New LG passive TV has best 3D - Opinion - Page 6

Guys, I came to this thread today because I found these articles:

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm

http://www.extremetech.com/electroni...-passive-3d-tv

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:

"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!"


"...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."


"In brief, and if you don’t mind spoilers, the overwhelming result is that passive 3D displays are far superior to their active cousins."

So what exactly is the truth regarding resolution loss and LG passive sets? I looked at a 3D demo today in Best Buy on a passive LG set and the image was much much brighter than my active Samsung at home, and the crosstalk/ghosting was virtually non-existent. My 50" Samsung plasma certainly has crosstalk issues. There was also, of course, no flicker. Overall, I was very impressed with the 3D image I was seeing, and overall it looked better than my active set (not taking into account the horrible picture mode the demo set was in). But I could indeed see black lines on the set in 3D mode if I moved close enough, which makes me wonder what all of this means to me.

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.

This is LG advertizing bull. Passive 3D IS not the same as 1080i

This is a quote from tests by Joe Kane and Scott Wilkinson from
http://www.hometheater.com/content/c...3d-flat-panels

"LG claims that its FPR panels are actually displaying all 1080 lines of information for each eye, but not at the same time. In the first 120th of a second, the odd lines of the left image are displayed in the odd lines on the screen and the odd lines of the right image are displayed in the even lines on the screen. Then, in the next 120th of a second, the even lines of the left image are displayed in the odd lines on the screen and the even lines of the right image are displayed in the even lines on the screen."

"However, this puts some lines in the wrong place—even lines from the image in odd lines on the screen and vice versa—which would cause a slight but noticeable vertical judder. And even though all 1080 lines of information for each eye are being displayed, each eye sees only 540 lines of resolution at any given instant. Not only that, objects behind or in front of the screen plane will exhibit interlace artifacts."

The black lines stay black.

So does that mean that nobody should consider passive because it displays an inferior resolution? How would that affect somebody who watches the majority of content as side-by-side half resolution rather than blu-ray? I'm curious about that. At that point would there be no perceived loss in resolution over watching a half side-by-side on an active set?

Also, I just checked out some specs on LG's pasma sets, and it seems that all their plasmas only have active. There are no passive plasma models by LG (does anybody make those then?).

Too bad - I really, really like the increased brightness, lack of crosstalk, and cost of glasses that are all part of the passive technology. It looks like if I want plasma I have to go with active. To get a passive set I have to go with an LED? Why is that? Resolution is certainly not all there is when it comes to 3D - cost of glasses/crosstalk/flicker all play an important roll.

Uh oh... in a good way. I was in 2D mode assuming it would be the same interlaced fusion process as in actual 3D mode. In actuality the TV in 3D mode does some additional scaling that makes the image look far smoother and clear.

The second link just reports on the first link.
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.

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?
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".
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.

I looked at the displaymate reference previously, and I thought they were doing things exactly right -- they measured resolution empirically by doing vision tests. That's the way to do it. The theoretical reasoning about resolution you will find above in this thread is just BS, in my opinion.

However, I can't vouch for the objectivity of the displaymate discussion --- it's not like we were reading about research reported in a refereed scientific journal.

I do think, judging from my own limited experience, that brightness is very important. If my Samsung's active 3D display were not so dim, I'd like it a lot better.

I want to clear something up about resolution criticisms. I did a test the other day that turned out to convey worse image quality than reality. I foolishly I took a pic of what the left and right lenses saw in 2D mode, viewing 2D content, and it looked pretty crappy- notice how different the two eye views are:

Left and right eye animated gif: http://i.imgur.com/8bcEj.gif
MPO - http://www.mediafire.com/?1di6a4daffjik45

It turns out that was unfair, as 2D mode doesn't allow the TV to use any special 3D image quality enhancements.

Now I can show the results of the more accurate tests. I made an MPO, and enabled 3D mode. First I put the camera in 1/125 shutter speed and captured the two different refreshes that occur in one set of polarized rows, part of the LG trick they use to claim all 1080 lines are displayed:

Refesh one and refresh two, animated gif: http://i.imgur.com/wA8Zc.gif

At normal speed the eye blends the two together into something like this:

JPG: http://i.imgur.com/GyQiw.jpg

NOW the left and right eye views look much more similar and form a much less confusing image:

Animated gif: http://i.imgur.com/SD41C.gif
MPO - http://www.mediafire.com/?q4gyevb8b436sde

Your last animated gif (http://i.imgur.com/SD41C.gif) seems to shift the image left to right, as if the second refresh is horizontally offset as well as vertically offset.

Most people in this thread agree that passive is better, so I am in the minority thinking that active is better. I don't know what is truth and what is lies between these two technologies but I know this: Passive is what is in the theater and gives me no wow factor whatsoever, i'm never impressed by a 3D movie at the theater. I now own an active 3D tv and can say i'm way more impressed with it than the 3D I get in the theater. I've watched for long periods and never have any feeling of a headache or thinking the glasses were too dark or seeing flickering. Plus the new 2012 active glasses are Bluetooth and run for an hour on every minute of charge, and they are lighter and more comfortable to wear than my sunglasses. Also, if you notice, the TV's with the better 2D picture happen to be of the active type of 3D. Take a look at professional or videophile critic reviews of tv's, the ones with the best 2D picture quality are always active 3D, I don't know why it's just how it seems to be. So if you are impressed by the 3D at the theater and don't care what a TV's regular 2d picture quality is like, buy passive.

