AVS Forum banner

Active Better Than Passive Per Sony

7K views 93 replies 21 participants last post by  tory40 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#52 ·
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. "
 
#53 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by jscott70 /forum/post/22007950


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.
 
#54 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22008230

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 /forum/post/22008344


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.)
 
#57 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 /forum/post/0



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.
 
#61 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CureMode /forum/post/22008305


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. "

An argument being made does not equal fact. (One can argue that the sky is made of jello, it doesn't mean it's true.) More on that "argument", below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP /forum/post/22008401


[snip] ...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....[snip]

The blue part of the quote from the article was a hyperlink to the "shootout" that claimed passive was better, so Lee's response used an article that was more recent than the one he was countering.


That same shootout is also discussed here, where the author politely points to some of the flaws of the shootout. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20102018-1/study-finds-passive-3d-tvs-superior-to-active/?tag=contentBody;page


As mentioned here and in several other threads, the shootout was flawed from the beginning, using TV choices that (deliberately or not) would give biased results. On top of that, it draws debatable conclusions and uses subjective statements throughout the report that show even more bias.


I would tend to believe that the author of the shootout was acting as a shill for LG, but then again, I'm also a cynic sometimes.
 
#64 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/0


The big benefit to passive 3DTVs . . . cheap glasses

I tried to keep my post balanced and I tried to extol the virtues of both techs (especially as I own both active and passive TVs), but I guess there's no point in trying to be civil. Fine, lets roll in the mud.


Yes passive glasses are cheap. Nothing wrong with that. Not to mention they have zero syncing issues, there's no need to charge or change batteries and they generally yield brighter images.


Instead of just flapping your gums (I mean keyboard) all the time I suggest you actually go someplace, put on the glasses and watch an honest to goodness 3D bluray on a properly calibrated 2012 LG passive. You may be surprised at how good it looks.


Btw, the reason I took so long to respond is because I spent the evening enjoying my 3D TV, instead of arguing about it.
 
#65 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP /forum/post/22010316


I tried to keep my post balanced and I tried to extol the virtues of both techs (especially as I own both active and passive TVs), but I guess there's no point in trying to be civil. Fine, lets roll in the mud.


Yes passive glasses are cheap. Nothing wrong with that. Not to mention they have zero syncing issues, there's no need to charge or change batteries and they generally yield brighter images.


Instead of just flapping your gums (I mean keyboard) all the time I suggest you actually go someplace, put on the glasses and watch an honest to goodness 3D bluray on a properly calibrated 2012 LG passive. You may be surprised at how good it looks.


Btw, the reason I took so long to respond is because I spent the evening enjoying my 3D TV, instead of arguing about it.

1. I enjoy 3D BDs and 3D-TV all the time . . . on my 58" Panasonic VT25.


2. I have yet to see any LCD TV that remotely compares with the picture quality of a plasma - yes even your vaulted LG models. Sorry - not impressed at all.


3. Brightness is not an issue in my home as I have my TV setup in a 100% light controlled environment.


4. My 3D glasses don't use batteries. They are rechargable as most active glasses today are.


5. I have two seating positions in my TV room - One for 3D (6 Feet) and one for HDTV (9 feet). All the passive 3DTVs I have seen, at 6 feet, I can see the line structure in 3D mode - yuk!


Maybe you best watch more 3D on your 3DTV. That way you will post less drivel on a thread like this.
 
#66 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/0



1. I enjoy 3D BDs and 3D-TV all the time . . . on my 58" Panasonic VT25.


2. I have yet to see any LCD TV that remotely compares with the picture quality of a plasma - yes even your vaulted LG models. Sorry - not impressed at all.


3. Brightness is not an issue in my home as I have my TV setup in a 100% light controlled environment.


4. My 3D glasses don't use batteries. They are rechargable as most active glasses today are.


5. I have two seating positions in my TV room - One for 3D (6 Feet) and one for HDTV (9 feet). All the passive 3DTVs I have seen, at 6 feet, I can see the line structure in 3D mode - yuk!


Maybe you best watch more 3D on your 3DTV. That way you will post less drivel on a thread like this.

It is great that you are enjoying 3D but why do you have to insult? It is my understanding of the human brain that people like you who would rather insult other members rather than provide constructive posts on this forum are basically ignorant.
 
