![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Acer HN274H 27" 120Hz Monitor
- Thread starter evilsofa
- Start date
OK I just got this monitor. I am using hdmi (cause apparently the built in emitter only
works with hdmi).
Although the demos look great whenever I start a 3d game like burnout paradise
or UT3 I get an error message that my resolution is not compatible with hdmi 1.4 3d.
No matter what resolution I use.
And I can't seem to get 120hz with any resolution when using hdmi.
I am using an evga gtx 480.
Help!!!
works with hdmi).
Although the demos look great whenever I start a 3d game like burnout paradise
or UT3 I get an error message that my resolution is not compatible with hdmi 1.4 3d.
No matter what resolution I use.
And I can't seem to get 120hz with any resolution when using hdmi.
I am using an evga gtx 480.
Help!!!
You should just use the dvi cable that came with the monitor, and set the refresh rate to 120 in the Nvidia video control panel.
I have the same monitor and it does work.
What happened to waiting for the Samsung? I for one am still waiting as its just a few weeks aways and probably/hopefully will be $599 which will end being less then this Acer.
Looks like shit, is the less roundabout description.
Pictures would be awsome.
Exactly.
What I don't understand is what is up with Acer, the GN245HQ looks great (except the off color presets), the H243H is in theory (lots of backlight bleeding reports but every monitor gets that) the best matte gaming TN and is super cheap and G245Hbmid is the best glossy gaming TN that supports 72hz.
One small blurb at DV isn't exactly what I call "seeing the reviews". More to the point is why you keep posting in a thread about a monitor you do not like?
I am also purchasing the Samsung. I buy monitors to take them apart to see how small the edges of the LCD panels are so that the bezels can be made tiny for my custom surround gaming monitor supply business.
So far the colors on the Acer (as in every TN panel) are pretty horrible compared to my 30" IPS displays. 120Hz sure is nice though. Everything sooooooo smooth.
To prevent people from wasting 700$+ on a TN that is horrible even for TN standards?
All you need to know about a TN is in the DV review.
Good color presets? No
Good contrast like every other recently released TN? No
Good response time like a 120hz panel should have? No 5ms TN performance.
geminox
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2005
- Messages
- 173
If everyone has read this thread from beginning to end, I think we all understand by now how much you dislike this monitor (for someone that hasn't really used it yet) based on its reviews.
I'm no LCD guru, and I've only personally owned a few (LG L227WTG, Viewsonic VX2265WM) I've also got dual Dell U2411s at work. I was stuck to using a CRT for the longest time since I was discouraged at the amount of input lag I could "feel" when playing certain FPS games. The Viewsonic and Acer 120hz panels that I've owned have been great gaming monitors. I really could care less about backlight bleeding, viewing angles (I don't expect to be looking at this monitor sideways, or care about anyone else viewing my activity from different angles). I honestly think the PQ is fine. The monitor can be a bit bright but at least I have an OSD whereas I did not with my Viewsonic monitor.
I wanted a 27" monitor that could do true 120hz (and hopefully a resolution higher than 1680 x 1050) and got exactly what I needed. The Samsung alternative may or may not be better, but I can agree with most of the the people who OWN this monitor in saying that we are satisfied with our purchase.
The out of the box settings are atrocious. After calibration with a brightness level set at zero, the monitor is subjectively looking quite nice. With proper adjustments, the perceived contrast ratio and color quality are much improved. It is one of the better TN panels I have seen. I would definitely rate it higher than the Benq 24" 120Hz that I tested a while ago.
The extra 3" diagonal on this 27" is quite a benefit. I am thoroughly enjoying this 27" panel more than its 24"/23" cousins. As an old hardcore FPS gamer, 120Hz is just an extremely nice feature. I would say though that the bezel housing and stand offering are pretty low end. The touch sensitive buttons are a nice touch. I would suspect a serious user would be using a monitor arm anyway.
Now the price is too expensive. They can charge $700 though as they are the first ones out with a 27" 120Hz. Without the glasses I think the monitor should be $500 at most and with the glasses $600 at most. So far I would honestly say that I am not disappointed with the unit. Going from 3x 30" IPS to a single TN is quite a change but I am off for some game testing...
