1 3D Display for movies, 1 for S3D PC Work, 1 Pair Glasses

[kistenreis]

Hey!

I am eager to begin creating S3D footage with 3D applications - therefore I'd need to buy (nearly) everything new. Since I also want to replace my old CRT TV with a 3D HDTV, and one for working at the PC. I was wondering if there are solutions (I think I read that it's possible) where I could use one set of glasses. So one pair which I can use in front of the PC and when watching 3D-blurays on the TV.

I was about to buy a Samsung 3D TV - but I guess to use the NVidia Shutterglasses I'd net to run the Samsung TV over the PC to be able to use NVidia glasses, right?

What do you think? Maybe I should even wait? Are there solutions planned? Already available?

Cheers!

[cybereality]

Can you explain a little more what you are looking for exactly? Do you want just one screen to do everything? Because trying to work on a 50" HDTV might be kind of hard. Are you expecting to be working or doing general computing on this display (ie video editing, photoshop, programming, web browsing, email, etc.). Or is this just for 3D movies and games? Ideally you would want one monitor for work and general purpose, and a larger HDTV for entertainment. Some people do both (like I use my 22" 3D monitor for work and play, while others may do this on a 42" class HDTV). There are options for you, I'm just not sure I understand what you need.

Although without knowing any more I would recommend you look at the Acer HN274H:
http://3dvision-blog.com/review-of-the- ... d-monitor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kistenreis]

..hmm, ok maybe I didn't make myself clear.. thought the topic would make already sense

my plan is to go 3D. for 3D I need displays. but to keep the costs down, I want to invest in hardware where I can use the same glasses (e.g. an acer 120Hz display for 3d work on the pc, maybe gaming.. but I don't mind gaming so much, and one big screen for watching e.g. 3d-blurays, or my own 3d stuff that I made on the pc - let's call it the controlmonitor to check if everything looks smooth even on a big screen.

and.. I want to work in 3d applications - like maya - which now supports this - to model in 3d, to set parallaxes etc. correctly from the beginning..

Now since every manufacturer brews their own soup.. I'd like to know whether there are already solutions where I e.g. could use my nvidia shutterglasses with the big ass 3d tv - so that I would not have 3 different shutterglasses from different manufacturer and I would not always mix them up and ... of course to let some money on the bank

cheers!

edit: and of course the pc-screen will then also be used for ...photoshop, after effects, email, surfing - only gaming not so much

[tritosine5G]

Get a professional CRT monitor, it'll work.

If you are in US decide between DLP projector and DLP TV , if you are outside US then consider rear projection / front projection with DLP.

[cybereality]

Well, that is not going to be easy. Because there is no standard for shutter glasses. Nvidia has their proprietary 3D Vision glasses (mostly for the computer) which only work on Nvidia "certified" displays. And every CEM (like Sony, Panasonic, etc.) has their own proprietary shutter glasses which only work on their own brand TVs. In addition, the Nvidia glasses require a PC to run the emitter, so even if you have a compatible HDTV it won't work with the Nvidia glasses unless you have a HTPC with an Nvidia card running the emitter. Really its just a mess. You should just forget about having one pair of glasses, as it will force you to make compromises I wouldn't recommend.

Just as an example, you could use the Nvidia glasses on a 120Hz PC monitor and also on a 3D projector, like the Acer H5360. However you will still need a computer to run this, so this will require 2 computers (unless you have everything in the same room). You might also want 2 emitters, unless you want to constantly be unplugging things and reconfiguring the computer every time you want to watch a movie. And Nvidia doesn't sell the emitters, so you have to buy 2 full kits at $200 a pop. And in order to watch 3D Blu-Ray you will need Windows 7 and a recent Nvidia card (GTX 400 or above). PS3 and standalone 3D Blu-Ray players are *NOT* compatible. So you are forced to use an Nvidia HTPC. Certain models of the Mitsubishi rear-projection DLP TVs are also compatible with 3D Vision, but you get into the same problems as listed above. And the biggest compromise is that it can't do full 1080P (it uses checkerboard which is half resolution, sometimes not even at the full 1080P due to overscan). So even if you got one pair of glasses to work it would be worse quality and probably cost you more anyway.