No one agrees on anything. They are both good if you happen to be one of the few that enjoy 3d. What I really want is a set that has both, now that would be something to see.

Great thread guys

Would the newer lg's have better 3d than last years? Keep reading conflicting info

About to snag a 65lw6500. Would the upcoming 60lm9600 be better with 3-d?

Thanks

I agree, or make the glasses free tech available faster. Some day it will just be holographs floating around us, in HD! It would be something if this happened in my lifetime.

Good comment on the bias of this study. I would like to add that Soneira used only 47" passive displays which at that size look sharper than 55" or better yet 65" displays. The use of lower than top end models for active yet uses the highest end model LG at that time doesn't make sense and introduces a built in bias. So it's comparing the latest improvements in passive to models not having the latest and best in active. I don't care about Soneira's credentials or scientific sounding language and diagrams. If he made these mistakes either accidentally or intentionally he can't be trusted.

As far as i know there is no 65" tv in LM9600 series. The only 65" tv in 2012 models is 65lm6200. You can get 72" in LM9500 though...

Whoops. You're right. 60"

I only see a very subtle shift, and it's not intended to be analyzed, as the photos were not perfectly aligned in-camera and had to be adjusted with StereoPhoto Maker. The purpose of that gif and MPO is to show there are no major visual differences between the left and right views like there were when I photographed the polarized lines of the set in 2D mode. The MPO in particular is to show what the fused LR images look like compared to the unprocessed and very jaggy and very different LR views in the 2D mode MPO.

Also, the 2 frames in the gif you referenced are the Left and Right eye views, not a pair of 120hz refreshes. The Left and Right eye views were captured at a slow shutter speed to expose both refreshes in a single frame, as perceived by the human eye.

This is the only gif that shows the 2 individual refreshes: http://i.imgur.com/wA8Zc.gif

Where did you see 60" in LM9600 ? The only 60" i see is in LS5700 model. LM9600 has only a 55"

Got it, thanks.

I know it's 3rd quarter but I can wait

Nevermind then. Thanks for clarifying.

Where can one get the 72"? LG's website only allows choices up to 65", and a search for 72" TV returned a 55" TV. http://www.lg.com/us/search.lg?searc...atchallpartial

Edit:

I found this, but it's only available in the Middle East. http://www.lg.com/ae/home-entertainm...-tv-LZ9700.jsp

It is scheduled for 3rd qtr release in US.

But for two things, I would probably have an active 3DTV - my 11 and 10 year old kids. They can be very tough on electronics and nightmares about having to replace a half dozen glasses a year (or living with that possibility, at least) kept me on the sidelines. When the LG 55LW5600 went on sale at BB, and after reading some favorable reviews, I decided to join the club. When the kid's friends come over to watch a 3D movie, I put it on and leave the room without feeling like I need to chaperone. Also, I'm just as happy with the 2D performance and do not feel that I'm missing out, literally or figuratively. I find this red state/blue state discussion very interesting but wanted to note criteria other than eye-of-the-beholder resolution may be at play when it comes to determining the "best" 3D.

I feel the same way. I don't have a 3d tv setup ,but I do have an active 3d projector setup and I've seen both passive tv's and passive projection setups and I'm not impressed by any of them. Yes the glasses are cheaper, but that alone doesn't make it better if you want the best 2d and 3d experience and I'm considering a passive tv, only when the 4k passive displays are available.

Not to imply anyone is an idiot for choosing active over passive, but after owning active sets for ~16 months and passive for 2, I have concluded that passive is by far the better overall choice.

Passive's advantages:
Comfort - No electronics, batteries or glass allows them to be very light and flexible.
Brightness/saturation - you can only pump up an active shutter TV so much before it starts to clip highlights and flood color detail.
Way less eye fatigue in my experience. I believe it's due to the lack of flicker and blur.
Passive clip ons available for prescription glasses
Glasses price (as low as 80 cents per pair, or free if you go to the theater)
Varied selection of premium quality frames available online
Theater glasses work at home and your higher quality passives work at the theater

Active shutter's advantages:
Resolution
Viewing angle

Just for balance, I'd like to say that most all of your passive advantages don't apply to everyone, including me.

My active glasses are quite comfortable for me, and I do not suffer from fatigue, flicker, or blur when wearing them. The picture is adjustable separately for 3D on my TV, and brightness is not an issue. The glasses also fit well over prescription glasses, and come in numerous colors and styles. Prices are reasonable, and are dropping regularly as competition and the market increases. My active TV cost less than a smaller passive TV, even including the cost of active glasses.

Different strokes for different folks. If you want passive, buy passive. If you want active, buy active. One should weigh what's important to them, and choose accordingly.

Consider it advantageous that we have choices.

Edit: Here's some of the latest designs for active glasses. Not heavy or bulky at all, and come in different sizes.



click to enlarge

I always sat at TV height when I had active, so viewing angle isn't an advantage to me. I still included it because it affects some people.

P.S. I just think it's discouraging that when I search "active shutterglasses lightweight" on amazon I get all these bulky frames:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...es+lightweight

All of your passive advantages relate only to glasses and Augerhandle addressed them very well. The one most important advantage to me relates to the display and, you guessed it, resolution which, of course, is in the active column.

As long as there are some lightweight reasonably priced active glasses, that's all we need. Samsung makes them for $20.00. OK so it's not free if you steel them from the theater.