bit-tech.net

Investigating 3D Screens

Comments 1 to 16 of 16

Reply
mi1ez 27th May 2011, 12:42 Quote
Could we not strike a balance with IPS and a refresh rate of 80/90/100Hz?
PureSilver 27th May 2011, 13:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Could we not strike a balance with IPS and a refresh rate of 80/90/100Hz?

Shutter glasses alternate frames, effectively halving the visible refresh rate. Try dropping the refresh rate of your current screen down to 40/45/50Hz and you'll see why anything less than 120Hz is going to be a problem.
Xir 27th May 2011, 13:12 Quote
Quote:
tellies can’t get away with using TN technology as they need to have sufficiently wide viewing angles for many people to watch them. They must therefore be using IPS or VA panels. However, Guenther from Dell pointed out to us that ‘It’s unfortunately a slow process to have the technology trickle down from TVs to PC monitors and also from Asia/Japan to Europe.’ In other words, all those flashy tellies are nicking the good 3D screen technology and us PC users will have to wait.
Ehmmm, no.
This part implies that TV screens, using fast IPS or VA panels (they're 3D capable) are superior to monitors, and tests just don't show this.
A 24" TV is cheaper than a 24" IPS monitor, and they've got the same digital input and resolution now. We'd all have one, right?
leveller 27th May 2011, 13:14 Quote
If what Acer say is true about their 27" 3D then I might be convinced to ditch my current monitor later this year ...
Glix 27th May 2011, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
Quote:
tellies can’t get away with using TN technology as they need to have sufficiently wide viewing angles for many people to watch them. They must therefore be using IPS or VA panels. However, Guenther from Dell pointed out to us that ‘It’s unfortunately a slow process to have the technology trickle down from TVs to PC monitors and also from Asia/Japan to Europe.’ In other words, all those flashy tellies are nicking the good 3D screen technology and us PC users will have to wait.
Ehmmm, no.
This part implies that TV screens, using fast IPS or VA panels (they're 3D capable) are superior to monitors, and tests just don't show this.
A 24" TV is cheaper than a 24" IPS monitor, and they've got the same digital input and resolution now. We'd all have one, right?

Isn't there a difference in dot pitch though?
HandMadeAndroid 27th May 2011, 16:48 Quote
If a movie needs all these bells and whistles then it's probably not worth watching.I know I get engrossed in a film if I'm enjoying it.
SMIFFYDUDE 27th May 2011, 17:22 Quote
I'd rather they all went back to making 1920x1200 resolution screens.
tigertop1 27th May 2011, 17:31 Quote
One point in favour of these 3D screens is that they run at 120Hz. 2D viewing improves a lot when you use it versus a 60Hz monitor. I have had two 3D screens now, A Samsung which was OK but would not run Blu-Ray unless one reset it to 60Hz. The Acer GD245HQ is simply the best screen I have ever had and it is pretty well pefect for gaming and watching 3D DVDs
OCJunkie 27th May 2011, 19:43 Quote
Ok, I'm officially getting tired of this 3D week thing... what's next, shark week?
tad2008 27th May 2011, 20:07 Quote
As far as 3D goes for monitors it is well behind the Real 3D TV technology that companies like LG, Samsung and Philips (to name a few) are already producing. Since I can plug a PC in via a VGA or ideally HDMI port and have happily done so on a 42" screen with good results, then I would have to say monitor manufacturers have some serious catching up to do.
DbD 27th May 2011, 21:23 Quote
Personally I don't agree that colour is a major problem with these 3D TN panels - the LG W2363D is fine colour wise, deviation is low enough and colour gamut is high enough. Viewing angles mean you might loose a bit if it wasn't your primary screen but it is my primary screen so not a problem. Sure we always want better but the colours aren't bad, particularly if you use it for games which aren't true to life - it's not like you are trying to photo edit with the monitor.
Grape Flavor 28th May 2011, 05:40 Quote
Excellent article. People can blast 3D all they want but the problem in the end is the displays - you have to wear shutter glasses and the screen itself is poor quality. These are not inherently unfixable concerns.

Wait a few years until we have auto-stereoscopic displays with excellent color and all this "3D is a worthless gimmick" stuff is going to be looked back on as stuck-in-the-past nonsense. Only those with 3D-blindness will continue to defend such a position.
Kris 28th May 2011, 11:35 Quote
and who cares about 3d anyway? it's just a gimmick :P
FelixTech 28th May 2011, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
This is what ViewSonic specialise in, making the sum of the parts greater than the whole

Isn't the saying 'making the whole greater than the sum of its parts'? I hope Viewsonic aren't publicly stating that their products provide less performance than you'd expect from their parts >_<
AstralWanderer 28th May 2011, 18:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quote:
...it had already released 3D technology in the form of the RadiForce GS521-ST for mammography viewing...
Ah yes - here's a true 3D killer application for the gamer demographic - viewing mammograms.
lp rob1 28th May 2011, 20:34 Quote
I thought that the frame rate at which a game is considered 'playable' is 25 fps, and that most movies run at 30fps? So 60Hz refresh rate is pretty useless? As the image is actually changed every 2 refreshes / the screen has to wait for the image to change. I never really understood that.
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