Just get the best 3D monitor you can afford, and then get the best 3D HDTV you can afford. Forget about the glasses, at most you would be saving $100 off of a $2,000 investment, it not worth bothering.

For a monitor I recommend the Planar SA2311W ( http://www.planaronline.com/product/?id=997-6161-00LF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). You can see a full list of Nvidia 3D Vision displays here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision- ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . You may want to look at the Zalman ZM-M240W also, since it has wider compatibility (supports XP/Vista/7, AMD/Nvidia, Iz3d/DDD, YouTube3D, etc.) however it halves the resolution in 3D, so it is not full 1080P quality. I personally use the Zalman, and it looks pretty good. Not the best picture quality, but its acceptable, and I like the wide compatibility. It also uses polarized glasses so they are light and flicker-free (similar to the RealD movie theaters).

For the 3D HDTV you have a whole lot of options. It really depends what you want to spend. If you want the best bang for your buck, then go with a Mitsubishi DLP. The Mitsubishi WD-60738 is a 60" model for only $1,200, a steal. Don't get the cheaper older models as they won't support PS3 or 3D Blu-Ray players unless you buy the converter box. The models that have the update to support HDMI 1.4 are listed here ( http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/3Dupgrade.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). Again, the Mitsus use a half-resolution checkerboard format, so it is not full quality (but still should look decent). Now if you happen to be rich you might want to look at the 60" LED/LCD Sony XBR60LX900, which is the best 3D I've seen on an HDTV, but it retails for $5,000. In the mid-range, there is the Panasonic VIERA VT25, which is a 50" Plasma which retails for around $2,000. This is still very high quality and probably worth the money. Panasonic also has a cheaper model, the GT25, which sells for $1,500 or less. I haven't seen it, but its probably good. Other options on the mid-range are from Samsung. Something like the Samsung UN46C8000 is probably a decent option. Its a 46" 1080P LED/LCD 3D HDTV. Costs around $2,500. I've only seen it in 2D, but the picture quality was very nice. Some of the best I've seen (especially with the 240Hz Clear Motion). I think the 3D might have a little more ghosting than the other TVs I mentioned, but should still look OK. I would recommend going to a retail outlet and trying to test some of these sets before you spend $2,000+. Hope that helps.

[tritosine5G]

cyber you type too much

[cybereality]

cyber you type too much

Well I wouldn't have to if other people would get involved and try to help people out.

[kistenreis]

Thanks for your help! Really helped a lot. Unfortunately the Planar SA2311W is not available in germany atm. Is there a a big plus comparing to the Acer 120Hz displays which should make me wait until they're available here?

[tritosine5G]

Man, don't buy 120hz LCD .... Try CRT first.... Maybe you send that LCD back...

500 bucks for a gross dark LCD display with 3x6bit TN panel , Cyber you re out of your mind...

[Likay]

I'm pretty certain that crt is darker than the planar-lcd because of polarizationlosses in 3d. Remember that technology is catching up. I'm not entirely certain but didn't planar use several pipelines (8) to transfer more data to the panel. Can't find the sheet though and maybe my memory fails me.

cyber you type too much

It's hopeless trying to explain shortly about stereo-3d nowadays...

[Fredz]

It mostly depends on your budget, do you know how much you want to spend on your 3D hardware ?

The proposition from cybereality would cost approx. $1820 in total, with a Planar SA2311W ($420), a Mitsubishi WD-60738 ($1200) and the 3D Vision kit ($199) which is compatible with both displays.

The Planar monitor should be the best available among 3D LCD monitors without much discussion, but it still exhibits a lot more ghosting than competing technologies like DLP and Plasma, but unfortunately they are not used for monitors. The ghosting level should be somewhat equivalent to the one of a CRT monitor though. The Mits is not full-resolution as cybereality said, the best 3D TV is generally considered to be the Panasonic P50VT25 at $2000 (also compatible with the 3D Vision kit). The total cost with the best available displays at an affordable price would then be approx. $2840.

If you want something cheaper, you can find 3D LCD monitors compatible with 3D Vision at a lower cost but with much more ghosting, or you can buy a used CRT monitor for less than $100 (also compatible with 3D Vision) which should have equivalent ghosting levels to the Planar.

