Skip to main content

HP 2311 gt 23" Monitor Review: Passive, Polarized 3D On A Budget

HP 2311 gt: An Appropriately-Priced Entry-Level 3D Display

I was at a trade show a while back, and Battlefield 3 playing a big-screen television using passive stereoscopic 3D. Attendees were kept behind a line several feet back from the display. It looked great, and I asked the presenter if he was achieving full 1920x1080 to each eye, or if each eye was only getting half-resolution. He replied “does it look like full HD?” Touche! From that distance, looking at that specific content, I couldn’t tell the difference.

You don't use a 3D-capable monitor from 10 feet away, though. It's viewed from much closer distances. And that's where an FPR-based polarized screen is going to have the hardest time excelling, almost entirely because each eye only gets half-resolution. But HP's 2311 gt has to do its job under those tough conditions. Fortunately, 3D movies look pretty good from the proper distance and orientation. Games are usually tolerable, though they're made more annoying when small environmental details and text play an important role.

To be fair, HP's pricing reflects the 2311 gt's market position. Available for $250, the 2311 gt costs about $100 less than a similarly-sized 120 Hz display, which is fairly appropriate for an entry-level FPR-based 3D-capable monitor. It even offers a handful of strengths compared to shutter-based systems, such as much more affordable replacement glasses, significantly brighter output, and no 24 Hz frame rate cap in games over HDMI at 1920x1080. It’s a good choice for folks who want to dabble in stereoscopic 3D without spending a lot of money. The brightness issue alone makes it a viable choice in environments awash with ambient light that can't be controlled. It also performs moderately on the Windows desktop.

For discerning gamers hankering to sample a stereoscopic experience, a 120 Hz screen with active shutter glasses is most definitely the way to go on the PC, assuming that's in your budget. Passive, polarized screens make the most sense in a living room setting, where the distance between you and the display is greater. Playing back movies, predominantly, you're less likely to have to suffer through distorted text. Moreover, families with rambunctious kids will appreciate the low cost of replacement glasses.

  • army_ant7
    I forgot if I read this before, but your GPU would have to pump out twice the number of frames for games. As it obviously seems, this is true for active shutter 3D displays. I assume that even if polarized 3D displays "interlace" 2 half resolution frames for 1 3D frame, the processing needed is still for 2 full resolution frames.

    If anyone has better knowledge on this, please correct me. :-)
    Reply
  • hardcore_gamer
    3D Vision..Y U NO SUPPORT ALL 3D DISPLAYS ?
    Reply
  • f-14
    1950's cheap gimmick idea of what 3-D is.
    complete false advertising since it's on a 1D screen.
    save your money.
    Reply
  • PreferLinux
    f-141950's cheap gimmick idea of what 3-D is.complete false advertising since it's on a 1D screen.save your money.You mean 2D.
    Reply
  • mayankleoboy1
    Radeon: Catalyst 12.6 Beta

    dont you mean 12.7 beta?
    Reply
  • vdr369
    Its not worth the price, and if you compare the quality warranty with AOC 23 inch polarized monitor AOC (which has superior color accuracy and 3 years onsite warranty)knock outs this dummy.

    and I liked the acer's 27inch polarized one because it doesn't need a software to convert 2d to 3d.
    Reply
  • army_ant7
    f-141950's cheap gimmick idea of what 3-D is.complete false advertising since it's on a 1D screen.save your money.One thing you have to understand that the fact that even 3D models in a game for example get rasterized to a 2D screen. Are they a gimmick then since 3D or 2D graphics, they still end up being 2D anyway? 3D games give us the perception of a 3D world.
    If these technologies can make us have the illusion of having a 3D view, like in real life, then I wouldn't say it's a gimmick. Are (better) in-game graphics a gimmick? A game world is also an illusion of something that isn't there, just like how it seems that you're saying 3D isn't there because it's a 2D screen.
    BTW, it's 2 different frames from different perspectives shown at the same time, just like how your two eyes work. I assume you have two, if not, I apologize.

    If you don't like stereoscopic 3D, then fine, voice out your opinions, but claiming those opinions of yours as facts is just not right. I don't mean to sound angry, but I felt obliged to "voice" this out. I'm open to debate and I don't mean to piss anyone off.
    Reply
  • hyteck9
    what about dual 3D monitors? Do any video cards even support the setup? Would it even be playable?
    Reply
  • army_ant7
    I think there's a 3 3D monitor setup possible with Nvidia cards. I'm not sure, but if what I've shared in the first ever comment on this thread is true, driving 1 3D monitor is already like driving 2 standard ones. 3 3D's would be like 6 standards.
    AMD cards can drive an Eyefinity of 6 (standard) monitors, so maybe 3 3D's doesn't sound to bad.
    Again, I'm not sure. Just sharing my observations and deductions on this, and I could be very wrong. :-)
    Reply
  • SnickerSnack
    Dual 3D monitors would be unplayable - The inside screen edges would split your character in half 99% of the time.
    Nvidia supports 3D Surround, which is three identical monitors. I haven't seen it in action, but hear it's fabulous. Pretty sure it requires at least a couple of beefy GPUs running in SLI.
    Reply