which tech does it use?

Are the glasses colored, polarised, or shutters?

and say, with a 2D movie, how would it know what to make foreground and what to make background? or is it really just using a 120Hz input or something?

Musselswhich tech does it use?

Are the glasses colored, polarised, or shutters?

well if it is like the 21.5" hd zalman which was released 2 months ago it will be using polarised glasses (circular polarised) which is the same tech as the cinemas (i use my cinema glasses for visitors/guests and they work fine).

I really like the zalman polarised 3d effect - i use tridef and iz3d drivers to convert my films/tv and games to 3d through the monitor.

human_errorwell if it is like the 21.5" hd zalman which was released 2 months ago it will be using polarised glasses (circular polarised) which is the same tech as the cinemas (i use my cinema glasses for visitors/guests and they work fine).

I really like the zalman polarised 3d effect - i use tridef and iz3d drivers to convert my films/tv and games to 3d through the monitor.

so they use some kind of software on the PC end? how would it work with consoles or whatever?

Musselsso they use some kind of software on the PC end? how would it work with consoles or whatever?

you use 3rd party drivers to convert to the 3d output needed (l/r interlaced). The 3d monitor cannot change any 3d input to the interlaced effect it needs, so it won't work with 3d bluray/games/tv unless the device which outputs it already outputs it in interlaced l/r 3d (which is why i feel it will only work with a PC). The HDMI standard states that devices should output in l/r side by side format which will not appear as 3d if it goes into the monitor as that - you'd need to route it through a pc or some sort of decoding box for it to work with the monitor.

As for how 2d looks on the monitor it looks fine when not wearing the glasses - you can't tell it is a 3d monitor when displaying 2d. As soon as you put the glasses on though 2d text is hard to read due to it being interlaced but anything which is left/right eye interlaced looks great. Plus there is no flicker or requirement for 120fps output to work well - the monitor is 60hz anyway but both eyes see the same frames, so i can game at 30fps happily on my 21.5" version unlike gamers with active shutter glasses.

**edit**

one thing to be aware about is that this monitor will have sweet spots you need to sit in for the 3d to work - i have to sit directly in front of mine else the polarisation doesn't work and the 3d effect fails - it is fine for 1 or 2 people to see it at once, maybe more if you sit back a bit, but more than that and some people will not get the proper 3d effect.

You know, it's a shame that 3D monitors have taken off just now. I'm much more interested in super widescreen monitors like this. This is the company that was making the super widescreen that alienware was looking pitching at e3 or whatever back in 2008? That resolution as an LCD flat panel mounted on my wall I think would bring me a hell of a lot more than a 3D monitor. At least for my purposes.

i think that monitor would be sweet, especially for FPS. that looks better than eyefinity as you don't have the monitor borders n whatnot. pretty sweet.

Another TN monitor XD

EarlZAnother TN monitor XD

My thoughts exactly. Let me know when IPS panels are being used in these (or at least PVA, although that seems less likely to be possible), until then it's just meh.

There are way better monitor technologies that could be coming to market. Unfortunately gimmicky 3d is pushed upon the masses once again. It's like the 1950's all over again. While we all could be enjoying beautiful OLED displays in vast and high resolutions, we are getting this garbage. I really hope folks don't go spending all their money on 3d peripherals and monitors, I'd rather see it die.. again.

erockerThere are way better monitor technologies that could be coming to market. Unfortunately gimmicky 3d is pushed upon the masses once again. It's like the 1950's all over again. While we all could be enjoying beautiful OLED displays in vast and high resolutions, we are getting this garbage. I really hope folks don't go spending all their money on 3d peripherals and monitors, I'd rather see it die.. again.

Much as i love OLED it won't be coming to the mass market for a few more years - they are investing heavily in OLED, but why not enable 3D on existing screen technology while we wait? We have screens with very high refresh rates already in TVs which only need a 120hz input to go with the 120hz output and you have a 3D tv. Don't go blaming 3D because OLED isn't ready yet for large screens.

I'm loving 3D at the moment with my passive screen and for cinemas where the film uses 3d properly (read: avatar or how to train your dragon, not clash of the titans). I don't see a problem with 3D - if you don't like it, don't buy it. I enjoy my passive polarised screen and gaming in 3D (as well as watching film/tv content converted from 2d to 3d, which can be a very good effect if tuned right).