The cheapest 3D TV I know compatible with 3D Vision and with an acceptable ghosting level (ie. not using LCD technology) is the Samsung PN50C490 at $750, but it only has a resolution of 1366x768. A full-HD 1080p panel may not be necessary though, it essentially depends on the distance from which you look at your TV. With this 3D TV and a CRT monitor, which I would consider to be the cheapest solution with an acceptable ghosting level, the total cost would be approx. $1050.

[Fredz]

Unfortunately the Planar SA2311W is not available in germany atm. Is there a a big plus comparing to the Acer 120Hz displays which should make me wait until they're available here?

If you want to buy a 3D LCD monitor, I would say buy the Planar and nothing else, I find other LCD models have unacceptable levels of ghosting. As I said its ghosting level should be equivalent to the one of a CRT monitor, I've posted images in this forum that show this.

See this post to find out how to buy it in Germany :
http://3dvision-blog.com/where-to-get-t ... in-europe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're not sure ($420 ain't cheap after all), I would advise you to find a cheap 120Hz CRT monitor, even better if you already own one.

[tritosine5G]

O yeah ? CRT is darker? Well I dont beleive CRT is darker!

70% is lost due to polarization in CRT case and about 10-20% with TN

but theres fundamental difference cause CRT is pulse display and TN is HOLD
That means CRT is throwing all the light thru a 1.5 ms long window, whereas with TN you loose another 50-80% of backlight because its simply cut with shutterglasses ( TN artefacts).

LCD tradeoff is much worse than polarizationloss. Plus you can peel off the anti glare coating on CRT, polarizationloss restored.

[cybereality]

@tritosine: Again, who wants to buy a CRT monitor in 2011? Thats a friggin' joke. I don't know why you are beating this dead horse. Let it die, man, let it die.

@Fredz: I don't think Panasonic VT25 works with Nvidia glasses. To use it you need Panasonic glasses and the 3DTV Play software.

[tritosine5G]

hahahaha. This is awfully similar to audio bros, just ask Ozone . There was a "delta-sigma" takeover , and good old "r2r" is declared extinct by "futurists" .

Same happens with CRT . : ))

On the other hand r2r is coming back, and CRT is coming back too ( swap vacuum and gun with UV laser) . Cyber I bet you are always caught up in the latest fad and miss the true gems. Hahahaha, such is life . Seriously.

[cybereality]

Cyber I bet you are always caught up with the latest fad and miss the true gems. Hahahaha, such is life . Seriously.

No, its just a different mindset. To me (and to many others) the purpose of technology is convenience. You see, they have had music for thousands of years. But back then you would need to leave your house and go to the village square to hear musicians play. Later there were concert halls, where you could pay to see a performance. Then with the invention of the phonograph, it made it possible to listen to sound recordings in the convenience of your home. Even later still, the portable cassette player made this even more convenient as you could take the music anywhere you go. The medium is not important to me: vinyl record, cassette, CD, MP3; they all offer acceptable quality. The fundamental difference is convenience. Vinyl was big and bulky, could not be portable. Cassettes were portable, but required constant rewinding and fast-forwarding. CDs offer random-access. MP3 has the benefit of no physical medium. It only takes up only virtual space, the ultimate goal.

The important aspect is the convenience. And CRT is in no way convenient. They are huge and heavy. They will take up your entire desk and you may need two people if you ever want to move it. They cannot be mounted on a wall, or with monitor arms. They cannot be rotated into portrait mode (useful for editing photos, programming, etc.). They use the old analog standard, so may be lesser quality and not fully compatible with modern hardware (HDCP, etc.). The format 4:3 is not widely used anymore for cutting edge content, so with 16:9 content you will lose a huge amount of the limited real-estate on these small CRTs. Not to mention they flicker LIKE A MAD-MAN! I cannot even express the degree of headaches I got on a daily basis on my old CRT setup. The refresh is unbearable, even in 2D, forget 3D. This is a huge deal, and that alone should lay CRT to rest. They just weren't comfortable on the eyes. Especially in my field, where I am in front of a screen literally 16 hours in a day, I just couldn't take it. You could not pay me to use a CRT screen. And, really, from what I remember the quality was not even all that great to begin with. Certainly couldn't hold a candle to some of the recent 3D HDTVs like the Sony Bravia LED/LCD, Panasonic Viera Plasma, Samsung LED/LCD, Mitsubishi DLP. They all blow the crap out of any CRT I've ever seen.

