New Acer Display Converts 2D Images into 3D

[exfileme]

Acer's new monitor will transform 2D content into 3D without the need for additional hardware and/or software.

New Acer Display Converts 2D Images into 3D : Read more

 

[alhanelem]

why are so many monitors limited to 1080P?
you'd think a 27" LED monitor would at least have a resolution of 1920 X 1200

 

[kristoffe]

cents on the dollar. an extra 120 pixels means big money in volume rollouts of 1,000,000 monitors. I do agree with you though, I always have 1920x1200 for my monitors if I can for a menu or tool set when building 2d/3d and even win/mac main toolbar.

I got a great 28" 1920x1200 i-inc for $279 - $15 rebate then they disappeared. what an amazing monitor. and a V7 24" x1200. 3d version? how cool would that be sub $400?

 

[Thunderfox]

Converting 2d to 3d... yeah. In realtime, no less. I imagine it screws with the shadows and distorts the angle of the picture just enough to trick your eyes into some sort of limited depth perception, but there is no way to create a truly stereoscopic image from a plain flat picture.

 

[tanjo]

[citation][nom]alhanelem[/nom]why are so many monitors limited to 1080P?you'd think a 27" LED monitor would at least have a resolution of 1920 X 1200[/citation]
Since the display will mostly be used for movies (or at least that's the target), a native resolution of 1080p is used for best display quality. For 1200 displays, they have to stretch the content vertically which may distort it or create artifacts... but for a PC display the more pixels the better

I wonder what a Win7 desktop looks like when you force 3D on it?

 

[wiyosaya]

Personally, I have no interest in a technology like this; no thanks, Acer. IMHO, it is "fake" 3D at best. And at that price, my money is best spent on a higher quality monitor. I'm not lining Acer's pockets with my money just because they included a gimmick, er, um, buzz word, in their monitor.

 

[fuc]

samsung s27a750d the best monitor ever!!!

 

[wererat]

I have no interest in "2d to 3d conversion" but I am excited about this monitor because it handles proper 3d content just as well.

A 27" passive 3d screen is quite good, and 3d Vision Blog indicates it'll actually work with the Nvidia "3DTV Play" drivers (prior passive 3d monitors from LG, Zalman, etc. only worked with the Tridef "DDD" drivers.) Unfortunately most of the news articles focus on the least useful feature.

The only downside is the price; at this price level I'd rather pick up a 32" Vizio passive 3d TV.

I'm still waiting for the obligatory "3d is a gimmick" comment.

 

[jgutz2006]

[citation][nom]alhanelem[/nom]why are so many monitors limited to 1080P?you'd think a 27" LED monitor would at least have a resolution of 1920 X 1200[/citation]

I agree with this, I think that 3d will end up just another spec, standard equipment in future devices but not until the industry can just agree on standardizations. I dont care if they settle on 2 or 3, one for glassesless, active and passive shutters but i want to be able to use my generic or Sony glasses on my buddies samsung 3d TV. I made a commend on 4K UHD TV's just the other day, i think its time for manufacturers to mass produce 4096x2160 or 2160P displays and get them to reasonable prices, somewhere where LCD/Plasma displays were 6 years ago. That is what i want, im sick of 1920x1080 and the amazing pixel densities of the small smartphones/tablets tell me that this resolution is very possible. Toshiba has a 55" 4096x2160 ( http://hothardware.com/News/Toshiba-Reveals-55-4K-x-2K-HDTV-Supports-GlassesFree-3D/ )

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Thunderfox[/nom]Converting 2d to 3d... yeah. In realtime, no less. I imagine it screws with the shadows and distorts the angle of the picture just enough to trick your eyes into some sort of limited depth perception, but there is no way to create a truly stereoscopic image from a plain flat picture.[/citation]

you can, and its been done before.

but doing it well in reall time? no.
[citation][nom]tanjo[/nom]Since the display will mostly be used for movies (or at least that's the target), a native resolution of 1080p is used for best display quality. For 1200 displays, they have to stretch the content vertically which may distort it or create artifacts... but for a PC display the more pixels the better I wonder what a Win7 desktop looks like when you force 3D on it?[/citation]

noting gets distorted, if it doesnt use those pixles they are just black. i use mine as a tv/dvd player at times out side of the pc.

 

[dark_lord69]

DAMN!!... I knew it would be expensive!

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]jgutz2006[/nom]I agree with this, I think that 3d will end up just another spec, standard equipment in future devices but not until the industry can just agree on standardizations. I dont care if they settle on 2 or 3, one for glassesless, active and passive shutters but i want to be able to use my generic or Sony glasses on my buddies samsung 3d TV. I made a commend on 4K UHD TV's just the other day, i think its time for manufacturers to mass produce 4096x2160 or 2160P displays and get them to reasonable prices, somewhere where LCD/Plasma displays were 6 years ago. That is what i want, im sick of 1920x1080 and the amazing pixel densities of the small smartphones/tablets tell me that this resolution is very possible. Toshiba has a 55" 4096x2160 ( http://hothardware.com/News/Toshib [...] esFree-3D/ )[/citation]
What's the purpose of having a 2160p TV if we don't have 2160p content?

 

[dalauder]

I wish this article mentioned what kind of drivers it uses for 3D and whether it supports multiple card configurations. I guess it uses NVidia 3D and Tridef for AMD? I'll have to wait for a performance review after this really hits the store shelves.