Asus VG23AH - User reviews?

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.

Thanks for your input. My card has a HDMI 1.4 port on it, that's what I was going to use on my next monitor anyway (keep my current monitor on DVI for dual-screen, but not for gaming).

It's somewhat telling about the reviews I was reading that so many people out there don't seem to have the slightest idea what they're talking about, and yet they're considered the "experts". CNet seems to have screwed up the configuration on their review setup, and everyone else across the internet is simply taking their word for it.

Thanks. I actually took a chance.. I've had this monitor for a couple of weeks now.. hehe. That review hits it right about on the head. Performance is pretty good, and I'm enjoying it quite a lot on the games that really benefit from it. That also brings up a good tip to reduce the "after image" type ghosting that I see in certain games. I had thought it was a problem with refresh rate (being an IPS display), but looks like there's a setting that affects it. I'll have to give that a whirl tomorrow and see if it makes a difference.

And yes, the glasses are RealD3D compatible. The ones that come with the monitor are far more comfortable than the ones at the theater, I used these to watch Prometheus. The clip-ons leave a bit to be desired, though.. the clip is so large that it presses against that spot right between my eyes.. I can't wear them for more than a few seconds without going batty.

I can write up a longer review if you like, but bear in mind that I have no frame of reference on the performance, as this is my first 3D monitor. I know how the technology works, I just don't have a frame of reference to make comparisons to other passive monitors, or active-shutter monitors.

Check your viewing angle, passive is highly dependent on vertical angle because of how the pixels and the retarder layer lines up. If I sit at my normal "working" height like I am now when I'm writing, it doesn't line up properly and it's like I don't even have the glasses on. But if I kick back into my more "relaxed" posture, the 3D works fine. I think it's about 10-15 degrees off center. I just tested it on mine, and if viewed from absolutely head-on, the effect is pretty decent, but I usually view it from a slightly lower angle.

Put on a 3D YouTube video, sit back about four or five feet away, and just move up and down until you find the "sweet spot". Then adjust the monitor so that's the angle you're at in your normal viewing/gaming position.

I'm not sure how it is on ATI cards, I'm using NVidia here, and it's built into the drivers, so I don't have to worry about third-party software or anything. Make sure the output is set up correctly, interleaved, etc, and make sure your resolution matches. The desktop resolution has to exactly match the resolution of the display in order for things to line up properly.