in 3D mode pretty much through both left and right lens.
Have you noticed how the 3D pattern is more dense and there is really Little room for blue and green inbetween.[/quote]
Yes, I have noticed the space between the pixels caused by the sub-pixel. However, I wonder why in 2D representation every red sub-pixel is beneath each another (nicely aligned), whereas in 3D-Mode the red sub-pixel form a diagonal and not a straight line anymore? (Here is another Pic in 3D-Mode: Full scale no reducing [url]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3540/sq24.jpg[/url]).
In my opinion, I am expecting the same sub-pixel behaviour independent from 2D or 3D.
D-Man11 said:You need to make a red line, a blue line and a green line stacked on top of each other that are each one pixel in height and the width of the screen. Then see how each pixel in each line, lines up in their respective colors/positions/relations.
Checkerboard is an interlaced format.
Checkerboard displayed in a progressive format can not be seen stereoscopically, it can only be seen as 2D.
D-Man11. I am sorry, but I do not understand your suggestion (maybe my English is to weak here). Do you mean such a pattern: http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1953/l5i9.jpg (zoom in to see it!)
For 3D. What would be the left eyes image and what would be the right eyes image? Do they both get the same patterned image?
Flugan said:I just used your test image (red/green) the original was plain red dual width.
I'm getting the same pattern as you in 3D mode pretty much through both left and right lens.
Have you noticed how the 3D pattern is more dense and there is really Little room for blue and green inbetween.
Yes, I have noticed the space between the pixels caused by the sub-pixel. However, I wonder why in 2D representation every red sub-pixel is beneath each another (nicely aligned), whereas in 3D-Mode the red sub-pixel form a diagonal and not a straight line anymore? (Here is another Pic in 3D-Mode: Full scale no reducing http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3540/sq24.jpg).
In my opinion, I am expecting the same sub-pixel behaviour independent from 2D or 3D.
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Processor: Intel i7-4770k
Memory: 16GB with 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance
Graphics: MSI GeForce GTX 770 Twin Frozr
Mainboard: Asus Z87-Plus
I wonder if it is some kind of antighosting solution.
I did a double red 3D image and got the same result as with 2D.
While the effect will occur and occur frequently using a test image consisting of two base colors exagerates the effect.
Not sure I'm happy as I became aware of this on my monitor today but then I havn't had much problems yet and replacing it is out of the question.
I am very sorry, [b]Flugan[/b], that I made you aware of that problem (hopefully you will still like your monitor ... don't exchange it if it doesn't bother you).
[u][b]To make things a little bit more clear:[/b][/u]
My close-up photos show a significantly different behaviour of the pixels depending on 2D or 3D mode. However, [b]I don't mind how the pixels behave as long as the output is satisfying[/b]. Latter is unfortunately not the case. The checkerboard pattern is (for me) clearly visible when sitting in my usual sitting position (around 80cm ~ 2.7 feet).
[b]If I knew that I still get 1080p for each eye, I could live with the checkerboard-pattern[/b] and overlook it after some time. However, I still (and even more than ever) [b]strongly suspect a reduction of the effective resolution[/b] resulting in only 1080i (or even less) for each eye. [b]This is very disappointing for me.[/b]
If the reduction of the resolution wouldn't be a problem for me, I could have easily gone with a monitor using passive polarization (FPR).
[b]But, and here I am uncompromising, I really want FullHD for each eye.[/b]
Due to my work I already had the chance to get my hands on several shutter system, which were easily able to produce 1080p for each eye. I even had contact with setups, which were able to produce [b]FullHD 3D[/b] using frame-sequencing techniques [b]on a passive polarized monitor[/b] (look here [url]http://zspace.com/[/url]). Unfortunately all these products are for professionals and far beyond affordability for a home entertainment setup.
[b]Hence I wonder if the consumers electronic market is really that far behind the professional fields and there is really no affordable monitor, which is able to produce FullHD 3D? I don't like to believe it.[/b]
[u][b]Please restore my faith and tell me there are 27 inch monitors out there capable of producing FullHD 3D :).[/b][/u]
PS: I was just about to order the VG278H until I read in [url=https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/566852/3d-vision/asus-vg278he-checkerboard-pattern-while-watching-3d-no-fullhd-for-each-eye-/post/3873462/#3873462]Flugan's post[/url], that the problem also occurs with this monitor.
I am very sorry, Flugan, that I made you aware of that problem (hopefully you will still like your monitor ... don't exchange it if it doesn't bother you).
