Passive 3D or Active 3D - "True 1080p" aside - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 102 Old 04-04-2013, 07:55 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Irishdoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
So there are many discussions on this board, that often devolve into battles of linked articles, about passive vs active in terms of true 1080p.

I don't care about that argument, and instead hope to see a discussion of the OTHER merits of Active vs Passive.

I currently have a Sony 40HX800 that I purchased about 2 years ago. It has a fabulous image both for 2D and 3D. I enjoy 3D when I get to watch it, but I rarely get that chance. The reason is myself and my wife have never found either of the active glasses types we've bought all that comfortable. I have 2 pairs of the run-of-the-mill Sony battery powered glasses that came with the 3D kit I bought with the TV. I also have 2 pairs of the Sony Playstation rechargeable glasses.

So there is definitely a part of me that wants passive 3D in my next set just because of the glasses.

But what are the other issues? Do you have to sit up and keep your head level with all 3D TVs? (My wife likes to lay down sometimes when we are watching movies, and the 3D seems to go bye bye.)

What are the 3D viewing angles like on passive vs active? One element of passive and its cheap glasses that is intriguing is being able to have many people experience it without needing 8 pairs of charged up glasses ready at all times.

With our current TV, eye level falls on the bottom half of the screen. I've heard some stuff about ghosting in passive if the TV is too high or too low. What's that all about?

Overall, what I'm most hoping for is a discussion about Active vs Passive minus the "true 1080p" arguments. smile.gif
Irishdoom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 102 Old 04-04-2013, 04:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
rekbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somers, CT
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 48
If I was in the market to replace any of my TV's I would go with passive for sure. Best reasons to go passive cheap glasses (although active are getting cheaper they are not at the disposible level yet), don't have to worry about charging them, Brighter picture, More 3D depth and less ghosting. I don't know about the above or below viewing angle causing problems but it is possible. I do have a HD33 projector in my home theater that is of course active and it is a better picture then the passive in the theaters so for that reason I would have no interest in a passive projector.

Smart enough to know better, to old to care
rekbones is offline  
post #3 of 102 Old 04-04-2013, 04:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishdoom View Post

Do you have to sit up and keep your head level with all 3D TVs? (My wife likes to lay down sometimes when we are watching movies, and the 3D seems to go bye bye.)

Yes, you have to keep your head level for all 3DTVs. If you tilt your head, the horizontal disparity on the screen will turn into vertical disparity in your eyes (because the images on the TV don't tilt with you), which is something we never otherwise see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekbones View Post

More 3D depth

This doesn't depend on the type of TV. 3D depth depends on the content.

Your perception of depth/popout can also depend on how far away you're sitting. The farther back you sit, the greater the 3D effect. For example, if a fish appears to pop out 50% of the distance between you and the screen, then it will appear to pop out 50cm if you're sitting 1 meter from the screen, or pop out 1 meter if you're sitting 2 meters from the screen. Of course, this greater 3D effect comes at the cost of the immersion you get by sitting close and letting the image fill your view.
Airion is offline  
post #4 of 102 Old 04-04-2013, 08:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
You'll have to sit at eye level with Passive. There's a little leeway there, but for the best crosstalk performance you'll want to sit eye level. Easiest solution is to tilt the screen down by placing something underneath the rear side of the TV base. It can be cardboard, stacks of paper, etc, and doesn't have to be permanent.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #5 of 102 Old 04-04-2013, 09:11 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
The reason you get crosstalk when not aligned with the center of the screen, as I understand it, is the pattern of an FPR filter that is applied to the screen doesn't line up with the horizontal pixel lines that alternately carry the left and right eye images using reversed polarization. The left and right eye images are therefore jumbled up. The solution of tilting the screen mentioned above is very workable. Sitting up and/or lying down isn't likely to work unless there is very little angle off perpendicular to the center of the screen.
Robut is offline  
post #6 of 102 Old 04-05-2013, 08:49 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Irishdoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I almost feel like the glasses issue alone is enough for me to go with passive. As long as the 3D effect isn't massively inferior to active 3D.
Irishdoom is offline  
post #7 of 102 Old 04-05-2013, 08:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 615
I had the LG 55lm7600 passive 3d set and currently have the Samsung PN60E7000 active 3d. The actual 3d effects appear to be the same for me. The difference is on passive 3d you can see scan lines the closer you sit to the TV really taking away from the picture quality in 3d. With active 3d you can sit much closer to the TV and it will not effect the picture at all.

