• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

120Hz and 3D.. just a bunch of BS?

ibex333

ibex333

Diamond Member
So I got an Acer 27" HN274Hbmiiid 3D monitor, and to be honest, I am extremely unhappy. I dont want to offend anyone who owns a 3d monitor and loves it. Just want to express some thoughts.

1)3D looks very unnatural/surreal in games. (didn't get a chance to test in movies yet). Everything has a sort of "plastic" effect to it. Yes, the effect is quite cool, with all the depth of field and all, but the novelty factor wears off very fast, and I get this insatiable urge to stop using 3d and go back to regular view. I Played in 3D both on my PC using my monitor, and on PS3 using a 3D TV, and every time I only played for around 15 minutes before I felt like I dont want to anymore.

2)There is a very noticeable effect on the eyes and there is a form of dizziness... Not motion sickness, something else. Something very different that takes a while to wear off after every use. I cant imagine how that can possibly NOT have any health effects in the long term.

3)A very large amount of people claim that 120Hz makes everything look better. General computer use, 2d and 3d games, etc. Many of these people further claim that the 120Hz has other amazing effects such as improving their performance in games because everything looks just so much better. They go as far as to say that 120Hz is better for the eyes!!! This is simply not true. I have a 25.5" 1920x1200 Asus 60Hz monitor on the wall a few inches away from the Acer and it looks just as good, and interestingly enough, JUST AS BIG. It is my personal opinion, but I believe its a crime to make 1080p monitors any smaller than 27 inches, and anyone who buys a smaller 1080p monitor is wasting their money.


I am really glad I got this Acer 3d monitor for just a bit more than half it's normal selling price. Otherwise I'd be in a hurry to sell it. I really regret not knowing about the Catleaps and the Hannspree 28 inch 1020x1200 monitor when I bought this thing.
 
3D is bullshit and will soon be gone again like the previous times. And I would say 120Hz is as well. Tho some will claim otherwise and most likely see red 😛

GFX makers are essentially getting desperate. The redicilous AA modes have reached a limit. Then 3 screens didnt work out. 3D and 120Hz is the next steps.
 
2)There is a very noticeable effect on the eyes and there is a form of dizziness... Not motion sickness, something else. Something very different that takes a while to wear off after every use. I cant imagine how that can possibly NOT have any health effects in the long term.
Click to expand...

^ I get this even just going to the Movies, and watching a 3D film.

By the end of the movie Im glad to get the glasses off.
I cant imagine playing a video game on a weekend for hours and hours, with 3D glasses on.

I doubt there are any health issues from it, its just like mild headache or something for me and tired eyes.
That said its enough to not want to do it for too long at a time.


3)A very large amount of people claim that 120Hz makes everything look better.
Click to expand...

Dont they usually have less ghosting? less lag input ect.

Things like that do matter, but arnt nessarly equal/dependent to how fast the screen refresh, but rather the quality of the product you buy. That said when you buy a 120hz monitor your paying extra and probably get something thats decently buildt.
 
ibex333, did you ever watch a 3D movie in the movie theater, and if so, did you suffer the same headache-like symptoms? Or, are you saying this is something new that is specific to your monitor?
 
3D has never appealed to me. It usually is either too subtle in movies to make a big difference or too much that it is disorienting. I haven't tried it with video games yet.

>60hz for 2D stuff is awesome. Motion is significantly smoother and more realistic than at 60hz. Too each their own, but personally I loved my FW900 (1920x1200 @ 85hz) and am now loving my Catleap (2560x1440 @ 120hz)
 
Last edited:
Everybody is different. 120 hz is the best thing that ever happened to me for gaming but, I also have more sensitivity to low fps/fluctuations than 99% of people I would guess. Tried 3d and enjoyed it, but not enough to leave it on all the time. It's more of a now and then novelty to enjoy for me.
 
While I agree 3D is generally pretty crappy and a gimmick, 120hz is a valuable feature. I certainly can see the fluidity in motion improvements with 120hz.

The problem with 120hz is you can't get it on a quality monitor yet. It's only available on TN panels currently and only available for 1920x1080 resolution AFAIK.

Once there is a 2560x1600 120hz IPS monitor for a price that I couldn't get a used car for I am on board with 120hz really fast. $2000 would be reasonable I think for such a beauty.
 
My TV is 120hz and it can do 3D as well. I like the 3D effect on PS3 games like Uncharted and Killzone, but I wouldnt say Im crazy about it.

It also messes with my eyes, even more so because I already wear contacts so its like my eyeballs are coming together.

I wouldnt get a PC monitor just for 3D though.
 
My tv is 60Hz and 3D i mainly watch 3D movies and there great only played a few games in 3D like killzone, black ops, and 2K11
 
I have the 24" Acer GD235HZ (TFT LCD panel) and the 3D is okay depending on the game /movie (not post converted 2D to 3D) you're playing. Bought it as cheap refurb (<20 hours used) and wanted to see how a 3D screen looks/functions. It's really not for everybody, since our eyes differ from one another... some get dizzy some don't.

