Keep 3D active or make switch to Passive 3D TV - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 408 Old 11-05-2012, 03:20 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Jonspicoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am contemplating making the switch from my Samsung 2010 3D Active Tv to a new 3D Passive set. The reasons are to reduce eye strain, have friends over (cheaper glasses) and bigger TV. I currently have a 50” Plasma which is still an amazing TV in both 3D and 2D. I could put it in another room in the house so Im not getting rid of it completely. Black Friday is coming up and Im sure there will be some really goo sales.

Are the new 3D tvs brighter display in 3D mode and is there really less strain. I don’t have an issue with eye strain but my wife does. It makes it kind of pointless to try to watch tv together in 3D. I find myself watching 3D movies when she is not home. Still a decent amount though. The 2nd biggest issue is I only have 2 pairs of Active glasses because they are still like $40 a pair. Im not going to buy 5 or more of these pairs to use only a few times a year. The glasses that are able to be used on the new Passive sets are very cheap and you can buy them in huge packs. How cool would it be to watch sports with all your family or friends in 3D?

I would love to hear some suggestions? Im sure there are a few people that made the jump or thinking about it.
Jonspicoli is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 408 Old 11-06-2012, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eweiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Highland Village, TX
Posts: 7,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Unfortunately you can't make good apples-to-apples comparisons at Best Buy, because the TVs aren't equally and equivalently calibrated, but the passive LG 3D looks brighter than the 3 active TVs (Sony, Panasonic and Samsung), which is expected, and I am not bothered by flicker from the passive glasses as I am a bit by the active ones.

I like the smoother 3D on the active TVs, but the flicker or whatever - it could be poor adjustment by Best Buy - is mildly annoying and might be a problem for me if I watched an active 3D TV for 30 minutes or more.

I want to see a Vizio M3D651SV in person as well as a 65" LG - hopefully LG will be coming out with a new model by Christmas or January - before I am willing to buy a new 65" TV. I think a nearby Wal-Mart might have the Vizio; Costco doesn't seem to want to put one on the floor. All Best Buy has in person is the 55" LG and it's last year's 2nd-generation model (i.e., the current model).
eweiss is offline  
post #3 of 408 Old 11-07-2012, 03:51 PM
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
Active 3D, when demonstrated in stores, may show flicker that you would not see at home. If there fluorescent lights that can be seen by the glasses, you often will get a flicker because the light pulse (this is the nature of fluorescent lights) but a slightly different sync to the active shuttering of the glasses. At home, if you use incandecent, halogen or LED lighting, there is no pluse to cause flicker.
GEP is offline  
post #4 of 408 Old 11-07-2012, 03:58 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Jonspicoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I only get flicker from my active display when the batteries are getting low. I usually watch in a darker room with my plasma. I think Im trying to get a sense of how good the passive displays are compared to the older technology. Black friday should produce some great deals on new 3D sets. Like mentioned earlier I do not need a new TV but more thinking of moving it to another room and putting the new one in the Family/entertainment room.
Jonspicoli is offline  
post #5 of 408 Old 11-07-2012, 04:26 PM
Newbie
 
fman3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I personally would never buy a Passive 3D set. It just doesnt look HD to me, and to me - that ruins the whole experience. its like HD vs SD.. I will say that every 2010 Active Shutter model that I have seen has crosstalk issues and eye strain issues. I would suggest gettting a 2011/2012 model Active Shutter Panasonic Viera Plasma. If you want 3d - then get a viera Plasma!
Also, if you are wanting to watch live sports in 3D, just keep in mind that means you are going to be watching espn 3D, which is already set to a half resolution - and combine that with the half resolution passive set... it is unwatchable.. There is a reason Best Buy has Directv espn 3d on display, but for some reason its always not working on the passive sets... Just compare them for yourself before making a big purchase!
fman3 is offline  
post #6 of 408 Old 11-07-2012, 07:10 PM
Senior Member
 
hibeta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
LG passive on a 65" screen looks absolutely fantastic. Don't know if it's better or worse than active, but glasses are very inexpensive and it certainly has a 'wow' factor.
hibeta is offline  
post #7 of 408 Old 11-08-2012, 04:55 PM
Senior Member
 
twarren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I recently saw the Sony 84", 4k resolution set at a Sony store (in my case South Coast Plaza in southern California) and must say it is the most impressive picture I've ever seen. Sony has exclusively used active technology in all of their 3d tv sets UNTIL this one. It uses passive and the 3d picture is excellent. Now, if they would only reduce the price by, oh say, 75% or so...