For current passive TVs Samsung makes $20 active battery operated glasses. Each battery is suppose to last 40 hours. You can get a 5 pack of batteries on Amazon for a couple of dollars. They are light weight, comfortable and I do not have any flickering issues or crosstalk.

I have read all of the complaints about active 3d and was scared to purchase an active 3d set but now owning one I guess the newer sets are much better then sets from 2-3 years ago. With the 3d equal on each set and the active actually having a little more advantage I was able to purchase a set that had the better 2d picture which is what I am watching most of the time anyway.
LDizzle likes this.
eric3316 is offline  
post #8 of 102 Old 04-05-2013, 11:53 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Irishdoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Yeah, one of the good things about my current Sony is it has a very good 2D picture as well. I'm also kind of wondering if I maybe want to go back to plasma, as from what I understand the ST50 or whatever is one of the best all around sets you can get at a reasonable price. I am a little scared off by plasma, however, as I did suffer significant burn-in with my 42" Panasonic from the 4:3 bars that were displayed frequently.
Irishdoom is offline  
post #9 of 102 Old 04-05-2013, 02:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I have seen a ton of 3D setups now. I still feel DLP and active glasses is best. Comfort wise? I find I like my Xpand DLP link better than most others. I would rate my RF Optoma glasses as just OK comfort wise.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #10 of 102 Old 04-16-2013, 02:48 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Irishdoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm too happy with wall-mounting (as is my wife) so I'll have to stick with LCD/LED or Plasma. smile.gif
Irishdoom is offline  
post #11 of 102 Old 05-01-2013, 03:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
K-Spaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I just made my first foray into 3D last week when I got a BenQ W7000 (DLP Front Proj). Up to that point, I was using anaglyph 3D on my old DLP projector. I've seen 3D on several other peoples setups, mostly I was spoiled by the size of the FP image. I can't speak to Active 3D on flat panels, I've not seen that. But from what I've seen, active (DLPLink) with a projector kicks the snot out of any passive types I've seen, period. The colors are far truer with active glasses. I could swear the image is cleaner and sharper. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but if some other technology is as flicker free and has color saturation in 3D like this, I've not seen it.

The glasses I purchased, as recommended by another forum member here, are the 3Active DLP Link glasses. Rechargeable, very comfortable, and not at all sensitive to angled viewing. In fact, I can look almost at the floor and they stay in sync. I'm impressed.

My max distance I can see my screen from in my house is around 32 feet, and they work at that distance as well. I've had no issues at all with them. As to people not wanting to charge them, geez, if you can't charge glasses every 15-20 movies, give it up. I sure hope I'm not listening to these charging complaints from anyone with a smartphone rolleyes.gif

The guy who recommended the glasses I bought had owned about 10 different types. All price ranges, many brands. These at $50/pair were what he liked best, regardless of price. They have rubber arms so they are very easy on your head. I can sit in them for hours, no problem. I won't say there's never a flicker from loosing sync, there is. But it is so seldom, I just don't care. My feet on the recliner will sometimes block the bottom of the screen if I'm laid back all the way and that sometimes causes issues. But, the image never looses quality due to viewing angle.

1.2 gain screen @118", viewed from 12'. Eye level almost at the very bottom of the screen, within 12" of it anyway.
K-Spaz is offline  
post #12 of 102 Old 05-01-2013, 04:23 PM
Member
 
obscuro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
This is a copy of a post that I sent to Projector Central...

