active vs passive 3D display, which one will rule the future? - Page 7

I purchased a 32" Vizio 3d passive for the children and I must say the picture is nice. I don't see the half rez like everyone is talking about, maybe because of the smaller size. I would see it in the stores on the larger size passive screen but I was mighty close to the TV. I don't see any jaggies even while close to this TV. One thing I noticed is when I played some 3d contents from my computer the field of depth was perfect but I can't seem to get the same result from the Samsung 6500 3d player. It seems like its too close and my eyes can't focus the front depth and I get eye strain from it. I may be watching it too close. Overall I am pretty satisfied with passive 3d. I am buying a 47" passive because I think the 55" is too big from 8-9 feet away.

I agree, anyone the are beautiful displays. I

I have a 47lw6500, and I can say without reservation that it has floored everyone who has seen it.

Ifind the half resolution commentsfrom others a good bit tiresome. While it's 1080i, vs sequential 1080p no one could convince me I am losing detail to my eys bright and sharp comes to mind.

Wonderful set!

After looking at 3D displays for a while:
I think that Active 3D Plasma Displays look the best, then Passive LED-LCD's, then active LED-LCD's. I ended up buying a Panasonic Active Shutter TV. The price difference between Plasmas and LED's is enough to buy 4 pairs of glasses, and the picture is better. Also, the flickering is not nearly as bad in a home as it is in a store.

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.

Where can you go to compare active & passive computer monitors? I live in San Diego and would be willing to even check out a store in LA on a future road trip. Specifically I would love to see Nvidia's 3d Vision 2 in a SLI configuration. I got two passive sets a LG 65 inch TV and the Acer 27 inch passive 3d computer monitor. I'm firm I made the right choice for myself with the passive TV but with the computer monitor I'm less certain and think a 3d Vision 2 monitor would have blown my passive Acer away, but 3d Vision 2 hasn't penetrated the market enough yet and the 3d Vision 1 27 inch Acer monitor was way too dark for my liking. I tested it at Fry's and it could of certainly not been set up well but it would of had to undergone substantial improvement to make me think my passive 3d monitor decision was a mistake. Plus I hear if you increase the lighting on 3d Vision you get more ghosting.

Common sense tells me to ignore the entirety of your post after reading that line.

Polarized glasses are much brighter, lighter, cheaper, and have no flicker. Resolution is but a temporary setback. DLP and active shutter is what I own and it's the best combo for crosstalk, but in real world testing, passive is good enough in my experience. Far better than what the early active shutter TVs did, and I wouldn't be surprised if tests proved it was as good if not better than the current best non-DLP active shutter models.

What kind of tests would prove that? So far the most scientific tests I've read above have shown the opposite. Of course that is related to resolution of current passive displays.

LOL. For some reason the way I read that sounded pretty funny. I pictured morgan freeman saying it.

I was going to purchase that set a couple months ago but plan on holding out, but it did look impressive.

My panasonic plasma needs to hold out another 4-5 months (until that LG OLED TV comes out).

I find the passive 1080i claim tiresome. 1080i is when 540 lines are displayed on every other line of a 1080 screen followed by the other 540 lines "between" those lines instead of in place of or on top of those lines. With passive 540 lines remain black because of the reverse polarization of the film on the screen and the lens of the glasses. that is not the same as 1080i. This thread is comparing active and passive. If it tires you don't read it.

Sorry I wasn't clear to you. From the point I mention crosstalk to the end of the post, I am referring to crosstalk performance specifically.

Passive's half resolution is not like 1080i. The aliasing is easier to see at all times whereas 1080i artifacts are usually only visible in split second instances involving fast motion.

If I'm looking at a solid white passive signal I can easily see the black lines.

Passive will improve though with higher res TVs. Active won't really benefit from the increase because most won't notice the added detail unless they have a projector.

Cakefoo, I agree with your last two posts. Thank You

I see the 84" LG passive as the future of 3D for me.

You must go to a bad theater. How can 120fps, 4K per eye 3D with higher color depth look not much better than at home? It certainly does to me. I have a passive TV but I go to the theater to see 3D movies. Until we can get that at home, it really doesn't matter if it is active or passive Although, I like passive like the theater. I mainly use my TV for converting 2D to 3D. The best TV is the one that converts the best IMO.

I dont think theres a clear winner on this...both has pros and cons...

Active Shutter 3D gives slightly better 3D experience, but cant be used for long periods or youll get a headache...not to mention expensive (Would you buy $120 a pair for each of your guests?)

Passive while not giving you the best 3D can be used for longer period like playing video games without giving you a headache and glasses are cheap usualy $50 for a 10 pack...thats more than enough for your guests...

I am not convinced that there needs to be a "winner". You match the glasses to the TV, just like remote controls. If it were source devices or source signals, that would be different but as it is the glasses/TV combo, both types can continue to exist. One does not need to "win".

It's true that it's not like a format war where a winner has to be chosen, but I just think one is going to be more popular and that's a reversal of what is popular right now.

I have never got a headache or eye strain on my active display and I often use 3d for gaming seasons which last upto 5 hrs. Glasses are also half that price.

Same here, I've done marathon (7 hours) 3D game sessions, with friends, and none of us have ever gotten headaches. It's often stated that active shutter glasses give headaches, but I doubt that it's really true.

the truth hurts.

Jacob

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/LG...g-Claims.shtml