LG D2342P-PN (Passive)

Post by **thereisnomouse** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:26 pm

According to Akihabara, LG's first passive 3D gaming monitor will be available next week in Japan and priced at 29,800Yen (360$).

Some lucky french journalists from lesnumeriques.com looked at the device during IT Partners Exhibition. They found the 3D effect well rendered and asked the European price which was 279€ !

Could this monitor be the best have for Gaming solutions ? Did somebody ever tried it ?

Specifications :

Post by **cybereality** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:05 pm

Well $360 is certainly a nice price. I imagine it works similar to the Zalman, maybe its even better. This could be really nice.

Post by **thereisnomouse** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:12 am

cybereality wrote:Well $360 is certainly a nice price. I imagine it works similar to the Zalman, maybe its even better. This could be really nice.

That's the point... I was looking for a good passive monitor and about to buy a Zalman when this one was announced. Waiting for a review... Next week maybe

Post by **Zetsumei** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:35 pm

No real change in viewing angles over the Zalman sadly, 12 deg 3d vertical is just too bad for me.

Post by **thereisnomouse** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:49 am

Zetsumei wrote:No real change in viewing angles over the Zalman sadly, 12 deg 3d vertical is just too bad for me.

Did you tried it ? Would be great to have a feedback

.

Post by **cybereality** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:24 pm

As much as I love my Zalman, the scant viewing angles can be annoying at times. Still better than the 3DS, so I guess its within reason, but still. It would be nice to not have to worry about it.

Post by **BlackShark** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:18 am

I just noticed the big difference with the Zalman screen :

Screen surface treatment is anti-glare instead of the usual anti-reflect (that means it's a matte screen)

Post by **thereisnomouse** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:46 am

Which means a less-crisp image... you're right. Long live Zalman

Post by **BlackShark** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:05 am

My Zalman is gorgeous in the dark but it's a real mirror when there is any kind of light in the room.
I'll exchange it for a matte display any day. I may be tempted by this LG display, i'll see in June once i'll have moved to my new home.

Post by **neol** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:52 am

...and this monitor does half vertical resolution 1920×540 pixels in 3D... pathetic

http://3dvision-blog.com/lgs-new-cinema ... 2p-series/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

has any other companies claimed or in the process of providing full resolution in Passive 3D ?

& monitor is available on ebay for $499 by one seller.

Post by **Likay** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:49 pm

Iz3d-monitor (now discontinued) has full resolution in 3d while using passive glasses. The ghosting is a real killer though...
Some new displays has a similar construction as a parallax barrier screen but combined with alternating directed light they have full resolution even in 3d. I don't remember what specific brands that uses this tech though.

Post by **tritosine5G** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:08 am

Who the hell would like 2 frame @ 60hz input lag, and 1/2 res for gaming?? ( my bet is 2+ )
LG was bragging about alternating lines at 120hz ( with 60hz input) , but I don't beleive it , Samsung measured resolution , and they don't beleive it either. ( Sounds BS too)

Plus that flickerfree talk is some straight misleading marketing BS. That company should be ignored.

Next thing they'll sell is a white OLED backlit LCD TV , and they going to call it OLED and brag about how close it is to real RGB OLED , which of course it won't be.

Post by **crim3** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:17 am

I've already commented this several times but, the resolution is not really halved. Those pixels aren't gone, they are still there. Half of them go to one eye and the other half to the other.
It's true that it's worse than full resolution, it can't be other way, but I can tell you that it's nowhere as bad as halving the resolution.

I bother commenting because I think that those displays with passive glasses are so comfortable to use that I really prefer them over shutter-glasses with all that extra hardware, connections and issues. But they keep being smashed by that "half resolution" fallacy from people who hasn't ever tested one.

People should develop the habit of testing things before labeling so negatively.

(My own statement could be knocked down with this: "Do you like poo?", "No, I don't", "How do you know? Have you tasted it?")

Post by **tritosine5G** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:30 am

From an engineering standpoint , this is so bad, no wonder it appears only lately.

While higher resolution benefits both 2D and 3D video, higher resolution in the 3D mode is most noticeable in the depth component of the 3D image. The higher resolution projector will produce a image depth that is consistent or smooth across the entire depth range. A lower resolution display will recreate depth at distinct levels, resulting in a cardboard cut-out or View-Master type effect.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/Infocus ... Conclusion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's true that it's worse than full resolution, it can't be other way, but I can tell you that it's nowhere as bad as halving the resolution.

so don't you think you re missing out on some resolution then, and I do think I don't want to miss out on any extra spatial resolution.