"I eagerly awaited your review of the Epson 750HD. Although I understand your reason for limiting your viewing to 60 inches I was surprised that you did.

Two days prior to your review I experienced the most impressive 3D I have ever seen. I watched several SBS video clips including Avatar and the Avengers. My setup was simple: a stacked pair of HW300T projectors, two pair of 3D glasses (from watching Avatar and the Avengers), a HTPC, and a metallic painted piece of foam board. I balanced the colour by offsetting the strengths of each device: the screen had a blue bias, one projector was green biased and the other red biased. The colour was stunning. The gray/silver in the screen increased the contrast. Outdoor scenes were simply mesmerizing.

The 3D experience simply blew away all my 3D movie experiences. As impressed as I was, I still felt like I was lacking the full 3D effect. The most convenient foam board that I could find to use was 40x60 inches or about 70 inches (My prior screen was 30x40 inches with very poor contrast). I could never get completely engrossed in the 3D experience because it felt like I was looking at events through a hole in my wall. I was also constantly aware of scene changes because the depth of feel changed radically.

This last point surprised me. In 2D films, I constantly watch cameras switch from actor to actor as dialog changes. That is not very distracting but in 3D I found my self annoyed when close up dialog scenes switched to wide action scenes because the 3D depth changed drastically.

Have you noticed the same effect (distracting changes in 3D depth of feel) when you review 3D material? If so what size image were you watching?

I also noticed that crosstalk seemed to be a function of how close I was to the screen. The closer I was to the screen the more crosstalk I saw. I saw the same effect on a LG 3D TV.

Another item I would like to mention is that in building my 3D system, I created a very high gain screen (using the flipside of the foam board but with more layers of spray paint). I created even more compelling 3D images but the down side was the grainy picture (your screen article warned about high gain screens). I loved the brighter picture but I could not handle the graininess.

I decided to use the lower gain screen (one layer of paint). My best guess is that the viewing angle of my screen dropped dramatically at about 30 degrees in 2D. Since my 3D was dimmer from the start it seemed that my viewing angle doubled before I noticed much dimming. At that point there was little change in the 3D effect.

If you do get a chance could you comment on 3D on the 750HD with a 120 inch image?

Thanks for the review."

I moved my main experiment board to the living room. The maximum viewing distance from the center of the screen is 37 feet. I am still deciding whether I want to deal with the logistics of a larger screen but 70 inches seems like a reasonable compromise for now.
obscuro is offline  
post #13 of 102 Old 05-02-2013, 12:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Spaz View Post

I just made my first foray into 3D last week when I got a BenQ W7000 (DLP Front Proj). Up to that point, I was using anaglyph 3D on my old DLP projector. I've seen 3D on several other peoples setups, mostly I was spoiled by the size of the FP image. I can't speak to Active 3D on flat panels, I've not seen that. But from what I've seen, active (DLPLink) with a projector kicks the snot out of any passive types I've seen, period. The colors are far truer with active glasses. I could swear the image is cleaner and sharper. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but if some other technology is as flicker free and has color saturation in 3D like this, I've not seen it.
Active glasses, while powered on, are much darker and more desaturated than passive.



cool.gif

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #14 of 102 Old 05-02-2013, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
K-Spaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Active glasses, while powered on, are much darker and more desaturated than passive.



cool.gif
Yes, when the active lens is shut down, it is darker. That is the entire point. The other lens however is allowing light to pass.