The extra 3" diagonal on this 27" is quite a benefit. I am thoroughly enjoying this 27" panel more than its 24"/23" cousins. As an old hardcore FPS gamer, 120Hz is just an extremely nice feature. I would say though that the bezel housing and stand offering are pretty low end. The touch sensitive buttons are a nice touch. I would suspect a serious user would be using a monitor arm anyway.
Now the price is too expensive. They can charge $700 though as they are the first ones out with a 27" 120Hz. Without the glasses I think the monitor should be $500 at most and with the glasses $600 at most. So far I would honestly say that I am not disappointed with the unit. Going from 3x 30" IPS to a single TN is quite a change but I am off for some game testing...
Great! Could you let us know which fast action games you test on and how the Acer compares to your IPS monitors and any others you've experience with (other 120hz? CRT?) in terms of the visual display of fast paced action with high angle movement? I'd really appreciate it. Product stats are one thing but subjective experience is all that matters in the end.
jincuteguy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 408
Is 120hz really that good compare to 60hz? Like is it really worth paying for a 120hz monitor (not for 3D)?
I took the monitor apart. It was actually more of a pain versus taking my 30" monitors apart. The good news is the bezel is not very wide, but it is also very thin! It is about a centimeter thick. This should make overlapping screens cause much less geometry issues.
It is amazing how much wasted space manufacturers design into their bezels. There is a good 1cm air gap between the actual LCD/backlight panel and the edge of the plastic bezel housing. This monitor definitely requires a bezel removal if you are doing surround. The largest issue for me though is that it being edge lit LED back lighting, the LEDs extend out from the edge of the housing. This makes high modification improbable for minimizing bezel gap. Only direct source lighting like CCFL or direct LED will allow for that.
It is amazing how much wasted space manufacturers design into their bezels. There is a good 1cm air gap between the actual LCD/backlight panel and the edge of the plastic bezel housing. This monitor definitely requires a bezel removal if you are doing surround. The largest issue for me though is that it being edge lit LED back lighting, the LEDs extend out from the edge of the housing. This makes high modification improbable for minimizing bezel gap. Only direct source lighting like CCFL or direct LED will allow for that.
So how is the game testing?
I'm curious because I have 2x 30" ips and I can either get one more 30" ips and do surround 2D gaming or I can get this and use it for single monitor 3D or 120hz gaming...
Which do you like more? 3x30" or 1x 27" 3D? No many people have really tried both so your insights would be valuable.
Thanks.
I hate either / or solutions. I played Portal 2 on the Acer for a couple of hours last night. Man 120Hz is so awesome. Everything seems so life-like and fluid. 27" is the perfect size for a 1080P 120Hz screen. I thought the pixel pitch would be too large but it is actually quite a nice screen to use.
Now I have not purchased this monitor for 3D. I only value the 120Hz 2D. Just for the heck of it I charged up the included glasses and gave 3D some testing time. The first time I tried 3D was back on my 22" Viewsonic last fall. I found 3D gaming woefully disappointing. Trying 3D with the Acer and with all game settings in games like Metro2033 maxxed to the hilt and still getting 120+FPS on a Quad-SLI system only cemented my previous impression of 3D. I do not like shutter glasses 3D technology at all. I'd rather be poked with a cattle prod all day than do 3D gaming with those annoying flickering glasses. 2D at 120Hz is far superior game play in my humble opinion.
Now do not get me wrong, 3x 30" IPS in portrait is an amazingly immersive experience. Six times the resolution of 1080P on a 50" wide display setup is hard to beat. Now my system is ridiculous overkill for a single 1080P 120Hz screen. If I were to build the perfect system around this Acer, it would be a 2500K with Tri-SLI 1.5GB GTX 580s or 3x unlocked 6950s.
Now I keep talking about 120Hz because I love it so. That is why I took the Acer apart, to perform a proof of concept on 3x 27" 120Hz 1080P screens in portrait. I am not sure if it is placebo, but 120Hz seems to be less straining on my eyes. Maybe it is having 3x 30" bright monitors staring at me, or maybe it is the 90-degree rotation of the pixels in portrait that causes more strain. I have noticed everything is designed for a vertical pixel layout vs horizontal. This isn't that noticeable in games but it is in Windows and reading text etc.