Post by **crim3** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:38 am

tritosine2k wrote:so don't you think you re missing out on some resolution then, and I do think I don't want to miss out on any extra spatial resolution.

As my own quotation that you have used (but not read (?) ) states, it's worse than full resolution. Necessarily.

Post by **tritosine5G** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:40 am

You know , & I love it how Blackshark labels FullHD vs 720p = supersampling vs . (...) , and also labels the lack of spatial resolution "gorgeous" ...makes no sense whatsover.

Post by **crim3** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:49 am

It's always better to have it all. That's right. I also prefer to have it all.

It's that I find sad that wonderful displays like the Zalman displays, which is a delight to use, have all that bad opinions. Think about that: those who own a Zalman love it, those who has never had a glance at it express their hate for it.

Post by **tritosine5G** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:52 am

its not zalman, everyone could make it ,even Apple could make it with their sales numbers, putting a foil on a display is not some superzalman fpd übertech.

Post by **crim3** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:01 am

But almost none dares to make it because they fear people's reaction to the "half resolution" tag.

We could have "cheap" and easy to use 3D monitors all around already, coexisting with 120Hz displays for shutter-glasses. Then people could choose depending on preferences, budget, main purpose or whatever.

Post by **tritosine5G** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:57 am

We could have "cheap" and easy to use 3D monitors all around already

right , & LCD rebadging never gets old...

I think I couldn't stand anything worse than CRT or DLP input lag anymore.

Post by **BlackShark** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:44 am

tritosine2k wrote:You know , & I love it how Blackshark labels FullHD vs 720p = supersampling vs . (...) , and also labels the lack of spatial resolution "gorgeous" ...makes no sense whatsover.

What ?
You're quote mining me here.

I don't label the lack of spatial resolution anything.
I've always said the half resolution was visible on this screen, but that it was not as horrible as many were suggesting and that the 3D effect looked great, especially with optimized interlacing.

The Zalman screen surface has a different texture from most LCD panels but it still does look gorgeous... until someone opens a window in the room and then it becomes a shiny mirror (still gorgeous, i do look good) with a few finger prints all over it (also gorgeous because they're mine, mouahahaha)

I bought my 22" Zalman display 3 years ago for about 300euro and was an amazing value for money.

Post by **neol** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:09 am

wow this thread turned into a flame war. Seriously is this monitor that bad ? (I was thinking of buying it though

)

Post by **relaxman** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:51 pm

crim3 wrote:those who own a Zalman love it

Or SELL it, like me...

I dont liked the lines, unreadable small texts, the small vertical viewing angle,
the lack of 50Hz, the glossiness, etc...

Post by **cybereality** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:52 pm

What people fail to realize is that if you take an FPR passive display and an active display (running at the same refresh rate) and display a 3D video on both: for any given period of time you are getting the same amount of data transmitted to your eyes. With passive each eye gets half-resolution, constantly ALL THE TIME. With active shutter glasses you get a full resolution image but ONLY HALF THE TIME. The other half the time you see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Its the same amount of pixels. Perceptually, an active display is going to look better from a straight picture quality standpoint. But that doesn't mean the passive displays look bad, and they have their own advantages. Not sure one is really "better" than the other. Its more of a personal preference. I think passive are a lot more practical, and have the potential to be much cheaper (if you factor in buying multiple glasses). The glasses are also easier on the eyes. However you get a loss of resolution and (more importantly) narrow viewing angles. But the quality of the 3D is different, since your eyes are seeing a simultaneous persistent image.

What most people don't understand, is that the mind is able to mend the 2 images together in the mind and replace some of the resolution that is lost. I have noticed this on the VR920 headset (and even more the Wrap 310) where a 640x480 resolution will actually appear to be in higher resolution. Not HD by any means, but much better than people think when they hear 640x480. Same thing with the Zalman "half-resolution" display. Still not full HD, but its a lot better than people give it credit. Its funny because a lot of people come asking about 3D monitors, especially for use with AMD cards, but then are immediately not interested in the Zalman. I think its just because people have been trained to look at specs sheets and make judgments based on that, but the specs alone don't tell the full story. Especially with something like 3D, you just have to see it with your own eyes.

