You still need the tv unfortunately. See the glasses work by flickering a lot, and the tv needs to flicker at the same rate. This requires the 3d tv to work. But the red/green glasses work, so keep reading I suppose (red/green does not flicker, as it separates the images by color. This image separation is required for all 3d, so that your eyes see different things)

this was a spam btw.

Spam? Woah. Copy paste from some other site? Hmmph, gotta be more careful when reading I suppose.

I'd also revisit the "works because of flicker" sentence,

future active glasses might be sequential you won't see them flicker , you don't see a 2D CRT flicker above 85hz you don't see an ordinary household LED lamp flicker etc. LC is really guilty for flicker, because transitions arent clear cut on/off.

I tell this all the time, don't worry

They flicker, not because transitions are too slow. They flicker because the frequency is so low that your eyes registers it. This phenomena increases with higher brightness as well. The effect is also highly dependant on individuals and their present shape (tired or alert etc).

I could see very visible flicker on CRT @ 85Hz. Main reason why I will never bother with CRT ever again.

Maybe you were streching the resolution limits and the monitor wasn't well kept / top of the line model?

I'm lucky because I started electrotech class when these flatscreens came in and we were thaught how CRT is superior. OFC back then I thought flatscreens must be way better .

I think the coolest thing about CRT is exactly that: how good it looks at 85 hz plus.

This means we have plenty of time per frame to use (for multi viewing etc. ) with CRT derivatives.

No such stuff without high velocity ( hold-display ).

Can't wait to test this, MEMS vs LC. I think LC will be "flickery", and MEMS will be as good as 2D displays. IMO 120hz is pretty much, & LC dynamic behavior is bad.

with CRT, 85Hz is ALWAYS 85Hz, resolution and screen model aside.


shutter glasses aren't 120Hz btw, both lenses are flickering at 60Hz. oh and the "shutter lag" probably makes them LESS flickerish.

whatever, everyone has an opinion ,let s leave it at that. (BTW I was talking about 2D 85hz, eg. 85 per eye, I don't like 60 per eye that much, want 120 per eye as soon as possible : DD )

Being flickerfree with 1ms frame length at 100hz (thats 1/10 of LCD's 10ms for easy math) , is impressive no matter how we look at it.

Thats why CRT is high velocity display capable depicting fast action sequence , and LCD is a hold blur display, incapable, and TruMotion™ stuff had to be "invented" (they "invented" flicker ) .

Yep, they "invented" flicker the same day that CRTs came out.

well if CRt is flicker , then LCD is an,,, ipod

I think LG should make autostereo dishwasher and fridge

I don't understand what that picture means. If anything, my experience has been the opposite, with LCDs being sharper.

Persistence lag , and simulated hold blur, I still can't beleive you think hold mode does you nothing bad. How can you beleive that Im so unsure. Theres no free lunch, a display won't be 10x brighter with hold mode and you can't expect you won't pay the price! This is a very serious rendering error, the ugliest trade off of ugly trade offs. Then if you supplant hold with frame interpolation 240hz, thats another can of worms.

Actually LCD is not sharper, LCD is not sharp, it has bad screendoor, & in my experience quality its so bad, it even makes films look like a bad videogame, compared to CRT (thats rather oppsosite , makes up for bad graphix with high quality,good colors, and unbelievably dark contours,imo, 2D CRT is way better than TN 3D).

DLP at 60hz is like you submerge everything into a high viscosity fluid, time domain is very bad.

Hopefully new 60hz per eye standard comes already, and we can forget about bad time domain once and for all.

Worse LCD screendoor:
http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/L ... matrix.jpg

better CRT 'screendoor':

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... loseup.jpg

That picture is so fake. They probably just took the same screenshot and did a motion blur filter in Photoshop.

I know CRT still has its diehard supporters, but modern LCD is way better than CRT in my opinion. I dont know if its the fact its widescreen, or if its just that LCD is brighter or has better color reproduction or what, but my frag rate @ COD4 increased about 20% when I went from my 22" CRT (pretty much top of line at the time, does over 200hz depending on resolution) to my 26" 1920x1200 Viewsonic. I think it was just easier to see people...

