or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Stay with active 3d or go with passive 3d
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stay with active 3d or go with passive 3d

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
I have a lg 42 inch plasma active 3d tv 42pw350 that i use as bedroom TV. I was wondering if theirs a benefit to going to 42 inch lcd passive 3d TV from lg
i like the active 3d ,but my wife does not. I also have a Samsung 51d7000 as a main TV and she don't like that one ether.

I read the pros and cons but need some input if anyone has owned both types of sets any input would be great
post #2 of 47
Bottom line is that although the glasses are lighter with passive 3D, you only get half the resolution of active 3D. So no, there is no benefit (except for more comfortable glasses) and actually a reduction in PQ.
post #3 of 47
I own a Samsung C7000 (active) , and an LG 5600 (passive) I like the passive better. I see no reduction in PQ at all.
post #4 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP View Post

Bottom line is that although the glasses are lighter with passive 3D, you only get half the resolution of active 3D. So no, there is no benefit (except for more comfortable glasses) and actually a reduction in PQ.

I don't own either yet, but wouldn't there be reduction in flicker and no problems with keeping glasses in sync/charged, maybe less headaches because of less flicker? Could there be less cross-talk? Also would the apparent brightness be any better? As well as cheaper glasses.
post #5 of 47
I have an LG 55" passive 3D set in the bedroom, and from a 12' viewing distance the decreased vertical resolution does not bother me (or any other family member) at all. The comfortable glasses (or clip-ons if you already have glasses), flicker-free operation, and excellent separation (no cross-talk) are the real differentiators for me, compared to the active 3D sets that I have seen.
post #6 of 47
There are experts in both camps that swear by their respective preferences. only way to know if passive is better for the wife is to have her go to a store and watch some passive 3D content.

I get headaches with either variety if I watch long enough or I don't take little breaks to rest the eyes. Even the realD 3D and imax stuff in theaters give me a headache if I don't close my eyes for a minute every half hour or so. The more depth there is, the more quickly I feel like my eyes are going to bug out. I have the same pw350 LG you mention (the 50in one) and I'm going to be getting a projector with active.
post #7 of 47
Thread Starter 
My local stores dont have passive sets to demo.I mite just have to bite the bullet. And just go buy it ! and see it in my own home for myself if its not good can always return I guess. Or give to my teenage son for his room.
post #8 of 47
I've seen both. With Passive you get none of the flicker or crosstalk you get on poorly implemented Active sets. Problem is that with passive those scanlines that have been a thing of the past since the demise of SD crt are back. The better active sets have 3D performance comparable to passive without the scanlines. Specifically I'm talking about Panny plasma 3D sets.

I have seen those passive scanlines from a distance of 14 feet from 55" LGs, so it wasn't a case of standing too close.
post #9 of 47
Another thing to consider is the glasses themselves.

I have not tried the bit cauldron type (optoma, VIP, monstervision) glasses yet. When I get my optoma gt750 projector I will be able to check them out. But these type of glasses have adjustable synch which might help with crosstalk or ghosting issues.

What is the specific reason she dislikes active? Does she like the passive realD 3D in the theaters? For some people the eye strain is just too much for any system and they simply don't like it at all. I'm willing to put up with a bit of it cause seeing an octopus in the middle of my living room floating in the air is just cool.

If she just hates 3D all together you could get the crystal eyes glasses that can do right/right or left/left. You'd get 3D with the right/left and she'd get 2D with the other option. But these glasses are not cheap.
post #10 of 47
Thread Starter 
I think she just hates having to were the glasses she don't like sunglasses ether. but she says the real 3D in theaters is not that bad, but i do see her take the glasses of during the film. she mite just hate 3d and she don't want to tell me.

As far as the glasses go, my samsung ones seam to handle 3d better then lg active ones far less crosstalk and ghosting on the samsung but the lg is a budget 3d TV and its only 1024x768 720p set, and it does seam to be a little harder to watch on certain material.
post #11 of 47
Passive or active matters little when you are still considering...an LG.
post #12 of 47
Passive 3D is a lot easier on the eyes, though it doesn't eliminate crosstalk. (in some cases it can actually be worse than active 3D)

Personally, I can't live with the drop in resolution and interlacing though.