[Fredz]

@Fredz: I don't think Panasonic VT25 works with Nvidia glasses. To use it you need Panasonic glasses and the 3DTV Play software.

Ah yes, I forgot 3DTV Play only allowed to use the glasses designed for the TV, not the 3D Vision ones. Stupid me, sorry about that. So you won't be able to use only one pair of glasses as you feared, but as cybereality said the cost is quite marginal compared to the screens.

The total costs in my previous message should look more like this :
1) $1880 : Planar SA2311W ($420) + Mitsubishi WD-60738 ($1200) + 3D Vision kit ($199) + Ultra-Clear DLP LINK glasses ($59.95) ;
2) $2720 : Planar SA2311W ($420) + Panasonic P50VT25 ($2000) + 3D Vision kit ($199) + Panasonic TY-EW3D10U glasses ($100) ;
3) $1110 : 120Hz CRT monitor ($100) + Samsung PN50C490 ($750) + 3D Vision kit ($199) + Ultra-Clear HD glasses ($59.95).

@tritosine: Again, who wants to buy a CRT monitor in 2011? Thats a friggin' joke. I don't know why you are beating this dead horse. Let it die, man, let it die.

As I have previously said, newer doesn't automatically mean better, and that's the case with LCD vs CRT monitors regarding stereo 3D. Ghosting levels are awful on LCD monitors except for the Planar, but at $420 I'm not sure it's a bargain compared to CRT monitors. They still exhibit much better contrast ratios, black levels, viewing angles, color fidelity and input lag. Their cons are mostly their big size and possible geometric distorsion, which may not be a drawback in most situations.

[Fredz]

No, its just a different mindset. To me (and to many others) the purpose of technology is convenience. [...]Cassettes were portable, but required constant rewinding and fast-forwarding. CDs offer random-access.

CD weren't more convenient than cassettes in all regards for portable music, the discman was a lot bigger than the walkman for example, so size or weight doesn't always explain success.

The important aspect is the convenience. And CRT is in no way convenient. They are huge and heavy. They will take up your entire desk and you may need two people if you ever want to move it.

Current LCD and Plasma TVs are bigger than CRT TVs and can't be moved easily either, they are also not supposed to be moved frequently, just like monitors, so that's quite a feable argument.

They cannot be mounted on a wall, or with monitor arms.

LCD monitors are not supposed to be mounted on a wall either, and rarely supposed to be used with a monitor arm.

They cannot be rotated into portrait mode (useful for editing photos, programming, etc.).

Seriously, how many people do you know who rotate their screen depending on their activity ? I'm a programmer and I've lot of friends who either program or do photo editing or web design and I don't know even ONE person who use a monitor like that. But I know a lot of people who use two monitors side by side.

They use the old analog standard, so may be lesser quality and not fully compatible with modern hardware (HDCP, etc.).

True, but most 3D LCD monitors aren't HDCP compliant either, and this protection is easily bypassed even using available commercial video players.

The format 4:3 is not widely used anymore for cutting edge content, so with 16:9 content you will lose a huge amount of the limited real-estate on these small CRTs.

True, although with video games I suppose immersion should still be better with 4:3 displays, I think it's no wonder IMAX used a 1.44 aspect ratio that is closer to 4:3 (1.33) than 16:9 (1.77).

The fact that 16:9 is the current norm is not because it's practical either, it's only because Hollywood introduced the Cinemascope (wider aspect ratio of 2:35:1) because of the drop in cinema attendance some decades ago, only to differentiate the film industry from TV. Because of this, 16:9 was created as a compromise between 4:3 and 2:35:1 (geometry mean of both formats) and broadcast HDTV made it popular.

And there are still some 16:9 CRT monitors available, the Sony GDM-FW900 24" CRT monitor being quite a good example, it's still considered by many to be the best monitor that has ever been produced, and you can find it for less than $300 on ebay.

Not to mention they flicker LIKE A MAD-MAN! I cannot even express the degree of headaches I got on a daily basis on my old CRT setup. The refresh is unbearable, even in 2D, forget 3D. This is a huge deal, and that alone should lay CRT to rest.

