bit-tech.net

ViewSonic FuHzion VX2265wm 3D TFT Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 43

Reply
bogie170 2nd January 2010, 13:38 Quote
What we need is a 24" 1920x1200 H-IPS screen at 120Hz with 2ms G2G.

When, oh when will one be made????
dec 2nd January 2010, 13:50 Quote
viewsonic FuaHlure
Flibblebot 2nd January 2010, 14:03 Quote
So, about £200 for the graphics card, £200 for the monitor and £100 for the glasses... £500 for a mediocre experience? I'll pass, thanks.
javaman 2nd January 2010, 15:03 Quote
3D vision is cool, tried 3D stuff in uni for a VR module which really impressed me. We used shutter glasses tho and they give such a head ache after 15 or so mins. Looking forward to when it becomes more mainstream tho, early gen stuff usually sucks
rickysio 2nd January 2010, 15:07 Quote
3D is cool when done right. nVidia's is not.
mjm25 2nd January 2010, 15:34 Quote
so looking at the monitor serial number it is effectively the vx2260wm with 3D... BUT that has a resolution of 1920x1080 giving it a much nicer pixel pitch amongst other things. Why did they cut the resolution of the screen?! surely it should be the vx2255wm or something in that regard :/
azrael- 2nd January 2010, 15:47 Quote
I'd like the 120Hz in a decent monitor like the Dell 2209WA. Screw this 3d stuff. It's really nothing more than a headache-inducing non-starter from my point of view.
tron 2nd January 2010, 16:57 Quote
For as long as 3D movies and games require the users to sit for hours wearing special headache-inducing, brain-manipulating glasses, 3D will always be nothing more than a gimmick.

3D has come and gone so many times from the early 1980s, and although 3D vision can look impressive, it will always remain just a gimmick that will lose its novelty, come back as cool again and die out until 'true 3D' arrives.

As for the viewSonic screen, I wish they would stop making these screens with 16:10 aspect ratio, and instead go for the standard 16:9 home widescreen ratio to avoid the standard 16:9 video being cropped or stretched.

In terms of looks, the Dell screen in the picture looks much nicer. The ViewSonic looks nice only until you look down at the curved part under the bezel and the funny looking stand.
Symanb 2nd January 2010, 18:03 Quote
"The ViewSonic was as free of input lag as the virtually lag-free Dell UltraSharp 3008-WFP."

I think it should be the Dell UltraSharp 3007-WFP.
Elton 2nd January 2010, 19:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Symanb
"The ViewSonic was as free of input lag as the virtually lag-free Dell UltraSharp 3008-WFP."

I think it should be the Dell UltraSharp 3007-WFP.

I'm sure there's a Dell 3008-WFP, but I can't remember if BT has that one or the 3007.

The first thing I noticed: Crappy stand, looked hella flimsy.

Also tron: 16:10 monitors are much better, you get those extra pixels and everything isn't fat!
Er-El 2nd January 2010, 19:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
I'm sure there's a Dell 3008-WFP, but I can't remember if BT has that one or the 3007.

The first thing I noticed: Crappy stand, looked hella flimsy.

Also tron: 16:10 monitors are much better, you get those extra pixels and everything isn't fat!
What difference does a few extra pixels vertically make when they're both very high resolutions anyway. They will continue to bring out even higher resolution 16:9 displays anyway, so might as well stick to a single, standard aspect ratio that works.
About everything looking fat, that has nothing to with 16:9 - it's the content itself which matters. Unless it's a 16:10 or 4:3 picture being stretched to fill the full 16:9 display then there's no reason why everything should appear fat.
BrightCandle 2nd January 2010, 20:10 Quote
I would like to try out the NVision experience, especially considering the expense of getting it. After seeing Avatar with polarised glasses and being pretty impressed with the result I'd like to see how good or otherwise NVidia's solution is.

Really what we want is monitors capable of polarised images so a simple set of polarising glasses can split the image without the need of an expensive set of shutter glasses.
Phil Rhodes 2nd January 2010, 20:19 Quote
Quote:
3D has come and gone so many times from the early 1980s

It's been going a hell of a lot longer than that. Every time a new advance in home viewing comes along - this time it's HD - the movie industry panics, and tries to push something like this on us. Very large screen formats like Cinemascope, 70mm, and Vistavision were the fads of old; 3D has been tried since the 1950s and even before that.

