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.
cybereality wrote:
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.
skyguy wrote:
Also I really don't see this half resolution people keep talking about.
I did with my Trimon monitor. It was very apparent.
skyguy wrote:
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.
cybereality wrote:
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.