Samsung LCD Turns 2D Games Into 3D Games
Samsung is finally rolling out its 750 and 950 series of stylish desktop LED monitors.
Samsung is finally rolling out its 750 and 950 series of stylish desktop LED monitors. We are especially interested in the 950 series (available in 23 and 27 inch), as it has a 2D-to-3D converter when connected to PCs, game consoles, Blu-ray players and other set-top boxes.
How well does it work? We have no idea as we haven't seen them since CEs 2011, where access to them was very limited. However, Samsung claims they deliver "vibrant colors", "100% photo accuracy" and a high-quality image in 120 Hz. The marketing staff worked overtime and promises features such as an "ultra clear panel", "magic angle view", and "Mega DCR." And yes, all that 3D greatness requires active shutter glasses.
Other specs include a response time of 2ms, a contrast ratio of 1000:1, a resolution of 1920x1080, as well as a viewing angle of 170 degrees. What we don't know is the exact availability in the U.S. (Samsung is rolling the monitors out in Asia first) and the price. However, it appears that the 27-inch 3D model is selling for about $750 across Asia (a pair of proprietary active shutter glasses is included).
Agree. I don’t like the trend of new monitors only being 1920 x 1080 on the high end. With this technology Samsung could easily reach 2560 x 1600 resolution on the 27" model.
There are folks who say you can't notice the difference, but to me, 120Hz feel smoother.
Note that I'm not making any arguments for or against THIS monitor - it does look gimmicky - I'm just saying don't knock 120Hz monitors just because they're pitched as "3D". I will also say that the picture quality and viewing angles on all of the 3D monitors I've seen - including the one I have suck compared to the current lower-refresh offerings - so it really depends on your priorities... for gaming I think a 120Hz monitor is better.
Cheers,
CList
Given the fact that most web pages and documents are read vertically, and most hardcore computer users couldn't give a crap about watching movies on their computer, I can easily see why people would prefer the non-HD ratio. My ideal would be as Transsive describes; IPS, 120Hz, and 1920x1200, but I know it's unlikely that such a monitor will be made.
Gimmick. Worthless stuff revived from the 50s
The problem is, this isn't the same 3d USED IN THE 50s. Of course ignorance is so common now-a-days. The 3D in the 50s was used to make images pop out of the screen, the 3d used nowadays is used to make the game more immsersive by giving you more view of your environment, more like you would see it in real life...
Yes a zombie pooping out of my screen is supposed to immerse me. Anyway this screen is conversion to 3D and not real 3D so expect just some pop up stuff and not "immersive" 3D
I'm skeptical that it really does give you "more view of the environment" (at least, in a way that does actually provide you with more information) and such but I recognise that it is appreciated by many people and so I don't see a problem with companies catering to such people. It's not like this is their only focus and I'm pretty sure an earlier THWG article actually showed coverage of samsung focusing on better "standard" monitors. 3D TVs for people who like 3D and standard TVs for people who like standard TVs.
People who still think it's a gimmick should either read around because no reviewer said it's a waste of money and came back dissapointed, or go to an actual demonstration of 3D in Gaming. You will be quickly blown away by the imersiveness of any game you play that actually works properly. with Nvidia 3D-ready it's actually like %80 of games or so. Basically every game you would actually play will work to an extent that it actually improves the experience. 3D is a natural extension of 2D, and it is hard to see otherwise. Why would you ever expect to be immersed fully in a game that is missing a whole freaking dimension? Moreover what do you lose from switching to 3D? (aside from money)