Passive vs Active is like VHS vs Beta all over again - Page 2

My Sony 55HX729 has no flicker. Could be the 240 Hz.

There are a lot of active 3d displays with no flicker. My Samsung un55c8000 has no flicker perceived by me or any of the many friends I've shown it to.

The flicker issue is one of those big deal problems LG is trying to make everyone believe is a problem with active technology.

It has flicker. And 2D ghosting behind moving 3D objects. I saw it on the Best Buy floor.

Yours too... saw it on hhgregg floor.

Better to have half of the frames black?

The only active ones that really don't have visible flicker or visible ghosting are 600Hz plasma. Still don't like the ideea of strobbing my brain with 50% dark frames.

It doesn't matter if the display is a 240hz or 600hz panel-- all that matters is at what rate the shutterglasses open and close.

Nope, no flicker whatsoever, full 1080p and BRIGHT. The only occasional issue based on content is some crosstalk: None on Tintin and some on HUGO. BTW, the Sony demo at BB was horrid. I don't know what model-maybe the infamous 720 or the settings were a mess but terrible which is why I was delighted getting mine and eventually Avatar 3D. NO FLICKER. Period. If I knew you and you lived in my area, I'd say come on over and see for yourself! Explore the two HX729 threads and there is no discussion of flicker. I did see flicker on a Samsung demo in 2010, the first 3D model year.

Re, the LG demo: What struck me was very excellent 3D but also the decrease in resolution. I couldn't make that trade off.

You saw it on the Bestbuy floor. Well good for you. Under florescent lights that flicker. Me and my friends have been watching it for a year. I think that's a better test. I'll readily admit to it having a crosstalk problem but no flicker. The flicker is from lights and computer displays Etc. things that shouldn't be on while viewing. The screens on any display refresh at a speed similar to the active glasses, there's no flicker.

Correct, NO FLICKER!!!

Wave your hand in front of your face. Do you see a solid streak motion blur? No, you see your hand strobing back and forth. So it's not a lighting issue, but a glasses issue.

The lights or computer or led receiver displays have a frequency. The glasses have a frequency. Like with waves there is resonance that amplifies the frequency causing the flicker. There is no resonance between the glasses and a 3D display. If they are synchronized properly there is no resonance thus no flicker. It's elementary physics. This is my last word on this subject. I'm sure you are relieved.

The flicker I'm referring to is not the dark strobing but a judder. Even in a softly sunlit room you'll see it on your hand if you wave it. And every frame of animation in a movie has at least one pair of refreshes where the image is out of sync because one eye gets the next frame while the other eye is still thinking about the previous frame. In a movie there are multiple refreshes for each eye of the same frame/same moment in time, but at the end/start of eachl new frame is when the judder-like flicker occurs. It's really annoying to me and destroys the look of film. higher glasses refresh rates will reduce the distortion but I've yet to see glasses that run at higher than 120hz.

i tried the moving my hand thing. It's an interesting effect that I never realized happens. Thanks for pointing it out. I still don't see a negative effect on the screen during a 3d movie. I just finished watching Pirates of the Caribbean, lots of fast movement. I use Monster vision glasses. I don't see judder. Maybe I'm not looking for it enough.

Not that you'd want to ever know what it looks like (and risk never being able to unsee it), but there's a way to potentially see the difference I'm referring to. Watching moderately fast moving 3D content, notice the motion quality difference as seen with one eye open versus with both eyes open.

I'll think about whether I want to try it. Ignorance is bliss in this case.

I have a dlp active 3d projector setup and the 3d is awesome, but I also would like to buy a passive 3d tv for my room. All the ones I have seen have a soft image and poor viewing angles compared to my active setup yes the passive is brighter ,but that's not a problem with active just turn up the brightness. I think I'll just buy an active 3d tv or wait until they produce 4000k passive resolution sets so it will be full 1080 3d.

My Sony 55HX729 is very bright when in 3D mode. Backlight and other settings default to maximum when 3D is enabled.

That's why I don't understand all the active 3d haters saying the image is too dark almost all displays have user settings on them it's very simple to use them. Then they cry about flicker. I have never seen any flicker with my optoma 3d glasses or any active setup I've viewed , some people may just be more prone to it than others like rainbow effect is something else I've never seen even with projectors with 2x color wheel speed.

Certain settings such as backlight are not adjustable during 3D viewing to keep the image bright.

Betamax (Sony) also introduced the concept of high-quality stereo FM sound recording. (The VHS Hi-Fi system followed later.) It was cool back then, years before CDs, computers and digital audio, to be able to record six hours of high-fidelity stereo audio on a $3 videocassette.

The video tracks on Beta were tighter and smaller, which made for wider video bandwidth and smaller cassettes. The VHS specs were looser, which made less demands on the videohead assemblies and alignment, and was therefore more forgiving to third-party manufacturers.

I think it came down to a licensing contest where Sony wanted to keep the Beta format somewhat proprietory (think "Memory Stick" with Sony's digicams) whereas VHS (which originated with JVC, I believe -- haven't Wikipedia'd it) was freely licensed to just about every other manufacturer -- hence the VHS machines became ubiquitous and cheaper.

