Which one is best 3D TV? - Page 2

I wouldn't so much call it a debate as a discussion of personal experience. I'll try very high gain paint behind a electric drop screen to see if I can find the best 2D/3D experience with active shutters on a limited budget next.

That's what we do here on AVS I thought, try crazy ideas, and pass on the results, positive or negative so the next guy doesn't make the same mistake. I've followed your lead a bunch of times John.

Part of the enjoyment for me is getting the stuff to work best.

You can believe what you want, that is your right.

The fact is, that both passive and active have already gone to the masses. Neither technology has any effect on 3D distribution. There is no passive vs active technology war going on.

Since when are DLPs old school? DLP technology is twenty years newer than either LCD or plasma.

Just because something is not a mainstream consumer item, doesn't make it old. Lamborghinis and McLarens don't sell as much as Fords, but that doesn't make them old school. They are just aimed at a different market than the typical consumer.

Yes, if 3D content was stopped today, I can still watch everything in 3D with the 2D to 3D conversion.

That's not what was meant. From his post, it was obvious that he thought the 3D TV might be obsolete, and worthless for 2D.

No doubt, but there aren't a whole lot of value on the glasses. Even if you buy glasses by the manufacturer of the tv. And when I say 10 pairs would cost me between $300 and $1300, I just estimated the price of the lowest glasses price for Universal shutter glasses I saw which was $29.99 and the highest I saw a pair of glasses $129.99. What I want is for 3d to become more standard issue on television sets and the way to make that happen is if people can come home from the multiplex with the Real D glasses and have an option on the tv that would allow them to switch 3d on if movie supported it. That is the only way 3d can become mainstream. Most consumers cant even switch the input on their tv. No way shutter technology will EVER become mainstream, and yes I will always buy value if I can justify the savings. I will put the passive up against your powered anyday.

Generally still cheaper to go see at the theatre what 3d movies you want that are put out in 3d, although in GB I don't know how much a theatre ticket costs...and you get the real big screen and sound that way.

OTOH my Samsung PN59D8000 plasma has pretty good 3d (active type so you need glasses, too and there's not always free glasses with the set). There's not just the tv set, it's everything in the system to make it 3d plus the discs themselves (avr, hdmi connectors, blu-ray player, etc.). And so far the discs are purchase only, nothing much on rental I've found. Mostly my home "theater" is built around other than 3d, but did update it to accommodate once I had the set. There's limited dedicated 3d content out there, too.

Now, if you want to convert everything to 3d from 2d, your set is going to be more cost-effective, but those sets that do that well are generally going to be in the upper range pricewise.

I had a Samsung 50" 7000 series and the 3d was good when it worked.
The active glasses would not stay synchronized and in my opinion were bulky. I now have an LG LW 5600 and the 3d blows the Samsung away. There is no flicker or crosstalk, and the image is bright and clear. Passive is the way to go in my experience.

"I had a truck once that was good when it started. Bought a car, and it starts every time. Cars are the way to go in my experience."

There are good and bad examples in all product lines. I'm glad you found what you like, though.

We've heard this all before to the point of nausea A 2010 Samsung 7000 is not the best example of active technology. plasmas and high end Sony ,Sharp and yes, Samsung 2012 models display great 3D. They stay synchronized, don't flicker, little or no crosstalk and the Samsung glasses are very light.

Never trust anyone with less than 200 posts.

Im not bashing either technology, they both work. Passive is a good technology that may be around in 5 years. Powered will definitely not be around in 5 years and you can quote me on that.

If my glasses break, I go to the cinema and see a 3d movie and I have a new pair. If your glasses break, you may not even be able to buy a compatible pair.

Actually it was a 2011 Samsung plasma, and the passive 3d and comfortable glasses did blow it away. By saving Real D glasses I now have 18 pair of glasses essentially for free. Try that with active glasses

Enough said.

Showed a buddy of mine my display and even before I got the image right due to resolution issues he said, wow, as soon as I switch to 3d the screen goes really dark. He said as a result, he doesn't even use the 3d, but he was blown away by the 3d on my cheap ass Vizio.