(And, for watching the demo, I received 2 free movie tickets for Skyfall.)
twarren is offline  
post #8 of 408 Old 11-08-2012, 05:34 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
It would be nice to watch sports in 3D if there was actually content for that. Directv has ESPN 3D but all they show is 6 month old games. I want to say I watched a NC basketball game last year live in 3D but that was only once. N3D is basically shut down right now, so that leaves 3Net which just repeats the $%%^ out of everything. Other than 3D Blu ray there just isn't enough content.

Passive is really the only way 3D can go forward. There's no reason to have technology in the glasses, it's more to go wrong, batteries to recharge/replace. From what I read there's more flicker in the active and darker. If you're worried about not seeing 1080p in each eye I wouldn't worry about it. I don't think I've ever watched something, aside from Directv, that i said, oh that doesn't look like it's 1080p. Even when I close 1 eye it looks HD, besides you need both eyes for 3D anyway and then it is true 1080p. What LG said was that it is 60 fps or something and that's more than enough for 1080p. I'd have to Google it again and find it but it was something like that.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #9 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 09:26 AM
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
I absolutely can't believe someone is still saying passive 3D is 1080p. You can claim it looks 1080p at a distance. To say it is 1080p is ridiculous.
Robut is offline  
post #10 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 11:43 AM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Because it is.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #11 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 01:37 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
Nonsense
Robut is offline  
post #12 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 02:55 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
You should really do more research before making erroneous claims with which you obviously know nothing about. 3D is more about how your mind perceives images than lines of resolution.

Read this for more info:
http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/94979-why-you-should-buy-a-passive-3d-tv
http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm

and especially this link under 3D Imaging, Resolution and Sharpness Viewing Tests is also interesting comparing active to passive
http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm#Imaging

People look at the specs and think it's only 540 per frame so it's not 1080p, but that's not the way 3d works. Listen to people that actually have a passive TV and read these links through before you make claims or decide against passive. Passive technology is overall cheaper for the customer and will most likely be the technology that becomes standard. Unless glasses free TV's come around, but I don't see that happening soon.

This is a quote from that link that says it best:

Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses
By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it’s easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can’t get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.

But it’s not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical – but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn’t any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see. That is the theory and fundamental principle behind 3D Image Fusion for FPR TVs – so next we actually tested it to see how accurate it is and how sharp the 3D images actually appear.

It goes on to compare images on both passive and active TVs and you should read the results because when they compare small text that would be unreadable with 540 lines of resolution and they can be read just as easily on a passive TV as the active, even BETTER without the crosstalk, then the claims that it isn't true 1080 is false.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #13 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 03:10 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
If you do your research of this forum, like do a search on the subject, you have to see that you are wrong. Quoting biased articles don't convince anyone. I could match you article for article and more so. I'm not going to waste my time with you or anyone else anymore arguing again what is LG propaganda. So have fun with your display and your delusion.

By the way I've read your articles a long time ago:

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETc3Ep3wcEk

Read these: http://hifi-writer.com/wpblog/?p=3483
http://www.hometheater.com/content/closer-look-active-vs-passive-3d-flat-panels
http://www.etcenter.org/2011/05/consumer-reports-how-lgs-first-passive-3d-tv-stacks-up/

I do not buy the conclusions by Raymond M. Soneira because he omitted any more current active models Samsung UN55D8000, the Sony XBR-HX929, and most 2012 plasmas and LCDs that have very little apparent crosstalk. He also tested small size screen (46" and 47") which give advantage to passive resolution and show less line grid (jaggy line and softness) visibility. So no matter how technical the tests were they are biased automatically.

So the study is biased toward passive. I don't, of course, know if the bias was intentional.
Robut is offline  
post #14 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 05:39 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
If you're pointing to articles here I'd say they're biased against passive by individuals like yourself. I would take first hand results of side by side tests like the ones I linked to before i trusted second hand myths here. If you can take a blu ray and see the small print as easily or better than an active TV with passive TV then the claim that passive is not HD or somehow lower resolution than active is false. It's spread by people who don't check around or who don't actually own a passive TV to bother checking. There are other links I can point to as well but I don't see the point. People find it easier to just believe what they're told and not check it for themselves.