That's true at 60Hz compared to a LCD screen because their backlight operates at 200Hz, but that's not the case at all for higher frequencies. For most people 72Hz is comfortable, some prefer at least 85Hz, but nobody should be experiencing any discomfort at 100Hz or more.

And, really, from what I remember the quality was not even all that great to begin with. Certainly couldn't hold a candle to some of the recent 3D HDTVs like the Sony Bravia LED/LCD, Panasonic Viera Plasma, Samsung LED/LCD, Mitsubishi DLP. They all blow the crap out of any CRT I've ever seen.

You may not have seen a lot of CRT screens then or only very low quality ones, they blow out any other existing technology in any regard. The only aspect where another technology can be as good is the color range, with OLED displays. You should have a look at the Wikipedia page talking about computer monitors.

[cybereality]

Well the CRTs I've used were not professional level studio monitors, but they weren't low-end POS monitors either. And, to me, 85Hz was unacceptable. I could literally see the scanlines refreshing down the screen and the whole thing gave a strobe effect. Maybe my eyes were just sensitive to this, I don't know. I did go up to 100Hz a couple times, and it did look slightly better, but it only worked at a low resolution so I didn't bother with it. I have seen those graphs and canned benchmarks where CRT is supposedly 1,000 times better than current solutions, I'm just not seeing it with my eyes.

[kistenreis]

@tritosine

Well, I don't know how much space you got on your desk but on my there is definately no space for a CRT. Furthermore CRT is dead. And the fact that in germany there were (afaik) never CRT released who have a native resolution of 1920x1080px - because noone needet it, since CRT was loooong before HD here.. so that is absolutely no option for me. ...and since you might have noticed, I want to produce for broadcast, 1080p would be mandatory - and not on a 4:3 CRT display

Trying to get in touch with the one and only Planar reseller here in germany, thanks for the tip.

I also might want to wait for the 3D TV and maybe buy the acer projector which costs about 600US$ and can be used with nvidia glasses (over a pc of course only - but this would be acceptable for once). And... I would be able to move it around since I am into visuals I could move it around to friend's house / parties etc..

Cheers!

edit: the Planar seems to be a good buy - just called the reseller who told me the current price is around 360€ (489US$) and is going to be lowered in the next days

edit2: ok.. I guess an 120Hz display won't fit my needs since 3d modelling tools only offer to display the image interlaced and a solution which would include nvidia glasses would need the application to be able to display the image in fullscreen.. so I guess I need to have a monitor like the zalman which uses interlacing to display the stereo image

[tritosine5G]

Certainly couldn't hold a candle to some of the recent 3D HDTVs like the Sony Bravia LED/LCD, Panasonic Viera Plasma, Samsung LED/LCD, Mitsubishi DLP. They all blow the crap out of any CRT I've ever seen.

Well, I don't know how much space you got on your desk but on my there is definately no space for a CRT. Furthermore CRT is dead.

nice, and I declare this topic dead. And today's LCD with shutter is so mediocre I have no word for it .

You guys have to spend 500 bucks , and you have to spend it on 3x6bit TN panels. Wahahaha, what a joke, god.

CRT is coming back, don't worry about it, it was perfected, and won't disappear overnight.

[AntiCatalyst]

Current LCD and Plasma TVs are bigger than CRT TVs and can't be moved easily either, they are also not supposed to be moved frequently, just like monitors, so that's quite a feable argument.

so what you're saying is that a 32" LCD HDTV is bigger than a 32" CRT?
and that when i threw out my old 17" piece-of-junk CRT and replaced it with a nice 22" LCD, i just imagined the LCD being much, MUCH lighter, thinner and easier to handle?

please develop that argument.

[tritosine5G]

Please look at the price tag, we arent talking about entry level CRT here.

CRT IQ has nothing to do with TN LCD IQ. The first is the default standard at BBC , the latter is , well, e-waste.
http://www.displaymate.com/ShootOut_Comparison.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 863607664#

'The amount of LCD waste is increasing at an alarming rate and, with disposal in landfill or incineration no longer acceptable, new solutions were needed. We have developed a technology that offers a clean, efficient way to recover the mixture of liquid crystals from waste LCD devices. Once recovered, the liquid crystal mixture will be recycled into different LCDs or the mixture will be separated into individual components for re-sale.’ The three-year project is intended to culminate in the setting-up of a dedicated recycling plant.