Right now I am back to the either / or situation. Have that beautiful 120Hz and mediocre picture quality or have the IPS beautiful colors, black levels, two times the resolution etc but stuck at mediocre 60Hz. One great thing about the Acer being LED back lit is the heat level. This thing is barely warm to the touch. My 3x 30" CCFL back lit setup feels like having a space heater on my desk.
Not sure what direction I am going to go yet as playing games at 120+FPS on a 120Hz screen is very very smooth, fluid and easy on the eyes. I will also test out the Samsung 27" 120Hz offerings before I make a final setup decision.
PS: Sorry for no pics on the Acer disassembly. I went to grab the camera but the battery was dead. Plugged it into the charger but I got so "into" the technical challenge of disassembling the Acer without breaking anything that I forgot about the camera.
Now I have not purchased this monitor for 3D. I only value the 120Hz 2D. Just for the heck of it I charged up the included glasses and gave 3D some testing time. The first time I tried 3D was back on my 22" Viewsonic last fall. I found 3D gaming woefully disappointing. Trying 3D with the Acer and with all game settings in games like Metro2033 maxxed to the hilt and still getting 120+FPS on a Quad-SLI system only cemented my previous impression of 3D. I do not like shutter glasses 3D technology at all. I'd rather be poked with a cattle prod all day than do 3D gaming with those annoying flickering glasses. 2D at 120Hz is far superior game play in my humble opinion.
Now do not get me wrong, 3x 30" IPS in portrait is an amazingly immersive experience. Six times the resolution of 1080P on a 50" wide display setup is hard to beat. Now my system is ridiculous overkill for a single 1080P 120Hz screen. If I were to build the perfect system around this Acer, it would be a 2500K with Tri-SLI 1.5GB GTX 580s or 3x unlocked 6950s.
Now I keep talking about 120Hz because I love it so. That is why I took the Acer apart, to perform a proof of concept on 3x 27" 120Hz 1080P screens in portrait. I am not sure if it is placebo, but 120Hz seems to be less straining on my eyes. Maybe it is having 3x 30" bright monitors staring at me, or maybe it is the 90-degree rotation of the pixels in portrait that causes more strain. I have noticed everything is designed for a vertical pixel layout vs horizontal. This isn't that noticeable in games but it is in Windows and reading text etc.
Right now I am back to the either / or situation. Have that beautiful 120Hz and mediocre picture quality or have the IPS beautiful colors, black levels, two times the resolution etc but stuck at mediocre 60Hz. One great thing about the Acer being LED back lit is the heat level. This thing is barely warm to the touch. My 3x 30" CCFL back lit setup feels like having a space heater on my desk.
Not sure what direction I am going to go yet as playing games at 120+FPS on a 120Hz screen is very very smooth, fluid and easy on the eyes. I will also test out the Samsung 27" 120Hz offerings before I make a final setup decision.
PS: Sorry for no pics on the Acer disassembly. I went to grab the camera but the battery was dead. Plugged it into the charger but I got so "into" the technical challenge of disassembling the Acer without breaking anything that I forgot about the camera.
Last edited:
Thanks for the preview Vega It's more or less what I expected, I too would enjoy fluid action versus accurate colors since I feel eye-strain in fast paced games at 60hz (even more so since I fail most colorblind tests :/). A 27" 120hz monitor will be a part of my build later this year so I look forward to your reviews to help me make my decision.
It's more or less what I expected, I too would enjoy fluid action versus accurate colors since I feel eye-strain in fast paced games at 60hz (even more so since I fail most colorblind tests :/). A 27" 120hz monitor will be a part of my build later this year so I look forward to your reviews to help me make my decision.Thanks for the discussion.
It sounds like the 120hz is really nice. I used to use 120hz with a Sony CRT years ago. I miss the smooth fluid movement. I'm looking forward to getting a 27" 120hz. I like the bezel of the Asus but I don't like glossy and noone can confirm yet it the upcoming Asus is glossy/matte/semi-gloss. I understand the Samsung is semi-gloss.
For games, I would think smoothness of motion is more important than perfect colors - unless the person is super color critical. It's too bad after all these years of monitor development we still don't have perfect monitors.
CRT -> good colors, 120hz, low input lag
- small screen size - giant heavy box
LCD -> either good colors with 60hz and more input lag OR 120hz and good input lag with mediocre colors
OLED -> sounds perfect but doesn't really exist yet
If you want to post pictures of the Acer without the bezel - that would be neat to see. The ugly large bezel is the main thing that stopped me from getting it and I don't have the ability to make a new bezel for it.