Wish they had 27" 3D at 2560x1440 @120Hz (not those OC'd ones), but my Yamakasi Catleap 2703 LED IPS @ 60Hz should do for a while. 🙂

acerandyamakasi.jpg
 
Last edited:
Input lag is low with Catleap and some Dell IPS monitors. The slowness comes from the actual Panel used. There is some difference bwteeen 60hz and 120hz but some people appreciate the better colors and quality of IPS.
 
the only reasons I would get a 120hz monitor is for less jitter when panning around in games and potentially less screen tearing.
 
toyota said:
the only reasons I would get a 120hz monitor is for less jitter when panning around in games and potentially less screen tearing.
Click to expand...

Speaking of jitter in games. Skyrim...no matter how smooth the game seems and how high my FPS is you still will notice a bit of jitter when panning the camera around a room or next to some foliage. I can only assume this is alleviated a bit with 120hz.
 
Not sure about computer LCD/LED's but I have a Sony 40" 60Hz KDL-40BX450 LCD downstairs and you can definitively see motion lag when watching sports.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Speaking of jitter in games. Skyrim...no matter how smooth the game seems and how high my FPS is you still will notice a bit of jitter when panning the camera around a room or next to some foliage. I can only assume this is alleviated a bit with 120hz.
Click to expand...
well there are different kinds of jitter so it may not help in all cases. I really do hate that blurry and shaky look when panning around though. the monitor I have now and the Acer I had before do/did a really good job but I tried probably ten newer screens and they were all abysmal even though some were 2ms.
 
It is pretty common knowledge 3D makes a percentage of users dizzy. You need to learn to test products before you buy them dude. At the least you can save some time writing long-winded complaints and chalk it up to simple physiological incompatibility.

I enjoy Nvidia 3D Vision at 120 Hz and I've been using your exact same monitor for well over a year. Like the 3D effects especially for flight simming, but I'm playing Witcher II now and I enjoy the effects.

Yes you heard me...I been using the same monitor for well over a year. You see, you bought the OLD version Acer 27 3D model: HN274Hbmiiid. The new LIGHT BOOST version is from other manufuacturers as well as Acer - HN274Hbmiiid (ET.HH4HE.B04).

ibex333 said:
I really regret not knowing about the Catleaps and the Hannspree 28 inch 1020x1200 monitor when I bought this thing.
Click to expand...

1020X1200? Put the drink down, I think you've had enough. But the point is well taken - you need to research more before you buy.
 
Last edited:
Phishy714 said:
1080p @ 27" is a crime.

The pixels are soo big its ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. I was at opposite ends on that, anything above a 24" at 1080p is a crime for monitors. I had a friend who has a 28" Haans G monitor at 1920x1200 resolution and it looked absolutely garbage compared to my U3011.
 
Grooveriding said:
Once there is a 2560x1600 120hz IPS monitor for a price that I couldn't get a used car for I am on board with 120hz really fast. $2000 would be reasonable I think for such a beauty.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting reliable frames above 60 FPS on that resolution. The video cards out now are struggling to maintain playable frames at 2560x1600 at less than stellar settings on newer games. Unless you play old games you'd need a minimum of Crossfire/SLI on top end cards to even slightly take advantage of 120hz.
 
Snowshredder102 said:
Good luck getting reliable frames above 60 FPS on that resolution. The video cards out now are struggling to maintain playable frames at 2560x1600 at less than stellar settings on newer games. Unless you play old games you'd need a minimum of Crossfire/SLI on top end cards to even slightly take advantage of 120hz.
Click to expand...

I can do about 80fps in BF3 with the game maxed out if I turn off the frame rate cap. Probably the most demanding and relevant game out there right now. A third card or two next gen cards would take that up to 120 or close to it I would think.

Really demanding games are few and far between these days. In most games I get well over 120FPS. If gaming continues to not make ground breaking revolutionary jumps in visuals and correlating hardware demands - which seems likely with consoles not making much of a hardware leap in their up coming replacements - I think it's realistic.

Right now for the most part 2x 7970s or 2x 680s is overkill for 1080P with the goal of maxing out available games, but one of either is not quite enough. I think whenever we get the GTX780 & Radeon 8970 we are going to see a single card that smokes every game out there at 1080P. The hardware is really getting ahead of the software these days. Things like higher resolutions and higher refresh rates are about all that is pushing forward the need for the latest and greatest hardware sadly.
 
I had that same monitor and the Asus VG278, put them side by side and ran Unreal Tournament III,,, the Acer had horrible lag. Side by side. Big difference. I got a second opinion from another person just to make sure I wasn't seeing things, even though it was pretty obvious.. the other person confirmed what I was seeing.

Take it back and get the Asus VG278.. they are both around the same money anyways 😉

The Asus is an amazing 120Hz gaming monitor.
 
Snowshredder102 said:
Good luck getting reliable frames above 60 FPS on that resolution. The video cards out now are struggling to maintain playable frames at 2560x1600 at less than stellar settings on newer games. Unless you play old games you'd need a minimum of Crossfire/SLI on top end cards to even slightly take advantage of 120hz.
Click to expand...

More so for stereoscopic 3D images (double the image drawing load) above 60 FPS, which is one of the historical reasons why the 120 Hz 3DVision monitors have been capped at 1080p. Hopefully we'll see higher res. 120 Hz 3D as GPU technology advances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top