Active Better Than Passive Per Sony - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 12:45 AM
Member
 
Musictechguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben12345 View Post

This was published on a Sony website in G.B. as to the advantages of their active displays over passive displays.

Active 3D advantages:
3D viewing maintains Full HD resolution from sources such as Blu-ray 3D.
2D viewing is not compromised by screen coatings, therefore screen brightness is not affected and power consumption is lower in 2D mode.

Passive 3D disadvantages:
3D viewing halves the resolution of the original video source. Blu-ray 3D is reduced to DVD quality.
2D viewing is affected by the 3D screen coating with a visible line structure.
Power consumption is greater than comparably sized Active 3D TV's due to screen coating and associated brightness issues.

Interesting how Sony are planning to launch passive sets.
Musictechguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 11:05 AM
Member
 
jscott70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
This is an interesting comparison of active and passive technologies.

Home Theater Addict, Techno Geek, IT Guy and Miami Sports fan!
Here is the breakdown:
jscott70 is offline  
post #33 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 11:23 AM
Member
 
jscott70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
3d shootout article is an interesting read.

Home Theater Addict, Techno Geek, IT Guy and Miami Sports fan!
Here is the breakdown:
jscott70 is offline  
post #34 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 12:46 PM
Senior Member
 
wonka702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by jscott70 View Post

3d shootout article is an interesting read.

Quite a long article and I can definitely agree with a lot of the things said about the passive 3d technology. But can't help but think with all the praise for passive technology the funding came from a source who wanted him to concur with passive being better than active (I have the passive Vizio used in his tests and at a retail cost of $943 shouldn't even be allowed to enjoy 3d content according to some).

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.

If I get about a foot in front of the tv I can also see the lines they talk about (and it is bothersome knowing they are there after it was pointed out to me). But I also see these lines on my HTC EVO 3D and it doesn't use glasses.

I still want an active display so I can 100% say one is better than the other, but in reality I feel good just knowing that I am enjoying 3d at all.

Also I could have afforded a more expensive display and knowing what I know now would definitely upgrade to LG over the Vizio, but still would have went with passive for my first display if for no other reason the glasses. It is nice getting special edition glasses from the theatre as well as not getting upset when my daughter breaks a pair.

But I can also see Robut's point and if I could go out and buy an active display would definitely do it so I could see if there is something I am missing. However if I even suggest buying another tv set anytime soon I think my wife will cut off my balls.
wonka702 is offline  
post #35 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 01:15 PM
Member
 
jscott70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

Quite a long article and I can definitely agree with a lot of the things said about the passive 3d technology. But can't help but think with all the praise for passive technology the funding came from a source who wanted him to concur with passive being better than active (I have the passive Vizio used in his tests and at a retail cost of $943 shouldn't even be allowed to enjoy 3d content according to some).

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.

If I get about a foot in front of the tv I can also see the lines they talk about (and it is bothersome knowing they are there after it was pointed out to me). But I also see these lines on my HTC EVO 3D and it doesn't use glasses.

I still want an active display so I can 100% say one is better than the other, but in reality I feel good just knowing that I am enjoying 3d at all.

Also I could have afforded a more expensive display and knowing what I know now would definitely upgrade to LG over the Vizio, but still would have went with passive for my first display if for no other reason the glasses. It is nice getting special edition glasses from the theatre as well as not getting upset when my daughter breaks a pair.

But I can also see Robut's point and if I could go out and buy an active display would definitely do it so I could see if there is something I am missing. However if I even suggest buying another tv set anytime soon I think my wife will cut off my balls.

Great reply and analysis. I feel much the same way as you do.

I like other brands so it's not like I'm an LG homer. The 65LM6200 is the first LG set I've ever owned. The only other LG product in my house is my front load washer and dryer and they're wonderful.

I REALLY like Panny TV's alot and the Sammy 50" 720p (circa 2007) plasma in our bedroom has been a solid piece of equipment. We researched and looked extensively for our next set to replace our aging Toshiba 62" DLP and we definitely wanted it to be a 3d set.