Post by **relaxman** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:05 am

cybereality wrote:for any given period of time you are getting the same amount of data

How?
With Zalman one eye sees 60 HALF frames in one second.
With shutterglasses one eye sees 60 WHOLE frames per sec. Isn't?
OK, half the time is black, but in this case the other eye sees the WHOLE frame.
If it would be the same amount of data, why don't need the Zalman dual link dvi
like shutterglasses technology? Because its half the data in the cable.
Correct, if i'm wrong.

"Especially with something like 3D, you just have to see it with your own eyes."

I saw it for a few weeks, and sell it

Still wait for a miracle: fullhd monitor with passive technology.
That's why i like my dual projector polarized setup

Post by **cybereality** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:54 am

relaxman wrote:
cybereality wrote:for any given period of time you are getting the same amount of data
How?
With Zalman one eye sees 60 HALF frames in one second.
With shutterglasses one eye sees 60 WHOLE frames per sec. Isn't?
OK, half the time is black, but in this case the other eye sees the WHOLE frame.
If it would be the same amount of data, why don't need the Zalman dual link dvi
like shutterglasses technology? Because its half the data in the cable.
Correct, if i'm wrong.

Well yes and no. If you are comparing a 120Hz display to a 60Hz display, then yeah. But that is not really a fair comparison. Its like comparing a 1080P HDTV to a 720P HDTV. Its apples to oranges. So if you assume you have a 120Hz FPR display (that can use both active or passive glasses) then my example would stand.

relaxman wrote: I saw it for a few weeks, and sell it
Still wait for a miracle: fullhd monitor with passive technology.
That's why i like my dual projector polarized setup

Some people don't seem to like it. Its not for everyone. There are also people that can't stand the flicker of shutter glasses. So it goes both ways.

Post by **neol** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:55 am

I have a question here,

in layman terms,
in 1920x1080 3D resolution on passive 3D, only 1920x540 is perceived by one eye and the other horizaltal lines in 1920x540 is processes by other eye ? If the horizontal lines in 540 resolution is different for each eye(eg. like one has even lines and other I receives odd lines ) doesn't that mean its full 1080p resoluton together. eventually giving full 1080p 3D resolution. ???

this is how it works or it has a different way entirely ?

Post by **BlackShark** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:10 pm

1080p (or FullHD) is a video standard : it refers to the lines of the content and display, not the lines your eyes can see.

A full reoslution 120Hz shutter based display with 1080 lines is 1080p
A half resolution 60Hz FPR based display with 540 lines per eye (1080 total) is 1080p
A 1/8 resolution auto-stereoscopic 8x multi-view display with 480x540 resolution per eye is 1080p
etc...
1080p 3D means 1080p for each eye (it's twice the resolution of 1080p)

In layman's term : Zalman and LG 1080p FPR displays are half vertical resolution, it's not as good as true 1080p 3D displays but it still look gorgeous.

Post by **neol** » Sun May 01, 2011 1:56 am

what about Passive 3d TV http://www.lg.com/us/tv-audio-video/tel ... LW6500.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here also the 3D resolution is half 1920x540 ? or Full ?

Post by **cybereality** » Sun May 01, 2011 9:22 am

Yes, those LG passive sets and also some of the the Vizio line (which use the same panels) are interlaced just like Zalman.

Post by **cybereality** » Mon May 02, 2011 6:02 pm

neol wrote:what about Passive 3d TV http://www.lg.com/us/tv-audio-video/tel ... LW6500.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here also the 3D resolution is half 1920x540 ? or Full ?

Yeah, those TVs will only get 1920x540 per eye. I haven't seen them, they may still look OK. I know with the Zalman it doesn't look as bad a you'd think "half-resolution" would look. However its not as crisp as a full HD set, so the image will be a little softer or less detailed.

Post by **PalmerTech** » Tue May 03, 2011 2:59 pm

While higher resolution benefits both 2D and 3D video, higher resolution in the 3D mode is most noticeable in the depth component of the 3D image. The higher resolution projector will produce a image depth that is consistent or smooth across the entire depth range. A lower resolution display will recreate depth at distinct levels, resulting in a cardboard cut-out or View-Master type effect.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/Infocus ... Conclusion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

This quote is hilarious, it does not make any sense. Resolution has an impact on the depth of the 3D? Really?

Post by **Fredz** » Tue May 03, 2011 5:33 pm

It may sound stupid but I don't think it is that much, the more pixels you have the more levels of depth you obtain. Depth is completely related to the parallax between images, and the number of discrete parallax values depend on the resolution of the display.