As a good example, I have reald glasses at home. If I put them on and look at my LCD monitor, they darken my LCD MORE than the active shutter glasses do (when turned off, open). I can only watch passive 3D at theaters nearby, and there is no contest between those systems and mine now at home. Mine is WAY nicer, more saturated, brighter, more accurate. Jmho. But your graphics don't tell the truth. Why don't they show 2 images for the active glasses? It's true the passive glasses need only one swatch to show what they do. The active ones need two. Where is the other one that actually counts?
K-Spaz is offline  
post #15 of 102 Old 05-02-2013, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post



Not to mention that the glasses shown are 2010 2nd gen Panasonic glasses (EW3D2MU). Here's a post from another thread from a previous owner of those glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bontrager View Post

On Saturday, I received in the mail a new pair of Xpand universal 3D glasses from Directv (no model number given). This was given to me for ordering, I think, Men in Black 3. I don't recall this promo but nevertheless I decided to give the glasses a try on my Panasonic 2011 VT65 3D plasma TV.

I had purchased a pair of Xpand glasses about 2 years ago for this Tv and they only worked twice prior to failing so I didn't hold much hope for this pair.

To my surprise, after syncing with the Tv after a few tries, the glasses worked perfectly. Not only that but the loss of brightness associated with active shutter glasses (ASG) was less than my 2nd gen Panasonic and Sony universal 3d glasses. With the picture set to vivid, the picture was actually too bright with the glasses on. I had to switch to the THX for a better picture. Also I didn't notice "ANY" ghosting that I am very aware of ( watching the Hobbit).

I had purchased a first gen 3D Tv about 4 years ago and remember the complaints of brightness loss and ghosting associated with ASG. One of the knowledgeable forum members actually blamed the first gen glasses and not the TV especially for the ghosting problem.

It looks like he may have been correct. All I know now is that I no longer wish that I have a passive 3D TV instead of active.

Hope this helps restore the faith in "ACTIVE" 3D TV's; it sure has for me.

To the OP: Because of ownership bias, mostly what you will get here is conflicting info. Both passive and active are here to stay. Go out and try both for yourself. Just remember in the store to view both as close to the same angle and distance as you will in your home.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #16 of 102 Old 05-02-2013, 09:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishdoom View Post

So there are many discussions on this board, that often devolve into battles of linked articles, about passive vs active in terms of true 1080p.

I don't care about that argument, and instead hope to see a discussion of the OTHER merits of Active vs Passive.

I currently have a Sony 40HX800 that I purchased about 2 years ago. It has a fabulous image both for 2D and 3D. I enjoy 3D when I get to watch it, but I rarely get that chance. The reason is myself and my wife have never found either of the active glasses types we've bought all that comfortable. I have 2 pairs of the run-of-the-mill Sony battery powered glasses that came with the 3D kit I bought with the TV. I also have 2 pairs of the Sony Playstation rechargeable glasses.

So there is definitely a part of me that wants passive 3D in my next set just because of the glasses.

But what are the other issues? Do you have to sit up and keep your head level with all 3D TVs? (My wife likes to lay down sometimes when we are watching movies, and the 3D seems to go bye bye.)

What are the 3D viewing angles like on passive vs active? One element of passive and its cheap glasses that is intriguing is being able to have many people experience it without needing 8 pairs of charged up glasses ready at all times.

With our current TV, eye level falls on the bottom half of the screen. I've heard some stuff about ghosting in passive if the TV is too high or too low. What's that all about?

Overall, what I'm most hoping for is a discussion about Active vs Passive minus the "true 1080p" arguments. smile.gif

Without discussing true 1080p or not, ther eare still image quality issues with passive - the scanlines at anything less than 3x screen width I find very noticeable (others claim to not see them as close as 1x screenwidth so it's very much a personal thing) but even outside the range I can see the scanlines the image artifact they create is sometimes visible (think you can see the effect of moir furhter away than you can see the individual lines that make up moir). I find it most noticeable in the rim of a cup or glass. The rim tends to be a high contrast round shape with very defined but thin edges. This stresses the image artifacts introduced by the scanlines in that you can usually see rough seperation in the lip and if it pans around you see the lines crawl around the lip.

I find this very distracting and a big negative although many people I know claim they don't see it or only notice if looking for it. I think it has to do with the way I watch TV as I have trained y eyes to watch for quality issues, and once you do that you can't stop doing it.