We didn't want another behemoth DLP hot running lamp eater and we didn't want a plasma because they run hot and burn-in. Funny how you learn lessons from owning different types of sets over the years!

We quickly found passive to be the best technology FOR US. Our eyes didn't see the resolution loss that some mention as a drawback to passive or any flicker or crosstalk. The active displays had alot of flicker and a little crosstalk in addition to being dimmer.

We made these evaluations from a series of visits to our local Best Buy that culminated in an hour long extensive session where they put 3d blu-ray content on all 4 sets (LG passive and Sony, Samsung and Panasonic active displays). The Panasonic seemed to have by far the best active display of the bunch though.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with active displays, they just don't work for us. Different people have different perceptions and preferences about what they want in a 3d display. Where I take issue is with people who act as if active is the best and no one can question it.

Home Theater Addict, Techno Geek, IT Guy and Miami Sports fan!
Here is the breakdown:
jscott70 is offline  
post #36 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 01:51 PM
Member
 
CureMode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree it is a matter of preference. I have a passive Toshiba set I have been enjoying since October 2011. For me the practically free glasses were the selling point, I had been saving up theater 3D glasses for months when I read about FPR technology earlier in 2011. But beyond that, I didn't want to be bothered with the flicker, the charging, syncing, and the head tilting sensitivity that comes with Active. Those factors may not bother fans of active, because they are getting a full 1080p picture. But, with a family of 4, with 2 11 year olds, Active was just not an option for me. We have an almost unlimited supply of glasses, and we just put them on and play the 3D Bluray.

There are trade offs with passive, I do occasionally notice a slight stair casing effect on edges on VOD 3D movies caused by the FPR and the fact that they are already 1080i. As for seeing the FPR lines in 2D, I never have. For true Bluray 3D films I personally don't see any significant resolution hit. Passive also offers benefits including Simuview / Dual View style gaming, as I discovered back in January...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1389575

As much as some people say the Active Glasses cost is not a huge drawback, it really is. My dad recently bought an LG 50' Plasma Active 3D (against my advice) because it was on sale for $799. When he found out the cheapest he could find the glasses for it was around $80, he opted not to buy them. His 3DTV is only going to be used for 2D for the foreseeable future.

Thank You
Chris Feehan
501st\ECG - TK6744
http://www.curemode.com
CureMode is offline  
post #37 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 05:19 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 jscott70 View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

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.
Airion is offline  
post #38 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 06:09 PM
Senior Member
 
lewis3845's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camby,Indiana USA
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
you hit the nail on the head Airion, I also have an active 3d dlp projector setup and I designed my friends single projector passive 3d setup and my neighbor has the 65 inch passive LG. I have seen and played with all these in person unlike some people who just talk what they know nothing about. I will say this if people are paying $60 $70 $80 for active glasses you must not be looking too hard. I bought my optoma's brand new for $35 and they are the best dlp link glasses you can buy. I know websites that sell used and new active glasses for $10 to $40.
lewis3845 is offline  
post #39 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 06:40 PM
Senior Member
 
wonka702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post

you hit the nail on the head Airion, I also have an active 3d dlp projector setup and I designed my friends single projector passive 3d setup and my neighbor has the 65 inch passive LG. I have seen and played with all these in person unlike some people who just talk what they know nothing about. I will say this if people are paying $60 $70 $80 for active glasses you must not be looking too hard. I bought my optoma's brand new for $35 and they are the best dlp link glasses you can buy. I know websites that sell used and new active glasses for $10 to $40.

So your next display is going to be passive then?
wonka702 is offline  
post #40 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 07:15 PM
Senior Member
 
lewis3845's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camby,Indiana USA
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

So your next display is going to be passive then?

yes I'm getting a passive tv for my living room soon as the 4k sets are available.
lewis3845 is offline  
post #41 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 08:23 PM
Senior Member
 
wonka702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post


yes I'm getting a passive tv for my living room soon as the 4k sets are available.

Even if they have a 4k active format that doesn't half the resolution?
wonka702 is offline  
post #42 of 94 Old 05-09-2012, 08:44 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 wonka702 View Post

Even if they have a 4k active format that doesn't half the resolution?