<--- LCD waste is not even solved yet

[Fredz]

Furthermore CRT is dead. And the fact that in germany there were (afaik) never CRT released who have a native resolution of 1920x1080px - because noone needet it, since CRT was loooong before HD here..

Yes CRT is a dead technology, there is no argument there. Their resolution can be higher than 1080p though, for example the Sony GDM-FW900 has a max. resolution of 2304x1440. And they also don't have a native resolution, that's a distinctive feature of this technology that makes them superior to LCD, since those must use scaling for non-native resolutions which lowers image quality. And good quality CRTs with high resolutions have always been available in Germany, I wonder where you get the idea that it was not the case.

so that is absolutely no option for me. ...and since you might have noticed, I want to produce for broadcast, 1080p would be mandatory - and not on a 4:3 CRT display

The Sony GDM-FW900 was a 16:10 display and was produced for professionals in CAD and imaging. As an anecdote, all the stocks of the Sony CRT PVM monitors were bought by the BBC when they heard Sony was ending their production, so they must have been quite good for professional broadcasting too...

I understand that their size and weight makes them an non-option for you, and since you are ready to invest $450 in a monitor, going for the Planar is not a bad choice for stereo 3D. But if you hadn't space limitations, buying a professional quality CRT for less than $300 (which was priced at $2500 at launch) would have been a pretty good alternative.

The only thing that can rival a professional CRT these days is an OLED monitor, the 25" BVM-E250 model from Sony has been announced for april 2011 and will cost $28,000, it will be demonstrated side-by-side with LCD and CRT monitors.

I also might want to wait for the 3D TV and maybe buy the acer projector which costs about 600US$ and can be used with nvidia glasses (over a pc of course only - but this would be acceptable for once). And... I would be able to move it around since I am into visuals I could move it around to friend's house / parties etc..

The Acer H5360 is a very good option indeed, it's the pinnacle of stereo 3D for most people although it only has a 720p resolution.

ok.. I guess an 120Hz display won't fit my needs since 3d modelling tools only offer to display the image interlaced and a solution which would include nvidia glasses would need the application to be able to display the image in fullscreen.. so I guess I need to have a monitor like the zalman which uses interlacing to display the stereo image

Windowed 3D modelling can be done with NVIDIA Quadro GPUs and 3D Vision glasses for softwares that support OpenGL quad-buffer stereo (like Maya, CATIA, etc.). Look here for more information : http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_pro ... oards.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also NVIDIA recently introduced windowed support for 3D Vision with GeForce GPUs in some applications (like Google Earth) with its 266.58 driver, maybe they'll add support for CAD/3D modeling softwares in the future but I doubt it since that would cut their benefits in the professional market.

[Fredz]

so what you're saying is that a 32" LCD HDTV is bigger than a 32" CRT?

For TVs I was just saying that passed a certain size they are all very cumbersome to handle for a single person, the fact that CRT TVs are heavier doesn't change much things in this regard. I can't imagine myself trying to install a 30Kg Panasonic P50VT25 alone for example.

I also said that you don't move a TV or monitor frequently, so weight is a pretty moot point.

But I understand that desktop space can be limited for a monitor, that's the only real factor against CRT monitors in my opinion.

[kistenreis]

Hmm heh, well.. little war going on here - wasn't me ... well, ok, I didn't want to say there have never been CRTs with resolutions over 1080p. Of course there were, but not for people like me, consumer. I know that class1 CRT monitors etc. are out there and still state of the art etc. pp. but ... I don't have the 15.000€ to spend on something like that so yeah, yeah CRT was, is and will be pro-league. but I'm not pro. nor have I the money to play in that league. (and if you knew how happy I was when I threw my old 19" CRT out of the window...)

hmm, so as I'm not yet playing in the pro league of course a Quadro card is way too expensive for me either ... so guess there's only one option left: Zalman-ZM-M215W or ZM-240W ...where I think I'll be going for the cheaper one. Or is there a major difference in those two models which should make me invest almost 200€ more for that fun?

btw ...this is going to be my third monitor (using atm a laptop-17"-screen + 19" tft) - do you know of any problem if I would use e.g. Matrox Triplehead2go for my setup? [I know there is a matrox dualhead2go, but to have a better investment in future, I wanted to skip the dualhead and go for the triple head already]

[Fredz]

Hmm heh, well.. little war going on here - wasn't me

A little war is quite healthy every now and then. And the nice thing here is that all parties can express their point of view without transforming all this into a flame war. That's one of the reason why I especially like this forum.

