or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Which one is best 3D TV?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which one is best 3D TV? - Page 3

post #61 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post


And that half resolution looks gorgeous and crystal clear.

On a 42 or smaller....yes.
post #62 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino the tv guy View Post

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.

Like it has been said, this is only bad on larger screens in the 42"+ range. For 3D TVs south of the 42" range, I don't think the resolution difference between passive or active would be as noticeable at all. In fact, I have yet to see any TVs smaller than 42" with an active display. I have no trouble with 3D on my Toshiba 32" as of yet. In fact, for a TV this small to have passive 3D, it's almost as good, if not better than, let's say an active 55" display from Samsung or Sony. I guess it's all in the size of the TV, and one would interpret 3D images from the quality of the picture based on that size of the television (there is a science to it, but not quite sure).
post #63 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post


And that half resolution looks gorgeous and crystal clear.

I agree. If my half resolution was any better, it would be live theater.
post #64 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino the tv guy View Post

On a 42 or smaller....yes.

Mine is 55".
post #65 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post


I agree. If my half resolution was any better, it would be live theater.

On a 55 with full 3d hd, it can and does look live.
post #66 of 93
Another knock on active 3D that I hated when I did my side by side comparisons at the store was how much it dimmed the picture. I didn't notice any drop in resolution with passive as many people like to point out. It was just as clear and crisp to me. But really you have to do your own comparisons. Only you can determine what 3D is best for you.
post #67 of 93
Very true. The benefits of passive 3D is there are no batteries to replace or recharge, either, which is definitely more economical. Also, just as long as the PQ of the set it good enough, it doesn't matter if you have active OR passive 3D, that should be in 100% consideration. Screen size for that 3D technology should, as stated, be the second thing to consider.
post #68 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino the tv guy View Post


On a 55 with full 3d hd, it can and does look live.

Yeah my half 3d looks like live theatre also. My point was if my half 3d looked any better I wouldn't be watching tv, I would be at a live theatre
post #69 of 93
What Wonka said. I would NEVER go back to the Samsung plasma. Everyone that has seen both the LG 55" and the Samsung 50" has remarked how much better the passive picture looked.
post #70 of 93
I was watching passive 3D on a 65LW6500 in it looked awesome. Don't know where this talk that passive only looks good under 55".
post #71 of 93
Everybody's on the bandwagon here. For those of you who say "I didn't notice any drop in resolution with passive" or it's good enough for me, that's like saying High definition isn't important to me. Why did everyone buy a 1080p display?
post #72 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

Everybody's on the bandwagon here. For those of you who say "I didn't notice any drop in resolution with passive" or it's good enough for me, that's like saying High definition isn't important to me. Why did everyone but a 1080p display?

Have you even seen a good passive set? The LG looks amazing... I personally have one. I think its easier on the eyes and better looking than movie theater 3d.

I can see the difference between 1080i and 1080p 2d material on my 65lw6500 but i see no interlaced artifacts on the passive 3d. I think it looks better and clearer than the active so called 1080p 3d. Not to mention the glasses are more comfortable and cheaper.
post #73 of 93
I get blamed for spreading mis information and insulted on these boards. I looked for myself and I enjoy passive. I have also been dining on a steady dose of 3d and havent experienced any discomfort or eye strain. I think though, a month ago when I decided I was going to buy 3d tv, I thought powered was going to be better.
post #74 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by daWill View Post

Have you even seen a good passive set? The LG looks amazing... I personally have one. I think its easier on the eyes and better looking than movie theater 3d.

I can see the difference between 1080i and 1080p 2d material on my 65lw6500 but i see no interlaced artifacts on the passive 3d. I think it looks better and clearer than the active so called 1080p 3d. Not to mention the glasses are more comfortable and cheaper.

Yes I've seen your display many times. I keep thinking maybe I haven't seen the latest firmware, but I have. I'm sorry I see softness, jaggies on diagonal and curved edges and, unless I get back far enough to render any advantage to high definition useless, I see the black horizontal pixel lines.

So have at it, tell me how wrong my eyesight or perception is I don't care.
post #75 of 93
FPR Resolution and Image Fusion
Because FPR TVs provide only 540 lines to each eye, it’s easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD 1080 lines resolution. That conclusion is reinforced when you walk up close to an FPR TV wearing Passive Glasses and see the gaps between the odd and even TV lines in each eye. But it’s not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can’t get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.

The theory and fundamental principle behind full FPR vertical resolution and sharpness is that the 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical – but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn’t any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see. So as long as the viewing distance is sufficient so that the raster lines are not visually resolved (for 20/20 vision the visual resolution is 1 arc min, which corresponds to 6.1 feet for a 47 inch TV) the brain should fuse the images from the right and left eyes into a single full 1080p resolution 3D image. One important detail to note is that there are actually two entirely equivalent odd-even and even-odd line pairings for both the right and left FPR images, so both FPR TVs alternate between them at their full Refresh Rate. This also eliminates image artifacts that would result from picking just one pairing or the other.

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm
post #76 of 93
Yes, Yes the Dr. Raymond M. Soneira study. He did use 47" displays for that much quoted study. maybe those conclusions are valid at that size. What about 65", 70" and on up. Displays are trending larger every day. As the size goes up the FPR problems are increased.
post #77 of 93
For you. The rest of us just don't see it.
post #78 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post

For you. The rest of us just don't see it.

