The second link just reports on the first link.
and wanted to know what others here thought of it. I currently have a Samsung active plasma but I am unhappy with the set due to other unrelated issues. Since I am now considering other brands, I decided to maybe consider a passive set. I have heard all along that passive sets have a lower 3D resolution than active sets, and those above articles have completely confused me. That is what brought me here, to see if there is any truth to the articles' claims that there is no resolution loss on the new lg passive sets.
Regardless of all the technical terminology that has been argued here, the bottom line is that these articles claim that the passive sets do not have a loss in resolution:
The "study" in question drips of LG marketing terminology, and is obviously biased towards passive. They cherry picked a very small test sample of some of the worsrt active TVs on the market, leaving out much better TVs, including DLP. Hardly scientific or valid. It will be nice when someone does a proper study.
Tricky wording here. They base this on the assumption that full resolution is attained with both halves of the signal (540 + 540 = 1080). They avoid the fact that it's half per eye.
"By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it’s easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation."
"...In all cases the small text (6 to 10 pixels in height) was readable on the FPR Passive Glasses, which definitively establishes that there is excellent 3D Image Fusion and the Passive Glasses deliver full 1080p resolution in 3D. Again, if the Passive Glasses only delivered half the resolution, as some claim, then it would have been impossible to read the small text on the FPR TVs. So those half resolution claims are manifestly wrong – no, ands ifs or buts!"
Again, they say full resolution, but don't say full resolution per eye
. And why would it be impossible to read the small text at half resolution? At what resolution does the text become unreadable? They never find out. (very unscientific. Mythbusters would have done better) If one can read the same text on a standard def TV (480), why not on a half HD resolution (540) picture?
"...What is even more interesting is that in all cases the small text on the Passive Glasses was actually sharper and easier to read and the fine details easier to resolve than on the Active Glasses. This is the result of Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues that reduce image 3D sharpness and contrast in Active Glasses TVs, which have been discussed in earlier sections. Because Passive Glasses are sharper and also have much less Crosstalk than Active Glasses they also deliver significantly better 3D imaging and a much better 3D immersive visual experience as we concluded above."
See? It was because of "Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues", nothing to do with resolution, which is what they tested with passive. Apples and oranges. There
was no way to compare the text with active, because of the poorly implemented 3D in the TVs selected for the "study". The text reading "test" is unscientific and invalid. The entire report is riddled with these obvious errors and biased comments on the "results".
...So for somebody who is trying to take all of this into consideration, is there a proven loss of resolution with LG passive 1080p sets? And if so, does it matter to someone who is viewing a 50" passive set from 8-10 feet away? Given the other benefits of passive (cost, brightness, crosstalk, etc.) I think the passive technology has a lot to offer. But I would really like to know one way or the other - is there a significant loss in resolution or not? The articles I linked to above seems to think not. It really shouldn't be this hard to find out the answer.
Marketing spin is used by both sides to make sales and lure people to a certain brand.
There is a significant loss of resolution per eye. At 50" and 10 feet, you may never notice. You could probably even get away with half resolution for 2D at that size and distance. But the most important TV feature is screen size, especially in 3D, and you may find that you need to sit very close to a 50" TV while watching 3D to be immersed in the content and fully appreciate it. That may be where the resolution problem rears it's head.
All you can do is try it out and see if you are happy with it.