I read the CNet review of the 23" Asus VG23AH IPS passive 3D display, and their review of the 3D was particularly scathing.
The problem is, I haven't been able to find any other review of this monitor than the one that CNet did. Every other tech site on Google is simply reposting CNet's review. I have a feeling this review may have singlehandedly killed this product, and I have a feeling that the guy writing the review may not have known what he was talking about.
Anyway, the thing that they complained about the most was ghosting when playing games in 3D (they didn't try watching 3D video content, which is somewhat telling in itself). I was under the impression from some of the other threads around here that there are settings in both hardware and software (image adjustments, effects, etc) that, if incorrectly configured, can cause some bleedover to the adjacent horizontal lines, and can cause exactly the ghosting that they're referring to. Or, something as simple as having the wrong polarization on the glasses. But I can't find any actual user reviews to back this up, that maybe someone bought the thing, configured it correctly, and the 3D effect works perfectly fine, or whether the panel really is a piece of crap.
I'm in the market for a new computer monitor, and I've decided on two things: Passive display and IPS. Right now, I think the Asus is the only Passive IPS display out there (maybe the only 3D IPS out there.. can IPS do 120Hz+?). I know LG has a few in the pipe, but there's no telling how long until they're released, and I'm worried that the problem with the underlying panel may carry over to the newer ones as well (anyone know if that's a LG panel in the Asus?)
The other thing I've seen come up in reviews all over the 'net, for various 3D displays, is a difference in perceived depth, that a particular monitor's 3D display isn't as "deep" as others. From what I know of 3D technology (and I've created 3D images in CG), how is that even possible? Depth is controlled exclusively by the separation of left/right eye images, which is controlled 100% by the imaging software feeding the monitor, and not the monitor itself. I'm guessing that the reviewers in this case never thought of looking at different displays without
glasses and seeing if the software, for whatever reason, was displaying more or less separation between different hardware (I always calibrate convergence without glasses, so I'm familiar with what a "raw" 3D image looks like). I'm not wrong here, am I?
Thanks ahead of time.