I don't have the 15.000€ to spend on something like that so yeah, yeah CRT was, is and will be pro-league. but I'm not pro. nor have I the money to play in that league. (and if you knew how happy I was when I threw my old 19" CRT out of the window...)

What I said is since CRT monitors are no longer sold, you can get professional ones for very cheap in used condition, like the Sony I've talked about in great lenghts for less than $300 on ebay.

hmm, so as I'm not yet playing in the pro league of course a Quadro card is way too expensive for me either ... so guess there's only one option left: Zalman-ZM-M215W or ZM-240W ...where I think I'll be going for the cheaper one. Or is there a major difference in those two models which should make me invest almost 200€ more for that fun?

Before making your choice for an interlaced display, you should make sure that it will work in your 3D modeling software. This mode should work with Maya 2010 and some GeForce GPUs on Mac OS X, although there is this red warning text in Autodesk paper about stereo support for Mac :

Important: Although Autodesk tested the NVIDIA GeForce and ATI Radeon graphics cards, it is Autodesk, NVIDIA, and AMD policy to only recommend and support the NVIDIA Quadro, ATI FirePro, and ATI FireGL graphics family cards. See the NVIDIA Quadro vs. GeForce GPUs White Paper [PDF].

Nothing is said about GeForce cards on Windows for Maya 2010 or Maya 2011, they talk only about Quadro cards for interlaced support.

You should also make sure that modeling in stereo 3D is really going to be the best choice for you before choosing a sub-par 3D monitor. You can see in this post that it may not be that practical for anyone : http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=942492" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ERP]

I'd be surprised if Maya will work with a standard NVidia card, I very much doubt it uses D3D to render.
I haven't used recent builds but all of the old builds used OpenGL and only Quadro cards support OpenGL with the NVidia driver in 3D.

[Fredz]

Ah yes, I didn't think about that but Maya on Mac OS X must be using OpenGL since there is no Direct3D support on this platform, hence the 3D Vision support in interlaced modes with GeForce cards thanks to QBS support.

As ERP said that explains why Maya most probably won't work on MS Windows in stereo 3D with a GeForce GPU. So you're stuck with a professional Quadro GPU if you want to do 3D modeling in stereo on MS Windows, and in this case an interlaced monitor would be useless.

[cybereality]

Well I don't want to drag on this CRT argument. IMO current gen display tech is acceptable quality and I doubt most normal users could tell the difference. If that Sony FW900 monitor was cheaper I would actually buy this, just so I could take pictures and settle this for good. Even though there is one available on eBay for $300, it is local pick-up only (and would probably cost twice that amount just to be shipped). So this is not worth it for me. I have seen them selling for as much as $1000, even as recently as a month ago, so this $300 deal seems like a fluke. If I could find for like $100, then I would do it.

I think modeling in 3D would be awesome, assuming the program fully supported it *and* you were using 3D input devices. If the menus are still in 2D and you are using a mouse, then its pretty pointless. But if the interface were fully stereoscopic and you had 3D mice, data-gloves, hapics devices, etc. then that is a totally different story. Sounds like the support is just not there yet. Also, if you are doing 3D modeling you absolutely MUST HAVE a 3D mouse. If you've never tried one you have no idea what you are missing. There is no going back, just buy it, no questions.
http://www.3dconnexion.com/products/spacenavigator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interlaced 3D does work out pretty good for editing 3D video with MagiX Movie Edit Pro 17. Although Nvidia 3D Vision is supported, it only works in full-screen mode, so you can't edit and see the results in real-time. Plus it seems glitchy. Maybe Magix didn't pay Nvidia enough money... However you are still going to need a full 1080P HDTV to confirm it looks good, although interlaced is probably fine just for quick previewing.

Also, if you want triple screen you can save some money and get a USB video card like these for maybe $60:
http://www.evga.com/uvplus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keep in mind there is a slight delay, so they cannot be used for 3D gaming or things like that. However if you use the 3D monitor as the primary monitor, you could use the USB monitor for secondary stuff thats not mission critical.