It's a good question, but 4k active would only be for very large screens and/or very close seating. I can't say for sure until I see it, but I'm skeptical 4k active 3D would be worth it over the benefits of going passive. That is to say, I'm skeptical of 2D 4k as well.
Airion is offline  
post #43 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 03:42 AM
Senior Member
 
lewis3845's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camby,Indiana USA
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

Even if they have a 4k active format that doesn't half the resolution?

yes, it doesn't matter because I don't want a huge display in my living room so I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but if I did want a huge picture I would probably go the active 4k projection route since my whole house is light controlled.
lewis3845 is offline  
post #44 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 07:01 AM
Member
 
jscott70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post

you hit the nail on the head Airion, I also have an active 3d dlp projector setup and I designed my friends single projector passive 3d setup and my neighbor has the 65 inch passive LG. I have seen and played with all these in person unlike some people who just talk what they know nothing about. I will say this if people are paying $60 $70 $80 for active glasses you must not be looking too hard. I bought my optoma's brand new for $35 and they are the best dlp link glasses you can buy. I know websites that sell used and new active glasses for $10 to $40.

Which is still far more expensive than passive glasses. So you're an expert because you've viewed both types of technology just like everyone else has on here?

I'm a little confused as to how the "fans of active" can talk about how "fans of passive" go on about the positives of passive while emphasizing the negatives of active and glossing over the positives when you guys do that exact thing.

You guys keep harping on the resolution issue but that's just on paper. Instead of focusing on a technical spec, how about judging based solely on performance? I just happened to evaluate 3d sets by using my eyes instead of harping on a few numbers on a piece of paper. My eyes did not like the incessant flicker that existed around the edges of many objects on the screen or the shutter effect that was noticeable when turning my head every so often or the dimness that I saw with active displays.

Sorry, that's just me. Obviously active works great for you and those of you who actually own 1080p active sets and get full resolution (despite the fact that every other frame is black) can sleep better at night knowing that. I understand that some people are more concerned with specs than real world performance. It's sad, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Home Theater Addict, Techno Geek, IT Guy and Miami Sports fan!
Here is the breakdown:
jscott70 is offline  
post #45 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 08:11 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jscott70 View Post

Which is still far more expensive than passive glasses. So you're an expert because you've viewed both types of technology just like everyone else has on here?

I'm a little confused as to how the "fans of active" can talk about how "fans of passive" go on about the positives of passive while emphasizing the negatives of active and glossing over the positives when you guys do that exact thing.

You guys keep harping on the resolution issue but that's just on paper. Instead of focusing on a technical spec, how about judging based solely on performance? I just happened to evaluate 3d sets by using my eyes instead of harping on a few numbers on a piece of paper. My eyes did not like the incessant flicker that existed around the edges of many objects on the screen or the shutter effect that was noticeable when turning my head every so often or the dimness that I saw with active displays.

Sorry, that's just me. Obviously active works great for you and those of you who actually own 1080p active sets and get full resolution (despite the fact that every other frame is black) can sleep better at night knowing that. I understand that some people are more concerned with specs than real world performance. It's sad, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

That is only for LCD 3DTVs - not for PDP 3DTVs or MMD 3DTVs. They don't need Black Frame Insertion because they have a fast enough refresh rate which LCD panels don't. That IMO is the biggest drawback to passive 3DTVs (flatscreen) - they are LCD.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #46 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 08:37 AM
Member
 
jscott70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

That is only for LCD 3DTVs - not for PDP 3DTVs or MMD 3DTVs. They don't need Black Frame Insertion because they have a fast enough refresh rate which LCD panels don't. That IMO is the biggest drawback to passive 3DTVs (flatscreen) - they are LCD.

You're right. Sorry, I am thinking apples to apples since I own an LG LED/LCD set. I do have to say that I have not viewed active on a projector so that may well be a better active experience, however, a projector setup isn't practical for me and probably never will be. Thanks for the correction....

