Suggestions for a 46-50" non-3D HDTV for use as a PC monitor?

[Mouse]

Anyone else tried the IZ3D drivers?

Yes I tried that, and it worked very well with the test app they provided (basically a spinning logo with a 3D effect that can be adjusted)
Unfortunately they decided to drop support for my graphics card at the time, so I just used the 2D->3D conversion done by the tv instead. That ended up being a simpler way of getting 3D out of any content from the PC (such as any movie or game)
but the effect isn't as good as having proper 3D content

Well, firstly FPR passive 3D with only 540 physical lines per eye will blur the whole situation.

No, it doesn't.

[Roman4604]

No, it doesn't.

It doesnt what?

[Mouse]

It doesnt what?

Well, firstly FPR passive 3D with only 540 physical lines per eye will blur the whole situation.

I actually use this regularly, there is no blurring.

[Roman4604]

there is no blurring.

Not what I said ...

will blur the whole situation.

[Mouse]

Not what I said ...

Well then I have no idea what you are trying to say. What situation is blurred?

[Roman4604]

Well then I have no idea what you are trying to say. What situation is blurred?

The context of the converstion was comparing 1080p to 720p. Since there are no 720p passive FPR 3D TVs in existance you cant make the comparison using a passive 3D picture.

[Mouse]

The context of the converstion was comparing 1080p to 720p. Since there are no 720p passive FPR 3D TVs in existance you cant make the comparison using a passive 3D picture.

Now I get it.
I still think such a comparison doesn't matter,

However even in 2D you still wont notice a huge difference. Thats because in both cases you're looking at the same 1920x1080 resolution, one upscaled and the other native.

if even 720p upscaled to a 1080p tv doesn't make any huge difference.

These 3D formats remind me of VHS vs Betamax, where the supposedly inferior quality tech won due to having other beneficial features that consumers cared about,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war

While VHS machines' lower retail price was a major factor, the principal battleground proved to be recording time. The original Sony Betamax video recorder for the NTSC television system could only record for 60 minutes, identical to the previous U-matic format, which had been sufficient for use in television studios. JVC's VHS could manage 120 minutes, followed by RCA's entrance into the market with a 240 minute recorder. These challenges sparked a mini-war to see who could achieve the longest recording time.

while the quality difference wasn't really that big of a difference for anyone to worry about it.

When Betamax was introduced in Japan and the United States in 1975 its Beta-I speed (1.5"/second) offered a slightly higher horizontal resolution (250 lines vs 240 lines horizontal NTSC), lower video noise, and less luma/chroma crosstalk than VHS, and was later marketed as providing pictures superior to VHS's playback. However the introduction of B-II speed, 0.8"/sec (2-hour mode), to compete with VHS's 2-hour Standard Play mode (1.3"/sec) reduced Betamax's horizontal resolution to 240 lines.[3] The extension of VHS to VHS HQ increased the apparent resolution to 250 lines so that overall a Betamax/VHS user could expect virtually identical luma resolution and chroma resolution (≈30 lines) wherein the actual picture performance depended on other factors including the condition and quality of the videotape and the specific video recorder machine model. For most consumers the difference as seen on the average television was negligible.

Similar arguments are happening now for Active vs Passive 3D with vertical resolution being the quality issue
and headaches, crosstalk, darkness of the image, glasses [weight, cost, charging] being the issues consumers care about.