Even if there are newer active TVs with less crosstalk, so what? What does that have to do with passive not being HD? How well an active TV performs doesn't mean the passive ones perform any less. They should both be judged on their own results. 3D viewing is completely different than 2D, based on peoples claims that each frame is only 540 lines each and therefor not HD would also indicate that an active TV is 2160p (1080 in each eye), which it isn't. It's how the image is perceived in you mind. You can't judge horizontal resolution with 3D in the same way you can 2D.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #15 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 06:02 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Here's LG's certification that their passive TV's are indeed FULL 1080p HD:

http://www.lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/61296



SEOUL, July 10, 2011 -- LG Electronics (LG) announced that its CINEMA 3D TV (47LW570S-ZD) has been certified FULL HD in 3D-Mode by VDE, one of the largest technical and scientific international associations in Europe.

“This latest certification proves beyond all doubt that LG’s CINEMA 3D TVs, which already provide the most comfortable 3D viewing experience, deliver 3D in FULL HD,” said Havis Kwon, President and CEO of LG Electronics Home Entertainment Company. “We’re pleased to say we can now put this debate to rest.”

The dispute over LG’s TV had centered on whether the company’s CINEMA 3D TVs truly qualified as FULL HD, defined as a horizontal image containing 1,080 lines of definition. LG’s Film Patterned Retarder (FPR) technology, used on the CINEMA 3D TVs, creates the perception of 3D depth by delivering two 540 line images, one for each eye, that are then combined via the glasses to create a unified 1080p image. The ruling from the VDE delivers the clearest affirmation to date of the validity of LG’s FPR technology.

CINEMA 3D TV has already received a string of endorsements from other institutions and agencies. The China Electronic Chamber of Commerce ruled that both the vertical and horizontal resolution of LG CINEMA 3D TVs meet the 1080p TV standard, a position that allows LG to use the FULL HD logo in China. TÜV and Intertek, two top European quality assurance and safety certification agencies, awarded LG’s CINEMA 3D TVs “Flicker-Free” certification, providing official backing for LG’s sharp 3D images.

Furthermore, a top US consumer magazine recently named an LG CINEMA 3D TV the best 3D TV in the US market. The review noted clear advantages for the TV’s viewing angle, 3D glasses and bright images.


Another link that debunks the myth:
http://stijndewitt.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/active-vs-passive-3d-myth-revisited/

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #16 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 07:35 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
Have Fun
Robut is offline  
post #17 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 07:51 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I am, and so are the millions of other LG users.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #18 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 08:19 PM
Senior Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Even though a passive glasses 1920x1080 display may give good results in a formal 3D visible resolution test, there will unavoidably be a Venetian blind effect (finely spaced black horizontal lines) when viewing from close distances. And a certain amount of aliasing at close viewing distances (e.g. a staircase effect with diagonal lines in the source image). People will vary in their sensitivity to such artefacts. It's advisable to inspect the 3D picture carefully at the intended viewing distance(s), before committing to a purchase.

So the various advantages of the passive technology (e.g. lack of the 120Hz Left Right alternation flicker that can cause eye strain for some people [or a slight jumble or blur to the motion, for some people,* due to the unavoidable small timing mismatch between Left and Right views] may need to be weighed against the disadvantage of visible artefacts at close viewing distances.

___________

* Affects me when viewing with active glasses; but doesn't appear to affect most people.
MLXXX is online now  
post #19 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 09:09 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
The tests that were done were done at 6 feet and they passed as full HD and better than active with less crosstalk. I have a 65 inch and I sit about 9-10 feet away. There is no way I would sit 6 feet in front, it's just too close for me. When I stand about 4 feet in front i don't notice any black horizontal lines and that's actually looking for them, not enjoying the content.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #20 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 10:23 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
And so are the multi-millions of active display users.
Robut is offline  
post #21 of 408 Old 11-09-2012, 11:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
LG is going to have a hard time explaining themselves if/when they want to start marketing 4k passive displays which allow 1080p per eye like current active displays. Their marketing has convinced a lot of people that it's unnecessary or redundant. I suspect attitudes/understandings will change once such displays become affordable though.

