Do I need 3D Vision-Ready display?

[DragonClaw]

I've managed to get 3D vision 2 Kit in good condition on ebay for reasonable price but I kinda didn't think this through in terms of display.
When I searched the web I found only those ten year old articles about then manufactured 3D Vision-Ready 120Hz displays connected via Dual Link DVI cable but I couldn't find anything about those displays currently available on market connected via DisplayPort.

I've always wanted to get stereoscopic 3D better than red/cyan but never managed to get 3D Vision Kit and supported monitor back then.
Now that I finally got the 3D Vision 2 Kit I would appreciate is someone could explain whether I can buy new 144-240Hz display with G-Sync compatibility and 3D Vision would still work if I set 3D Vision to Generic CRT display or I have to buy older 144Hz display that is certified as 3D Vision-Ready.

[russellk]

The million dollar question! Welcome to the club by the way.

Assuming you just want to game in 3d on a monitor, then the easiest thing would be to buy an older 3d vision monitor, which will almost certainly be a TN based screen. You can still get new 3d vision monitors as far as I'm aware, but haven't looked for a while and they probably aren't advertised as such any more.

There have been mixed reports of people getting it working with VA and IPS screens, but it's unverified and there is no FAQ, so you'll have to see what other people say. If you're talking about about monitors, then IMHO you're talking about 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p, TN, with BFI/strobing/lightboost.

[bo3bber]

The monitor that has the best reputation among people active here is the Asus PG278QR. It's fully 3D Vision certified and will just work with the 3DVision 2 kit. Looks like it's just been discontinued, but is available in some shops.

There are no IPS screens that work, regardless of their fake speed numbers. All have significant crosstalk.

There are some older TN screens that work fine, you might be able run across some used gear that will work for you. Look for monitors that support LightBoost for compatible ones.

There was a thread on the non destroyed NVidia forums that had been up to date regarding all monitors supported. If you can dig that up, it would be a good resource.

[DragonClaw]

The only 3D monitor I could find on market in my country is ASUS VG248QE. My point is that I would like to get new monitor for gaming in general but capable of 3D that would still have good value in future when I get new PC. Also when it comes to display technology my knowledge is very limited.
All I know is that TN panel have worse viewing angle and colors but fastest response time compared to IPS and VA.

What I do not know is how big are the chances that I can have good 3D picture on 240Hz TN panel, 1ms response time G-Sync monitor where 3D Vision were no longer taken into account when manufactured. That is why I decided to ask here to see if anyone could tell what is their experience with new TN panel, fast response monitor and 3D Vision or at least what does make the monitor 3D Vision-Ready.

My lack of knowledge on this matter made me think that 3D Vision should work on any display capable of 120Hz with low respond time. My experience with computer hardware tells me that it won't be that simple.

[Dom]

I would order a DLP projector with at least 1280x720 pixels. A projector will give the best immersion. You will be able to use DLP link LCD glasses or Nvidia's 3d glasses
Optoma and Acer have some 3d ready projectors.

If not a projector the 3d ready monitors are pretty expensive. HDMI 1.4 frame packing is another thing to use without the Nvidia 3d glasses.

I have the benq 3d ready monitor with dvi- d dual link https://www.google.com/search?q=benq+3d ... e&ie=UTF-8

There's benq 3d ready projectors too.

[Skawen]

If You can find in Your country Asus PG27VQ, then I would by it.

[dricks]

The only 3D monitor I could find on market in my country is ASUS VG248QE. My point is that I would like to get new monitor for gaming in general but capable of 3D that would still have good value in future when I get new PC. Also when it comes to display technology my knowledge is very limited.
All I know is that TN panel have worse viewing angle and colors but fastest response time compared to IPS and VA.

What I do not know is how big are the chances that I can have good 3D picture on 240Hz TN panel, 1ms response time G-Sync monitor where 3D Vision were no longer taken into account when manufactured. That is why I decided to ask here to see if anyone could tell what is their experience with new TN panel, fast response monitor and 3D Vision or at least what does make the monitor 3D Vision-Ready.

