Is it worth it to buy a Nvidia 3DVision2 Monitor? Advice plz

[primalinstinkt]

Hi guys. I bought a 3D TV ages ago and do not play 3D games on it as I hate the ghosting of passive LG interleave.

I bought a DK2 but I obviously can not use that in most AAA online games...the picture is just not good enough.

So, I am thinking of buying this ASUS VG278HE Nvidia 3D Vision2 monitor. I am just worried that they are now outdated and with the release of 4K TV sets and other technologies, is it worth me investing in one to tide me over until Oculus CV1 is released next year? Are these monitors now outdated to the point that it will be a waste of money and I should just wait?

Thanks.

PS I will also need a new GPU to play games in Ultra (thinking of 970)

Any advice on what I should do? Should I just wait for other technologies? I am bored playing in 2D on my TV and what something in 3D until CV1...help plz.

Thanks

[cybereality]

3D Vision is awesome, and a lot of games will work. Active glasses will have a better picture quality (in general) than interleaved style FPR 3D.

Personally I am looking at getting the Asus ROG Swift PG278Q, which is 27", 3D, 144Hz, 1440p, and with G-Sync. It's also a little pricey at $800 and impossible to find. Not sure if you care about higher resolutions or G-Sync, but that's the one I want.

Philips also has a 27" 3D G-Sync monitor (1080p@144Hz) and it's a little cheaper at $600. Phillips 272G5DYEB. Looks like it can be OK, but the bezel is large and I don't see many reviews (it comes out next week).

If you are NOT interested in 2D G-Sync, then I'd say the ASUS VG278HE will probably be fine and you will be happy with it.

[primalinstinkt]

Hi Cyber, and thanks for your response.

Isn't the Nvidia 3D Vision 2 screen in active meant to give full resolution to your eye 1080p? Unlike passive which halves the resolution?

I am also thinking of the ASUS SWIFT ROG, the problem is two-fold though. First is I have read reports about people having lots of issues with the 3D on this monitor...apparently it was rushed and the 3D picture has lots of problems.

The second issue is---will a single 970 be enough to run 1440p 3D at Ultra? What do you think? If these two issues did not exist I would buy that monitor. I am confident I can get 120fps at 1080p Ultra, but not sure with 1440p...opinions?

Do you think the 1080p jump to 1440p 3D will make a huge difference??

Thanks for helping me out a lot on these forums..

[skyguy]

Did you ever try the edid fix? Some people when they switched video cards fixed their issue for ghosting on their passive screen. I think it may have more to do with the EDID. The reason is when deleting the extension block on nvidia drivers, they output different color values after the install which means the display is not showing what would happen if they were installed the regular way.

I have both a projector and passive tv. I prefer the passive tv for color brightness and more pop out compared to the projector size. I only notice the jaggy edges in certain games on passive. The brightness benefits outweighs the projector for me unless the game has a lot of straight edges. That's where active is better. The projector is cheaper at least in the up front cost significantly though so you get more for your money.

I also use 3d vision glasses too, they aren't that different then dip glasses for me, the real benefit is playing 3d games with 120 fps input. What is displayed is 60 but since your movements are read at 120 hz it feels smoother than 3dtvplay.

Also I really don't see this half resolution people keep talking about. I do see the jaggy edges but to my eyes the resolution looks better than 720p DLP. There is a fusion of the images, not completely that's why it's jaggy, but it's amazingly 2.5 times as bright compared to my DLP projector so it's easier to use during the morning hours.

[cybereality]

Yes, I have heard a lot of complaints about QC on the Asus Swift (dead pixels, uneven backlight, pattern artifacts in 3D, etc.). It makes me a little hesitant, but there is not really any other options with all those features. If you have a 970 you may be better off at 1080P. 3D is intensive, and most of the time playing in Ultra settings is not possible without dropping frames (i.e. you would need to be getting over 120fps minimum in 2D to get completely smooth 3D). This is fine for older games like HL2 or L4D, but not with brand new titles. However, playing on Low settings in 3D gives more bang than Ultra in 2D.

[Matthew]

I bought an Asus VG278HE monitor and an nVidia 3D Vision 2 system a little over two months ago. Previously, I had been using a Zalman Trimon ZM-M220W monitor, which I have owned for 5 years.

Initially, I was disappointed, because there is slight flickering visible with brighter scenes (since it's 120 Hz, which means only 60 Hz when seen though the glasses), and the shuttering creates artifacts when you move your eyes (I had used shutter glasses before, but not in a long time, so I wasn't used to it). But the quality is so much better, I quickly thought it was worth it. It has far less crosstalk than any polarized 3D system I've seen, including the Trimon monitor, and an IMAX 3D theater I've been to. And the brightness is at least as good as with polarized 3D systems.

I've noticed that all polarized 3D computer monitors have been discontinued. Having gotten this monitor, I can see why. Polarized 3D displays may use cheaper glasses, and be easier on your eyes, but they simply can't compete with the quality of active 3D displays.

If you're looking for an affordable 3D display, the Asus VG278HE is definitely your best choice. At the time I bought it, it was probably the best gaming monitor available. In the time since, some newer and better monitors have been released, but they're very expensive.

Make sure you adjust the brightness and contrast settings, though. The default brightness and contrast settings are way, way too high.

Philips also has a 27" 3D G-Sync monitor (1080p@144Hz) and it's a little cheaper at $600.

G-Sync does not work with active 3D systems. All of the G-Sync monitors support 3D Vision, but only with G-Sync disabled.

Also I really don't see this half resolution people keep talking about.

I did with my Trimon monitor. It was very apparent.

I do see the jaggy edges but to my eyes the resolution looks better than 720p DLP.

There wouldn't be jaggy edges if the interleaving were done with pixel averaging. (With programs I've written that display interleaved 3D content, I've made them do this.) But the loss in resolution is inherent.

DLP projectors don't give as sharp quality. They also halve the resolution when used with active 3D, because they only display half of the pixels per refresh, using checkerboard interleaving.

Yes, I have heard a lot of complaints about QC on the Asus Swift (dead pixels, uneven backlight, pattern artifacts in 3D, etc.).

Lightboost monitors do have some issues with pattern artifacts in 3D, but it's not as bad as the complaints would lead you to believe. The majority of the time, I don't notice it.

The artifacts are caused by the LCD's inversion pattern. Although all LCDs do inversion, the pattern is reversed with alternate refreshes, which cancels it out. But when LCDs are used for active 3D, the pattern remains the same, but reversed between the left and right eyes, since each eye only sees every other refresh. The brighter the screen, the more noticeable it is.

There are some disadvantages of the Lightboost technology, but I wouldn't do active 3D on an LCD without it.

[cybereality]

@Matthew: Right, you can't use G-Sync and 3D Vision at the same time. You also can't do 3D @ 144Hz, only 120Hz is supported.

I mentioned the G-Sync monitors since they are new and probably the best you can get (with a price).

Also, sometimes games won't support 3D, in which case G-Sync would help.