"Some" of you not "Rest" of you. When you say "rest" you include everyone other than the one person you are responding to and you are not qualified to speak for everyone.
post #79 of 93
Robust you should post that You Tube video explaining why in passive each eye sees 1920x540 and the brain cannot combine it to 1920x1080 because if it did there would be no 3D. It was an excellent explanation by a man who has spent much time generating test patterns.
Myself I have the 92" DLP as I want the best and biggest 3D in a living room that I can use with my PC,Xbox360,PS3 and bluray movies. Yesterday I watched the 4 3D displays including passive at BB and Hugo looked terrible compared to my home experience.
post #80 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post


I don't know, $1000 street for a 47" Vizio E3D470VX (Wonka's TV) doesn't seem so inexpensive when one can pick up a 73" DLP for about the same money. (my ex wife recently got a 73" for under $1000)

A 73" TV has over two times (2.41) the viewing area of a 47" TV, so a 47" should cost about $400 to be even comparable in price, let alone less expensive. One could buy a lot of active glasses for the $600 difference, instead of spending it on passive technology.

A 55" LG passive is going for around $2000 on amazon. Twice the price for a little over half (56%) of the viewing area. One could get an 82" DLP for less than that price. 82" of 3D heaven!

Not all people want a large screen TV, however, so it's perfectly okay to buy a smaller TV if that's what one wants, but don't say it's inexpensive technology.

If you're going to buy electronics, wait til you can do it right. I love guys who want in and buy the cheaper crappier brands (Vizio) and then try to justify their purchase by knocking on the higher end products.

It's like buying a Kia and putting BMW badges all over it...smh

If HE knew anything, loved 3D and did research like he claims A) he wouldn't have bought a Vizio. B) he wouldn't have bought passive.
post #81 of 93
My opinion:
DLP > Plasma active > LCD Passive > LCD Active
post #82 of 93
mobilejunkie not everyone can afford or wants a BMW. As I said before some of us prefer active 3d and some prefer passive 3d. We should be happy we have 3d to enjoy whichever system we prefer and whichever brand we choose to buy.
post #83 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSX1992 View Post

Robust you should post that You Tube video explaining why in passive each eye sees 1920x540 and the brain cannot combine it to 1920x1080 because if it did there would be no 3D. It was an excellent explanation by a man who has spent much time generating test patterns.
Myself I have the 92" DLP as I want the best and biggest 3D in a living room that I can use with my PC,Xbox360,PS3 and bluray movies. Yesterday I watched the 4 3D displays including passive at BB and Hugo looked terrible compared to my home experience.

Thanks for reminding me NSX1992. This explains the facts about active vs passive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETc3Ep3wcEk
post #84 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobilejunkie View Post

If you're going to buy electronics, wait til you can do it right. I love guys who want in and buy the cheaper crappier brands (Vizio) and then try to justify their purchase by knocking on the higher end products.

It's like buying a Kia and putting BMW badges all over it...smh

If HE knew anything, loved 3D and did research like he claims A) he wouldn't have bought a Vizio. B) he wouldn't have bought passive.

Some people want in at a lower price point, and it's good that Vizio and others are out there, so I wouldn't knock anyone's choices so much as a misinformed opinion about that choice.Attachment 239963
LL
post #85 of 93
As to the OP's original question,

the all time best 3D, no passive glasses, no active glasses, in fact, no glasses whatsoever is.....




.
.
.
.
As shown at CES-2364
.
.
post #86 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobilejunkie View Post


If you're going to buy electronics, wait til you can do it right. I love guys who want in and buy the cheaper crappier brands (Vizio) and then try to justify their purchase by knocking on the higher end products.

It's like buying a Kia and putting BMW badges all over it...smh

If HE knew anything, loved 3D and did research like he claims A) he wouldn't have bought a Vizio. B) he wouldn't have bought passive.

Hey, I didn't have to get Vizio, I chose to buy Vizio after reading reviews. I went with passive because I have eyes. You have the most money to spend and because of that you are the only one who should enjoy 3d technology? I have children so I don't want to yell at them when they inevitably break a pair. Why didn't you knock the size of my set too, you insulting senior member? In addition to that, she can wear her size glasses, the ones she got in the theater the ones that are orange that came with Lorax. I really dont care that you don't think somebody who buys Vizio deserves to enjoy 3d. But I am, so..
post #87 of 93
Go Wonka!!!
post #88 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1939 View Post

Go Wonka!!!

Thanks.
post #89 of 93
Don't you worry, Augerhandle, one day we'll soon be there, much like we'll have 3D Video Phones based on Skype technology like you see in the Jetsons, too.
post #90 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post


Some people want in at a lower price point, and it's good that Vizio and others are out there, so I wouldn't knock anyone's choices so much as a misinformed opinion about that choice.

Thanks for understanding, I enjoy these forums, but there will always be trolls. However, I want it to be known that I was never bashing or knocking anyone else's setup to justify the purchase, I could have went active, I chose passive and Vizio because only person I had to justify my purchase too was my wife, and she wasn't too happy that I even wanted a new tv because we had a beautiful big screen already.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Which one is best 3D TV?