Home Theater Addict, Techno Geek, IT Guy and Miami Sports fan!
Here is the breakdown:
jscott70 is offline  
post #47 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 10:53 AM
Member
 
Musictechguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have active 3D but I think that passive will win out. Active glasses are too uncomfortable and flicker means you have to draw the curtains to watch anything. This just isn't practical for families.

You don't actually need 1080p if you view at a distance. Your eye can't pick out the detail anyway.

And what's the point with a perfect 1080p image when you the experience is too uncomfortable to watch for any length of time.

That's why Sony are releasing passive TVs. And others will follow.
Musictechguy is offline  
post #48 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 11:22 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musictechguy View Post

I have active 3D but I think that passive will win out. Active glasses are too uncomfortable and flicker means you have to draw the curtains to watch anything. This just isn't practical for families.

Have you seen the new Samsung Active Glasses? They are very comfortable to wear. If you see flicker, then something is wrong with the sync. I never see flicker with my Panasonic VT25.

Quote:
You don't actually need 1080p if you view at a distance. Your eye can't pick out the detail anyway.

But it is recommended that you sit closer then "normal" with a 3DTV.

Quote:
And what's the point with a perfect 1080p image when you the experience is too uncomfortable to watch for any length of time.

Any discomfort would be caused by physical eye aliments. If you have Stereo-Acute vision, you should not experience any discomfort at all.

Quote:
That's why Sony are releasing passive TVs. And others will follow.

With the shape Sony's TV business is in, it's just a case of "throw enough crap against the wall - some of it will stick."
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #49 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 12:40 PM
Member
 
jscott70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post

wow, you sure don't know what your talking about, I'll leave it at that.

Your credibility goes right out the window when you say I know nothing but don't follow up with any reason why.

I know my passive set is hands down the best set for my wife and I. Obviously, there are many here that feel active is the best set for them. As I said before, it's subjective. You obviously know nothing because you continue to try and force your active 3d superiority theory onto everyone despite the fact that you have nothing to back that up.

Did you read any of the 3d shootout article that I posted a link to above? Those guys did a wonderful job of comparing the two types of technology and really going through how they came to their conclusions.

In addition to the open minded people, it also is a good read for those people who need numbers and specs and don't trust their eyes to tell them which display to choose.

Home Theater Addict, Techno Geek, IT Guy and Miami Sports fan!
Here is the breakdown:
jscott70 is offline  
post #50 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 01:03 PM
Member
 
CureMode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post

you hit the nail on the head Airion, I also have an active 3d dlp projector setup and I designed my friends single projector passive 3d setup and my neighbor has the 65 inch passive LG. I have seen and played with all these in person unlike some people who just talk what they know nothing about. I will say this if people are paying $60 $70 $80 for active glasses you must not be looking too hard. I bought my optoma's brand new for $35 and they are the best dlp link glasses you can buy. I know websites that sell used and new active glasses for $10 to $40.

If you could share that site, the cheapest I could find the LG AG-S250 RF active glasses for my dad was $72 shipped, and he wanted 4 pairs.

Thank You
Chris Feehan
501st\ECG - TK6744
http://www.curemode.com
CureMode is offline  
post #51 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 01:45 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jscott70 View Post

Are you serious with those answers? I thought this was supposed to be a rational discussion about active vs. passive not a delusional response session that reminds me of an ideological political discussion. This thread is a complete waste of time. You active 3d fans are uninterested in any kind of rational dialog. You'd rather just say active is superior "because you said so". You have no real world evidence to prove it. I'm done with this nonsense.

We prefer the 3D picture quality of the best active 3D TVs over passive for critical viewing.

http://reviews.cnet.com/2735-7608_7-1278-3.html
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #52 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 02:05 PM
Member
 
CureMode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The last line of that article...

"But with the practical and certain picture quality strengths of passive 3D, especially in bright rooms, an argument can certainly be made that it's the better choice overall. "

Thank You
Chris Feehan
501st\ECG - TK6744
http://www.curemode.com
CureMode is offline  
post #53 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 02:15 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 jscott70 View Post

Your credibility goes right out the window when you say I know nothing but don't follow up with any reason why.

