Why only 22" Monitors Hate to downsize my monitor for 3D.
I currently have an LG monitor, Windows Vista, and 8800 GT with 1GB dedicated. Want to upgrade to the 3D vision. Depending on which scan I use, my 8800 GT is good or isn't enough. At CES, they displayed the 3D on a 50"+ monitor. Why is it that I can't find any site or details on purchasing a larger monitor than 22"? What are the minimum requirements for a monitor for it to be compatible? (resolution, contrast, ms, etc.)
I currently have an LG monitor, Windows Vista, and 8800 GT with 1GB dedicated. Want to upgrade to the 3D vision. Depending on which scan I use, my 8800 GT is good or isn't enough. At CES, they displayed the 3D on a 50"+ monitor. Why is it that I can't find any site or details on purchasing a larger monitor than 22"? What are the minimum requirements for a monitor for it to be compatible? (resolution, contrast, ms, etc.)
You can find supported screens larger than 22", just not "computer monitors". The screen you are talking about was one of the 3d-ready DLP sets (ie, a television). These have very specific requirements to support 3d, but you can find more details on this site by following the links in Andrew's sig or by reading into the threads on this forum. In short, if you want to go with a monster screen, you'll have to go the DLP route and you'll have to make sure you look for a few key features.
As far as computer monitors go, 22" is currently the limit. I suspect this is mostly due to the bandwidth needed to send a 120Hz signal to the monitor. First off the monitor has to be capable of doing 120Hz to start with, and there are few at this time that can do so. Second, you'll need a connection to the video card that is capable of sending the massive amount of data to the monitor. As it stands, the resolution of the 22" screen at 120Hz is pushing that limit (as is the 60Hz @ 2560x1600 that the 30" monitors use) so until a new interconnect standard comes out with more bandwidth than dual-link DVI is capable of, or somebody comes up with a way to squeeze some extra bandwidth out of dual-link DVI, 22" is likely to be the cutoff.
Technically, somebody could make a computer monitor with a larger than 22" screen that just happens to run the same resolution that the 22" screen runs at, but at that point things start getting rather pixelated. As it stands though, 120Hz on an LCD is pretty much a new thing on the market, so the choices are few. I've been seeing a lot of people liking the 120Hz refresh outside of stereoscopic 3d though, so hopefully we'll see this become more of the standard target for hardware going forward and the bandwidth limitation will be worked out in one way or another. That might be improved cable bandwidth, splitting the signal between two cables, or some more exotic answer. Regardless, it will likely require a fundamental hardware change that needs to be supported by multiple pieces in the hardware chain, so your guess is as good as mine as to how soon that will happen.
That said, I too was reluctant to step down to a 22" screen from a 30" for gaming. I now have both of them living side-by-side so that with a couple of clicks I can alternate between playing on the big screen and playing in stereoscopic. Yes, it can be a bit annoying as I have to constantly change my in-game settings based on what monitor is being used, but it's something I've learned to accept. My experience though has been that if a game makes good use of the stereoscopic effects, I'd rather play it on the 22" screen with stereoscopic than on the 30" without stereoscopic. That doesn't change the fact that I'm just as eager for the day when I don't have to make that trade-off.
You can find supported screens larger than 22", just not "computer monitors". The screen you are talking about was one of the 3d-ready DLP sets (ie, a television). These have very specific requirements to support 3d, but you can find more details on this site by following the links in Andrew's sig or by reading into the threads on this forum. In short, if you want to go with a monster screen, you'll have to go the DLP route and you'll have to make sure you look for a few key features.
As far as computer monitors go, 22" is currently the limit. I suspect this is mostly due to the bandwidth needed to send a 120Hz signal to the monitor. First off the monitor has to be capable of doing 120Hz to start with, and there are few at this time that can do so. Second, you'll need a connection to the video card that is capable of sending the massive amount of data to the monitor. As it stands, the resolution of the 22" screen at 120Hz is pushing that limit (as is the 60Hz @ 2560x1600 that the 30" monitors use) so until a new interconnect standard comes out with more bandwidth than dual-link DVI is capable of, or somebody comes up with a way to squeeze some extra bandwidth out of dual-link DVI, 22" is likely to be the cutoff.
Technically, somebody could make a computer monitor with a larger than 22" screen that just happens to run the same resolution that the 22" screen runs at, but at that point things start getting rather pixelated. As it stands though, 120Hz on an LCD is pretty much a new thing on the market, so the choices are few. I've been seeing a lot of people liking the 120Hz refresh outside of stereoscopic 3d though, so hopefully we'll see this become more of the standard target for hardware going forward and the bandwidth limitation will be worked out in one way or another. That might be improved cable bandwidth, splitting the signal between two cables, or some more exotic answer. Regardless, it will likely require a fundamental hardware change that needs to be supported by multiple pieces in the hardware chain, so your guess is as good as mine as to how soon that will happen.
