Samsung Visits Overclockers UK!

The 3D will work absolutely fine.

Basically the easiest way to look at it is, if the graphics card can play the game you want to play, then the monitor will sort the 3D for you with no problems. :)
 
elrasho said:
I want to work for OCUK! gimme a job please
Click to expand...

Is the tea boy position still available? (i'm serious)

If you use nvidia 3D with these, do you need to buy the nvidia glasses aswell?

And, I know this has been asked so so so many times, but will every single piece of media work in 3D???

How much do the spare glasses for this monitor cost?


Really thinking of shelling out for a 27"
 
PCM2 said:
You can disagree all you like but I was stating exactly why manufacturers choose the kind of stand designs they do. And the current market speaks for itself, regardless of your opinion. I am not saying you're wrong - and when I said aesthetics trump I was talking about the majority opinion which the market follows. There are, however, reasons why things are the way they are and it isn't just a case of adding adjustable stands to everything as you lose the other things people find valuable (aesthetics in this case). It simply isn't possible to have the kind of designs Samsung have come up with here whilst also maintaining good levels of ergonomic flexibility. But I seem to be repeating myself here.
Click to expand...

Not really it could be added mate. And how is it an issue? you can adjust it if you like and leave it at default if you like. Its the best of both worlds. I know the highest price samsung monitor in this thread has a design which cannot had adjustable stand. But the cheaper models do have a base capable.
 
LCD isnt the issue, it's the glass screen that makes it reflective. I'd also get one but for the great big window that sits behind me while I use the PC.
 
This may be a obvious answer to some of you,

but can you turn the 3d of if you want as you may want to show people something on the screen who are not wearing the glasses? especially if you only get one pair?
 
How does it work then?

as i thoguht for 3d you rendered 2frames from 2 slightly different view points.

ihow can a monitor do that fro ma no n3d source it can't just make up the missing peices?

or does it just somehow cut it out and you have various 2d elements at different "level" of depth?
 
Tefal said:
How does it work then?

as i thoguht for 3d you rendered 2frames from 2 slightly different view points.

ihow can a monitor do that fro ma no n3d source it can't just make up the missing peices?

or does it just somehow cut it out and you have various 2d elements at different "level" of depth?
Click to expand...

This is a complete guess so dont take my word for it but its probably fake 3d where it simply doubles the image. Real 3d combines the perspective of two different angles to produce 3d.
 
Frenzy said:
This is a complete guess so dont take my word for it but its probably fake 3d where it simply doubles the image. Real 3d combines the perspective of two different angles to produce 3d.
Click to expand...

The 2 images vary in positioning (at the same time) depending on the depth of the part of the image. So I believe the perspective is calculated on the 3D.

For example when playing GT5 the 2 cockpit images was futher away from each other (as you could see without any glasses on) than the end of the track, so the image has a varible 3D depth at any single given time.
 
Depth data isn't sent to the monitor though, (so ignoring the tricks the driver based 3d conversions do for now,) it just has a flat screen of coloured pixels from which to produce the 3d image. There's no depth information in the data of movie DVDs at all anywhere in the pipeline from the disc to the eyeball.

My suspicion, aside from maybe some help from software in the monitor to do edge detection, is that it would work like those faux 3d animated gifs and that it's tricking the eyes and building a 3d image based on differences between the previous and current frames.

That's also how a lot of faked 3d movies were generated and put on Youtube when they didn't have the data to produce a 3d image, the slight offsetting caused by presenting the current frame to one eye, and the previous frame to the other eye in (near enough) the same instant, can be enough to create the illusion of some 3d.

It's not as good as properly recorded/transmitted 3d data for each eye, as evidenced by the faked Avatar trailer (using that method) compared to the genuine one, but it's not bad either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom