They're the latest innovation in
monitor technology, but what does buying a 3D monitor actually entail?
It’s been a couple of years since the first
3D monitors starting turning up on the home PC market, and after initial
indifference to the technology, the tide is arguably starting to turn in favor
of them. The increasing prominence of 3D in film and games, coupled with the
slow but steady drop in price means that next time many of us upgrade our
monitors, a 3D display will at least be a consideration even if it's not yet a
necessity.
So why might you actually want to buy a 3D
monitor? The obvious target market for the technology is gamers and gaming enthusiasts
- those who are most likely to already have the high-end graphics cards and raw
computing power that allow them to render FPS games in their full glory, and
who want to take things to the next level. In a scene that values technological
one-upmanship, having a 3D monitor can bring gamers prestige just as much as it
can bring them additional enjoyment and immersion.
What about if you don't play games, though?
Is there any use for one? Admittedly, it's less obvious. Desktop interfaces are
years away from embracing 3D, if indeed they ever will. To date, 3D has proven
a largely aesthetic enhancement rather than one with any practical value. It's
safe to say that Windows 3D is some distance away from becoming reality.
However, there is one big application that
most, if not all of us might be able to find for a 3D monitor: the ability to
watch movies and TV in 3D. An increasing number of blockbuster movies are being
brought to cinema screens in 3D, and the subsequent home releases on
high-definition formats often support 3D, as long as you have access to the
hardware necessary to view it. Similarly, 3D television streams are available
as long as you have the equipment to receive and view them. 3D TVs are large
and prohibitively expensive, though. Because they're smaller and cost less, a
3D monitor could actually prove to be a far more space- and cost-effective way
of watching 3D TV programs you'd otherwise miss.
So let's assume you're interested. What do
you have to look for next?
How Much Should You Spend?
Although 3D monitors no longer clock in at
the wallet-busting prices they did when they were first released, they still
cover a wide spectrum, and the amount you spend closely dictates the quality of
the technology you receive.
As a general guide, the cheapest 3D
monitors currently cost around $220, and the most expensive are more than $800.
Of course, screen size is a major factor in determining the cost of any given
monitor, and it doesn't take a genius to know that spending top prices on a
27" monitor will undoubtedly get you something you'll enjoy. The
difficulty comes when you try to find a more cost-effective 3D solution.
For what it's worth, if you're buying in
the 23-24" range of screen sizes, we recommend spending no more than $320
on a screen with passive 3D technology and no more than $550 on one with active
3D technology in order to maximize the cost to performance ratio. There's no
reason not to spend more if you can, but spend less and you'll be seriously
compromising on overall quality in favor of 3D capabilities.
Note that if you're planning to have more
than one person using a 3D monitor at once, you'll need more than one set of
glasses. Glasses for passive 3D technology are cheap and easy to replace,
whereas active 3D glasses are considerably more expensive, so do factor this
into your price.
You should also be careful of any seemingly
cheap active 3D monitors too - it's possible that they're being sold without
the necessary kit to view the 3D image and that you'll have to buy the glasses
separately, so check before you hand over your money! A 3D Vision 2 Kit
(necessary to use most active monitors) costs in the region of $110-$155 at
retail, so it's a fairly substantial expense if it isn't already bundled.
NVIDIA
3D Vision 2 Wireless Glasses Kit
Remember too, that unless you're a
particularly hardcore gamer, 3D monitors are only ever running in 3D for a
small portion of the time that you're using them. 3D technology constitutes a
large portion of the price of any 3D monitor, so the cheaper you go, the more
corners get cut on things like contrast, brightness and resolution. Even the
monitor stands become unusably basic at the lowest prices. Make sure you only
aim for the cheaper monitors if you're more bothered about 3D than overall
performance.
What Make/Model/Manufacturer Should
You Look For?
Most monitor manufacturers have at least
one 3D display on the market, and that begs the question of which you should
look for and who does them well.
In general, anyone who makes good monitors
can also be relied on to make good 3D monitors. Asus offers some of the most
well-rounded displays. They look great in 3D, use NVidia's 3D Vision 2 kit and
have support for a proprietary technology called 'LightBoost', which is
designed to counteract the natural dimming effect that results from most 3D
technologies.
Unfortunately, they're also expensive. The
Asus VG278H is a 27" monitor that currently costs $775. Even if your
account for the cost of the 3D vision kit included, that's still a fairly
expensive piece of equipment.
BenQ
XL2420T
If you're keen on an active monitor,
however, we can recommend the 24" BenQ XL2420T, which offers similarly
high quality as both a 3D and a 2D monitor, but without the piggy-bank
demolishing cost of the Asus. It is, however, one of the sneaky monitors that,
in spite of being advertised as '3D ready', doesn't actually come with the 3D
Vision kit you need to get the active 3D working. You can pick this monitor up
for around $400, so if you can find a cheap 3D vision kit somewhere, there's
the potential to take advantage of a reasonably priced package.
In terms of manufacturers to avoid, LG's
offerings all lean towards the poor-quality passive 3D design that strives for
low prices above anything else. Samsung's 3D displays use their own proprietary
3D quality, which can cause compatibility issues with other products too, so
until they move towards the standard, you can probably avoid those.