That said, I too was reluctant to step down to a 22" screen from a 30" for gaming. I now have both of them living side-by-side so that with a couple of clicks I can alternate between playing on the big screen and playing in stereoscopic. Yes, it can be a bit annoying as I have to constantly change my in-game settings based on what monitor is being used, but it's something I've learned to accept. My experience though has been that if a game makes good use of the stereoscopic effects, I'd rather play it on the 22" screen with stereoscopic than on the 30" without stereoscopic. That doesn't change the fact that I'm just as eager for the day when I don't have to make that trade-off.
Thank you!
Thank you!
As far as computer monitors go, 22" is currently the limit. I suspect this is mostly due to the bandwidth needed to send a 120Hz signal to the monitor. First off the monitor has to be capable of doing 120Hz to start with, and there are few at this time that can do so. Second, you'll need a connection to the video card that is capable of sending the massive amount of data to the monitor. As it stands, the resolution of the 22" screen at 120Hz is pushing that limit (as is the 60Hz @ 2560x1600 that the 30" monitors use) so until a new interconnect standard comes out with more bandwidth than dual-link DVI is capable of, or somebody comes up with a way to squeeze some extra bandwidth out of dual-link DVI, 22" is likely to be the cutoff.
Technically, somebody could make a computer monitor with a larger than 22" screen that just happens to run the same resolution that the 22" screen runs at, but at that point things start getting rather pixelated. As it stands though, 120Hz on an LCD is pretty much a new thing on the market, so the choices are few. I've been seeing a lot of people liking the 120Hz refresh outside of stereoscopic 3d though, so hopefully we'll see this become more of the standard target for hardware going forward and the bandwidth limitation will be worked out in one way or another. That might be improved cable bandwidth, splitting the signal between two cables, or some more exotic answer. Regardless, it will likely require a fundamental hardware change that needs to be supported by multiple pieces in the hardware chain, so your guess is as good as mine as to how soon that will happen.
That said, I too was reluctant to step down to a 22" screen from a 30" for gaming. I now have both of them living side-by-side so that with a couple of clicks I can alternate between playing on the big screen and playing in stereoscopic. Yes, it can be a bit annoying as I have to constantly change my in-game settings based on what monitor is being used, but it's something I've learned to accept. My experience though has been that if a game makes good use of the stereoscopic effects, I'd rather play it on the 22" screen with stereoscopic than on the 30" without stereoscopic. That doesn't change the fact that I'm just as eager for the day when I don't have to make that trade-off.
As far as computer monitors go, 22" is currently the limit. I suspect this is mostly due to the bandwidth needed to send a 120Hz signal to the monitor. First off the monitor has to be capable of doing 120Hz to start with, and there are few at this time that can do so. Second, you'll need a connection to the video card that is capable of sending the massive amount of data to the monitor. As it stands, the resolution of the 22" screen at 120Hz is pushing that limit (as is the 60Hz @ 2560x1600 that the 30" monitors use) so until a new interconnect standard comes out with more bandwidth than dual-link DVI is capable of, or somebody comes up with a way to squeeze some extra bandwidth out of dual-link DVI, 22" is likely to be the cutoff.
Technically, somebody could make a computer monitor with a larger than 22" screen that just happens to run the same resolution that the 22" screen runs at, but at that point things start getting rather pixelated. As it stands though, 120Hz on an LCD is pretty much a new thing on the market, so the choices are few. I've been seeing a lot of people liking the 120Hz refresh outside of stereoscopic 3d though, so hopefully we'll see this become more of the standard target for hardware going forward and the bandwidth limitation will be worked out in one way or another. That might be improved cable bandwidth, splitting the signal between two cables, or some more exotic answer. Regardless, it will likely require a fundamental hardware change that needs to be supported by multiple pieces in the hardware chain, so your guess is as good as mine as to how soon that will happen.
That said, I too was reluctant to step down to a 22" screen from a 30" for gaming. I now have both of them living side-by-side so that with a couple of clicks I can alternate between playing on the big screen and playing in stereoscopic. Yes, it can be a bit annoying as I have to constantly change my in-game settings based on what monitor is being used, but it's something I've learned to accept. My experience though has been that if a game makes good use of the stereoscopic effects, I'd rather play it on the 22" screen with stereoscopic than on the 30" without stereoscopic. That doesn't change the fact that I'm just as eager for the day when I don't have to make that trade-off.