To make things a little bit more clear:
My close-up photos show a significantly different behaviour of the pixels depending on 2D or 3D mode. However, I don't mind how the pixels behave as long as the output is satisfying. Latter is unfortunately not the case. The checkerboard pattern is (for me) clearly visible when sitting in my usual sitting position (around 80cm ~ 2.7 feet). If I knew that I still get 1080p for each eye, I could live with the checkerboard-pattern and overlook it after some time. However, I still (and even more than ever) strongly suspect a reduction of the effective resolution resulting in only 1080i (or even less) for each eye. This is very disappointing for me.
If the reduction of the resolution wouldn't be a problem for me, I could have easily gone with a monitor using passive polarization (FPR). But, and here I am uncompromising, I really want FullHD for each eye.
Due to my work I already had the chance to get my hands on several shutter system, which were easily able to produce 1080p for each eye. I even had contact with setups, which were able to produce FullHD 3D using frame-sequencing techniques on a passive polarized monitor (look here http://zspace.com/). Unfortunately all these products are for professionals and far beyond affordability for a home entertainment setup.
Hence I wonder if the consumers electronic market is really that far behind the professional fields and there is really no affordable monitor, which is able to produce FullHD 3D? I don't like to believe it.
Please restore my faith and tell me there are 27 inch monitors out there capable of producing FullHD 3D :).
PS: I was just about to order the VG278H until I read in Flugan's post, that the problem also occurs with this monitor.
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Processor: Intel i7-4770k
Memory: 16GB with 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance
Graphics: MSI GeForce GTX 770 Twin Frozr
Mainboard: Asus Z87-Plus
Just wanted to chime in and say, that all three of my Benq XL2420's exhibit these symptoms too.
It doesn't normally bother me, but I'd love an explanation of what's happening to cause it.
I don't think my old monitor (non-lightboost) showed this.
I thought there was another thread some point in the past where someone posted about this and quite literally said 3d vision was a scam and that the emperor had no clothes (or something like that).
Could be my imagination but I thought it was seperate to the one linked earlier in this thread.
Just wanted to chime in and say, that all three of my Benq XL2420's exhibit these symptoms too.
It doesn't normally bother me, but I'd love an explanation of what's happening to cause it.
I don't think my old monitor (non-lightboost) showed this.
I thought there was another thread some point in the past where someone posted about this and quite literally said 3d vision was a scam and that the emperor had no clothes (or something like that).
Could be my imagination but I thought it was seperate to the one linked earlier in this thread.
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
This forum is not ideal for posting files.
After recent tests I'm sure my MPO shows up as 1080p but I am also aware of the uneven checkerboard pattern seen above. Either it is leakage or the black pixels are not black just not as Bright.
Makes me think of lightboost but adjusting lightboost didn't change anything.
After recent tests I'm sure my MPO shows up as 1080p but I am also aware of the uneven checkerboard pattern seen above. Either it is leakage or the black pixels are not black just not as Bright.
Makes me think of lightboost but adjusting lightboost didn't change anything.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
It has more to do with the ppi of the monitor in relation to it's size I think.
You can not zoom in x100 and not expect to see something.
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.
Any more tests on my end seems pointless but neither my benq TX2410T or VG278H has that problem so things could be better. Best case scenario, cabling issue (unlikely). You can't test hdmi 3D either as that isn't supported on the HE model.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
Even if the number of pixels are correct the pattern is not straight but resembles checkerboard.
A straight downward line wouldn't be straight.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
But you also have a third monitor that shows the problem? Yet it's not on the two you mentioned?
I tried my Samsung S23A700D since generic is supported in the drivers now and it shows the same thing as my 23 inch Acer at 1920x1080P@120Hz. I think it's normal, but I certainly could be wrong.
I also observed this and just tested in Doom 3 BFG, it bypasses Nvidias 3D Vision. So that rules out a driver problem. I'm on 306.97 atm
Flugan, I did a double-take and can confirm, that your 2D screen looks fine. However, I feel like you took the wrong picture to test the 3D-mode (moreover, I provided an image with wrong resolution ... sorry).
Take the image below to test your 3D mode. If everything works fine your left eye should get a smooth red and your right eye a smooth green image. Without glasses it should be yellow! (Don't forget to change JPG to JPS)
Yes, this was what I read as well.
Considering your replacement advise, which monitor would you recommend me?
@D-Man11, thank you for your insightful information about how checkerboard might work. It was interesting to read.
You are absolutely right, when claiming that one cannot zoom in and expect nothing to see. However, I think the difference between FullHD and Checkerboard-Interlacing is quite obvious to see even without getting your nose to touch the screen.
Furthermore I do not like the thought, that all monitors work that way and that checkerboard-interlacing is rather a feature than a bug.
I already have seen multiple examples of monitors, which support FullHD within each frame and hence for each eye. Hence, I still believe that there are monitors which are capable of real FullHD-3D. (Hope dies last)
In my opinion (see above), it is not what every 120hz 3D monitor has. I think that it is a bug.
