active vs passive 3D display, which one will rule the future? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 205 Old 12-27-2011, 04:16 PM
Member
 
hugabone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I purchased a 32" Vizio 3d passive for the children and I must say the picture is nice. I don't see the half rez like everyone is talking about, maybe because of the smaller size. I would see it in the stores on the larger size passive screen but I was mighty close to the TV. I don't see any jaggies even while close to this TV. One thing I noticed is when I played some 3d contents from my computer the field of depth was perfect but I can't seem to get the same result from the Samsung 6500 3d player. It seems like its too close and my eyes can't focus the front depth and I get eye strain from it. I may be watching it too close. Overall I am pretty satisfied with passive 3d. I am buying a 47" passive because I think the 55" is too big from 8-9 feet away.
hugabone is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 205 Old 12-28-2011, 08:21 AM
Member
 
Majister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugabone View Post

I purchased a 32" Vizio 3d passive for the children and I must say the picture is nice. I don't see the half rez like everyone is talking about, maybe because of the smaller size. I would see it in the stores on the larger size passive screen but I was mighty close to the TV. I don't see any jaggies even while close to this TV. One thing I noticed is when I played some 3d contents from my computer the field of depth was perfect but I can't seem to get the same result from the Samsung 6500 3d player. It seems like its too close and my eyes can't focus the front depth and I get eye strain from it. I may be watching it too close. Overall I am pretty satisfied with passive 3d. I am buying a 47" passive because I think the 55" is too big from 8-9 feet away.

I agree, anyone the are beautiful displays. I

I have a 47lw6500, and I can say without reservation that it has floored everyone who has seen it.

Ifind the half resolution commentsfrom others a good bit tiresome. While it's 1080i, vs sequential 1080p no one could convince me I am losing detail to my eys bright and sharp comes to mind.

Wonderful set!
Majister is offline  
post #183 of 205 Old 12-28-2011, 08:24 AM
Member
 
UKStory135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
After looking at 3D displays for a while:
I think that Active 3D Plasma Displays look the best, then Passive LED-LCD's, then active LED-LCD's. I ended up buying a Panasonic Active Shutter TV. The price difference between Plasmas and LED's is enough to buy 4 pairs of glasses, and the picture is better. Also, the flickering is not nearly as bad in a home as it is in a store.
UKStory135 is offline  
post #184 of 205 Old 01-10-2012, 07:55 AM
Member
 
blaket81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My guess without evidence or proof is that active is better. At the same time though i think passive will win out (because it's cheaper and easier) which is a shame because the world will have the lesser 3D tech. From what i've read passive is the same 3D you get in movie theaters which i am not impressed by at all. I have not been "wowed" by any of the 3D movies i have seen in a theater in the past few years since it became so common. I saw a demo of active in a store once and wasn't impressed either, but i'm pretty sure if i got it home and tweaked everything it would be better. If i compare the active demo i saw with the passive that is in theaters though the active seems to be more vibrant where as the passive looks closer to what the old 3D looked like (the kind that had almost no color). You have two words, active (which means ambitous) and passive (which means lazy), what does common sense tell you? Also, active is more expensive and you know the saying, you get what you pay for. For me i think active is my only choice, because i want my next TV to be a plasma, all i've ever owned are LCD's. Plasmas only come in active, so that will be what i get. " Vizio, LG, and other purveyors of 2011 passive 3D TVs admit, the system they use halves the effective 1080p resolution, delivering only 540 lines to each eye." That is a quote from cnet's website, i don't have the link to the cnet article but saw this quote here: http://www.sonyrumors.net/2011/07/05...keting-scheme/. I've also read that you have to be farther away for passive. Considering my next TV will be at least 55" and my viewing distance is only like 8 feet (give or take), passive will not work for me.
blaket81 is offline  
post #185 of 205 Old 01-17-2012, 05:51 AM
Member
 
quisp65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Where can you go to compare active & passive computer monitors? I live in San Diego and would be willing to even check out a store in LA on a future road trip. Specifically I would love to see Nvidia's 3d Vision 2 in a SLI configuration. I got two passive sets a LG 65 inch TV and the Acer 27 inch passive 3d computer monitor. I'm firm I made the right choice for myself with the passive TV but with the computer monitor I'm less certain and think a 3d Vision 2 monitor would have blown my passive Acer away, but 3d Vision 2 hasn't penetrated the market enough yet and the 3d Vision 1 27 inch Acer monitor was way too dark for my liking. I tested it at Fry's and it could of certainly not been set up well but it would of had to undergone substantial improvement to make me think my passive 3d monitor decision was a mistake. Plus I hear if you increase the lighting on 3d Vision you get more ghosting.
quisp65 is offline  
post #186 of 205 Old 02-13-2012, 09:02 PM
Newbie
 
malakai1911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaket81 View Post

You have two words, active (which means ambitous) and passive (which means lazy), what does common sense tell you?