It sounds like the 120hz is really nice. I used to use 120hz with a Sony CRT years ago. I miss the smooth fluid movement. I'm looking forward to getting a 27" 120hz. I like the bezel of the Asus but I don't like glossy and noone can confirm yet it the upcoming Asus is glossy/matte/semi-gloss. I understand the Samsung is semi-gloss.
For games, I would think smoothness of motion is more important than perfect colors - unless the person is super color critical. It's too bad after all these years of monitor development we still don't have perfect monitors.
CRT -> good colors, 120hz, low input lag
- small screen size - giant heavy box
LCD -> either good colors with 60hz and more input lag OR 120hz and good input lag with mediocre colors
OLED -> sounds perfect but doesn't really exist yet
If you want to post pictures of the Acer without the bezel - that would be neat to see. The ugly large bezel is the main thing that stopped me from getting it and I don't have the ability to make a new bezel for it.
assassin37
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4
what do you guys think I should do, I have 2 x 580 3gb zotac, also a HN274H 120HZ monitor
and a ZR30W 30 incher, should I go surround with the acer?
and a ZR30W 30 incher, should I go surround with the acer?
I am just going to chime in to say that I am now seriously considering replacing my ZR30w with this monitor or a competing one, when the price is less ridiculous (and preferably offered without glasses).
I got a Dell XPS 17 3D laptop the other day and tried some 3D gaming on it. (Mind you this is just on a GT 550m GPU, but the laptop price was unbelievable at just $1100.) It's amazing. I think the effect, even on the 17" screen, is more immersive than playing on a giant 30" 2D screen. I'm going to play around some more with it but I'm pretty much sold on the concept, considering that I'm already really impressed and that's just with mobile mid-level hardware that can't do 1080p 3D in more demanding games.
I already have two 22" IPS monitors that I can rotate into portrait mode for viewing web pages and documents so that takes care of the problem I'd have relying on a landscape 1080p for overall use.
I got a Dell XPS 17 3D laptop the other day and tried some 3D gaming on it. (Mind you this is just on a GT 550m GPU, but the laptop price was unbelievable at just $1100.) It's amazing. I think the effect, even on the 17" screen, is more immersive than playing on a giant 30" 2D screen. I'm going to play around some more with it but I'm pretty much sold on the concept, considering that I'm already really impressed and that's just with mobile mid-level hardware that can't do 1080p 3D in more demanding games.
I already have two 22" IPS monitors that I can rotate into portrait mode for viewing web pages and documents so that takes care of the problem I'd have relying on a landscape 1080p for overall use.
Last edited:
So I also received this monitor last night and have been playing on it since. I have no experience with 3D monitors, just the 3D display on the XPS 17 I also purchased recently and was very impressed with.
Overall, the experience is quite good. I'm not 100% sure, however, that it is worth the price or working completely properly. ($660 at Tiger Direct, minus $80 or so when I resell the glasses, since I already had a pair from the laptop.)
Here are the issues as I see them:
1. Ghosting.
Not an issue most of the time. Occasionally I'll see faint ghosting and it's like, OK, there's a little ghosting. Doesn't distract me and doesn't detract much at all.
However, there are at least a few cases where it ruins the enjoyment of 3D. So far I've tried L42, BC2, and Portal 2, and Trine. The rest are pretty good, but Portal 2 is really bad with ghosting. Maybe it's the presence of bright lights and lasers and walking beams against dark and dilapidated walls, but it's very distracting. You can set contrast to 0 (default in 3D is 40) but it doesn't help enough. What helps most is moving the 3D slider down from maximum to about 30 or 35%, but then you're giving up the more impressive part of the 3D effect.
On the whole, not a huge deal but I need to go through some more games and maps here to make sure that this is a minority situation.
2. Glasses don't cover everything.
This I find most annoying. It seems that in brighter games, and with brighter real-life lighting, the sides of the glasses (I think it's the sides, at least it displays in my periperhal) are dimly reflecting some things in real life rather than displaying what's on the screen. It's not a defect in the glasses, since I tried the other pair too.
Just now noticing that, in general, the glasses are reflecting real-life light in the sides even with no 3D content on the screen, though I don't remember noticing this when I used the laptop 3D all weekend.