I think the heart of the disagreement is the fact that 2D resolutions and 3D resolutions are apples and oranges, and many people, including reviewers and professionals (who are nonetheless new to 3D), don't have a good grasp of that yet. Passive's Full HD claim both survives and is disputed because it's a half truth. In some sense, it is 1080, because 540 left plus 540 right interleaved equals 1080. However, this is 1080 as we would think of a 2D image (and to it's credit, it should look and have as much detail as a 1080p 2D image). A true 1080p 3D image is 1080p left plus 1080p right overlapping, which is how our eyes and brains receive stereoscopic images in the real world. Translating that back into 2D, you could say it's like 2160p (in fact that's what's stored on the Blu-ray), but there's still a lot lost in translation as a 2160p 2D image is going look and have different properties than a 1080p 3D image. Still, the fact is that a true 1080p 3D image has much more visual information than a 1080p 2D image. It's two different 1080p 2D angles on the scene combined into a rich organic whole in our brains. How different are those two images? It all depends on the shape, depth, and composition of what you're looking at. In some cases, such as distant objects or flat objects, there mostly is only horizontal disparity. But for anything not flat, close to the cameras, and everything behind said object which is blocked in one eye, there absolutely is vertical disparity as well. If that wasn't the case, 3D Blu-ray frames wouldn't be stored on the disc as 2160p. Frame packed Blu-rays, the players to play them, HDMI 1.4, all of these wouldn't exist if image fusion provided the full picture.

But, resolution isn't everything, it's only one thing to consider. To the OP, I'd say if you have the chance to get a larger, brighter display and you're missing chances to watch 3D with friends, I'd say definitely go for a new passive. Those 3 things also matter a great deal.
Airion is offline  
post #22 of 408 Old 11-10-2012, 09:00 AM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Well, LG do already have a 4k 2160p TV, but I'm trying to understand what the need for it is? http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-84LM9600-led-tv There isn't even content for it yet. I think it's also priced out of the market because of the higher resolution so it's not really a contender and most 4k's aren't right now. That's really another subject.

I'd sooner see them make an affordable screen that's 80+ inches with the same cinema 3D technology and at the same price per inch as current models. It would be cheaper than Sharp's 80inch and yet cheaper overall with cinema 3D glasses. That, is actually my only gripe when I bought mine that is wasn't 70 inches like Sharp's model and now they have an 80 inch, which is the most affordable large model on the market. Too bad it's active. I will say when I was at Best Buy and viewed the Sharp 80" in 2D, that it was very blocky and noticeably lower resolution than my 65" LG. I really hope it was the content they were playing and not the TVs performance, I keep meaning to ask them when I'm there. I didn't try 3D on that one. I've got an older 1080p 2D Sharp and it does really well and I've only had some minor complaints with it.

But back to the 1080 per eye thing. 1080p per eye does not equal a 2160p 3D image. The 4k TV's that are out now are true 2160p in 2D (minus any usable Blu ray content right now.((I have no idea if the 3D is 2160p per eye too or 1080 per eye like it is now on these, another subject too.))). But 3D is how your mind puts both left and right images together. For lack of a better term you're basically interlacing those frames in your mind or overlapping them, not adding all the content to produce an overall 3D image in 2160p. Because of how these images are fused together i don't see any way that you're seeing 2160p right now with active and they're not advertising it that way either, it's just 1080p like passive.

As it's been researched and reported all over, it's how your mind fuses the two frames together. That's where people are still looking at 3D paper specs like 2D and thinking somehow active is greater resolution. Passive gets the same results it's just a different method in displaying the two frames resulting in a 1080p image. Sure, each format is going to have its quirks, and I'm sure they're sorting those out on both sides. Greater crosstalk with active, flicker, eye fatigue and maybe now there's less of that. Maybe there's noticeable black lines on passive up close, I certainly haven't seen it yet. But if the TV was designed with seating position in mind I think that's something to take into consideration when you buy it just as if it were 2D. You wouldn't want to buy a 21" screen for a large room and sit 20 feet back, just as you wouldn't buy an 80inch screen and sit 4 feet in front. At 4 feet on larger screens you can see the individual pixels.

I lean toward passive because it appears to be the best technology to move forward because the main issue with 3D is the glasses and they will always be an issue and getting people to adopt 3D will always be a tough sell. The easier the glasses are to use, the easier the sell. I'm just here to say that if some people are saying that passive isn't FULL 1080p 3D, then that is false information. They've been certified, the myth has already been debunked by more than one source. Of course the best method is to just try them out first and make your own conclusions. Research both formats and see what works best for you.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #23 of 408 Old 11-10-2012, 06:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post

1080p per eye does not equal a 2160p 3D image.