As for horizontal alignment FPR works by putting an array of bars in front of the screen basically. If the bars are right in front of their light eliment, they block it out (in conjunction with the glasses) but as with anything in front of something else, whether it's truly in front of it or not depends on where you view it from.

In my experience being a little under center is best... I don't know if my screen is built funny or something but I swear 5-10 degrees below center gives less ghosting than dead center.

That said I have never found a 0 ghosting spot. It seems that even in the best spot, extreme scenes (ie big seperation and high contrast) will ghost in one eye or the other. Sometimes the left eye will ghost the top left ot the screen and the right eye will ghost the bottom right or some such combination. Moving up or down will help one eye while hurting the other.

Overall I find ghosting to be a very minor issue. When it happens it's noticeable, but it tends not to happen much (again pretty much high seperation high contrast areas).

The further back you sit the broader the acceptable view height becomes.

When lying down, as long as your eyes remain in the accetpable viewing range the 3D does kind of still exist... although as mentioned above it goes from horizontal seperation to vertical seperation. This is not how you perceive 3D normally as your eyes are not vertically offset, however I find it does still work to some extent... it looks weird at first and feels wrong but I can still determine depth while sideways. I have heard from others it still looks fine and 3D and they don't see any difference. Again it depends on the viewer.

The nice thing about passive is when you turn your head sideways the screen doesn't black out like it does on some active displays when the glasses polarization matches the displays... I believe passive is circular polarized which is much more orietnation friendly.

I don't understand how passive can have better depth... that doens't make sense from a logical perspective since depth is governed by the horizontal seperation of the images and neither passive nor active changes that.

Passive does appear brighter however I would argue that it lets more light through... passive glasses themselves block about 30% of visible light while active glasses will block close to 70% (while functioning).

This seems to give a huge benefit to passive however you have to remember passive glasses are blocking 50% of the display 100%... that means they are actulaly only letting through 50% of the light to begin with and then filtering that 50% by about 30%. So overall light thorugh is the same for active and passive...

The difference is the brightness of the light that does come thorugh with passive is brighter (ie the 50% of the lines on the screen that do come through are only 30% dimmed while with active you get all the lines of light but they are all dimmed 70%). I say this is analogous to looking at a large but somewhat dim bulb vs seeing a few bright small flashlights. While the total light output from both maybe the same, the small bright lights will look brighter.

There are a lot of pros and cons and neither is a sure winner. It's best to try them both yourself and prioritize.

If cheap, comfortable non charging glasses are a huge thing for you, passive is obviously a winner.

If resolution clarity and detail are paramount then active has an advantage.

Almost all other image quality aspects are subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rekbones View Post

I do have a HD33 projector in my home theater that is of course active and it is a better picture then the passive in the theaters so for that reason I would have no interest in a passive projector.

I just try to clear this up when I can - the saying "passive is the technology they use in theaters" is very misleading. In theaters you wear passive glasses but the image is alternated in a very active manner.

In theaters the passie glasses do not block out alternating rows of resolution and in function it's very much an active display method - just the shutter is moved to the lense away from the eyes.

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables: http://monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1263

Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #17 of 102 Old 05-02-2013, 11:39 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Irishdoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I did go ahead and purchase a passive set recently. A Panasonic TC-L55ET5. It's a big upgrade in size from my Sony 40HX800. I do believe the Sony has a slightly better picture overall, but I don't have any complaints about the picture on the Panasonic. And the passive 3D aspect is a huge boon. I had 4 pairs of active glasses for the Sony, spending roughly $400 for them. I shelled out 7 bucks on Ebay and now have 13 pairs of passive glasses. Now when friends or family are over EVERYONE can enjoy the 3D. Before I rarely used it since we had to pass glasses around, and I was reluctant to let kids wear them due to the cost.

So from a pure cost and logistics standpoint, passive wins.