The argument also depends on what if the active TV is 240hz or 480hz, flashing more black frames will greatly reduce ghosting in these displays

Consider yourself quoted, but I'd say it's a better bet to say that you won't be around these forums in 5 years.

Active glasses have been used since the 70s, and will continue to be used even if the new 3D standard isn't. It has nothing to do with the consumerism of 3DTV. Gamers, medical professionals, schools, and theaters have been using active glasses for decades.

This isn't X-Box vs PS3, that's another forum.

Well, I guess I'm put in my place. I have a 2010 un55c8000 Samsung. It has never lost synchronization. I've never seen flickering. I can wear the glasses all day. I guess it's a freak accident.

By the way it's very bright and 1080p resolution.

Honestly that is probably correct, I wont be around these forums in 5 yrs. Im not saying the active glasses will be abandoned, I am saying the manufacturers wont be making them and they will be hard to come by. I also agree that Samsung makes great products. Im not trolling you. But I do believe when people are asking what the best 3dtv is and that is the thread we are in, everyone will have a different opinion.

I think my 3d tv is the best because it is mine and I can plan the programming to my tastes. Now I know you think your Samsung is the best and you know what? We are both right.

All I want is for more people to be able to use the technology so they continue to make movies theatrically because as long as that is the case, we should always have new 3d content.

Also I want to interject that while there isnt a war going on, it is mainly because their is little interest in 3d technology from most people. However, it does seem to be similar to the hd dvd/blu ray war (and I own both even though I don't have 1500 posts) in that it is creating consumer confusion in that the glasses aren"t universal at this time.

Passive 3D 720p per eye - Active 1080p

This also relates to HALF SBS and FULL SBS.

I got a samsung 3D tv, and yes the more expensive glasses are worth the extra resolution, you should be able to imagine it yourself. end of discussion.

The catch with Passive 3D is that the system reduces the resolution of the 3D image. A Full HD 3D 1920 x 1080 Blu-ray is presented at 1920 x 540 pixels, However the glasses on active system are more expensive, to summerize:

Buy a Passive 3D TV if

You mainly intend on watching 3D animation movies with your kids.
You want to host 3D sports parties and invite your mates.
If you intend to buy a relatively small 3D TV (42 inches or less).

Buy an Active Shutter 3D TV if

You're a film fan who wants to see movies in the highest possible resolution.
If you plan on kicking back and watching sports on your own.
If you plan on buying a large screen 3D TV (46 inches or bigger).

For me, buy a passive 3D TV if....

It has 4K resolution.

I have a Panasonic 65" VT30 TV and I find that I don't watch that much 3D. So if I do get a chance to watch 3D movies, I want to watch it with the best resolution as possible.
Oh, I have over 40 3D .isos so I have plenty of 3D material to watch. I watch the 3D .isos using the HiMedia 900B media player.

It cuts resolution in half. Not acceptable. For myself anyway. I spend all this money on a tv, and I don't get full hd from a 3d movie. Again, it's not worth it.

By the way. I did my homework. Thats why I didn't go passive. If you are going to spend good money On a quality tv, don't downgrade the 3d, by getting passive. Go to a big box store and look at the different types of tvs, with the same content. And you will see for yourself. And I'm not trying to justify my purchase, buonaforte is. Do your homework stronzo.

I couldn't have said it better.

For me passive is the way to go; for others it is active. I'm just happy we have 3d to enjoy whichever method we choose.

They've been making active glasses for 35-40 years before "3DTV" was reinvented two years ago, and they will continue to make them far into the future.

I don't own a Samsung, and probably never will. Perhaps you need to reread my posts?

There is no "best", including your passive set. There are "options" for people to match to their situation and preferences.


That is uniformed and ridiculous. There is no tech war going on because there is no tech war going on. Passive and active can survive side by side without any effect on the 3D industry, unlike the HDDVD and Bluray rivalry.

A better analogy would be comparing black and white to color, or stereo to 5.1 surround. You can take your 3D Bluray that you play on your passive set, and play it on your neighbor's active set with no problem.

Any confusion comes from inaccurate reports such as yours.

+1

And that half resolution looks gorgeous and crystal clear.