ZALMAN new 3D monitor 32 inch(1920x1080)

[gicko]

At CES 2010 Zalman presented a 32inch 3DMonitor with polarised glasses.

[DmitryKo]

http://www.futurelooks.com/ces-2010-zal ... thusiasts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ZALMAN was also showing off their concept for 3D immersion. Unlike other systems that use shutter glasses, this one uses standard 3D glasses like the ones you used to watch AVATAR 3D. After looking through a ton of demos, I was totally impressed with the performance. Best yet, it didn’t make me nauseous like some other systems on the market. It’s hard to show you what it looks like so you’ll have to take my word for it.

The system was being shown off with a special 32 inch monitor with a resolution of 1920 x 1080, but no price has been set yet. This unit will join the company’s current 22 inch model (ZM-M220W).

I don't really think it's a good idea to use a 32" HDTV set as a computer monitor; I'd rather go for 27" Asus PG276H.

[gicko]

i always prefer ZALMAN because i dont like flickering with shutter glasses!

[cybereality]

Zalman has been showing that 32" model since over a year ago, this is nothing new. Hopefully it will come out one day.

I agree with DmitryKo, 32" might just be a tad too big for a PC monitor. Its certainly overkill.

[BlackShark]

If such a monitor would ever be released for an affordable price, i'm definitely buying it.
The size is indeed scary but it's not too big. I might just have to turn my desk lengthwise in order to get enough space between it and me but it'll be fine.

[Dom]

Hi fellas, I am using a 32 inch lcd 2d panel now for a monitor and at progressive resolutions like 1080p it is clear and has an almost imersive touch to it. I have heard some use a 46 inch or 50 inch for their monitors too. I was going to get a 26 inch but the price difference was not much and so I got the 32 inch. All I can say is that you don't have to move your face in closer to get the feel for scanning around or adjusting your seating for a center position. Look at my setup gaming room here on you tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1 ... g6BV0iw8Ro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its a 4 minute video filming my computer room, It shows my 32 inch setup and all my other displays too but my 32 inch is now where the two monitors are in the video so that my projector can display the whole image without any object in its path. The projector is the unit I use for stereo3d, then just anagraphic glasses on the other displays.

[DmitryKo]

32" might just be a tad too big for a PC monitor. Its certainly overkill

Well, we have a couple of 30" Apple Cinema displays at work (2560x1600), and I don't think it's an overkill. Apple's new 27" iMac has a similar 2560x1440 resolution, and these 4 megapixels make for very nice photo editing and viewing.

However, a standard 32" 1080p TV panel is another story. Even if they cut all the additional processing to lessen the input lag, the pixel pitch is definitely too high to sit as close as you would with a computer monitor panel. If it were 2560x1440 or maybe 3200x1800, I'd give it a try.

[relaxman]

i always prefer ZALMAN because i dont like flickering with shutter glasses!

I dont like the half resolution with visible horizontal lines, and the very small viewing anlge, so i prefer the full resolution, even with little flickering. But in dark, there is hard to visible.

[Likay]

32" overkill? Not for 3D!
When 3d-gaming i wish that my 100" screen was at least one size bigger... The light is more than enough for that and i have room for it... When watching movies i feel 100" is almost too much, at least when aitting three metres away...
However when using the computer for everyday use (internet etc) i doubt 32" is necessary. These are only my personal opinions. There are other factors involved like price and overall quality.

[cybereality]

Well I used to use a 32" 720P HDTV as a gaming monitor. So yeah, it can be fun, but still overkill as a general monitor. A projector is a different story though...