The active has better pop-out effects, but the passive has better depth. It is also FAR superior for angled viewing, either from the sides of the room or from different heights. (Now I am going from a 3 year old TV to a new one, so that is a factor to consider.) I also feel less strain on my eyes with passive vs active, and the light passive glasses are much more comfortable.

Frankly, I'm just using the 3D much, much more often with the passive. I'm very happy, and officially a proponent of passive 3D.

Now, if you MUST have the BEST image quality, Active is still superior, but if you want a far more convenient 3D viewing experience, passive is very good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Spaz View Post

As to people not wanting to charge them, geez, if you can't charge glasses every 15-20 movies, give it up. I sure hope I'm not listening to these charging complaints from anyone with a smartphone rolleyes.gif

My comment about charging my active glasses wasn't about the act of charging, it was about the couple times where I took out all the glasses to watch something, and one or more of the pairs were dead.
Irishdoom is offline  
post #18 of 102 Old 05-03-2013, 03:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Spaz View Post

Yes, when the active lens is shut down, it is darker. That is the entire point. The other lens however is allowing light to pass.
Look at the photo! Both lenses are allowing the same amount of light, because the camera shutter was open long enough to capture multiple shutterglass cycles so that they blended between open and close just as our eye would blend them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Spaz View Post

As a good example, I have reald glasses at home. If I put them on and look at my LCD monitor, they darken my LCD MORE than the active shutter glasses do (when turned off, open).
As I said, actual perceived brightness of active shutter is a blend between open and closed.
Quote:
I can only watch passive 3D at theaters nearby, and there is no contest between those systems and mine now at home.
Display brightness can vary dramatically from TV to movie theater projector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Not to mention that the glasses shown are 2010 2nd gen Panasonic glasses (EW3D2MU). Here's a post from another thread from a previous owner of those glasses.
Unless their name is James Cameron, I'm not going to just take someone's word. People here have a tendency to let placebos take over.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #19 of 102 Old 05-03-2013, 03:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Look at the photo! Both lenses are allowing the same amount of light, because the camera shutter was open long enough to capture multiple shutterglass cycles so that they blended between open and close just as our eye would blend them.

...As I said, actual perceived brightness of active shutter is a blend between open and closed.
That's the same false logic used to argue that 540 lines per eye somehow become 1080 lines wink.gif
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Not to mention that the glasses shown are 2010 2nd gen Panasonic glasses (EW3D2MU). Here's a post from another thread from a previous owner of those glasses.
Unless their name is James Cameron, I'm not going to just take someone's word. People here have a tendency to let placebos take over.

My argument in a nutshell. Noone should listen to the you or anyone in the passive crowd here for the same reason. We might as well be discussing XBox vs PS3. wink.gif

To anyone on the fence, shop around, and buy what YOU want.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #20 of 102 Old 05-03-2013, 03:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishdoom View Post

The active has better pop-out effects

Active doesn't. You might have seen a difference between your two TVs given their size and your seating distance, as well as the content you viewed on them. These factors influence your perception of pop-out and depth but they have nothing to do with active or passive. There is no technical explanation for why active would have better pop-out effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishdoom View Post

passive has better depth.

Likewise, this is not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishdoom View Post

Frankly, I'm just using the 3D much, much more often with the passive. I'm very happy, and officially a proponent of passive 3D.

While generally I agree that passive would be better for most, it's best not to officially take sides. If you have a light controlled room and money for a high gain screen, a 144hz 1080p DLP projector, and enough glasses for the amount of people you intend to accommodate, you're better off with active. Big bright screen with minimal flicker and ghosting. Passive can't beat that (right now). It all depends on the room, the budget, and the circumstances.

It's like choosing between beef or chicken. They're both good but different in many ways. It'd be insane to pick one and swear off the other.
Airion is offline  
post #21 of 102 Old 05-03-2013, 06:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
K-Spaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Look at the photo! Both lenses are allowing the same amount of light, because the camera shutter was open long enough to capture multiple shutterglass cycles so that they blended between open and close just as our eye would blend them.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that photo is bogus. Unless the image shown is actually polarized, then the light coming through that set of RealD glasses isn't being attenuated. The active glasses ARE attenuating the image, and therefor you get the obvious result shown.

