AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Active Better Than Passive Per Sony
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Active Better Than Passive Per Sony

post #1 of 94
5/2/12 at 1:07pm
Thread Starter 
This was published on a Sony website in G.B. as to the advantages of their active displays over passive displays.


Active 3D advantages:
3D viewing maintains Full HD resolution from sources such as Blu-ray 3D.
2D viewing is not compromised by screen coatings, therefore screen brightness is not affected and power consumption is lower in 2D mode.

Passive 3D disadvantages:
3D viewing halves the resolution of the original video source. Blu-ray 3D is reduced to DVD quality.
2D viewing is affected by the 3D screen coating with a visible line structure.
Power consumption is greater than comparably sized Active 3D TV's due to screen coating and associated brightness issues.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 94
5/2/12 at 3:15pm
Bunch of Sony BS. reduced to DVD quality? HA! My LG passive looks much better than my Sony active set when watching 3D movies. And the 3D effect is better as well.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 94
5/2/12 at 3:53pm
imho all that is true, it's a fact that passive is 540 it's been debated here over and over again. The 3d effect does make the 540 look a little better, but the 3d effect also makes the active 1080 3d look even better.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 94
5/2/12 at 6:09pm
I won't get into the whole resolution thing other than to say that the 3D image on my 2012 LG passive is every bit as sharp as my Samsung active plasma with better depth and pop while displaying no ghosting and no visible lines at all. I did see visible lines on earlier generation passives but not with the 2012 LG models.

As to the other claims that the line structure is visible even with 2D viewing, that is just plain BS. 2D on my LG looks absolutely outstanding. Also, the claim that brightness issues with passive lead to greater power consumption is similarly off. The passive glasses let far more light thru the lenses and I find I can turn down the backlight significantly in both 2D and 3D; I cannot say the same for my active plasma where even with the backlight at max the image still visibly dimmer than the passive while in 3D mode.

Sony is notorious for spewing inane and inaccurate propaganda in pushing its products.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 94
5/2/12 at 7:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post


Sony is notorious for spewing inane and inaccurate propaganda in pushing its products.

I suppose LG doesn't spew inane and inaccurate propaganda. I am so biting my tongue.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 94
5/3/12 at 12:20am
I can see the superiority of active vs passive much more than I can that of Beta vs VHS.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 94
5/3/12 at 8:25am
Only fact I dispute is that it is dvd quality. If I watch a standard def dvd on my passive set it looks blurry and not sharp.

When I watch 3d it looks amazing, I can care less about each individual pixel as when the illusion is applied it looks as good or better than it does at the cinema.

Also this debate is stupid and a non issue. Its like saying Coke releases a study that Coke is superior to Pepsi because when your stomach processes coke it does it better.

Sony will always say active is better and LG will support passive, now if Sony decides to sell passive 3d at some time or LG goes back to active, both of them will change their story.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 94
5/3/12 at 9:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post


I suppose LG doesn't spew inane and inaccurate propaganda. I am so biting my tongue.

Everybody does it to some degree. LG's ads were very obnoxious as well. I actually own more Sony products than LG but Sony does lay it on thick; some of their ads comparing th PS3 to the 360 were priceless.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 94
5/3/12 at 9:53am
I've read a few articles that mentioned Sony branded passive sets are either already shipping to the Chinese market or will be shortly, and they plan to debut in Europe and America next year. They plan to continue to offer active sets as well.

I'm glad I have both kinds of sets; when I want the best possible detail I will watch my larger active set, but there is no question to me that my passive set is brighter and I haven't seen a hint of crosstalk on it yet. I guess 4K passive sets will be the best of both worlds for 1080p content, but if they ever release 4K 3D content people can start complaining about passive "only" being 1080p to each eye....
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 94
5/3/12 at 12:42pm
http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-tele...ic-n23973.html
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 94
5/4/12 at 2:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve P. View Post

I've read a few articles that mentioned Sony branded passive sets are either already shipping to the Chinese market or will be shortly, and they plan to debut in Europe and America next year. They plan to continue to offer active sets as well.

I'm glad I have both kinds of sets; when I want the best possible detail I will watch my larger active set, but there is no question to me that my passive set is brighter and I haven't seen a hint of crosstalk on it yet. I guess 4K passive sets will be the best of both worlds for 1080p content, but if they ever release 4K 3D content people can start complaining about passive "only" being 1080p to each eye....

Yes but by then a new 4k 3d standard will be released for active sets and the active people will be like, "no way Im cutting my resolution to 1080p, I bought a 4k set and I want me all my pixels. Im gonna go get me a computer that makes sure they are all there cause if im paying for it, im getting it ;-) "
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 94
5/5/12 at 12:24pm
I work in the film industry - doing mostly 3DST film titles and VFX. I've really, really appreciated the forums here as I've been putting together a HT. Thought I'd share a couple bits of info from my field that may be helpful. Should be noted that this is certainly not meant to "authoritative", 3DST is still new and being figured out in our industry too …

Re Passive vs Active: At the moment there isn't really a standard in Post Production. Choice of format is usually based on two criteria:
1. The use. For long term viewing (i.e all day) like editing or 3D conversion QC sessions (of the 3DST only, not the overall picture quality) the choice is usually Passive. For short viewing sessions like final QC and "finishing" sessions, the choice is usually Active.
2. The user. Different people's eyes/brain perceive/process visual information in different ways ...

Some people have sharper vision for resolution, their brains tend to process more detail into "image fusion". For this group the interlaced nature of passive 3D may really stick out and bother them.

