Realistically Augmented 2D? The Neurok Optics 17

Weak, when can I just plug directly into the game itself ala Matrix style.

Actually, its an interesting concept, and it might go places, but it caters to a niche market right now due to both its price and what people are looking for. I've never really understood the 3D craze since I like games how they are just fine. Maybe if a really good 3D game comes around I might change my mind. Until then, this is a really expensive LCD...

Looks like your crappy Geolocation system that forces UK readers to use the UK site (when say, german users can choose between .de and .com) also means we UK users get a 404 error on this page.

Whoever came up with the idea to redirect *all* UK traffic to tomshardware.co.uk, stopping even the 'select a region' option at the bottom from working should be shot tbh.

Damn I'd love to buy a monitor with this technology but I wish they did a widescreen 24" version. I already have a dell 2405 and can't imagine ever going back to 4:3 aspect and such a small monitor as 17"

Anyway If you're going to do real 3D then chances are your target market isn't the budget 17" monitor type... also the bigger/wider the screen surely the more immersive this would be.

Oooooooh, GOOD catch. You don't actually expect Toms Hardware to be a site that includes benchmarks anymore, do you?

http://www.sharpsystems.com/products/3d/

Sorry [not], laptops already can do this, and WITHOUT GLASSES.

http://www.sharp3d.com/news/45/

The Sharp/Phillips 3D display technology has been around for years, why foist this tripe on us without at least mentioning the competition? Without glasses to wear it isn't much of a competition. My only theory is that it isn't billed as "gaming", or is it something else? Possibly the articles' Author didn't have knowledge of this display? Or maybe he felt we wanted a fluff piece and not a hard review?

I know the person in the post above is belittling gaming on a 17" screen. I advise him to try one of these Sharp 3D screens at 15" and see what all the fuss is about. I find that 1024x768 is fine with 8x AA and 16x Aniso, admit 15" is a trifle small, but I don't care if you can game at 20" widescreen with dual DVI links to a 1600x1400 display, 3D is nothing to sneeze at, just ask a person with one eye how much depth perception would benefit them.

Also they seem to be selling for $449 right now, a real steal:

http://store.sharpsystems.com/referrer.asp?r=LL1513D

I see no-one who has replied yet has anything to add or learn about 3D displays, I don't care about how big your display is, If I can enjoy it with one eyeball it has not changed the fundamental information reaching my nueral cortex, merely the quality of said information.

I also would ask that unless you have tried and understand what is trying to be accomplished by these 3d displays you just listen and learn.

If you own an Nvidia Dual-Output display (chances are you do), then take two similar displays, connect them up, enable 3d for video games, and use a mirror to view them, instructions here on the mirror and monitor set-up:

http://www.crystalcanyons.net/page [...] ewing.shtm

If it doesn't blow your mind, you did it wrong, use it on a compatible 3D game. I know URU and Myst V: Revelations look unbeleivably stunning in 3D on dual monitors. NO GHOSTING EITHER.

It seems you gave them a skinny paragraph mention here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/0 [...] page9.html

Last Year. I know you are just pointing out a new panel, but if you call it a review you have to at least mention competing products. If it was a "news snippet" that is a different matter, they can afford to be brief.

Registered just to comment.

I love your slide shows, but I run a high resolution, and it's just not possible to view the slide shows with any detail..I'm missing out n half your articles.

Any chance the size of the slideshows could be increased in further articles?

I'm sure I am not the only one who doesn't even click them for their to hard to see.

I work for a company doing professional monitor evals, so I like to drop by Tom's to see if I've missed anything. This was the case here. I've been evaluating 3D-stereo monitors for the last two years, but I wasn't aware that Neurok had an offering.

I can't disclose all the things out there because of NDAs we have in place, but I can say that Planar has a 23" stereo LCD offering at 1920x1200. If you want to get an idea of what's out there, attend a technology conference. CES (Consumer Electronics Show) had some cool stuff, or if you're really interested, go to SID (Society for Information Displays).

If you decide to do a real review of this type of technology, I suggest three things:

1) Pick one or two games that have good 3D drivers and test all your monitors with them. Your current article sounds like it's penalizing the monitor because the game developers don't have good 3D drivers. (By the way, ATI does support stereo, but it requires a separate down load. It's not build in like the nVidia driver.)

2) Get a Z-Screen from StereoGraphics and a nice color CRT (Sony F520 if you can find one) to do your baseline comparison. That's what NASA used for all their Mars rover guidance.

3) Treat autostereoscopic and polarized glasses separately. Typically the autostereo has a drastically reduced resolution that keeps it from competing with polarized glasses stereo. (FYI, the stereo glasses are different from normal polarized sunglasses. Sunglasses have the same linear polarizer in both eyes. Stereo glasses either have circular polarizers where one eye is 90 degrees out phase from the other, or one eye is linearly polarized at +45 degrees and the other is linearly polarized at -45 degrees. Linear polarization makes for good extinction ratio, but it also makes it so you can't rotate the monitor without inverting your stereo.)