AVS Forum banner

Do You Prefer Active or Passive 3D Flat Panels?

  • Active

    Votes: 119 37.4%
  • Passive

    Votes: 121 38.1%
  • I hate 3D, so I don't care

    Votes: 50 15.7%
  • I've never seen a 3D TV

    Votes: 28 8.8%

Do You Prefer Active or Passive 3D Flat Panels?

11K views 60 replies 44 participants last post by  GrowinOld 
#1 ·


Like it or not, 3D TVs are still with us, and many people like them. The question is, which type of glasses do you prefer?

Even though 3D seems to have come and gone in the home-theater market, it's not really gone—most manufacturers continue to make TVs with 3D capabilities (Vizio notwithstanding), many studios continue to produce 3D movies, and lots of home-theater owners enjoy 3D content. But until autostereoscopic displays become available to consumers, we're stuck with wearing glasses to watch 3D.

As you probably know, there are two types of 3D flat panels—those that quickly alternate the left and right images on the screen synchronized with active-shutter glasses, and those that use a film patterned retarder (FPR) to alternately polarize the odd and even lines on the screen, which are isolated for each eye using passive-polarized glasses. There are pros and cons with each technology.

Active-shutter glasses unequivocally provide full 1080p resolution to each eye, but they also block more light from reaching the eyes than passive glasses, so the image is typically dimmer. Also, many people complain about seeing a flickering effect with active glasses that is nonexistent with passive glasses, and active systems are more prone to crosstalk/ghosting. And don't forget that active glasses are more expensive than passive glasses, not to mention that active glasses are heavier, bulkier, and require replaceable or rechargeable batteries. On the other hand, while FPR displays often have a wider horizontal viewing angle, they have a much narrower vertical viewing angle. And they don't deliver full 1080p to each eye, though many people argue that the brain fuses the left and right images into a full-resolution 3D image.

So which 3D flat-panel technology do you prefer—active-shutter glasses or passive glasses? Or do you hate 3D in the first place, so neither option is appealing?

Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+
 
See less See more
1
#3 ·
I'm voting active until such a point in time that I see a UHD/4K passive TV capable of full-resolution 1080p 3D. That's what I get with active glasses and my plasma, and it is the best 3D I have seen so far. I think passive is more comfortable, but active takes greatest advantage of a given TVs resolution.
 
#17 · (Edited)
I am in exactly the same situation, and agree. Full HD passive screens are a compromise. The passive 2013 model 65" 4K Sony avoids visible thin horizontal black lines, giving an excellent 3D picture. [The 2013 55" 4K passive Sony TV on the other hand uses a coarser film-type patterned retarder.]


Another issue is that in Europe and Australia when showing 50Hz sport in 3D (e.g. for the 2012 London Olympics), shutter glasses usually slow down to 100Hz (rather than using the 120Hz alternation rate they typically run at for 60Hz sport, or a 24Hz movie Blu-ray).

Alternation at only 100Hz can lead to a noticeably out of phase condition as between the left and right views. For me it often gives a distracting liquid look, similar to looking through hot air above a hot road, or a fire; a "mirage effect". There is no such out of phase effect visible with passive screens. Left and Right are displayed simultaneously, in phase. For me, the 3D image has a more "solid" look.

At a RealD cinema, the triple flash (left-right-left-right-left-right) for each 24fps frame requires an alternation rate of 144Hz. I find it is very rare for me to notice any mirage effect with RealD cinema.
 
#6 ·
I find my 3D LG Passive 3D has less flicker and so is nice to watch compared to my Epson 5020 3D projector BUT the bigger screen (132") is much better than the 50" TV for 3D, so we only really watch 3D in the theater room now and we love it!!! When there is a 3D option for a new movie we buy and watch that vs, the 2D but if all movies came out in 3D we may re-think it a little... I like to have a mix of 3D and 2D movie watching...
 
#7 ·
We enjoy 3D a lot, and use both active and passive in different rooms. We don't have a significant preference between active vs. passive, although active probably gets a slight nod on perceived PQ. I think that may be more of an overall display-driven preference than it is a glasses-driven preference.

But when young kids are slapping on our 3D glasses, we have a strong preference for passive. Easier to clean, and cheaper to replace. :cool:
 
#10 ·
okay I own a projector so I have to use active BUT now with 4k, I think Passive is going to be the way to go (until glasses free is perfected and reasonably priced). :)
 
#11 ·
I've had 3 active 3D TVs, but I haven't seen a passive 3D TV home display. I've only seen the DirecTV side-by-side 3D on my 4k Samsung HU8550, active display, but it looks pretty good. It's bright enough, while my other TVs have been very dim showing 3D. I've never noticed the flickering that was mentioned.
 
#12 ·
active just has a much cleaner image when viewing 3D than Passive. Just view nearly any Samsung display in 3D and you will know what I'm talking about. Panasonic Plasmas don't look all that terrible even though I recall hearing that Panasonic Active displays somehow cut down the resolution in order to compensate for picture quality. Passive might be more comfortable, but unless its on a UHD TV, I will stick with Active 3D.
 
#13 ·
I realize that passive does not technically provide simultaneous 1080P 3D, but at 60 or more fps, it is difficult for your brain to tell the difference. I find the smoothness of passive to outweigh the flickering and the heavier glasses for active. Not to mention the glasses are dirt cheap (or free if you keep them when watching a 3d movie at the theater). It is one of the reasons I chose my 70" Sony over comparable active 3d TVs.
 