Common sense tells me to ignore the entirety of your post after reading that line.
malakai1911 is offline  
post #187 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 02:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Polarized glasses are much brighter, lighter, cheaper, and have no flicker. Resolution is but a temporary setback. DLP and active shutter is what I own and it's the best combo for crosstalk, but in real world testing, passive is good enough in my experience. Far better than what the early active shutter TVs did, and I wouldn't be surprised if tests proved it was as good if not better than the current best non-DLP active shutter models.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #188 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 05:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Robut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Polarized glasses are much brighter, lighter, cheaper, and have no flicker. Resolution is but a temporary setback. DLP and active shutter is what I own and it's the best combo for crosstalk, but in real world testing, passive is good enough in my experience. Far better than what the early active shutter TVs did, and I wouldn't be surprised if tests proved it was as good if not better than the current best non-DLP active shutter models.


What kind of tests would prove that? So far the most scientific tests I've read above have shown the opposite. Of course that is related to resolution of current passive displays.
Robut is offline  
post #189 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 05:39 PM
Member
 
gosugadget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by malakai1911 View Post



Common sense tells me to ignore the entirety of your post after reading that line.

LOL. For some reason the way I read that sounded pretty funny. I pictured morgan freeman saying it.
gosugadget is offline  
post #190 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 05:43 PM
Member
 
gosugadget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majister View Post

I agree, anyone the are beautiful displays. I

I have a 47lw6500, and I can say without reservation that it has floored everyone who has seen it.

Ifind the half resolution commentsfrom others a good bit tiresome. While it's 1080i, vs sequential 1080p no one could convince me I am losing detail to my eys bright and sharp comes to mind.

Wonderful set!

I was going to purchase that set a couple months ago but plan on holding out, but it did look impressive.

My panasonic plasma needs to hold out another 4-5 months (until that LG OLED TV comes out).
gosugadget is offline  
post #191 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 06:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Robut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majister View Post

I agree, anyone the are beautiful displays. I

I have a 47lw6500, and I can say without reservation that it has floored everyone who has seen it.

Ifind the half resolution commentsfrom others a good bit tiresome. While it's 1080i, vs sequential 1080p no one could convince me I am losing detail to my eys bright and sharp comes to mind.

Wonderful set!

I find the passive 1080i claim tiresome. 1080i is when 540 lines are displayed on every other line of a 1080 screen followed by the other 540 lines "between" those lines instead of in place of or on top of those lines. With passive 540 lines remain black because of the reverse polarization of the film on the screen and the lens of the glasses. that is not the same as 1080i. This thread is comparing active and passive. If it tires you don't read it.
Robut is offline  
post #192 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 07:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

What kind of tests would prove that? So far the most scientific tests I've read above have shown the opposite. Of course that is related to resolution of current passive displays.

Sorry I wasn't clear to you. From the point I mention crosstalk to the end of the post, I am referring to crosstalk performance specifically.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #193 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 07:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Passive's half resolution is not like 1080i. The aliasing is easier to see at all times whereas 1080i artifacts are usually only visible in split second instances involving fast motion.

If I'm looking at a solid white passive signal I can easily see the black lines.

Passive will improve though with higher res TVs. Active won't really benefit from the increase because most won't notice the added detail unless they have a projector.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #194 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 07:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Robut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Cakefoo, I agree with your last two posts. Thank You
Robut is offline  
post #195 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 08:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,858
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I see the 84" LG passive as the future of 3D for me.
Bill is offline  
post #196 of 205 Old 02-15-2012, 09:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,858
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaket81 View Post

I have not been "wowed" by any of the 3D movies i have seen in a theater in the past few years since it became so common. I saw a demo of active in a store once and wasn't impressed either, but i'm pretty sure if i got it home and tweaked everything it would be better. If i compare the active demo i saw with the passive that is in theaters though the active seems to be more vibrant where as the passive looks closer to what the old 3D looked like (the kind that had almost no color).