If you remember the Crysis 2 screenshots we talked about some weeks ago, the parallax of most of the scene was within 3 pixels, hence exhibiting some sort of cardboard effect. With an higher resolution this cardboard effect would have been less noticeable because of the wider range of parallax. Sure it's a bad example taken in an extreme situation, but it's still a good illustration of the relationship between resolution and perceived depth.

Post by **cybereality** » Tue May 03, 2011 9:12 pm

Thats true to a certain extent. The only problem is that FPR displays still retain the full horizontal resolution, and the horizontal parallax mostly accounts of the 3D effect. This would be more true if you were comparing 720P to 1080P (however this becomes less of a choice when dealing with HDMI 1.4). But I am not too sure about this "cardboard cut-out" effect. I hear this mentioned a lot, and its just not the case. Well, maybe with some movies that were budget conversions, but with most games that is just not true (discounting the fail that is Crysis 2). And I used to game at 640x480 on the VR920, it looked pretty friggin' 3D to me.

Post by **tritosine5G** » Wed May 04, 2011 5:43 am

-self evident truth to some , hilarious & funny to others

not only spatial resolution is lacking with these displays,

but since it s supposed to be "flickerfree", temporal resolution is lacking too.

how on earth *ANYTHING* remains unaffected?

Ah I know, FPR über-sm(e)artech @ 360hz with improved motion resolution of flickerfreeness. That must be it. Teh answer against gimmick active glasses , now, with added (bieb)ergonomics in 3D. Pretty cool, & unique approach.

Post by **neol** » Wed May 04, 2011 11:16 am

tritosine2k wrote:-self evident truth to some , hilarious & funny to others

not only spatial resolution is lacking with these displays,

but since it s supposed to be "flickerfree", temporal resolution is lacking too.

how on earth *ANYTHING* remains unaffected?

Ah I know, FPR über-sm(e)artech @ 360hz with improved motion resolution of flickerfreeness. That must be it. Teh answer against gimmick active glasses , now, with added (bieb)ergonomics in 3D. Pretty cool, & unique approach.

that didn't make much sense to me, come again... english plz

Post by **PalmerTech** » Wed May 04, 2011 11:37 am

tritosine2k wrote:-self evident truth to some , hilarious & funny to others

No, it is just wrong. Resolution has very little, if anything, to do with objects seeming to have "cardboard cutout effect". Those people are probably very inexperienced with 3D, and it shows from their article, so I do not think it makes sense to take their word.

Tons of people here play in 3D on the old Zalman, which is 1680x1050 cut in half, and others play on the VR920, which is only 640x480, and nobody complains about the 3D effect. Heck, the 3DS is even lower res, 400x240 per eye, and some games look fantastic!

Content is what decides cardboard effect, not resolution.

Post by **tritosine5G** » Wed May 04, 2011 12:04 pm

I have an idea ! Let's Test it with CRT!
CRT is still superior compared to most displays, especially cheap digital displays, those have soooooo many issues I lost count.
So , that megabuck pricing for military-grade CRT HMD's is very well justified. LCD, could not became better overnight & thats about it.

Neol , please google spatial vs temporal resolution , most displays make a tradeoff there especially digital ones, LG's FPR tries to get away trading away both, and they are compensating with their schizophrenic PR.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/11/lg-w ... d-is-best/

The Wall Street Journal points out LG's print ads currently running in Korea (they could be running here already, but we'd have to read physical magazines or newspapers to know for sure) claim that unlike the competition, it will work even when viewers lay down on their sides, though the effect may be slightly weakened. Samsung responded by citing experts recommending keeping your head horizontal to watch 3D since the cameras used to film it are aligned horizontally, and an executive apparently called LG's engineers "stupid" at a press conference, although reports of a "yo mama so fat" diss could not be confirmed.

Post by **cybereality** » Wed May 04, 2011 9:55 pm

Flat panel display technology, mainly LCD, has come a long way in recent years. The latest 120Hz displays, like the Acer HN274H, are competitive with what I remember CRT looking like. Maybe even better, I'm not sure. But its significantly better than older LCD displays. Or go to the store and check out the Sony Bravia 3D HDTVs. They really do look great, it doesn't get much better. Things are improving, gotta stop living in the past.

Post by **crim3** » Thu May 05, 2011 1:17 am

tritosine2k wrote:how on earth *ANYTHING* remains unaffected?

Maybe all the problem is that you are not realizing that nobody is saying that. What we are trying to explain here is that it's not that bad as it may sound, simply that.