Please have a look at the image below. The right image shows the viewing of a plane red image in 2D mode and the left image shows the left eyes view of this image.
Whereas in 2D every pixel is activated, in 3D only every other red pixel is activated.
Unfortunately, this is not a proof that checkerboard is not going on. Let me provide you with some background information to explain it.
An object which appears to be behind the screen, has to representations on the screen, namely one for the left eye and one for the right eye. The greater the distance of the object from the screen, the greater the separation of the left and right eye's representation (see this image)
Your mouse, for example, does not have any depth. It appears to be on the same level as the screen. Hence the left eye and the right eye perceive the mouse at the exact same position (see this image). In fact, the separation of the left and righ eye's separation is 0.
Try following: Start any 3D application and observe your mouse. Your mouse looks the same as in 2D even without the use of shutter glasses.
Hence your mouse is unfortunately no prove, that you are free from a checkerboard effect. I am sorry ...
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Processor: Intel i7-4770k
Memory: 16GB with 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance
Graphics: MSI GeForce GTX 770 Twin Frozr
Mainboard: Asus Z87-Plus
Checkerboard is an interlaced format.
Checkerboard displayed in a progressive format can not be seen stereoscopically, it can only be seen as 2D.
I'm getting the same pattern as you in 3D mode pretty much through both left and right lens.
Have you noticed how the 3D pattern is more dense and there is really Little room for blue and green inbetween.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
D-Man11. I am sorry, but I do not understand your suggestion (maybe my English is to weak here). Do you mean such a pattern: http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1953/l5i9.jpg (zoom in to see it!)
For 3D. What would be the left eyes image and what would be the right eyes image? Do they both get the same patterned image?
Yes, I have noticed the space between the pixels caused by the sub-pixel. However, I wonder why in 2D representation every red sub-pixel is beneath each another (nicely aligned), whereas in 3D-Mode the red sub-pixel form a diagonal and not a straight line anymore? (Here is another Pic in 3D-Mode: Full scale no reducing http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3540/sq24.jpg).
In my opinion, I am expecting the same sub-pixel behaviour independent from 2D or 3D.
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Processor: Intel i7-4770k
Memory: 16GB with 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance
Graphics: MSI GeForce GTX 770 Twin Frozr
Mainboard: Asus Z87-Plus
I did a double red 3D image and got the same result as with 2D.
While the effect will occur and occur frequently using a test image consisting of two base colors exagerates the effect.
Not sure I'm happy as I became aware of this on my monitor today but then I havn't had much problems yet and replacing it is out of the question.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
To make things a little bit more clear:
My close-up photos show a significantly different behaviour of the pixels depending on 2D or 3D mode. However, I don't mind how the pixels behave as long as the output is satisfying. Latter is unfortunately not the case. The checkerboard pattern is (for me) clearly visible when sitting in my usual sitting position (around 80cm ~ 2.7 feet).
If I knew that I still get 1080p for each eye, I could live with the checkerboard-pattern and overlook it after some time. However, I still (and even more than ever) strongly suspect a reduction of the effective resolution resulting in only 1080i (or even less) for each eye. This is very disappointing for me.
If the reduction of the resolution wouldn't be a problem for me, I could have easily gone with a monitor using passive polarization (FPR).
But, and here I am uncompromising, I really want FullHD for each eye.
Due to my work I already had the chance to get my hands on several shutter system, which were easily able to produce 1080p for each eye. I even had contact with setups, which were able to produce FullHD 3D using frame-sequencing techniques on a passive polarized monitor (look here http://zspace.com/). Unfortunately all these products are for professionals and far beyond affordability for a home entertainment setup.
Hence I wonder if the consumers electronic market is really that far behind the professional fields and there is really no affordable monitor, which is able to produce FullHD 3D? I don't like to believe it.
Please restore my faith and tell me there are 27 inch monitors out there capable of producing FullHD 3D :).
PS: I was just about to order the VG278H until I read in Flugan's post, that the problem also occurs with this monitor.
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Processor: Intel i7-4770k
Memory: 16GB with 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance
Graphics: MSI GeForce GTX 770 Twin Frozr
Mainboard: Asus Z87-Plus
It doesn't normally bother me, but I'd love an explanation of what's happening to cause it.
I don't think my old monitor (non-lightboost) showed this.
I thought there was another thread some point in the past where someone posted about this and quite literally said 3d vision was a scam and that the emperor had no clothes (or something like that).
Could be my imagination but I thought it was seperate to the one linked earlier in this thread.
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
After recent tests I'm sure my MPO shows up as 1080p but I am also aware of the uneven checkerboard pattern seen above. Either it is leakage or the black pixels are not black just not as Bright.
Makes me think of lightboost but adjusting lightboost didn't change anything.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com