You must go to a bad theater. How can 120fps, 4K per eye 3D with higher color depth look not much better than at home? It certainly does to me. I have a passive TV but I go to the theater to see 3D movies. Until we can get that at home, it really doesn't matter if it is active or passive Although, I like passive like the theater. I mainly use my TV for converting 2D to 3D. The best TV is the one that converts the best IMO.
Bill is offline  
post #197 of 205 Old 02-16-2012, 11:34 AM
Newbie
 
jorlanm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I dont think theres a clear winner on this...both has pros and cons...

Active Shutter 3D gives slightly better 3D experience, but cant be used for long periods or youll get a headache...not to mention expensive (Would you buy $120 a pair for each of your guests?)

Passive while not giving you the best 3D can be used for longer period like playing video games without giving you a headache and glasses are cheap usualy $50 for a 10 pack...thats more than enough for your guests...
jorlanm is offline  
post #198 of 205 Old 02-16-2012, 11:53 AM
GEP
Advanced Member
 
GEP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I am not convinced that there needs to be a "winner". You match the glasses to the TV, just like remote controls. If it were source devices or source signals, that would be different but as it is the glasses/TV combo, both types can continue to exist. One does not need to "win".
GEP is offline  
post #199 of 205 Old 02-16-2012, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 32
It's true that it's not like a format war where a winner has to be chosen, but I just think one is going to be more popular and that's a reversal of what is popular right now.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #200 of 205 Old 02-16-2012, 12:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Razor Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorlanm View Post

I dont think theres a clear winner on this...both has pros and cons...

Active Shutter 3D gives slightly better 3D experience, but cant be used for long periods or youll get a headache...not to mention expensive (Would you buy $120 a pair for each of your guests?)

Passive while not giving you the best 3D can be used for longer period like playing video games without giving you a headache and glasses are cheap usualy $50 for a 10 pack...thats more than enough for your guests...

I have never got a headache or eye strain on my active display and I often use 3d for gaming seasons which last upto 5 hrs. Glasses are also half that price.
Razor Time is offline  
post #201 of 205 Old 02-16-2012, 06:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Time View Post

I have never got a headache or eye strain on my active display

Same here, I've done marathon (7 hours) 3D game sessions, with friends, and none of us have ever gotten headaches. It's often stated that active shutter glasses give headaches, but I doubt that it's really true.
Airion is offline  
post #202 of 205 Old 02-16-2012, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jacob305's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Jacob305 is offline  
post #203 of 205 Old 03-31-2014, 10:52 AM
Newbie
 
sugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
hi,

this topic is very old, but I decided to revive it because that's an important issue for those who loves 3D movies at home

Samsung decided not to adopt RDZ

now in 2014 what you think about passive or active ?!

I still prefer LG 3D passive because of free headaches and flicker free, I mean is more confortable, although doesn't provide full-hd
sugar is offline  
post #204 of 205 Old 03-31-2014, 02:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Now that UHD 4K sets are here, the ones with passive 3-D can now provide full 1080p in each eye (on most, but not all, models, so be sure to investigate) so you get the same resolution as an active model with all the benefits of passive. I have both active and passive sets and I find some advantages with both, but the passive 3D on the Sony and LG 65" UHD is spectacular - blowing active sets and 540p passive away.
Steve P. is offline  
post #205 of 205 Old 03-31-2014, 03:22 PM
Newbie
 
sugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve P. View Post

Now that UHD 4K sets are here, the ones with passive 3-D can now provide full 1080p in each eye (on most, but not all, models, so be sure to investigate) so you get the same resolution as an active model with all the benefits of passive. I have both active and passive sets and I find some advantages with both, but the passive 3D on the Sony and LG 65" UHD is spectacular - blowing active sets and 540p passive away.

I like images that pops up like in the cinema, that's what I like and my childs, I don't like deep 3D images....it's not so entertainment at home

deep 3D is like Nintendo 3DS, is deep indeed, but it lacks fun of images that comes thru us

can I get this experiences with active ?!
sugar is offline  
Reply 3D Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off