Originally Posted by jscott70
As for how my posts come off, I can't help the fact that some people in here are so sensitive about their active 3d.
Here's my situation and thoughts on active/passive. When I decided I wanted to get a 3D display, my requirements where I wanted a big screen at a low price (projector) and little to no crosstalk. This very naturally led to me getting an active 3D 720p DLP projector. Active vs passive was never a consideration given my criteria. On the other hand, when I eventually upgrade the TV in my living room, it will definitely be passive, because it makes sense there. I don't consider one to be better than the other, they're just different, with their own set of pros and cons.
What I don't like is when people (or marketing) try to say that resolution isn't a disadvantage of passive, particularly the full 1080 claim. What I do say is that resolution isn't everything, and I think it's okay to downplay the resolution disadvantage. But it's not okay to pretend it's not an disadvantage, or that it's the same as 1080 per eye in active displays.
Originally Posted by wonka702
Although one thing I can say is there is NO WAY the resolution is halfed on passive while viewing it. In real world numbers it is halfed, but in real world viewing it looks better than a 1080p 2d picture regardless of what some may think.
The issue isn't that it looks worse than 1080p 2D, it's that you're seeing half the pixels that you would see on a 1080p active 3D set. On a passive display, you're literally seeing the same number of pixels in 2D as 3D, just split between your two eyes. It makes sense then that it's not going to look any worse in 3D than in 2D. A 3D Blu-ray contains double the pixels of the 2D version. Double the pixels, then cut them in half with a passive display, and you're seeing as many pixels as a 2D Blu-ray. Nothing to scoff at! But you can imagine how it would be if you could see all of the pixels on the 3D Blu-ray on an active display. Full 1080p 2D and full 1080p 3D are two different things.
So with double the pixels will it look twice as good (I have a 720p active display, so I can't really answer this)? I doubt it, as you're facing diminishing returns as you increase resolution. There's also the question of whether or not your display is big enough and your seating close enough to resolve 1080p in the first place. But the resolution is what it is.
One other thing I don't like about the passive 1080p claims is that it works as much an argument against 4k passive displays (allowing full 1080p for both eyes) as it does against 1080p active displays. Will the same arguments for passive displays today convince people they don't need 4k passive displays tomorrow? Maybe, maybe not.