Agreed. Likewise, 540p per eye does not equal a 1080p 3D image. That's using your math. Think about it. 1080p 3D is one 1080p image left, and a different 1080p image right. It's a total of 2160p, which is why 3D Blu-rays have 2160 lines per frame.

The full 1080 certification LG got from one association is nice, but like I said, it's a half truth, so it depends on the test you do and how you do the math. That's why the experts disagree. You should really read those links Robut offered above. The Youtube video is particularly interesting; start watching around the 6 minute mark.

The point of a 4k passive TV is that you can get 1080p per eye, allowing you to see all 2160 lines on the Blu-ray with a passive display. Do you really believe the magic of image fusion makes that no better than current 540p per eye displays? This isn't just a question about active vs passive. It's also about current passive vs better future passive.
Airion is offline  
post #24 of 408 Old 11-10-2012, 09:25 PM
Senior Member
 
fritzi93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 39
In regard to an earlier comment comparing active vs passive to HD vs SD...well, I don't see it that way at all. If anything, and I'm not committed to this mind you, it would be more like the difference between 1080p/i vs 720p. Which members here will know can be indistinguishable past a certain viewing distance.

My experience with active is limited to brief viewings in a showroom. It was difficult to fairly compare the active and passive sets I saw. I thought at the time that passive was not strikingly inferior. It was brighter, certainly. I'm not fully convinced by Soneira either, though.

I'll just say I don't regret getting my LG 65LW6500, not at all. Cheap glasses without batteries was a factor in my choice.
fritzi93 is online now  
post #25 of 408 Old 11-10-2012, 10:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

In regard to an earlier comment comparing active vs passive to HD vs SD...well, I don't see it that way at all. If anything, and I'm not committed to this mind you, it would be more like the difference between 1080p/i vs 720p.

The numbers back this up. Let's look at the number of pixels of video data you're seeing (approximated slightly):

720p 2D: 1 million pixels
1080p 2D: 2 million pixels
720p per eye 3D: 2 million pixels (1 million left plus a different 1 million right).
1080p per eye 3D: 4 million pixels
1080p passive w/540p per eye: 2 million pixels.

So with 1080p passive, each eye sees 540 lines but the actual number of pixels is equivalent to the number of pixels in a standard 720p 2D image, per eye. It should make sense of course on a 1080p passive panel that you're seeing exactly the same number of pixels in 2D as 3D, just divided between your eyes in 3D. I think that's why many say 1080p passive still looks like 1080p, because you're literally seeing the same number of pixels as a 1080p 2D image. 1080p 2D is already more than most people can resolve given their screen size and seating distance, and for many people the resolution advantage of 1080p active or 4k passive (both 1080p per eye) is probably a wash.
Airion is offline  
post #26 of 408 Old 11-11-2012, 01:23 AM
Senior Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 43
An important issue to consider is that Blu-ray discs are typically authored to give a smooth picture, free of digital aliases. Other than for superimposed titles, the video content will typically lack pixel-sharp boundaries. This is different to television broadcasting practice where minor aliasing effects may be forgiven (e.g. moiré patterns created by striped shirts, or a tennis net).

For me, display screens that use opposite sense polarization for adjacent horizontal lines of pixels don't lose much visible resolution when displaying typical Blu-ray feature films, compared to active shutter glasses displays, but do show alias effects, even at ordinary viewing distances. To eliminate visible aliasing at ordinary viewing distances for all viewers, the video content would need to be aggressively filtered; so it became very soft. The LG passive 3D displays I've seen in showrooms do not use such aggressive filtering. So aliases do inevitably develop from the use of only 540 widely spaced lines vertically per eye, instead of 1080 closely spaced lines vertically per eye.

I am a big fan of passive display 3D, but I need to sit back a little farther than usual to reduce the visibility of horizontal black lines, and aliasing. (I choose to sit in the front third of the seating at a public cinema.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post

The tests that were done were done at 6 feet and they passed as full HD and better than active with less crosstalk. I have a 65 inch and I sit about 9-10 feet away. There is no way I would sit 6 feet in front, it's just too close for me. When I stand about 4 feet in front i don't notice any black horizontal lines and that's actually looking for them, not enjoying the content.
There seems to be a wide variation in human eyesight. I viewed a 65" LG "3D cinema" display in a showroom today. At a distance of 4' the black lines were unmistakable for my eyes, and at 6' still quite prominent. At 9-10' the horizontal black lines were barely noticeable. However aliasing patterns were occasionally distracting, for my eyes, even at 9-10'.

