When I reviewed my last 3D monitor, it was an active 3D display that needed far more light output due to the nature of the 3D technology. With the V3D231, while each eye is only getting half of the light output from the screen, that is still far more than the ~25% you might get from an active 3D display. With a pure white screen and all controls set to their maximum values, the ViewSonic managed to put out 272 nits of light. Cut in half this would only be 136 nits, which some people might find a bit too dull for their normal gaming, especially if there is much ambient light. It has plenty of light for 2D work, but ViewSonic would have done well to use a more powerful backlight for 3D.

With the backlight set to the minimum, the V3D231 put out 61 nits of light. This would be considered plenty of range to use for both normal use and print work, but as we saw on the 100 nits calibrated results, the ViewSonic is not a display that should be considered for print work.

White Level -  XR Pro, Xrite i1D2 and XR i1DPro

The ViewSonic uses an LED lighting system, but it doesn’t seem to have any sort of zone controls built in. Zone controls would enable you to have far better black levels in areas of the screen that are pure black, but they are also more expensive to produce. The black levels for the ViewSonic are merely average, with 0.353 nits with the backlight at maximum, and 0.078 nits with the backlight at minimum.

Black Level - XR Pro, Xrite i1D2 and XR i1DPro

The unfortunate side effect of those black levels is that while they are the same as many other displays, those other displays can produce a far brighter level of white. Perhaps the patterned retarder is causing a drop in maximum light output compared to a standard LCD monitor, but the end results is contrast ratios that are on the low side for a modern display. Coming in below 800:1 at both maximum and minimum backlight levels, these are the lowest contrast ratios that I have measured, and the lowest we have measured in a while. Unfortunately it looks like the test results of the ViewSonic are continuing to be a little bit underwhelming.

Contrast Ratio -  XR Pro, Xrite i1D2 and XR i1DPro

One good test result for the ViewSonic was the brightness uniformity test. It was still not totally uniform by any means, but the standard deviation was only 9 nits, which is 50-60% better than most displays, and an average brightness level of 185 nits. There were also no sections of the monitor that dropped below 170 nits at all. It's not an ideal result, but it is far better than most monitors manage.

The black level uniformity was just average for a display on the ViewSonic. With a standard deviation of 0.028 nits, and an average level of 0.21 nits, the ViewSonic doesn’t stand out in any way. The center of the display was the brightest, probably because of the lighting system, and it dropped off the most in the corners of the display.

Overall the ViewSonic V3D231 is a bit below average for brightness and contrast, other than the white level uniformity test which was good.

Viewing Angles and Color Quality Color Uniformity and Color Gamut
Comments Locked

42 Comments

View All Comments

  • MattM_Super - Wednesday, January 4, 2012 - link

    I also disagree with you about 60hz flicker not being perceptible. 60hz CRTs drove me nuts and the flicker in Nividia's 3d vision is similarly annoying. I don't seem to have any problems with theater 3d using polarized glasses.
    As far as 60hz vs 120hz LCDs go, 60hz monitors don't flicker noticeably since they are continuously lit. However, 120hz (with 120fps) has less tearing and ghosting in horizontally moving shapes and clearer textures when turning or strafing in 1st person games
  • MattM_Super - Wednesday, January 4, 2012 - link

    I should add that 60hz flicker is like a very high pitched tone. Some people can hear a loud annoying eeeeee, while others just don't hear anything at all. I know people (myself included) who instantly notice when they sit down in-front of a 60hz CRT (or any CRT set to 60hz) and others who can't tell a difference in a blind test.
  • robinthakur - Wednesday, January 4, 2012 - link

    Completely agree. The first monitor I got years ago supported 60Hz, 100Hz and 120Hz. At 60, viewing was flickery and uncomfortable with ahigh pitched CRT whine, at 100 was smooth and 120 was a dream. Even if the display switched back to 100Hz without me initially realising, I soon got a feeling that it wasn't as smooth as it could be. In the same way, I find it incredibly hard to like games which play at less than 60fps. The difference is absolutely noticeable, and enhances everything about the game's animation when it is at or above 60. I probably got this from the Dreamcast with its VGA box and refused to play games that didn't support it because they were the games which didn't run at 60fps (with the exception of the Capcom fighters) lol
  • robinthakur - Wednesday, January 4, 2012 - link

    I'm afraid, as an owner of both passive 3d and Active 3d TV's I would completely disagree with you. I owned a Panasonic VT30 50" Active 3D display and got absolutely sick of the headaches, eye-strain, dim images and flickering I got from my window behind the TV. In addition, you have to charge the glasses all the time and have a spare set available in case the charge goes flat whilst watching a movie. At £50 per set, they were too expensive to buy a large enough number for the family to watch TV at the same time, so the feature was used very sparingly.

    I happened to see an LG passive screen at my mate's house a couple of months ago and had my eyes opened to the potential of 3D in the home. After having slagged off his choice for the 'halved' vertical resolution, I had to admit my mistake as it was so comfortable watching the image and at the correct viewing distance, I couldn't perceive any negative effects such as obvious line structure from the FPR. The long and the short is that I have replaced my Panasonic with a shiny new LG passive Cinema 3D set (which comes with 7 pairs of glasses) and would not go back if they paid me. We now watch a great deal of 3D OTA and Blu Ray 3D programming and it has made the format people-friendly.

    The choice might not be superior on paper, hence my original purchasing decision, but it is borderline scandalous that they majority face of 3D in the home at this time is a technology which is simply more trouble than it is worth for the majority of normal people without dedicated Home cinemas. Samsung/Sony/Pansonic et al risk the failure of the whole 3D industry with their current technology IMO.

    This Viewsonic display is not best of breed either when it comes to passive, so don't write off the technology based on it.
  • Sabresiberian - Friday, December 30, 2011 - link

    LG makes IPS panels with what they call film-type pattern retarder (FPR) technology. I'm not sure how that is different from what this monitor has, or if it's even different.

    I'm not thrilled with the idea of these monitors because they don't use or promote 120Hz screens, which is something I'd really like to see become an industry standard. I'm also rather disappointed to see interlacing make a comeback, I thought that was dead. Still it offers something for those who can't use the shutter based 3D, which is a good thing, I think.

    The most important part, for me, though is that LG is using this on IPS panels. It's the first time 3D has been sold on an IPS panel, and that is, in my opinion, good progress and I congratulate LG for that.

    Hopefully, LG will see fit to send Anandtech a panel for testing purposes.

    ;)
  • Conficio - Friday, December 30, 2011 - link

    Which model is the LG IPS 3D Display?
  • Death666Angel - Saturday, December 31, 2011 - link

    LG 27" DM92 will be an IPS with 3D capabilities and 1440p resolution. At least that's what the news say. We'll know more when CES comes.
  • Earballs - Sunday, January 1, 2012 - link

    "I'm not thrilled with the idea of these monitors because they don't use or promote 120Hz screens, which is something I'd really like to see become an industry standard"

    + all the rep in the world
  • robinthakur - Wednesday, January 4, 2012 - link

    Why can't we have 120fps IPS passive screens? I'm holding out for that because I can't use Active 3D due to the headache inducing flicker I can perceive (the same reason I can't watch DLP projected images using a colour wheel - I see rainbows)
  • imaheadcase - Friday, December 30, 2011 - link

    I don't know anyone who even cared about 3d movies, let alone to see one specifically for that.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now