In my opinion none of the at-home 3D choices are a viable option right now, and I will be waiting for 4K passive. (I own an active 3D set, and stopped using 3D on it over a year ago)
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post

I've seen both. With Passive you get none of the flicker or crosstalk you get on poorly implemented Active sets. Problem is that with passive those scanlines that have been a thing of the past since the demise of SD crt are back. The better active sets have 3D performance comparable to passive without the scanlines. Specifically I'm talking about Panny plasma 3D sets.

I have seen those passive scanlines from a distance of 14 feet from 55" LGs, so it wasn't a case of standing too close.

I don't think you are the average person. In fact I'd say you are in a small minority. You must have had a real problem with CRT TVs. I still watch a 73" CRT-RPTV, don't see any scan lines. I'm plenty happy with my passive set. What I CAN'T stand is those flickering glasses! Thank goodness they don't use them in theaters.
post #14 of 47
I have an LG 5600 at 47". Passive works great. 2d picture is outstanding as well. On 3d I can wear glasses for hours and it's no bother. No need to wait on 3d as this set works well and it's fun to watch 3d movies. Just like in the theater. Pricing on this LG 5600 or 5700 at Costco is really low. Theres also a 55" model for about $400 more. I did not like all the flicker and the heavy glasses on active 3d. Main thing though is the standard 2d is perfect on this LG. 3d is st an added bonus.
post #15 of 47
If you sit back at least 12 feet from the Passive LG you won't notice the missing scan lines or the lower resolution as much.
post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

If you sit back at least 12 feet from the Passive LG you won't notice the missing scan lines or the lower resolution as much.

If you sit far away from medium sized set (55") you are looking into postage stamp picture. Forget about 3D effect, then. The scan lines on LG 3D sets are quite obvious, please take a trip to the nearest BB store to witness it.
post #17 of 47
Thread Starter 
I got a chance to see for myself a 47 inch LG passive. And the scan lines were realy bad,looked like watching an old CRT RP set but the farther I steped back the lines did diminished a bit .I could still see them .the 3d effect was quite good we both liked the light 3d glasses . my wife said it don't look any diffrent to her then LG 42 inch active 3d in bedroom she still don't like it she said. I think we will stay with active for now. thanks for all comments. It realy helped Thanks
post #18 of 47
We have a 47 inch LG lw5300, and I think the passive is phenomenal. I see no reduction in quality at all with anything I have watched, and the glasses are so much more comfortable. I have seriously gone to Best Buy where they had 4 tvs in a row, all showing off their 3d capabilities. They had a Panasonic, a Sony, a Samsung, and the LG....the LG was the only passive 3D set. Out of all the demos the only one that was impressive was the LG. The 3D effects on the active sets just don't wow me....they don't seem to come out of the screen all that much.....but the LG, holy cow.....I think they've got it right.
post #19 of 47
I hate active, it's yesterdays technology with problems. Take the warnings seriously. I get a headache from the flickering and it also looks jerky to me because of the flickering. If you don't look straight on by tilting your head, the 3D breaks down. My step mother can not watch it because it makes her sick to her stomach PLUS gives her a headache. She absolutely CAN NOT WATCH an active 3D set. We watched Avitar at their friend who has a Samsung 8000 LED LCD series active 3D TV and the 3D picture was really irritating and bad.

