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.