I need to experiment more to see what the issue is - maybe it's just because the screen is bright.
EDIT 1: OK, #2 is just the product of poor design choice for the glasses. They're all glossy, which means the outer parts of the inside of the glasses reflect light, and which also explains why more light makes it worse. Going to see if some duct tape on the sides can sort it out. Obviously, having to apply duct tape to a $100 product is kind of ridiculous. No reason these should have been made with glossy plastic coating.
EDIT 2: The above is only partially accurate. Using duct tape helped maybe 25%. Turns out the real problem is any light that reaches the inside of the glasses reflects. So short of making these things goggles with rubber padding on the sides to keep the light out, there's no solution to this other than to dim the lights.
Overall, the experience is quite good. I'm not 100% sure, however, that it is worth the price or working completely properly. ($660 at Tiger Direct, minus $80 or so when I resell the glasses, since I already had a pair from the laptop.)
Here are the issues as I see them:
1. Ghosting.
Not an issue most of the time. Occasionally I'll see faint ghosting and it's like, OK, there's a little ghosting. Doesn't distract me and doesn't detract much at all.
However, there are at least a few cases where it ruins the enjoyment of 3D. So far I've tried L42, BC2, and Portal 2, and Trine. The rest are pretty good, but Portal 2 is really bad with ghosting. Maybe it's the presence of bright lights and lasers and walking beams against dark and dilapidated walls, but it's very distracting. You can set contrast to 0 (default in 3D is 40) but it doesn't help enough. What helps most is moving the 3D slider down from maximum to about 30 or 35%, but then you're giving up the more impressive part of the 3D effect.
On the whole, not a huge deal but I need to go through some more games and maps here to make sure that this is a minority situation.
2. Glasses don't cover everything.
This I find most annoying. It seems that in brighter games, and with brighter real-life lighting, the sides of the glasses (I think it's the sides, at least it displays in my periperhal) are dimly reflecting some things in real life rather than displaying what's on the screen. It's not a defect in the glasses, since I tried the other pair too.
Just now noticing that, in general, the glasses are reflecting real-life light in the sides even with no 3D content on the screen, though I don't remember noticing this when I used the laptop 3D all weekend.
I need to experiment more to see what the issue is - maybe it's just because the screen is bright.
EDIT 1: OK, #2 is just the product of poor design choice for the glasses. They're all glossy, which means the outer parts of the inside of the glasses reflect light, and which also explains why more light makes it worse. Going to see if some duct tape on the sides can sort it out. Obviously, having to apply duct tape to a $100 product is kind of ridiculous. No reason these should have been made with glossy plastic coating.
EDIT 2: The above is only partially accurate. Using duct tape helped maybe 25%. Turns out the real problem is any light that reaches the inside of the glasses reflects. So short of making these things goggles with rubber padding on the sides to keep the light out, there's no solution to this other than to dim the lights.
Last edited:
^
The game will always look horrifically bad when you set the depth to 100%. 30-40% is what you should have it at.
What you should do is leave it at 30-40% depth, but adjust the convergence. This will make close objects "pop-out" from the screen. The default I think is ctrl+f5 to decrease convergence (less pop-out), ctrl+f6 to increase convergence (more pop-out), ctrl+f7 to save convergence settings for that game. Some games have convergence locked though. You can change some hotkeys in the Nvidia control panel, but I changed all my keys (including the stereoscopic screenshot hotkey which is alt+f1) to different keys through regedit. Also, Portal2 not being very good with 3D vision is normal, as it has some noted problems with shadows and glass reflections right now. If you set the convergence a little bit closer so the back of the portal gun is popping out a bit from the screen, and have the depth at 35%, it should help a bit with the ghosting. At least, it did for me.
As far as #2 goes, I've never really noticed since I always play games or watch 3D videos/movies with the lights off. Maybe thin black electrical tape might do the trick instead of duct tape?
I just bought this monitor a few days ago from Amazon for $660. I'll post a mini-review after I get it. I'm coming from an Alienware AW2310, so I should be able to compare it to that...
The game will always look horrifically bad when you set the depth to 100%. 30-40% is what you should have it at.