I initially didn't like passive because I could never focus on the picture but that was the fault of the salesman. Their active displays had the glasses tethered to a stand at farther distance, but their passive display just had the glasses in a holder that you simply pulled out. Plus their passive display was situated on a walkway where you were somewhat forced to look at the display at a close distance. With passive, you must stand back 2X the distance of the screen size or you will not be able to focus on it. Once I did stand back further than 8' (47" TV), the 3D display was breath taking with none of the negatives of the active displays. No flickering, no jerkiness, NO HEADACHE! Plus the resolution is 1080 no matter what the competeing active camp tries to lie about. One eye sees 540 lines, the other eye sees the other 540 lines. The 2 combine combine into one vision with a full HD picture of 1080 lines of resolution. Our brains interlace the picture together just like our brains interlace a 1080i picture. Active is a progressive 3D where all the lines are there and duplicated in each eye, where passive is interlaced and the lines are combined from each eye.

Passive is the new 3D where people don't get sick from watching it and can buy glasses for $10 each or even less, opposed to a very expensive $100 each.

BTW, LG still makes active 3D TVs with the plasma technology. LG stated it's to expensive to make Cinema 3D (Passive) technology available in Plasma right now but as technology gets cheaper, they'll try to put it in their plasma TVs as well. So they currently make both active and passive and feel passive is the best.

For some who aren't bothered by the flickering and jerky picture, and who do not get sick from it, may prefer active since you can sit closer to the TV. As I said, passive 3D only works when the distance away from the TV is 2X the screen size, so 8' for a 47" TV.

If you sit closer than the 2X distance, you may see the black lines but they are invisible once you get back at least 2X the distance.

I actually hated 3D and only was going to buy my 47LW5600 for the better IPS panel, local dimming, and smart features. I really didn't care about 3D. After reading it's manual online and finding that I wasn't standing far enough back to let the 3D image function correctly, I gave it another go and was really impressed in how great it looked.

I originally thought both passive and active 3D technologies sucked and didn't want anything to do with either.

Look at both and make up your own mind, it's the best thing to do. Look at all vertical and horizontal angles with fast motion scenes and see what looks best.

Unfortunately most stores don't have a Passive 3D setup. In my area, Sears and Best Buy only has active 3D setups with Samsung and has no passive 3D setup. H.H. Greg has active and passive 3D setups with Samsung, Panasonic, and LG. Walmart has no 3D setups at all, and sells no 3D TV individually. They do sell the LG 47" 47LW5300 1080P resolution LED LCD TV/Blu-Ray player 3D bundle and a Samsung 51" 720P line resolution Plasma TV/Blu-Ray 3D bundle. They have no 3D glasses in store though.
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchoolMETAL View Post

With passive, you must stand back 2X the distance of the screen size or you will not be able to focus on it.

Ugh, that gives you a postage-stamp sized image with a 25° FOV. I'm used to a 50-60° FOV.

Hopefully this is something that 4K will fix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchoolMETAL View Post

1080 no matter what the competeing active camp tries to lie about. One eye sees 540 lines, the other eye sees the other 540 lines. The 2 combine combine into one vision with a full HD picture of 1080 lines of resolution.

This only happens when the two images are the same. As soon as there's any difference between the eyes, the resolution drops. Watch something like Tron Legacy, and you will see considerable aliasing problems as a result.

Neither 3D tech is acceptable. 4K will hopefully fix passive 3D, I don't see how active 3D can be salvaged.
post #21 of 47
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchoolMETAL View Post

Plus the resolution is 1080 no matter what the competeing active camp tries to lie about. One eye sees 540 lines, the other eye sees the other 540 lines.

There's no lying going on, but this "resolution is 1080" gets kicked back and forth a lot mainly because it's partly true and partly false. Part of the problem is equating 1080 2D with 1080 3D, which is in fact two different full 1080p images. I think it's helpful to count the number of pixels you're able to see:

720p 2D= 1 million pixels.
1080p 2D= 2 million pixels.
720p active 3D= 2 million pixels.
1080p passive 3D= 2 million pixels in an interlaced arrangement.
1080p active 3D= 4 million pixels.
1080p recent LG passive 3D= 4 million pixels in an interlaced arrangement with half shown sequentially and shifted vertically. Interesting, but I wonder how good it looks in practice?

540 plus 540 equals 1080, and the fact is 2 million pixels is a lot and it's going to look good. But you at least have to apply the same math to active 3D, where 1080 plus 1080 equals 2160, which is better.