I know my passive set is hands down the best set for my wife and I. Obviously, there are many here that feel active is the best set for them. As I said before, it's subjective. You obviously know nothing because you continue to try and force your active 3d superiority theory onto everyone despite the fact that you have nothing to back that up.

Did you read any of the 3d shootout article that I posted a link to above? Those guys did a wonderful job of comparing the two types of technology and really going through how they came to their conclusions.

In addition to the open minded people, it also is a good read for those people who need numbers and specs and don't trust their eyes to tell them which display to choose.

The Raymond M. Soneira article is old and biased (not as much as you are).

He tests only small displays 47" that are an advantage to passive, the resolution is less obvious. He tested lower end active displays not including plasma and other active display types.

Here's a good read http://www.hometheater.com/content/c...3d-flat-panels

Here's a good video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETc3Ep3wcEk

I'm glad you're done with this nonsense.
Robut is offline  
post #54 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 02:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,844
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

We prefer the 3D picture quality of the best active 3D TVs over passive for critical viewing.

http://reviews.cnet.com/2735-7608_7-1278-3.html

I really don't want to get in the middle of all this but just for the sake of full disclosure, that article IS over six months old and in any case you conveniently left out the last line: But with the practical and certain picture quality strengths of passive 3D, especially in bright rooms, an argument can certainly be made that it's the better choice overall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

Here's a good read http://www.hometheater.com/content/c...3d-flat-panels

That article is even older, dating back a year to May of 2011.

Neither takes into account the advances made by both passive and active TVs in 2012. Actives are far better at managing crosstalk and flicker; Passives have definitely addressed the drop in PQ when in 3D. A lot of the old complaints don't really apply to either tech anymore and what you buy really comes down to other factors (size of screen, cost of glasses, number of people viewing at same time, etc.)
TonyDP is offline  
post #55 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 02:30 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

I really don't want to get in the middle of all this but just for the sake of full disclosure, that article IS over six months old and doesn't take into account the advances made by both passive and active TVs in 2012.

And what would those advances be?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #56 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 02:32 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Samsung's new 55" ES9500 OLED 3DTV will be active glasses:

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-off...-called-es9500
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #57 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 03:09 PM
Senior Member
 
wonka702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post


wow, you sure don't know what your talking about, I'll leave it at that.

How can you say that he doesn't know what he is talking about? He is being objective and you seem to be more like Sarah Palin.

In one of your first posts you say that most people cant see flicker cause you showed your active display to 30 people and as a result of that people who see flicker on active displays HAS TO BE LOW.

So based on that you lost all credibility with me because you had no data to back up your claim. The fact that you even have 30 people to show your setup to surprises me because you also insulted me saying I had no common sense. So in general you seem to be pretty condescending when someone brings up a counter point or questions you. Then you go all floppity flip agreeing with a small portion of what someone says by saying you completely agree.

After several posts on this subject, I still really dont know where you stand on this issue. But if anyone here doesn't know what there talking about its you. You dont even seem to have much conviction either.

The purpose of these forums is to give us an outlet to LEARN and discuss our enthusiasm for technology, not insult one another. You seem to know alot about the latter.
wonka702 is offline  
post #58 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
wonka702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Samsung's new 55" ES9500 OLED 3DTV will be active glasses:

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-off...-called-es9500

Wow and at that price it is a real bargain and will surely insure that more people adopt 3d into their homes, if for nothing else the stylish active glasses ;-)
wonka702 is offline  
post #59 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 04:30 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

Wow and at that price it is a real bargain and will surely insure that more people adopt 3d into their homes, if for nothing else the stylish active glasses ;-)

It is a bargin when you compare it to the first 50" Pioneer Plasma HDTVs. They originally sold for $25,000.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #60 of 94 Old 05-10-2012, 04:40 PM
Senior Member
 
wonka702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


It is a bargin when you compare it to the first 50" Pioneer Plasma HDTVs. They originally sold for $25,000.

It was meant to be tongue in cheek humor considering my $943 retail price for my passive Vizio setup.
wonka702 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