Quote:
As I said, actual perceived brightness of active shutter is a blend between open and closed.
This I am questioning. Not refuting, but, ain't sure just yet. Doesn't agree with my empirical evidence at home.
Quote:
Display brightness can vary dramatically from TV to movie theater projector.
My system at home isn't a TV, it's a BenQ W7000 w/118" 16:9 screen. I will say yes, it's brighter than a theater. But if brightness is something that would help the image to look better, then commercial projectors should be brightened up some to create that benefit. I didn't tell anyone to make a crappy image. I'm just saying mine at home is better. And it ain't even close.
K-Spaz is offline  
post #22 of 102 Old 05-03-2013, 10:09 AM
Senior Member
 
NSX1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I have always been an active proponent as I had 73",82" and 92" DLPs that were the best for 3D. The solution is 4K. I recently bought a 84" LG 4K set and the 3D is outstanding. The set upgrades the signal to 4K and then passive reduces the vertical resolution in half but the end result is 1080p in both eyes. The picture is bright and clear. The 84"s are very expensive but last night I saw the new Sony 65" 4K for $7,000 that has passive 3D(but only 4K pictures displayed).
NSX1992 is offline  
post #23 of 102 Old 05-04-2013, 08:02 PM
Member
 
Venturai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

While generally I agree that passive would be better for most, it's best not to officially take sides. If you have a light controlled room and money for a high gain screen, a 144hz 1080p DLP projector, and enough glasses for the amount of people you intend to accommodate, you're better off with active. Big bright screen with minimal flicker and ghosting. Passive can't beat that (right now). It all depends on the room, the budget, and the circumstances.

It's like choosing between beef or chicken. They're both good but different in many ways. It'd be insane to pick one and swear off the other.

For now it might be a beef or chicken thing then, but soon enough, once passive catches up to active with regards to output resolution and clarity, passive is going to be like that ultimate meat that not only tastes like both chicken and beef but also gives you that red meat goodness to boot biggrin.gif When that time comes, I don't see anyone really using active anymore.

In all fairness, my new active Benq W1070 outputs a sensational 3D picture though, it is certainly among the best I've ever seen. I find the active glasses a chore though; I mean, it's alright for me, but when I have the oldies over, they're not going to want to be arsed with it, pressing buttons and so forth.

My next set will be passive, guaranteed.
Venturai is offline  
post #24 of 102 Old 05-05-2013, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I have DLP, so I will never need another set. wink.gif

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #25 of 102 Old 05-06-2013, 04:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Certainly 4k passive panels will be better than 1080p active 3D displays in most ways. I think it's clear that passive has the most to gain over the next few years. For all of its advantages in convenience, passive has been at a clear disadvantage in terms of resolution, or horizonal scan lines, or viewing distance, etc. It's a distinct disadvantage that 4k panels clearly alleviate. Given a little time, there's no reason 4k panels should be much more expensive than 1080p panels. It's only a matter of time that passive will be clearly better in most situations (though NSX1992 is enjoying the future now!).

I recently spent $200 to buy two more pairs of high quality DLP-link active glasses for my 720p projector, bringing me to a total of 4 glasses, so I'm very familiar with the troubles with active glasses (and I'm not enjoying any resolution advantage with a 720p projector either). But I've got a 90" screen at a relatively low cost with a compact physical footprint- portable in fact. I'm pretty sure I couldn't fit a 90" flat panel into my theater room at all (through the door, hallway, up the stairs, etc). Passive projector systems aren't appealing (to most) because you at least need a silver screen which isn't good for 2D, if not two projectors on top of that. I don't see how passive could become the clearly better, more convenient option here.