What you should do is leave it at 30-40% depth, but adjust the convergence. This will make close objects "pop-out" from the screen. The default I think is ctrl+f5 to decrease convergence (less pop-out), ctrl+f6 to increase convergence (more pop-out), ctrl+f7 to save convergence settings for that game. Some games have convergence locked though. You can change some hotkeys in the Nvidia control panel, but I changed all my keys (including the stereoscopic screenshot hotkey which is alt+f1) to different keys through regedit. Also, Portal2 not being very good with 3D vision is normal, as it has some noted problems with shadows and glass reflections right now. If you set the convergence a little bit closer so the back of the portal gun is popping out a bit from the screen, and have the depth at 35%, it should help a bit with the ghosting. At least, it did for me.
As far as #2 goes, I've never really noticed since I always play games or watch 3D videos/movies with the lights off. Maybe thin black electrical tape might do the trick instead of duct tape?
I just bought this monitor a few days ago from Amazon for $660. I'll post a mini-review after I get it. I'm coming from an Alienware AW2310, so I should be able to compare it to that...
Last edited:
Can you post a link?
I can't find it on Amazon at all and was under the impression it was Newegg only for now.
Thanks for the tip. You're saying to do that for other games as well? Most other games I'm fine with default convergence and 75 to 100% depth. That's after spending a weekend playing at 30 to 40%, though.
Now that I've sorted out the glasses issue vs. the monitor issue, and spent a few more hours with it, I'm really more confident that this is a decent piece of kit.
I spent a few hours in Just Cause 2, which simply looks insane in 3D. I mean, it's just mindblowing. I played through mostly daytime segments to have a better look at 'ghosting' i.e. crosstalk, and I can say that it's not really an issue overall, with Portal 2 being the odd man out.
Can you see it occasionally? Sure, if you're scrutinizing the screen looking for it. But I was way too busy having a blast and remaining awestruck by all the effects. It was never distracting. If you are bothered by it, you can decrease the contrast and the PQ won't turn to shit like it does when you turn the contrast of a normal monitor down, as long as you keep it above 5 or 10.
Before I plugged in this monitor, I had the other monitors in my sig running: what I think is the best TN monitor I've ever seen (Asus VE278Q) and one of the best IPS ever made (HP ZR30w). Now there's obviously no point comparing to IPS if you're looking for IPS-inherent strengths but the 2D PQ is almost right up there with the Asus. It's not like those old TN monitors with awful tinges and color biases and hopelessly inaccurate colors. (I reduced Blue to 80 and left the other two values at 100.)
It does have the same inescapable pixel density issue for desktop use - that is, not the crispest quality since it's 1080p over 27", which is why I'm going to flank it with two IPS portrait mode monitors for non-gaming use. In games, you can mask this issue with extra AA so it's not particularly relevant unless your GPU setup can't handle that.
I'm disappointed that it has no USB ports, though it does have 3 HDMI ports for...I guess a BR, PS3, and 360 (though I read 360 3D doesn't work on these new HDMI 1.4 monitors).
The styling is OK, nothing terrible. Base only tilts and it's not the best quality, but it's stable. Subdued touch controls are a bit sensitive, but better than having to click actual buttons.
Finally, about playing in 2D with no 60hz cap: it's appreciably smooth. I won't say that it's an amazing difference, at least not to me, but playing BC2 or L4D2 at 100+ FPS in 2D was certainly more effortless in terms of movement and flow of things on the screen relative to me (as I moved around). It's nice, but I certainly wouldn't pay $700 for it.
Which brings us to price: at $660 (Tiger Direct), you're definitely paying a premium for the tech (first 27" monitor, 3D emitter built in, glasses), though that's nothing new in this world and $660 is better than $700. If you already have or don't need glasses you can sell those for at least $80.
All in all I'm quite happy with it. It's got a 3-year warranty so that's nice and there are no significant flaws, at least based on my expectations.
Now that I've sorted out the glasses issue vs. the monitor issue, and spent a few more hours with it, I'm really more confident that this is a decent piece of kit.
I spent a few hours in Just Cause 2, which simply looks insane in 3D. I mean, it's just mindblowing. I played through mostly daytime segments to have a better look at 'ghosting' i.e. crosstalk, and I can say that it's not really an issue overall, with Portal 2 being the odd man out.