There are several fundamental problems with stereoscopic 3D which mean it's impossible to ever get it really, properly right. All current techniques rely on very creative fudging to sell the maximum 3D effect (which the producers want to see whether there's really any justification for it or not) while simultaneously trying not to make the audience hurl. This is a very subjective process and I shudder to think what'll happen when people start trying to write computer games that do it automatically in realtime.
Cobalt 2nd January 2010, 21:19 Quote
A 120Hz 1080p 22" screen is something I could really go for at the moment. I don't care about 3D, but having the higher refresh rate would make me feel like I hadn't wasted the money on the rest of the computer, considering that most games that I play regularly I get 100+ fps. The only problem right now is getting a decent panel.

24" in 1080p doesn't make as much sense to me due to the poorer pixel pitch, which being a physicist I always considered a more important measure than what everyone calls "resolution".
Elton 2nd January 2010, 21:52 Quote
120hz isn't that great of an improvement, especially when you consider the lack of good panels in that 120hz spec.

And yes I do count Dot pitch. so +rep to you Cobalt, well once I refresh the rep, ran out.
julianmartin 3rd January 2010, 01:44 Quote
That review seemed a bit short and sweet compared to the normal standard.
Arkanrais 3rd January 2010, 11:02 Quote
Nvidia should just go for the same tech they use in digital 3D cinemas, if it's possible to scale on to an LCD panel. it's just better, and more than one person can enjoy the 3d-ness at the same time
azrael- 3rd January 2010, 12:01 Quote
That would force nVidia to actually invent something new. This "new" 3D tech that nVidia introduced last year was already introduced more than 10 years ago, also by nVidia. The only difference is that this time around, due to the profileration of digitally-connected LCD monitors the glasses can be synced with a digital source and with somewhat better results.
leveller 3rd January 2010, 14:09 Quote
As soon as they provide vibrant colours, min 200hz refresh, 2560x1600 then they're on to a 3D winner.
Elton 3rd January 2010, 23:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leveller
As soon as they provide vibrant colours, min 200hz refresh, 2560x1600 then they're on to a 3D winner.


With a good panel. :D
PureSilver 4th January 2010, 01:51 Quote
I'd like this one reviewed, if you guys get your hands on it - it would be so damned good for home 3D to work properly, and a 24" 1080p is the way forward... http://twisted-reviews.com/acer-3d-vision-ready-24-incher-gd-245hq-coming-in-january/
DbD 4th January 2010, 11:12 Quote
You are reviewing this now?

The VX2265wm has been out for the best part of a year in America (I think it was the first nvdia 3D vision compatible LCD display). Europe at least got the updated VX2268wm last Autumn.
memeroot 4th January 2010, 13:00 Quote
interested in the acer model, more interested whether there will be a glut of cheap 120 htz monitors in march
paisa666 4th January 2010, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt
A 120Hz 1080p 22" screen is something I could really go for at the moment. I don't care about 3D, but having the higher refresh rate would make me feel like I hadn't wasted the money on the rest of the computer, considering that most games that I play regularly I get 100+ fps. The only problem right now is getting a decent panel.

24" in 1080p doesn't make as much sense to me due to the poorer pixel pitch, which being a physicist I always considered a more important measure than what everyone calls "resolution".

I dont mean to start a fight here, but more a constructive response, if im worng in anything pls feel free to correct me :)

FIRST. I dont see the point of having a 120Hz pannel if is not meant to be used for 3D Vision, as you know the human eye see at a rate of 60 Frames per Second, and 120Hz means the image is refreshed 120 times in a second. you wouldnt notice this.

SECOND. i dont know if maybe is a typo you had, but a 24'' in 1080p makes a lot of sense, since this means the pixels are closer to each other (better dot pitch) than the average 32'' 1080p screen and bigger, i mean, i know a 22'' screen would have even better dot pitch but a 24'' its still really veeery good.

Cheers :)
[PUNK] crompers 4th January 2010, 16:37 Quote
depends how far away you're sat, but yes generally a finer pixel pitch is better. also means having to use less AA in a lot of cases (which is a god send at 1920x1200)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums