Samsung LCD Turns 2D Games Into 3D Games

Status
Not open for further replies.

tmax

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2007
107
0
18,710
8
[citation][nom]ReggieRay[/nom]Gimmick and I will keep my 1920 x 1200 Samsung monitor, not some TV standard, 1080P.[/citation]

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.
 

clist

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2008
50
0
18,640
1
The nice thing about 120Hz monitors is running them at 120Hz for 2D gaming. It makes your 120FPS video card rate actually mean something. If your monitor is 60Hz or 75Hz (as most LCDs are) then the FPS of your video card is not what you're seeing.

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
 

clist

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2008
50
0
18,640
1
Bad math man, I think you mean 120 pixels ...as in; "an extra 10%"?

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.
 

jasonpwns

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2010
415
0
18,790
1
These people actually think modern 3d is a gimmick? At first I thought 3d was a gimmick until I actually tried it in video games. Do you people realize how much depth it adds in platformers such as prince of persia? It also adds more immersion to games such as minecraft.
 

Userremoved

Distinguished
Feb 27, 2010
1,276
0
19,310
14
[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]These people actually think modern 3d is a gimmick? At first I thought 3d was a gimmick until I actually tried it in video games. Do you people realize how much depth it adds in platformers such as prince of persia? It also adds more immersion to games such as minecraft.[/citation]
Gimmick. Worthless stuff revived from the 50s
 

jasonpwns

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2010
415
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]Userremoved[/nom]Gimmick. Worthless stuff revived from the 50s[/citation]

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...
 

Userremoved

Distinguished
Feb 27, 2010
1,276
0
19,310
14
[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]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...[/citation]
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
I just want one so my games can run 120 fps vsynced even if it is just "2d". Since I have played on a 26" and felt it was too big I am aiming for the 23" 950. I must have one!
 

Kileak

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2010
81
0
18,630
0
Wait for passive 3D monitors, active shutter is so damn annoying, imagine active shutter + fps drops in a FPS? Insta-headache!

 

FullBurstMode

Distinguished
May 23, 2011
23
0
18,510
0
I'd agree that 3D is a gimmick but this is keeping in mind that gimmicks aren't necessarily bad things.

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.
 

jamie_1318

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2010
188
0
18,710
5
why would I buy a monitor that faked 3D when there are monitors that do real 3D with 2/3 platforms mentioned? I don't get it. Anyways I already ponyed up and got a Mitsubishi 3D DLP 3 years ago, an Nvidia 3D vision pack and never looked back. The product above looks absolutely average compared to most devices that already exist

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)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ignorance is bliss? guys, you're making ridiculous claims here.
2D-3D is optional, you'll rarely be using it; it just makes some parts of images pop out of the screen, and its quite cool. But the thing is, that's actually a very, very minor feature. The #1 feature is the ability to play 3D content that arrives as 3D content (as in, frame-packed, side-by-side etc.).

I own a 750-series LCD TV, and I use it mostly for gaming and some 3D mkv viewing, and I'd like to say a few things about the claims some of you made:

1. "why would I buy a monitor that faked 3D"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ignorance is bliss? guys, you're making ridiculous claims here.
2D-3D is optional, you'll rarely be using it; it just makes some parts of images pop out of the screen, and its quite cool. But the thing is, that's actually a very, very minor feature. The #1 feature is the ability to play 3D content that arrives as 3D content (as in, frame-packed, side-by-side etc.).

I own a 750-series LCD TV, and I use it mostly for gaming and some 3D mkv viewing, and I'd like to say a few things about the claims some of you made:

1. "why would I buy a monitor that faked 3D" -- This monitor isn't faking 3D, it has an option to take a 2D image and try to make it 3D, but that's an EXTRA feature.

2. "Wait for passive 3D monitors, active shutter is so damn annoying, imagine active shutter + fps drops in a FPS? Insta-headache!" --- passive 3D isn't going to arrive for a long, long time on large screens, for a reasonable price. It might arrive for small screens, intended for 1 viewer, but that's pretty much it. I've had 8-hour long 3D gaming sessions with no headache, and FPS-drops have nothing to do with it, the images for both eyes are rendered in parallel. While it is true that 3D Vision gaming is quite GPU heavy, playing on 720p is just fine in 3D - remember that you're viewing two images, so while 1080p 3D games look amazing, 720p look pretty good too.

3. IPS screens? really, guys? all this hardcore-gamers crap and you want IPS screens. Remember, while those screens are superior (by quite a noticeable margin), they have low response times, and using them in 3D will probably produce some serious ghosting. Using them for gaming in general is a bad idea.

4. Regarding the 16:9 bashing: I used to have a 22" 1680x1050 screen for a long time, and I _loved_ it. Eventually, it died (CCFLs) and I had to get a new one, so I got a 24" 16:9 1080p screen. And, TBH, at those sizes the height doesn't matter as much as it used to. Plus, watching spaghetti-wide-screen movies (2.35:1) isn't as much of a pain as watching them on a 16:10 screen. But on the other hand, that 10% increase in size doesn't come at the expense of anything else, it really is a free 10% increase in size, so 16:9 vs. 16:10 is still a valid argument.

My two cents.

--DDRRE (for some reason this crappy login system says my email is both in use and not in the database simultaneously)
 

eots

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2009
2
0
18,510
0
The 3D quality on this monitor is lousy, I tried several of these monitors and returned them all because of severe ghosting and the back light is pushed so high you can't properly calibrate this monitor, everything looks washed out as a result of being overly bright. Samsung's quality control is horrible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY