according to the responses to that review, these are starting to show up at walmart. i remember hearing asus/acer planning on passive models before cebit but heard nothing since. given a choice between a 3d 32" 1080p or a 3d 26"/22" 1080p for the same price, i think the answer is pretty clear..

Hi I am new and this looks very exciting I play IL-2 flight sim and was going to upgrade my measly 23 inch 2d monitor with possibly this tv to play in 3d.

Can one of you experts tell me if this will work with the ATI HD3D driver on ATI's site I have the ATI Radeon HD 5770 and I also notcice that this particular tv is 60hz so will it work or does anything special have to be done? The next model up from this Vizio 42" Class 3D LCD 1080p 120Hz HDTV, E3D420VX for $629 is 120hz. But I am trying to keep the price down as much as possible minimum wage job . The 32 inch 60hz one is only $468 new. I hope one of you could confirm whether these would work or not??? Saw these at the wal-mart website by the way. It's getting ready to go major mainstream 3D.

One eyed hopeful akin to Odin.

I do not have a hd3d compatible card so I cannot help you with that, but I can say that Iz3D and DDD do work with my E3D320VX. Although I have not tried them since I got the tv, (just using 3DTV Play with GTX 460), they had several options such as side by side, top and bottom, and interlaced, which worked for stereoscopic 3D in this display. If your card is compatible, I do not see any problem in finding something that will work for you, possibly with varying degrees of ghosting of course. Personally, I think a 60Hz TV is good enough as we are limited to 720P60 or 1080P24 anyway, and the "soap opera" effect some 120Hz TVs have bothers me.

That being said, I still think that this is still an entry-level solution. The passive display is limited to half-res per eye and confined viewing distance / angle. I enjoy 720P gaming at 3-5ft away from the display, but that may not be enough for some.

I purchased a Vizio E3d320VX yesterday at WalMart for $348.

I found this forum actually researching various stereoscopic topics.

Anyway finally I saw this thread, and being a new owner of the TV thought I would contribute.

I have to say I am very pleased, especially given the price point. I am an old hat to 3D, going back to shutter glasses on an AMD K6 2, to give you an idea. The quality of the effects on this set I am impressed by. Ghosting is much less than an old Sammy active set that I have. It has manual controls for side by side, over under, and sansio if you need them. It has however automatically detected everything so far.

It has a 1080 resolution, so I am using it as a monitor and have it hooked up to a 360 and PS3. The 60hz had me worried at first, however I haven't been able to notice any issues or image quality degradation because of it. I was also skeptical of passive 3D, but have rapidly become a fan. The glasses are very light, cross talk is minimal, and not noticeable most of the time, viewing angles while not great, are reasonable. Also brightness doesn't seem to suffer as much as it does with my active set.

Anyway thought I would share my $0.02 if anyone was considering one of these sets. For $350, you can't beat it with a stick.

Further reason for those who care, probably old news around here, but I found an article talking about a study that sheds some light on the half resolution of passive 3D, and ultimately explains why this is a non-issue and passive 3D is preferable for most people in most situations. Surprisingly viewing angles are better, cross talk is less, and luma is better as well.

Anyway:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-201 ... to-active/

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm

Forgot to mention, the above discussed TV also works fine with a Radeon 6850 using HD3D, and TriDef.

You shouldn't base your opinion on this study, it's heavily biased in favor of passive 3D and only compares passive TVs to Samsung active LCD TVs which are crap. Not any mention of active Plasma like the ones made by Panasonic, which are generally regarded as the best 3D TVs available.

But nice that you could find a 3D TV at this price anyway.

Displaymate has long been considered an authority on most things related to displays. The author is also extremely well credentialed. To blow it off as biased is ignorant.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. People always defend thier choices irrationally.

RE:

Can someone explain how this is technically possible? The only way I can see that passive could be brighter than active, would be in the 'off' phase darkness level vs the polarized lens darkness.
Otherwise, any additional brightness would surely come at a cost of increased ghosting (as the only way to get the increased brightness would be for the polarization/switching to not block 100% of the incoming picture).

there is a discussion at avsforum that is "enlightening":
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1340087/why-a ... ive-3d-tvs

That's an argument from authority, its use in a fallacious manner is well explained on Wikipedia :
"Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct."
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I don't defend my choices, I don't even own a 3D TV. And I'm basing my opinions on facts, not on what people say. Comparing passive TVs with the worst active TVs is not really the most unbiased way of telling which technology is the best.

And having someone who registered only one day ago coming here to tell us what the best 3D technology is when we've all been discussing this for years is presomptuous as best. Are you working for Vizio ?

I don't know the technical reasons, but (in general) passive polarized is brighter than active shutter. For example, the Zalman Trimon versus the Nvidia 3D Vision 1 glasses. However, it doesn't have to be.

Some glasses are better than others. For example, the DLP-Link glasses I have for my projector are pretty bright, but not as good as the Zalman glasses. The glasses Sony uses on their high-end HDTVs also uses an interesting technique that allows them to be brighter than other brands (like Panasonic). But then you have some cheap passive glasses like the RealD ones they give for free in the theater, and those are darker than Zalman. So, overall, I'd still say that passive is brighter, but it really depends on the exact model of display/glasses you are using.

Thanks for the response.

I am not here to get into the semantics and mechanics of arguing. There is no doubt that displaymate article is worth citing. They are experts in their field and to totally ignore what their stance is, doesn't make sense. I was simply responding to your comment that I should not base my opinion on that study. Well I don't have much else to aside from my own anecdotal experience, so I'll take them at their word.

I am not a Vizio employee, in fact in the past I have avoided their products as cheap POS's. I traditionally have been in the Samsung camp, but have had some very negative experiences with reliability and their service so over the last five years or so have moved to LG.

I have several sets, from 60" LG plasma down to my 32" Vizio I just got. I was very surprised at the quality of the this little TV especially for the price and was eager to share that. I specifically wanted to share it in response to bgnome mentioning that passive displays are half-res per eye, and had crappy viewing angles. Having just ready that study I thought I would post what I found where they explicitly address both those issues, and their findings are sup rising and contrary to popular opinion.

Anyway I digress, I am not here to argue or piss anyone off. I really enjoy 3D content, my experiences started about 13 years ago with a computer with a K6 2, a Voodoo Banshee using Wicked 3D software and a pair of primitive shutter glasses that set me back a small fortune. Back then that was the poop. lol

More info on Wicked 3D for the curios: http://www.stereo3d.com/wicked3d.htm

Really funny is the last line from that article, circa 1999:

13 years later that dream is becoming a reality via the Oculus Rift.

Sure, this review is worth citing, but I'm just saying that it is flawed in several aspects. You can also see this one from Consumer Reports that looks a lot more objective to me : http://news.consumerreports.org/electro ... 3d-tv.html

We've already been discussing this article from DisplayMate last year, you can have a look at this thread to see arguments against it :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13702

Which is nice, thanks for that.

The problem is they are wrong this time, you can be an expert and be wrong sometimes. Even people here who bought the two technologies could see the resolution loss and the limited viewing angles.

I'm not here to argue either, I'm just here to get my fix of information about S3D, and when I see something wrong I try to correct it (without much tact I must admit). This site is a very valuable resource for 3D and I don't want to see it filled with erroneous informations that could mislead potentiel newcomers.

I also started S3D some fifteen years ago with SimulEyes VR glasses on MS-Dos and I'm still hooked as well.

Thanks Fredz I appreciate the response. I do see your points. SimulEyes, for the time those were seriously nice! lol