#14 ·
Neither. 3D is too distracting, takes you away from the actual movie. It's fun for shorts like Disney World's 3D showings: Shrek, Captain EO, etc, but not for an actual movie. Moreover, LCD TVs have not mature, they are plagued by trade offs and manufacturers investments have gone to features rather than picture quality, driving the price up. Thankfully Vizio has decided to focus on improving picture quality, hopefully Samsung, LG and Sony follow.
 
#15 ·
for a 1080p tv: active, no question. The black lines are terribly noticeable and looks DVD-quality to me.
on a UHD set: passive, since I can't perceive any resolution loss compared to UHD active. I compared the 3D between a 65X850B and 900B and the 850 had a better 3D image.
 
#18 ·
Speaking for 1080p (not 4K) setups, they both have uses in different use cases.

When I compare my passive 1080p 3D TV - even at it's relatively small sub-50" size - to any active display - the PQ differences are very, very noticeable due to the odd/even lines being filtered out by the passive glasses.
It most noticeable in a side-by-side comparison.
Compared, there's a definite loss in sharpness with passive when viewing 1080p 3D compared to active.

On the flip-side of the argument, though, my active-3D projection setup - despite supporting triple-flash with bluray (or any 24p) content - does still produce a bit of flicker that definitely makes it more fatiguing than passive. It's fine for the odd 3D movie (and the immersiveness makes up for it) - but I certainly wouldn't elect to use active over passive for a movie marathon. For the kids, passive is also the clear winner due to their higher susceptibility to eye fatigue.

This, coupled with relatively pricey active glasses - then for a family viewing night, I'd say they both end up coming up almost even when all their pros and cons are weighed up.

Active 1080p provides higher quality at a higher price. Passive 1080p provides higher comfort at a lower price.
 
#24 ·
I voted for the Active 3D. I have a LaserVue DLP set and have had no issues with cross-talk or eye fatigue. Those who have come over for a 3D movie night, typically comment that it is better than the theater 3-D.


The downside is that the glasses are heavy and my nose starts hurting after awhile. Mostly when playing 3D video games. But also two 3D movies in a row (try three and your nose really hurts)
 
#27 ·
Active 3d is better as far as picture quality goes but my eyes get tired if I watch two 3d movies back to back but passive is more comfortable and less eye strain
 
#30 · (Edited)
PlayNice, the issue I raised back at post 17 was the lack of timing phase accuracy with active glasses 3D as between the presentation of the left and right images to the left and right eyes. I went on to mention that that issue also arises with RealD cinema where the effect is less as RealD uses a 144Hz alternation rate whereas regular plasma and LED shutter glasses typically use 120Hz for movies, and in Europe/Australia typically use 100Hz for televised sport.


There is no dispute that RealD cinema requires circularly polarised passive glasses (the same as typical passive 3D LCD televisions) as well as a suitably reflective (silver) screen to maintain the differing polarisation as between left and right content coming from the projector. The issue I raised had to do with a timing discrepancy between left and right content as viewed by the human being. The timing discrepancy arises because the projector can project either left or right, but not both, at any instant in time. It uses what is known as a triple flash for each of the 24 frames per second; three flashes of left and three flashes of right: left, right, left, right, left, right.


As far as the human being in the cinema seat viewing the movie is concerned, RealD cinema is akin to plasma TV active glasses 3D but at a higher alternation rate (144Hz vs 120Hz). It is not like watching a passive LCD panel at home where the left and right images are perfectly in phase with each other.
 
#31 · (Edited)
I saw passive (many), I saw active (few), and I went active. ...It has that extra dimension to it, from my own view. ...More like you are there there, inside and outside, all very clear.

Take all the advantages and disadvantages of both passive and active, for each person, and @ the end where it counts the most, on the screen, during normal movie time for most people (evening), considering the glasses or not (light, less light, tra-la-la...), no matter how far or how close you sit, it always boils down to people's own personal vision, their own preference, zone of comfort.

I would like full active 4K (Ultra HD 3D). That's me, my own eyes, my true zone of comfort, my artistic and critical perspective, my own dimensional preferred 3D world.
 
#32 ·
I have two excellent 3D setups, each with their own strengths (DPI Titan Ref 660 (active) 3D, and Sony's 84" 4K passive 3D). The 3D image displayed on my 12' wide Cinecurve is incredible (no doubt helped by the dual lamp Titan setup (2300 Lum. in 3D), and not tiring at all, BUT you do know you are wearing glasses. The Sony easily provides the more comfortable 3D experience with its passive system, and is plenty bright (unmeasured) to also provide excellent 3D. Between the two, we "slightly" prefer the passive experience, but that bigger screen gets just as much viewing.








Jim
 
#34 ·
I have two excellent 3D setups, each with their own strengths (DPI Titan Ref 660 (active) 3D, and Sony's 84" 4K passive 3D). The 3D image displayed on my 12' wide Cinecurve is incredible (no doubt helped by the dual lamp Titan setup (2300 Lum. in 3D), and not tiring at all, BUT you do know you are wearing glasses. The Sony easily provides the more comfortable 3D experience with its passive system, and is plenty bright (unmeasured) to also provide excellent 3D. Between the two, we "slightly" prefer the passive experience, but that bigger screen gets just as much viewing.

Jim
Useful info, thx Jim.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top