See so many benifits with LCD/LED
1) way too lighter then CRT consider 24" lcd weight/23" CRT weight
2) LCD/LED Consumes less power so has much greener carbon footprint
3) Saves your power bill easy on your pocket
4) occupies very less place at your desk,you can wall-mount it too.


Few limitations
1) Best at native resolution only. Go for two step down in resolution like if native is full HD then if you set 1280X900 or 1366X768 and you have noticable jaggy/Distorting looking picture.(i don say bad but yes not good as native res)

2) Limited view angle (10 to 12 digree)if you go for line-interleaved 3D (FPR)

3) Still i too believed CRT images more crisp (vivid,not sharp- As lcd has much sharpness undoubtly,but its too much to visually hurt your joy of watching if set too high!)

every thing has ups & downs but LCD/LED is still in win over many points

-flatscreen bias guys can't into displaytech ^^

Skip the middlemen, go from CRT , to DLP.

Yup, lets all go to DLP. I will get rid of this crappy 1" thick, 28" LCD I have on my desk and replace it with a projector and a rear projection panel. Lets not forget the mirror to fold the optical path, so I can trick the thickness from 6 feet to a a mere 3 feet!

Trito, I think people agree CRT/DLP is better, nobody totally disagrees. But it is just not practical for doing computer work! Maybe for a home theater, but only the most hardcore people have the space to devote to a DLP setup for browsing the internet/watching short videos/etc, and most of them do not want to have to keep their room totally dark.

OLED is the future, anyways.

Theres Must Be a Reason Why Only 0.1% of monitor sales are "3D"

-either the monitors are or 3D is

-take your pick!

Wouldn't bet on OLED, its flawed beyond belief I would rather bet they never solve it , there are much better technologies that won't take another 20 years to develop, but 1-2.

Ever heard of QLED?


& Totally dark room why? Ever tried hi gain screens? Rear projection screen? Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't want to play in total dark room with flight sim.

Yes, I agree that LCDs are not very good for 3D, and DLP gives a better experience. But most of what people do on the computer is not in 3D! People need something that is practical for everyday use. If you are a super hardcore gamer who can devote an entire room purely to 3D gaming, then yes, DLP is the best choice. I completely and wholly agree with you. Unfortunately, that is a lot of space! I am not sure what it is like where you live, but in southern California (USA), land/real estate is very expensive. I live in the equivalent of a single room studio apartment, so there is no room to have a giant rear projection setup. If I wanted to upgrade to a larger apartment with another room, it would be at least $800 a month more than my current place. And frankly, if I did have two rooms, I would probably use it for things other than 3D gaming! This is why HMDs fascinate me so much, they provide an immersive experience in a small space.

And OLED is not "flawed beyond belief", most of the big problems have been solved. With color filter based panels, we have fixed the problem of the colors degrading over time, and there are already commercial products coming to market. Yes, I have heard of QLED, and it is essentially the same as OLED (In terms of switching time, pixel structure, etc), the only difference is in material compounds. QLED is great, too, but it will be a lot longer than 1-2 years before we see mainstream displays using the tech.

yes lets just totally darken the room, and lets just totally forget that a projector rig can be set up just about everywhere, with acrylic RP screen

-biased straw man argument

& QLED is here in 2012, while OLED can go down the drain for all I care.

It is not a straw man argument, it is 100% relevant to the discussion. DLP is technically superior, it is better for 3D, you are right. But it is not practical for most people! Do you really disagree with that? And no, you cannot just "set it up anywhere". With front projection, yes, but rear projection takes up a LOT of room, even with show throw projectors. Do you even use a rear projection DLP setup yourself, or just go on and on about how everyone should use one?

And wow, 2012, that is soon! Got any references on that? Because last I checked, QLED displays were still in the highly experimental stage.

I also agree that DLP is very good for both 2D and 3D, but you never choose a technology on its technical merits only, you need to also account for price, resolution and life expectancy for example. For now 1080p 3D DLP projectors are beyond reach for most people, the recent HD33 from Optoma isn't even 1080p in 3D although it costs $1500, when 3D monitors of this resolution or better can be found for less than $300. And 2000-3000 hours of life compared to 20000+ doesn't put it in the same league as 3D monitors or TVs either. Each type of display has its particular use, you can't compare monitors, TV and projectors, they don't fit the same purposes or constraints. And I've got a DLP 3D projector btw, but I don't use it like a TV or a monitor.