My lack of knowledge on this matter made me think that 3D Vision should work on any display capable of 120Hz with low respond time. My experience with computer hardware tells me that it won't be that simple.

The best for 3D with minimal crosstalk is
Acer Predator XN253QX
GSync, 240hz, AuOptronic 1.9 panel

[kakashisensei]

sorry posted on the wrong thread

[b4thman]

In summer I get practically cero ghosting in my monitor (dell s2716dg). That is not the case when the temperature lower down in winter.

The BIG problemm with this tech is not ghosting, but the poor peerformance that you get playing (because the double rendering and because the poor optimizacion/cpu cores limitation). Nvidia released Compatibility Mode, (I think) preciselly to combat hte performance lost, but maybe they gave up before developing the idea of CM better.

[russellk]

In summer I get practically cero ghosting in my monitor (dell s2716dg). That is not the case when the temperature lower down in winter.

The BIG problemm with this tech is not ghosting, but the poor peerformance that you get playing (because the double rendering and because the poor optimizacion/cpu cores limitation). Nvidia released Compatibility Mode, (I think) preciselly to combat hte performance lost, but maybe they gave up before developing the idea of CM better.

I agree that warm temps help. All LCD's are sensitive to heat and most 3d displays will perform better once warm. Early 3d displays used to say in the instructions to leave them on for a while to warm up. The crystals switch faster whenwarm.
Ghosting can still be a significant issue with active 3d though, so it's a significant concern for many.

However, I disagree about CM. AFAIK it was Nvidia's belated answer to Tridef 'Power 3d'. It's not real geometry 3d as explained elsewhere and will never be a proper 3d fix. The main advantage is that you don't need to fix shaders (as long as Z buffer is available) so it increased 3d compatibility as a whole, hence the name. The fact that is doesn't suffer from the CPU core bug is just a happy coincidence.

*edit* I've just noticed that it was you I replied to on the other topic about CM. IMHO you need to move on from talking about CM mode as there is no solution there. Unfortunately you either need to upgrade your CPU and/or understand the fundamental differences between compatibility mode and proper 3d.

[b4thman]

I think I understand perfectly the difference. I agree that "proper 3D" (as you call the way we use 3dfixes) is very good, but it is kind of utopia in many scenarios, only when you get decent framerates (and that is not very easy with a lot of games).

Over all, my main objetive is to enjoy games, and to do so I need a lot of ingredients, and of course decent framerates is something important (maybe essential). I don't want to fight against 3dfixes (not at all, I play some games with 3dfixes), I just want to point out that CM gives me the opportunity to play some games that would be totally impossible to play using 3dfixes (if there was 3dfixes for them), and of course playing using 2D is nothing compared to playing in CM.

So, in my opinion CM is important, even if people get stuck to saying that it is a fake 3D (I know it is kind of fake 3D). It is a fake but sometimes it is effective. Of course the quality of the picture is not as good as a good 3dfix, but with many games it is a good middle solution when 3dfix is impossible to be applied. And what I just was saying in the previous post is that Nvidia released CM becouse of some reason, and maybe with a bit more time/work they would have made it better. I think the fundamental problem of CM is the halo, that makes the image not clean. Maybe Nvidia could have fixed that (now we won't know). The problem about geomety is present, but yo can get easily used to thatk.

[russellk]

I think I understand perfectly the difference. I agree that "proper 3D" (as you call the way we use 3dfixes) is very good, but it is kind of utopia in many scenarios, only when you get decent framerates (and that is not very easy with a lot of games).

Over all, my main objetive is to enjoy games, and to do so I need a lot of ingredients, and of course decent framerates is something important (maybe essential). I don't want to fight against 3dfixes (not at all, I play some games with 3dfixes), I just want to point out that CM gives me the opportunity to play some games that would be totally impossible to play using 3dfixes (if there was 3dfixes for them), and of course playing using 2D is nothing compared to playing in CM.