Beta format was the format used in cameras that remote TV reporters used until the recent advent of digital cameras. It didn't disappear, it was just high end stuff the average consumer wouldn't spend the bucks on. I had several Beta machines, including the "Super Beta HiFi" model due to the quality of the video and audio recordings... also had VHS player for all the media that never made it to Beta. Unfortunately my vast Beta collection gathers dust, and my wallet is lighter with "upgrades" to DVD, and now Blu ray!

And yup, I"ve got active shutter glasses too!

Human Beings are the stupidest specie on the plannet.... Which has been proven by VHS winning out over Beta and Blu-Ray winning out over HD DVD. In these cases, the losing format was clearly the superior formant. But thanks to the public, we have the inferior formats.

And now here we are again... Passive IS the superior format, NOT active. Let's see what happens this time.

I had to laugh at that.

I don't disagree with this first part, I just think "Human Beings are the most stupid species on the planet" might have given the second part of your argument more credibility.

By the way, neither passive or active is a "format". The format is 3D.

Passive and active is just how one watches, just as Dolby 2.0, 5.1, 7.1, etc. is how one listens.

There's no format war, they both work with the same content. Pick one and move on.

Sounds like someone who invested in HD DVD. Sony was very smart incorporating BD into their PS3s. I love Blu-ray and I'm sure HD DVD was good but at this point, it's a moot issue.

Upper case and all. You know this is disputed. You state your opinion as fact. At the current stage of development they both have problems. Whose problem is worse is opinion.

Sounds like someone that bought into the FUD a little too much. HD DVD's completed spec still required FW updates for the player. I never saw much difference in the technical capabilities between the formats during the war. For all the hype about PiP, only a few titles used it and now that BD has caught up in the four years since Toshiba closed up shop how many viewers really utilize those features. BD had the storage advantage. It's why a vast majority of titles have lossless tracks. I seem to remember very few HD DVDs had lossless audio.

VHS won because JVC wisely developed a format where the recording times were easily worked into how most TV programs were scheduled. Sony's original recording times on a tape required swapping tapes frequently. Also Sony did not initially license Beta to other manufacturers. JVC on the other hand did and hence the prices were more competitive.

It is kind of ironic though that with all the failed formats Sony has backed that BD was the victor in the HD media wars. Howard Stringer was determined not to let BD become the next Betamax. It did probably cost Sony it's historic success with the Playstation brand name. Though Sony putting a BD drive into the console sold me on BD since I was on the fence at that time in 2006. Although I have moved on from the PS3 for BD playback you have to hand it to Sony for making the PS3 the best BD player available for the first few years of the format. They have kept it up to date with the profile changes and added such features as dts-Master Audio decoding and more recently 3D. So again remind me why it was a bad decision to choose BD over HD DVD. My PS3 from 2006 is able to playback BDs that are based on newer specs that weren't even in existence at the time.

Back to topic.... Passive vs. active is NOT a format war. The 3D content you get will playback on either display tech. As a front projector enthusiast, passive display is just to klugey for me right now in my price range. I would need to align two projector images, add some DIY filter system, possibly add a silver screen that are very prone to hotspotting, add some demuxer boxes, etc.

Right now, the active system delivers a much more plug and play experience for a 3D experience I rate better than my local cineplex. All I had to do was take down the old projector. Put up the new one and run a cat5 cable to where I was going to place the IR emitter. Took about an hour to upgrade to the 3D experience.

The PS3 is capable of showing a 3D movie without a newer 1.4 HDMI cable. It's the only device in my HT that isn't equipped with a 1.4 HDMI cable and works as well as my Panasonic 3D BD 210BDT player with it's fancy AudioQuest Forest HDMI cable.

Just to be anal, there is no such thing as an 1.4 cable. Per HDMI LLC. there is only Standard Speed, Standard Speed with eithernet, High Speed, High Speed with eithernet and automotive. There is also a mini-plug for moble. The eithernet versions - which has nothing to do with 3D - and the automotive cable are the only new cables. Standard Speed is the original quality and High Speed was introduced several years ago.

If the cable is marked 1.4, this marking is in violation to HDMI LLC rules (yes violations do happen).

All High Speed cables should work for any of the HDMI required 3D signals. Good quality Standard Speed cables often work just fine as well.

Yes and very anal! I know that which is why AudioQuest doesn't label their cables as 1.4 but this is what is commonly referred to as high speed. My Forests are High speed w/ internet. I said 1.4 out of habit because that was the terminology that was being used.

My point however is to stop people looking for cables marked 1.4 because that is not what they will find in most cases. Others will read what you write and look for 1.4 because they think that is what they need.

By the way High Speed cables were out long before 1.4. They would be 1.3 cables if would come to a HDMI version number.

You're right. Why was it that the 1.4 designation was used? AudioQuest customer service explained that to me as well. Best Buy Magnolia couldn't explain it. I was also told at Best Buy that their cheap high speed store brand was only for 60Hz. My Forest HDMI cable (if I recall) was designated for my 240Hz TV. Does this make sense?