My guess without evidence or proof is that active is better. At the same time though i think passive will win out (because it's cheaper and easier) which is a shame because the world will have the lesser 3D tech. From what i've read passive is the same 3D you get in movie theaters which i am not impressed by at all. I have not been "wowed" by any of the 3D movies i have seen in a theater in the past few years since it became so common. I saw a demo of active in a store once and wasn't impressed either, but i'm pretty sure if i got it home and tweaked everything it would be better. If i compare the active demo i saw with the passive that is in theaters though the active seems to be more vibrant where as the passive looks closer to what the old 3D looked like (the kind that had almost no color). You have two words, active (which means ambitous) and passive (which means lazy), what does common sense tell you? Also, active is more expensive and you know the saying, you get what you pay for. For me i think active is my only choice, because i want my next TV to be a plasma, all i've ever owned are LCD's. Plasmas only come in active, so that will be what i get. " Vizio, LG, and other purveyors of 2011 passive 3D TVs admit, the system they use halves the effective 1080p resolution, delivering only 540 lines to each eye." That is a quote from cnet's website, i don't have the link to the cnet article but saw this quote here: http://www.sonyrumors.net/2011/07/05...keting-scheme/
. I've also read that you have to be farther away for passive. Considering my next TV will be at least 55" and my viewing distance is only like 8 feet (give or take), passive will not work for me.