Can you see it occasionally? Sure, if you're scrutinizing the screen looking for it. But I was way too busy having a blast and remaining awestruck by all the effects. It was never distracting. If you are bothered by it, you can decrease the contrast and the PQ won't turn to shit like it does when you turn the contrast of a normal monitor down, as long as you keep it above 5 or 10.
Before I plugged in this monitor, I had the other monitors in my sig running: what I think is the best TN monitor I've ever seen (Asus VE278Q) and one of the best IPS ever made (HP ZR30w). Now there's obviously no point comparing to IPS if you're looking for IPS-inherent strengths but the 2D PQ is almost right up there with the Asus. It's not like those old TN monitors with awful tinges and color biases and hopelessly inaccurate colors. (I reduced Blue to 80 and left the other two values at 100.)
It does have the same inescapable pixel density issue for desktop use - that is, not the crispest quality since it's 1080p over 27", which is why I'm going to flank it with two IPS portrait mode monitors for non-gaming use. In games, you can mask this issue with extra AA so it's not particularly relevant unless your GPU setup can't handle that.
I'm disappointed that it has no USB ports, though it does have 3 HDMI ports for...I guess a BR, PS3, and 360 (though I read 360 3D doesn't work on these new HDMI 1.4 monitors).
The styling is OK, nothing terrible. Base only tilts and it's not the best quality, but it's stable. Subdued touch controls are a bit sensitive, but better than having to click actual buttons.
Finally, about playing in 2D with no 60hz cap: it's appreciably smooth. I won't say that it's an amazing difference, at least not to me, but playing BC2 or L4D2 at 100+ FPS in 2D was certainly more effortless in terms of movement and flow of things on the screen relative to me (as I moved around). It's nice, but I certainly wouldn't pay $700 for it.
Which brings us to price: at $660 (Tiger Direct), you're definitely paying a premium for the tech (first 27" monitor, 3D emitter built in, glasses), though that's nothing new in this world and $660 is better than $700. If you already have or don't need glasses you can sell those for at least $80.
All in all I'm quite happy with it. It's got a 3-year warranty so that's nice and there are no significant flaws, at least based on my expectations.
@LucJoe
Odd, it seems to have disappeared from Amazon.... They must have sold out like newegg, I'm guessing? It was an amazon purchase, but the supplier was Tigerdirect. Here's proof!
EDIT: Yup, here it is: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004YCMEJU/
@Matrices
It is really your choice what you want the depth at, but through personal experience I have found 30-40% is the best, while increasing convergence from there gives the best 3D effect. I enjoy seeing the image "pop-out" from the screen instead of an image that just starts at the screen level and then extends way into the screen. That is just me though, try increasing the convergence on some games, go up close to an object, and get a feel for it.
I agree on Just Cause 2 being insane in 3D. If you put the convergence way up, you will feel like ducking as you are being shot at, since the enemy bullets come flying out of the screen at you!
Odd, it seems to have disappeared from Amazon.... They must have sold out like newegg, I'm guessing? It was an amazon purchase, but the supplier was Tigerdirect. Here's proof!
EDIT: Yup, here it is: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004YCMEJU/
@Matrices
It is really your choice what you want the depth at, but through personal experience I have found 30-40% is the best, while increasing convergence from there gives the best 3D effect. I enjoy seeing the image "pop-out" from the screen instead of an image that just starts at the screen level and then extends way into the screen. That is just me though, try increasing the convergence on some games, go up close to an object, and get a feel for it.
I agree on Just Cause 2 being insane in 3D. If you put the convergence way up, you will feel like ducking as you are being shot at, since the enemy bullets come flying out of the screen at you!
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Not to throw the thread offtrack but has anybody checked out this 3D monitor?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...17145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=B001L985XS
It's only 24" and a little pricey at $2,000. But apparently it can give you the 3D effect without using active shutters. Instead you wear '3d circular polarizing filter glasses' and the TV does the rest. Might be interesting??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_3D_glasses
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...17145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=B001L985XS
It's only 24" and a little pricey at $2,000. But apparently it can give you the 3D effect without using active shutters. Instead you wear '3d circular polarizing filter glasses' and the TV does the rest. Might be interesting??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarized_3D_glasses
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I'm going to have to go with the
icon on that one.Pay $2,000 for a 24" monitor because you get to wear one type of glasses over another? Really? Who cares what kind of glasses you wear?