So, in my opinion CM is important, even if people get stuck to saying that it is a fake 3D (I know it is kind of fake 3D). It is a fake but sometimes it is effective. Of course the quality of the picture is not as good as a good 3dfix, but with many games it is a good middle solution when 3dfix is impossible to be applied. And what I just was saying in the previous post is that Nvidia released CM becouse of some reason, and maybe with a bit more time/work they would have made it better. I think the fundamental problem of CM is the halo, that makes the image not clean. Maybe Nvidia could have fixed that (now we won't know). The problem about geomety is present, but yo can get easily used to thatk.

Hi mate, I use both compatibility and proper 3d fixes. They both have their place and I'm not caught up on describing one as fake 3d.

With respect, I don't think you do understand the difference though. The halo is an intrinsic byproduct of compatiblity/Z buffer/non-geometry/fake 3d. There is just no way around it. No 3d method can can magically create data that doesn't exist. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. I also said why I think they did it and we do know that they can't 'fix' it, for reasons already described. No-one can. Only proper geometry based fixes can have no halo.

By the way, I'm happy if my understanding is wrong, I'm here to learn and share, not to be right.

[john105]

It's a month old thread, but since nobody fully answered the OP's questions, I though I do it.

Now that I finally got the 3D Vision 2 Kit I would appreciate is someone could explain whether I can buy new 144-240Hz display with G-Sync compatibility and 3D Vision would still work if I set 3D Vision to Generic CRT display or I have to buy older 144Hz display that is certified as 3D Vision-Ready.

It depends on your definition of "new" because the latest 3D Vision Ready monitor was released in 2018. But yes, you can get a 144-240Hz display with both G-Sync and 3D Vision.

All I know is that TN panel have worse viewing angle and colors but fastest response time compared to IPS and VA.

It used to be that way, but things improved a lot for many TN panels released in the last 10 years or so. The color is not much of a problem and the only angle that is still bad is looking from the far bottom, which nobody really does.

What I do not know is how big are the chances that I can have good 3D picture on 240Hz TN panel, 1ms response time G-Sync monitor where 3D Vision were no longer taken into account when manufactured. That is why I decided to ask here to see if anyone could tell what is their experience with new TN panel, fast response monitor and 3D Vision or at least what does make the monitor 3D Vision-Ready.

My lack of knowledge on this matter made me think that 3D Vision should work on any display capable of 120Hz with low respond time. My experience with computer hardware tells me that it won't be that simple.

Yes, low response time is only one requirement for 3D Ready monitors. Another important thing is to have the correct timings for it in the video driver. Theoretically, you can tune them manually using this tool https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/fo ... tweak-you/ But in practice, it would be very difficult, and even if you do it right, you may end up with a lot of ghosting in case the TN panel in your monitor is not ideal for active 3D. The response time can be different for switching from color A to color B and for switching from color C to color D. The advertised timing is just an average for all combinations of colors. That's why when it comes to an active monitor, you always want an NVIDIA certified one. See the link below for the list.

There was a thread on the non destroyed NVidia forums that had been up to date regarding all monitors supported. If you can dig that up, it would be a good resource.

Here's the link https://forums.geforce.com/default/topi ... -hardware/

[russellk]

It depends on your definition of "new" because the latest 3D Vision Ready monitor was released in 2018. But yes, you can get a 144-240Hz display with both G-Sync and 3D Vision.

Out of interest, can you give an example or two?
Also, I'm obviously making a big assumption but are you the same person who created the spreadsheet on the old forums? I found it really useful so thanks very much
I'm sure the clue is in the username but just thought I'd check. The spreadsheet was useful when I was experimenting with CRU.

[john105]

Out of interest, can you give an example or two?

Check the latest 3D Vision monitors in the list (at the bottom, as they are sorted by the date they were added to the driver). Personally I don't care about G-Sync because it doesn't work with 3D Vision, so I have no idea which ones support it. But I just Googled the bottom 5 and all has G-Sync and are 144-240Hz.

Also, I'm obviously making a big assumption but are you the same person who created the spreadsheet on the old forums? I found it really useful so thanks very much
I'm sure the clue is in the username but just thought I'd check. The spreadsheet was useful when I was experimenting with CRU.

Yes. I used the same nickname on this forum for consistency I'm glad that it helped you. It took a lot of time to make it.