And then, how could you view native 4k 3D content on a 4k panel without active technology?
Airion is offline  
post #26 of 102 Old 05-13-2013, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

That's the same false logic used to argue that 540 lines per eye somehow become 1080 lines wink.gif

Actually it's not... one is temporal blending one is spatial blending. Temporal at a high enough speed does in fact basically work that way (due to image persistence) spatial blending does not work nearly as well that way and the whole "true 1080p argument for passive" is flawed anyway because that is ignoring that a sterescopic image is 2 1080p images so even if you did resolve a full 1920x1080 resolution combined frame, that's still half the pixels of a true sterescopic image.

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables: http://monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1263

Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #27 of 102 Old 05-13-2013, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Certainly 4k passive panels will be better than 1080p active 3D displays in most ways. I think it's clear that passive has the most to gain over the next few years. For all of its advantages in convenience, passive has been at a clear disadvantage in terms of resolution, or horizonal scan lines, or viewing distance, etc. It's a distinct disadvantage that 4k panels clearly alleviate. .

As you mentioned futher down though, only until 3D 4k content comes along, then active is back in the lead resolution wise smile.gif

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables: http://monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1263

Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #28 of 102 Old 05-13-2013, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

That's the same false logic used to argue that 540 lines per eye somehow become 1080 lines wink.gif

Actually it's not... one is temporal blending one is spatial blending. Temporal at a high enough speed does in fact basically work that way (due to image persistence) spatial blending does not work nearly as well that way and the whole "true 1080p argument for passive" is flawed anyway because that is ignoring that a sterescopic image is 2 1080p images so even if you did resolve a full 1920x1080 resolution combined frame, that's still half the pixels of a true sterescopic image.

My smiley was winking...

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #29 of 102 Old 08-01-2013, 12:48 AM
Newbie
 
Audiophile40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hello Everyone:

I've only been running 3D for about a month, but to me, it's a no brainer. Passive all the way. Unfortunately, that is not what I own.

My old Sony Bravia, after thousands of hours, finally started showing signs of dying, so i figured it was time. I set myself a budget and went shopping. I was very surprised when I saw that 3D fell within my budget.

I'm not going to mention model numbers here, but i bought a 50" Sony LED Passive set. We loved it. It came with 4 pair of glasses, and then we noticed that the RealD glasses that we brought home from the theater worked too. Bonus! So if you find those theater glasses comfy, there's the answer to your comfort problem. We absolutely loved it. Not a single complaint. Unfortunately, about 4 days in, the set developed background leakage and had to be returned. The store had one new one left and we tested it in store. It showed the start of the same problem. So I gave up on that model.

Sympathetic to my disappointment, the store gave me a great deal on a 55" Samsung 6000 series which is my current set. It is an Active set. It came with no Glasses at all. So there went another hundred. And everybody finds them less comfy than the Passive glasses. The picture is glorious. Best I've ever owned. But none of us like the Active 3D as much. The Cross Talk/Ghosting, drives us crazy. And watching 3D is a lot harder on the eye than Passive was. Of course the Cross Talk is content governed, meaning that some content there's next to none and others are really bad, but there was none that we noticed on the Passive set. I've read lots of blogs and experimented with all of the settings, but I guess that's just Active 3D. If I could get this set in Passive, I'd be tickled. So for that reason alone, I'd go Passive.

Otherwise, we have noticed that there is a wider viewing angle with Active. But really, who wants to watch from that sharp an angle.

You might read about jagged edges with Passive. We didn't notice any.

I know I'm all over the place here, but bottom line, if I had it to do all over again, it would be Passive for me. No doubt at all.
Audiophile40 is offline  
post #30 of 102 Old 08-01-2013, 03:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Do more research. Crosstalk / ghosting is caused primarily by the set not the content. Some content brings out the flaws more than others. I have an active setup, and have no ghosting whatsoever. Unfortunately, you bought a model known for its crosstalk / ghosting.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle 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