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Thanks for the advice, I'll try that. It's really odd that there's no option to save your depth settings per game (though it seems like you can save convergence options), or an option that shows a convergence bar.
Oh and random aside, I figured out why Crysis 2 can do 3D with almost no FPS penalty whereas almost every other game is a 50% hit: very little is actually rendered in 3D.
I'm going to have to go with the
Pay $2,000 for a 24" monitor because you get to wear one type of glasses over another? Really? Who cares what kind of glasses you wear?
1. Because active shutter technology can be very troubling for some people. Either it gives them more eyestrain or they can't fully appreciate the 3d. A different 'delivery' method for the 3D might make all the difference. Because the glasses are passive, it's the monitor that is sending the polarized 3d images that is doing the work.
2. Another point to consider is that active shutter glasses are very expensive. Even the new type of 'circular polarized' passive glasses should be considerably cheaper to produce. Therefore you pay MORE for the set itself. But if you have a bunch of friends over, it's much cheaper to get extra glasses for your friends and family. Also if someone breaks a pair by accident, you're also out a lot less money. Bigger inititial investment, but cheaper overall outlay for multiple viewers and cheaper overall maintenance in terms of the 3D viewing glasses.
The advice to play with convergence levels was golden. At default convergence, you get almost no pop-out in games - just depth. I was already highly impressed with that and I figured that pop-out would be a gimmick, as it often is in movies and cheap gags. In reality, it makes things look even more incredible.
First I tried Just Cause 2. I prioritized high convergence and then set depth accordingly. "Near" objects, particularly your character and his vehicles, popped out of the screen. Even my wife was impressed; I'd previously shown her 3 other, depth-centric configurations of other games to no effect.
I tried the same approach with L4D2, but that didn't really do anything at all, so I figured it was the wrong approach for FPS in general.
So off I went to fire up Trine, and this game also looked great with pop-in prioritized. Parts of the scene extruded from the monitor, making it more real.
For kicks I returned to another FPS to try this approach again. High convergence with minimal depth didn't do anything other than make my gun and the menu pop out. If anything it made it harder to shoot targets in the distance. Then I tried to balance things out, sticking with 50% depth and the highest convergency setting that was still comfortable. The end result was amazing. It's not one particular thing, it's everything - all these subtle details are fleshed out in 3D.
So to wrap up, it's unfortunate that Nvidia buries convergence options and doesn't give you a visual indicator of how you're moving it around, but I guess it's understandable so that newbies aren't overwhelmed with 3D. While pop-in vs. depth is obviously a matter of preference, and pop-in isn't always great (for example: it makes Just Cause 2 character appear toy-like as he pops out of screen at small size), balancing the two options in a 40/60 range yields amazing results.
First I tried Just Cause 2. I prioritized high convergence and then set depth accordingly. "Near" objects, particularly your character and his vehicles, popped out of the screen. Even my wife was impressed; I'd previously shown her 3 other, depth-centric configurations of other games to no effect.
I tried the same approach with L4D2, but that didn't really do anything at all, so I figured it was the wrong approach for FPS in general.
So off I went to fire up Trine, and this game also looked great with pop-in prioritized. Parts of the scene extruded from the monitor, making it more real.
For kicks I returned to another FPS to try this approach again. High convergence with minimal depth didn't do anything other than make my gun and the menu pop out. If anything it made it harder to shoot targets in the distance. Then I tried to balance things out, sticking with 50% depth and the highest convergency setting that was still comfortable. The end result was amazing. It's not one particular thing, it's everything - all these subtle details are fleshed out in 3D.
So to wrap up, it's unfortunate that Nvidia buries convergence options and doesn't give you a visual indicator of how you're moving it around, but I guess it's understandable so that newbies aren't overwhelmed with 3D. While pop-in vs. depth is obviously a matter of preference, and pop-in isn't always great (for example: it makes Just Cause 2 character appear toy-like as he pops out of screen at small size), balancing the two options in a 40/60 range yields amazing results.
I'll be building a new rig in 1.5 months or so, and am really considering this monitor (hopefully the Asus 27" 120 hz is out by then so I have something else to compare it to). How are the colors on this monitor? What color settings have you guys set? What colorimeter, if any, did you guys use?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Roberty
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Messages
- 44,378
Any updates on when this is going to be available again?