#69 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 /forum/post/22010627


It is great that you are enjoying 3D but why do you have to insult? It is my understanding of the human brain that people like you who would rather insult other members rather than provide constructive posts on this forum are basically ignorant.

Seems you didn't see this huh? I will bring it to your attention. This BTW was posted after I made the simple post of; "the big benefit of passive glasses 3DTV is cheap glasses," which happens to be a dead bang fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP /forum/post/22010316


I tried to keep my post balanced and I tried to extol the virtues of both techs (especially as I own both active and passive TVs), but I guess there's no point in trying to be civil. Fine, lets roll in the mud.

So talking about ignorance - I guess that definitely applies to you as he specifically said . . . "let's roll in the mud." Guess he was insulted by a fact? Wow! Talk about thin skin!


BTW - you notice Tony never responded to my list did he?
 
#73 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/0



Seems you didn't see this huh? I will bring it to your attention. This BTW was posted after I made the simple post of; "the big benefit of passive glasses 3DTV is cheap glasses," which happens to be a dead bang fact.


So talking about ignorance - I guess that definitely applies to you as he specifically said . . . "let's roll in the mud." Guess he was insulted by a fact? Wow! Talk about thin skin!


BTW - you notice Tony never responded to my list did he?

I wasn't calling you ignorant and apologize if it came off that way.


But saying cheap glasses is the only benefit of passive though is kind of not telling the entire story because it's not that simple and if it was we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Fact of the matter is there is so much consumer confusion but both technologies offer wonderful 3d solutions that can always co-exist (and I learned that on these forums by trying to understand as much as I could about 3d displays).


Going back and forth and trying to justify that the setup you have is superior to others really is pointless (although I must admit it can be quite fun to read).


Ask yourself is your post adding value to the discussion before pressing the enter button.


But hey, if trolling is your thing too, have at it.
 
#74 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 /forum/post/22010851


I wasn't calling you ignorant and apologize if it came off that way.


But saying cheap glasses is the only benefit of passive though is kind of not telling the entire story because it's not that simple and if it was we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Fact of the matter is there is so much consumer confusion but both technologies offer wonderful 3d solutions that can always co-exist (and I learned that on these forums by trying to understand as much as I could about 3d displays).


Going back and forth and trying to justify that the setup you have is superior to others really is pointless (although I must admit it can be quite fun to read).


Ask yourself is your post adding value to the discussion before pressing the enter button.


But hey, if trolling is your thing too, have at it.

I recognize everyone's name here,and I'm sure we are all very familiar with every argument posted on this subject. We're definitely repeating things we've all heard dozens of times before.


Then again threads like this are the most interesting reading on this forum. When I scan the titles if I see fresh posts in this thread, I go right to read it.


Edit: Oops, I guess this doesn't add value to the discussion.
 
#75 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 /forum/post/22010851


I wasn't calling you ignorant and apologize if it came off that way.


But saying cheap glasses is the only benefit of passive though is kind of not telling the entire story because it's not that simple and if it was we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Except I didn't say that did I? I said . . . "the big benefit" . . . NOT. . . "the only benefit." So please do not put words in my mouth I didn't say. How rude!


Quote:
Fact of the matter is there is so much consumer confusion but both technologies offer wonderful 3d solutions that can always co-exist (and I learned that on these forums by trying to understand as much as I could about 3d displays).


Going back and forth and trying to justify that the setup you have is superior to others really is pointless (although I must admit it can be quite fun to read).


Ask yourself is your post adding value to the discussion before pressing the enter button.

My post with my 5 point list adds value as far as I am concerned. I am speaking from personal real world experience. How much more valuable can you get? Each point is a factual one, not an opinion or speculation.

Quote:
But hey, if trolling is your thing too, have at it.

The only one trolling here is you. And please stop trying to be a psuedo-mod will you.
 
#76 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 /forum/post/22010851


But saying cheap glasses is the only benefit of passive.

Actually he said it was "the big benefit to passive 3DTVs," which is the same thing that passive fans say. At least, that's the main reason why my next TV will be passive. Am I mistaken? But because it was from someone who posted some positive things about active technology, it was interpreted as negative by said passive fan(atic)s.


I agree this stuff is entertaining reading though. We all love 3D, but argue so much about the details. The more we agree, the more we argue!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top