On balance I think passive is great by the way, but there's no need to use fuzzy math to hide a disadvantage. Besides, if passive was really 1080 (in the way active is 1080), then why is there interest in 4k passive dispalys?
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockaway1836 View Post

I own a Samsung C7000 (active) , and an LG 5600 (passive) I like the passive better. I see no reduction in PQ at all.


I'm with you on this I understand the technical aspects behind it, though when you are watching them both it is very hard to tell the difference.

I don't like the expensive glasses and a host of other things flicker,cross talk, frame rate with active glasses.

The new passives are giving you 720p (1080p source) theoretically they could produce a 1080p24 to each eye. Your local channels are so compressed its not likely to matter.

Also its your wife, so you may have lost this fight already.
post #24 of 47
Watch this video and Read this article by Joe Kane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETc3Ep3wcEk
http://www.hometheater.com/content/c...3d-flat-panels

I see this as the TRUTH about active and passive 3D
post #25 of 47
Good video, thanks for the link. I have been giving people the benefit of the doubt, and agreeing that with static 2D images, it would theoretically be possible for the images to "blend together" for a full 1080p image. (not that you're ever going to have 3D glasses on to watch a static 2D image anyway...)

It seems like even that is not the case.

As I've been saying all along, passive 3D is only going to work once we have 4K displays, assuming that our 3D sources are still only 1080p. As soon as you get 4K 3D sources, you have the same problem of resolution being halved.


But Active shutter 3D is just bad all around. There are fundamental issues with the technology that don't appear to be fixble at all.

At least in a few years with 4K displays, passive 3D should hopefully be a viable option.
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

There are fundamental issues with the technology that don't appear to be fixble at all.


Can't say I agree with this part of your statement. I think since the top of the line 2012 models, the majority of those who purchased active displays are pretty happy and that's the majority of the displays sold.
post #27 of 47
Joe Kane in that video states that passive does not have to employ resolution loss. If you have alternating polarized images, then you can have full resolution images with passive glasses, or as he calls it "active-passive."
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

the majority of those who purchased active displays are pretty happy

I agree. Active shutter glasses certainly have disadvantages, but a lot of people just don't sweat it. Some disadvantages, such as size and cost, might well be temporary as we're seeing them get lighter and cheaper (though the lightest ones surely won't be the cheapest).

The one problem with active shutter glasses that I think will be difficult to address is flicker. They would need to bump the refresh rate up, perhaps from 60 hz per eye to 120 hz per eye. The trouble is there are still few enough displays that can properly handle alternating between the left and right images 120 times in a second without bleeding some parts together. In other words, many displays still show crosstalk. Now ask for a display that can alternate left and right 240 times per second without crosstalk! DLP could probably do it, but LCD, not anytime soon. An "active-passive" display would have the same difficulty. That said, I don't sweat the flicker because I rarely see it, but I do recognize it's there and there's room for improvement.

4k passive displays will be great, but they wouldn't be everyone's choice. Some might decide a 1080p active display with some extra glasses is a cheaper path to full 1080 3D than a 4k display. Others (me) might ask why settle for 1080 3D on a 4k display if you can have 4k 3D on a 4k display.
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockaway1836 View Post

I own a Samsung C7000 (active) , and an LG 5600 (passive) I like the passive better. I see no reduction in PQ at all.

What is the size and how far are you from the display? I see jaggies at the similar viewing distances from my 55VT30 from passive LG. Active glasses are also becoming lighter and lighter.

The C series panels also suffered from crosstalk amongst other things (even more so if it is an LCD panel.)
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdo View Post

Joe Kane in that video states that passive does not have to employ resolution loss. If you have alternating polarized images, then you can have full resolution images with passive glasses, or as he calls it "active-passive."

I don't know why this solution isn't being pursued. Samsung dropped it when working with RealD. It seems like a better solution than a 4k passive display with FPR.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Stay with active 3d or go with passive 3d