I think the advantage of the new 4k displays for passive 3D will not be any major improvement in visible vertical resolution when playing a 1920 x 1080 Blu-ray, but a significantly smoother (alias-free) picture at close viewing distances. It's a pity these advanced displays will be at a huge price premium for some time.
MLXXX is online now  
post #27 of 408 Old 11-11-2012, 12:48 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

The numbers back this up. Let's look at the number of pixels of video data you're seeing (approximated slightly):
720p 2D: 1 million pixels
1080p 2D: 2 million pixels
720p per eye 3D: 2 million pixels (1 million left plus a different 1 million right).
1080p per eye 3D: 4 million pixels
1080p passive w/540p per eye: 2 million pixels.
So with 1080p passive, each eye sees 540 lines but the actual number of pixels is equivalent to the number of pixels in a standard 720p 2D image, per eye. It should make sense of course on a 1080p passive panel that you're seeing exactly the same number of pixels in 2D as 3D, just divided between your eyes in 3D. I think that's why many say 1080p passive still looks like 1080p, because you're literally seeing the same number of pixels as a 1080p 2D image. 1080p 2D is already more than most people can resolve given their screen size and seating distance, and for many people the resolution advantage of 1080p active or 4k passive (both 1080p per eye) is probably a wash.

So you're saying some 1080p TV's have more pixels than others? And is image fusing progressive or interlaced or is there another technical terminology to determine FPR's image fusion process to measure horizontal lines?

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #28 of 408 Old 11-11-2012, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrickMcKaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Wow this is a hot topic, but I'll dare to weigh in. Passive 3D gives significantly less eye strain now, and semi-pros and pros who watch 3D for hours at a time all use passive sets. However, passive sets are improving every year at a fast rate. Next year's sets will be a lot better than this year's sets. When you can buy a 4k passive 3D set that you can afford, then you'll have the 3D set of your dreams.

As of me, I'm saving up for a two projector setup using the Omega filters for 3D, which seems to be the best and biggest 3D passive solution, and it will remain so for at least 5 - 10 years by my estimation. Omega is not cheap and it doesn't use the cheap theater glasses, though. But for comfort and 3D impact, it looks like Omega cannot be beat.
TrickMcKaha is offline  
post #29 of 408 Old 11-11-2012, 05:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post

So you're saying some 1080p TV's have more pixels than others?

The numbers I gave above are the pixels of video data you see, not physical pixels. An active 1080p display has the same number of physical pixels as a passive 1080p display, but the difference is that each pixel in the active display does double duty, rapidly alternating between the left and right image. It shows you 4 million pixels. In passive, each pixel is only ever showing the left or the right image. It can't show you more than 2 million pixels. While a 1080p display only has 2 million physical pixels, a 1080p 3D image actually has 4 million pixels. This is literally how frames are stored on 3D Blu-ray:



A 1080p active display can show you every one of those pixels of video, a 1080p passive can't. A 4k passive display, with approximately 8 million pixels, can show you all of them, with some upscaling.

One caveat is that LG has a technology to allow each pixel to do double duty like active, showing the pixels that are missed. However, as shown in one of the links above, has to filter out detail in order to avoid artifacts, and sounds like it's a zero sum.

Passive is sometimes called interlaced, but I believe the correct term is "interleaved." It's a little bit like progressive, a little bit like interlaced, but neither.
Airion is offline  
post #30 of 408 Old 11-11-2012, 06:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eweiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Highland Village, TX
Posts: 7,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I again went to Best Buy and compared the LG Passive 3D with the Panasonic and Sony Active 3D TVs, and the "interlaced" horizontal lines in the LG are visible even when you are not wearing the 3D glasses. This is distracting and makes passive 3D definitely not full HD IMO, no matter what the ads say. I don't want to wait for 4K passive TVs, but I unfortunately find the lines somewhat offputting - like watching a DVD on an old non-HD TV.
eweiss is offline  
Reply 3D Displays

Tags
3d Hdtv



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