Best passive 3D 27" PC monitor?

[Riva]

I am going to buy a new passive-3D 27"+ monitor for my PC.
I am looking for one with very good viewing angles (178/178) and matte / anti-gloss finish. I need that for graphic work.

So far I tested LG DM2752D (PZ) and I liked it, especially its IPS screen with great viewing angles.
But I wanted to check if there isn't a better screen with less 'interlace' effect in 3D. Since on DM2752D its quite pronounced.

I am not looking for active-3D (shutter glasses) monitor, because afaik there isn't one available with good viewing angles (178/178) ?

(I don't really have a fixed budget.)

Be glad for any advice

 

[cookybiscuit]

What are you looking to do with it? Passive is absolutely terrible in comparison to active.

 

[Riva]

What are you looking to do with it?

With the monitor ?
Play games in 3D, create graphic (work), watch 3D movies occasionally.

Passive is absolutely terrible in comparison to active.

Please keep in mind this is absolutely subjective.
I tryed both passive and active monitor AND checked some 3D TVs to get a good idea about the technologies.
I played about 6 3D games on both passive and active 3D monitors.
For me, the Active 3D is terrible. Giving me bad eye strain and is impossible to look at with lights on. I tested it on ASUS VG278HR - nVidia 3DVision 2.
More importatnly though, as I wrote above, I didn't find an Active 3D monitor with acceptable viewing angles for work, which is a priority for me. (The Asus has particularly horrible viewing angle artefacts. Impossible to do a decent art work on the monitor.)
If you know a 27" (or bigger), Active 3D monitor with 178/178 viewing angles, I'll be glad if you can let me know.

 

[cookybiscuit]

It's not subjective, active is better. Unless you have hypersensitivity to flicker or something, active is better in every conceivable way. Passive means you have half the vertical resolution, a darker image and more ghosting.

Anyways since you are only wanting passive, I'd suggest just skipping 3D altogether. If you have an Nvidia GPU, it doesn't support passive displays, if you have an AMD GPU, the software is useless. You can get both working with Tridef, but, you don't get any community fixes (Helix Mods. I've had a 3D monitor for a year and can count the games I haven't used it in on one hand) and the FPS drop is astronomical.

If your graphic work is important to you, then you'd probably be better off with an IPS 1440p display, given that 1080p displays are all there are for 3D.

 

[Riva]

cookybiscuit - I asked a specific question: passive-3D 27" monitor with least interlace artefact.
You are not answering my question and instead just keep pushing your opinions about how useless the passive is. I'm sorry but I have no use for posts like that. Please stop trolling.

 

[cookybiscuit]

Well sorry for trying to save you money, I'm just saying, if community made fixes were suddenly abolished my 3D monitor would be on Ebay the next day, it would be completely useless as there are no games that work without it.

 

[Riva]

cookybiscuit - I understand and appreciate you trying to save me from bad decision. But..
I'm a 3D game developer for half of my life and I understand in deep how the 3D tech works. Both in HW and SW.
You are wrong in that nV doesn't work with passive. I made it work with most games I tested.
I know about Tridef and have tested it. Its not perfect, agreed. It does work and is by far not "useless". Yes, the FPS hit is bad (but actually not that much worse then nV3D hit AND artifacts). Again I have tested it and am ok with that. Now lets just stop with the passive/active discussion.

Again - If you know an active monitor with good viewing angles (but 170/160 written in specs from maker is not good) I'll be glad to try it.

 

[rcmarc]

Riva, cooky doesn't understand the issue. Passive is way more better then active. The only advantage active 3d has, is that is viewable from a wider angle. I have the same problem as you, i cant see through a active it gives me after 1minute a terrible headache, it bad for the eye's .

I have googled on "3d led monitor" and it came up with many new 3d monitors. The best way is to look at the millisecond, is is led (i prefer yes) and the resolution.

regards

 

[cookybiscuit]

Passive is way more better then active.

Opinion discarded.

 

[cmbruns]

I am going to buy a new passive-3D 27"+ monitor for my PC.
I am looking for one with very good viewing angles (178/178) and matte / anti-gloss finish. I need that for graphic work.

So far I tested LG DM2752D (PZ) and I liked it, especially its IPS screen with great viewing angles.
But I wanted to check if there isn't a better screen with less 'interlace' effect in 3D. Since on DM2752D its quite pronounced.

I am not looking for active-3D (shutter glasses) monitor, because afaik there isn't one available with good viewing angles (178/178) ?

(I don't really have a fixed budget.)

Be glad for any advice

As far as I know, there are no 27-inch passive 3D monitors available in the USA. Riva- where exactly did you get a demo of the LG DM2752D? There are several options for buying 27-inch *active* 3D monitors, but almost nothing in the passive category at that size.

I use a LG D2743P 27 inch passive 3D monitor for scientific visualization. I suspect my monitor is essentially the same as the one you tested, though the model numbers are slightly different. I ordered mine from South Korea. I also have a bunch of active 3D monitors, and have tested some smaller passive ones. In my opinion, both active and passive 3D each have their unique terrible drawbacks. In some circumstances my passive LG is a thousand times better than any of the active 3D monitors.

All passive 3D monitors show that banding effect, especially when you are seated close to the monitor. So if you can't stand that, I think you won't like any passive 3D monitor. I love my passive 3D monitor, but my biggest complaint is that the vertical viewing "sweet spot" is not straight on, so I need to point the monitor somewhat upward to minimize ghosting. I really wish there were more choices available in the mid-sized passive 3D marketplace. As it is, there is almost nothing (at least in the USA) between 23 inches and 46 inches.

 

[quiddian]

It's not subjective, active is better. Unless you have hypersensitivity to flicker or something, active is better in every conceivable way. Passive means you have half the vertical resolution, a darker image and more ghosting.

Anyways since you are only wanting passive, I'd suggest just skipping 3D altogether. If you have an Nvidia GPU, it doesn't support passive displays, if you have an AMD GPU, the software is useless. You can get both working with Tridef, but, you don't get any community fixes (Helix Mods. I've had a 3D monitor for a year and can count the games I haven't used it in on one hand) and the FPS drop is astronomical.

If your graphic work is important to you, then you'd probably be better off with an IPS 1440p display, given that 1080p displays are all there are for 3D.

You have no idea what the fk you're talking about. Its not even worth trying to explain it to you either.

 

[adamghering]

What are you looking to do with it? Passive is absolutely terrible in comparison to active.

That's pretty bold and relative statement cooky, also limited to your own experience. Depending on the display and setup the passive can be leagues better than active. Active uses a stuttered delivery of the left and right eye that can cause a guaranteed headache to s select group. The progressive delivery of both eyes at once with passive is more natural and can be easier on eye strain, especially with prolonged exposure. Active is brighter and has a better contrast ratio but passive is more display dependent; a good display and implementation can crush an active setup if done well.