I'm hoping that to push passive polarised 3d to the mainstream (which i am sure will replace active shutter tech) we would see 2160p screens which give 1080p to each eye - 3d content will be awesome, and 2d content will get a nice resolution boost. Plus with 100+hz screens (input+output) everywhere we could finally see content being recorded in 100hz instead of 24fps for films which is awful imo.

human_errorI'm hoping that to push passive polarised 3d to the mainstream (which i am sure will replace active shutter tech) we would see 2160p screens which give 1080p to each eye - 3d content will be awesome, and 2d content will get a nice resolution boost.

that would be awesome, the only issue would be having the power to actually do it.

Too bad it is TN, other than that, very awesome. Id love to try one of these Zalman 3D monitors out myself.

human_errorMuch as i love OLED it won't be coming to the mass market for a few more years - they are investing heavily in OLED, but why not enable 3D on existing screen technology while we wait? We have screens with very high refresh rates already in TVs which only need a 120hz input to go with the 120hz output and you have a 3D tv. Don't go blaming 3D because OLED isn't ready yet for large screens.

I'm loving 3D at the moment with my passive screen and for cinemas where the film uses 3d properly (read: avatar or how to train your dragon, not clash of the titans). I don't see a problem with 3D - if you don't like it, don't buy it. I enjoy my passive polarised screen and gaming in 3D (as well as watching film/tv content converted from 2d to 3d, which can be a very good effect if tuned right).

I'm hoping that to push passive polarised 3d to the mainstream (which i am sure will replace active shutter tech) we would see 2160p screens which give 1080p to each eye - 3d content will be awesome, and 2d content will get a nice resolution boost. Plus with 100+hz screens (input+output) everywhere we could finally see content being recorded in 100hz instead of 24fps for films which is awful imo.

The problem with 3D isn't the hardware. The problem is that in the mad rush to push 3D content, we get screwed in the quality writing department. We also get a bunch of crappy quality hardware that floods the market.

I hate this whole 3D craze. Sure, Avatar was pretty, but it was a shit story. The only thing 3D that has released with a decent story is How to Train Your Dragon. The rest has been gimmicky crap.

Give me real advancements, and real quality over flashy gimmicks any day.

EarlZAnother TN monitor XD

Yeah :mad: my wishlist:
S-IPS (or similar), low input lag, 120hz, 24" and LED.

Cool monitor but with no HDMI = Epic Fail...

EditoCool monitor but with no HDMI = Epic Fail...

why bother with HDMI, if it has no speakers?

Musselswhy bother with HDMI, if it has no speakers?

It is kinda silly not to offer it. It's a pretty common connection these days, and some people prefer it. I still prefer DVI, myself. HDMI pulls loose on me sometimes.

Wile EIt is kinda silly not to offer it. It's a pretty common connection these days, and some people prefer it. I still prefer DVI, myself. HDMI pulls loose on me sometimes.

$2 adaptor changes between HDMI and DVI for video, the only advantage to native HDMI is the audio.

Mussels$2 adaptor changes between HDMI and DVI for video, the only advantage to native HDMI is the audio.

But rarely does it take away other input options. It's generally just an additional input option, and additional inputs are always nice.

Wile EBut rarely does it take away other input options. It's generally just an additional input option, and additional inputs are always nice.

an additional option which would cost at least $10,000 for the hdmi manufacturers' liscence, plus royalties for every unit sold. You then have to put in the cost of adding it hardware wise - which will not be very much but if you add everything up that zalman would have to buy is it really worth it as a simple adapter to dvi does work with hdcp content as it is hdcp enabled.

Not saying i wouldn't want it - i'd love to have hdmi on my zalman monitor, but since it can only work with PCs as it lacks a hdmi format 3d decoding chip i think zalman looked at the money they would make from this monitor and decided against a hdmi manufacturers' liscence (especially if they wouldn't be allowed to distribute a 3d monitor with hdmi which can't handle hdmi 3d spec).

Wile EBut rarely does it take away other input options. It's generally just an additional input option, and additional inputs are always nice.

yes, having an extra input is nice.

but as i said, the only difference between HDMI and DVI for a monitor, is if you want audio or not. No monitors that i know of include HDMI (Extra cost, licensing fees, etc) if they don't have speakers to benefit from it.


human error made a good point, if it had HDMI, there'd be a lot of pissy customers who want to hook up a bluray 3D player and cant...