Originally Posted by cakefoo
I re-uploaded the first image.
If you cross your eyes, the first image is what you'd see on a passive display, and the second image is a deinterlaced version of the first.
What it proves is that, while yes, the odd and even rows theoretically form a full resolution image, the method of taking it in via two separate eyes and fusing it in our brains results in an inferior picture.
I'm on my phone so I can't do it. But your method is flawed because passive shows twice as many images as active. And it does it at a speed faster than the human eyes can decipher. Our ad the other guy described it, the brain perceives it as part of the first image.
So for you to duplicate it here, the inky way to get close would be to take the screen shot, then take a screen shot of the next frame, and fusing them all together.
Either that, or showing the first image you displayed and comparing it to the black screen you see half the time with an active display.
Where you guys are making your mistake, is your saying the black screen in an active display doesn't matter because the human eye can't see that fast (so the brain perceives it as a constant image), but then your not counting the next frame of the passive display, even though the eye can't see that fast and the brain sees it as part of the same image.
So take just the left eye for example. An active display will show a left image at 1080, then a black screen, then another 1080 image, then another black screen. The black screens don't matter because it's faster than the human eye can decipher, so the brain perceives it as a constant image.
In that same amount of time, a passive tv will show a 540 image, another 540 image, another 540 image, and yet another 540 image. This (like the black screen of an active display) happens faster than the human eye can see, so the brain perceives it as the same image.
Either way, at any given moment there are the exact same amount of pixels being seen by both technologies.