Originally Posted by JukeBox360
Nothing better then flickering lights while watching tv. Passive is more comfortable 10-1. As for active 3D being better. It's only on places like AVS that people prefer active. Even then. It's just about numbers here. "Active can give full 1080P while passive can't." Who cares? 9/10 people wouldn't know that ti begin with. Passive is super lightweight. Cheap. No horrid flicker. Best viewing experience.
Actually, flickering lights with active glasses is not
a given. Sony's active shutter glasses work by switching polarization so that only the display gets shuttered, rather than the entire eye being blocked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo5cuhM_aAQ#t=1m16s&hd=1
Never had a problem with the weight of Sony's 3D glasses over the course of 3 or 4 hours (a couple of films) because they distributed the weight very well. I have had lighter pairs of glasses (nothing to do with 3D) that were less comfortable for that length of time.
Both forms of 3D are a huge compromise right now though. Even if the room lights aren't flickering, the display does, you have lots of crosstalk, and I definitely find my eyes strained after a while of using active 3D.
Passive 3D is much more comfortable, but the resolution is terribly low, and you have horrible interlacing in the image. There's still plenty of crosstalk as well. (there may actually be more
in some cases, but it can be less distracting)
Personally, after owning a 3DTV for a year and a half, I have zero interest in 3D right now. I spent a while the first week or so after getting the TV, trying out a lot of different 3D sources, and the trade-offs just weren't worth it in my opinion. I've tried it again every so often and my opinion hasn't changed at all. I've yet to see any
pre-recorded 3D content (films, TV, web clips etc.) that has impressed me, and I find it to be particularly distracting when watching films.
3D has a lot of potential with games, but with the current HDMI specs, we are limited to full 720p60 or 1080p SBS resolution when gaming, and crosstalk is a significant issue.
The only time I have been impressed with 3D at all was using Sony's HMZ-T1 head-mounted display for PC gaming. It uses 720p native OLED display panels, so images are displayed with 1:1 mapping, and because each eye has its own display, there's zero 3D crosstalk. It's by far the most natural and impressive 3D I've ever seen. Unfortunately, the image was small, the optics are poor quality, contrast wasn't great, and the ergonomics of that device are terrible
, so I didn't keep it.
Until we either have 4K native panels with passive 3D that allow for full 1080p resolution 3D, or new HMDs that have better optics and are comfortable for long periods of time, I've completely lost interest in 3D.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like your priority is 2D content, with you theoretically maybe wanting to use 3D some time in the future. In that case, I wouldn't pay any attention to how the set achieves 3D and focus on getting the best 2D display you can find to suit your needs. (not necessarily 2D only, but you're making big compromises on 2D if you buy any of the current passive 3D displays)
Originally Posted by letsgetsilly
So, I've changed my requirements slightly based on the information provided in this thread:
2D: Off the charts
Also: Non-glossy finish for use in a room with windows. I prefer the glossy look in an all-black room, but the reality is that there's a gigantic window right where my TV sits and it needs to be at least watchable to a certain extent while that window is there.
I'm interested in hearing what brands and models people would recommend for these adjusted requirements. Thanks for all the help so far, I appreciate it.
Actually, a glossy finish is better
than a matte screen in a bright environment. A matte screen diffuses the light, creating large patches that you can't see, and completely washes out the display. A modern display with a good AR coating and glossy finish will display crisp reflections, but avoids glare, maintaining high contrast, and if you position the display correctly, you can avoid most/all direct reflections.
See here for an example: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1353234/lcd-matte-glare-advantage-i-dont-think-so-pics/0_100#post_20823935
The Samsung is not even a display that I'd consider to have a very good coating, but look at how much better it is in a bright room compared to the Sharp with a matte finish.
As for ranking manufacturers of flat panels, today I would probably put it as:
- Panasonic / Sony
- Sharp / Toshiba
Toshiba actually have some very interesting models at the high end, but they're a bit strange on their availability. The best models they make tend to stay in Japan, or sometimes make it out to Europe, but I don't think they ever really took off in America. Similar to how Mitsubishi has been selling projection displays in America for years, but pulled out of Europe years ago, I suppose.