Other people have sharper "persistence of vision", i.e. their mental "refresh rate" is slightly quicker. For this group active 3D TV's will have a very noticeable and distracting flicker.

Interestingly most people seem to have one or the other "sharper" vision, not both.

For your home 3DTV I would suggest a simple viewing test of each 3DTV format (active and passive), and, whichever looks good to you then go with it. I would also suggest your view test last at least 10 or 15 minutes.

Re future of 3DTV's: This technology is still in it's infancy. There are two immanent advances that will essentially level the playing field re Passive vs Active question in the next few years.

4K will make Passive a "visually" true full HD/2K 3D format on screens smaller than 80" or 90". (The human eye has a physical resolution limit.)

Faster refresh rates will eliminate the flicker on Active 3D. Somewhere between 180hz and 192hz is a sweet spot where no-one will see a flicker. (Currently most theatrical active 3D systems use refresh rates of 140 or higher, which is why you hear "fewer" flicker complaints.)

Both of these advancements will also help reduce or eliminate ghosting. (From what I've read/heard "good" glasses-less 3DTV is still quite a ways off.)
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 94
5/5/12 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

I work in the film industry - doing mostly 3DST film titles and VFX. I've really, really appreciated the forums here as I've been putting together a HT. Thought I'd share a couple bits of info from my field that may be helpful. Should be noted that this is certainly not meant to "authoritative", 3DST is still new and being figured out in our industry too …

Re Passive vs Active: At the moment there isn't really a standard in Post Production. Choice of format is usually based on two criteria:
1. The use. For long term viewing (i.e all day) like editing or 3D conversion QC sessions (of the 3DST only, not the overall picture quality) the choice is usually Passive. For short viewing sessions like final QC and "finishing" sessions, the choice is usually Active.
2. The user. Different people's eyes/brain perceive/process visual information in different ways ...

Some people have sharper vision for resolution, their brains tend to process more detail into "image fusion". For this group the interlaced nature of passive 3D may really stick out and bother them.

Other people have sharper "persistence of vision", i.e. their mental "refresh rate" is slightly quicker. For this group active 3D TV's will have a very noticeable and distracting flicker.

Interestingly most people seem to have one or the other "sharper" vision, not both.

For your home 3DTV I would suggest a simple viewing test of each 3DTV format (active and passive), and, whichever looks good to you then go with it. I would also suggest your view test last at least 10 or 15 minutes.

Re future of 3DTV's: This technology is still in it's infancy. There are two immanent advances that will essentially level the playing field re Passive vs Active question in the next few years.

4K will make Passive a "visually" true full HD/2K 3D format on screens smaller than 80" or 90". (The human eye has a physical resolution limit.)

Faster refresh rates will eliminate the flicker on Active 3D. Somewhere between 180hz and 192hz is a sweet spot where no-one will see a flicker. (Currently most theatrical active 3D systems use refresh rates of 140 or higher, which is why you hear "fewer" flicker complaints.)

Both of these advancements will also help reduce or eliminate ghosting. (From what I've read/heard "good" glasses-less 3DTV is still quite a ways off.)

I agree with this, I just think the amount of people that can see "flicker" has to be small as I've never seen it, my viewers or nobody that I know of personally has either. I understand if you see flicker to have a passive set, but if you don't I just don't understand why would you want to go passive and loose image quality, not to mention passives poor viewing angles.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 94
5/5/12 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post


I agree with this, I just think the amount of people that can see "flicker" has to be small as I've never seen it, my viewers or nobody that I know of personally has either. I understand if you see flicker to have a passive set, but if you don't I just don't understand why would you want to go passive and loose image quality, not to mention passives poor viewing angles.

My buddy came over the other day and he cant see 3d at all. So saying because you cant see flicker, no one can see flicker misses the whole point of what the author wrote and im not even sure your brain processes words correctly. Sorry if im being rude but really, I'm just saying....
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 94
5/5/12 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

My buddy came over the other day and he cant see 3d at all. So saying because you cant see flicker, no one can see flicker misses the whole point of what the author wrote and im not even sure your brain processes words correctly. Sorry if im being rude but really, I'm just saying....

Did you read what I said? I'm saying the amount of people who can see it is has to be low, just like most people can't see rainbow effect, but for the few who do it sucks for them.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 94
5/5/12 at 6:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post


Did you read what I said? I'm saying the amount of people who can see it is has to be low, just like most people can't see rainbow effect, but for the few who do it sucks for them.

And what factual data do you have that it has to be low?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 94
5/6/12 at 4:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

And what factual data do you have that it has to be low?

I've had over 30 people view movies in my active 3d dlp home theater, none of them seen flicker and only 1 seen slight rainbow effect and how do I know this? because I have a brain and asked. I can use this as a sample and figure it out and don't many people complain about it here on the forums if they do usually it's the same people that cry passive has "better 3d". If that many people seen flicker there wouldn't be all the active 3d projection in home theaters like mine which around 90% uses active.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 94
5/6/12 at 5:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

And what factual data do you have that it has to be low?

What factual data do you have that it is common?

If it wasn't low, then active shutter technology wouldn't have made it out of the R&D lab. This isn't hard data, but it is common sense.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 94
5/6/12 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post

Faster refresh rates will eliminate the flicker on Active 3D. Somewhere between 180hz and 192hz is a sweet spot where no-one will see a flicker. (Currently most theatrical active 3D systems use refresh rates of 140 or higher, which is why you hear "fewer" flicker complaints.)

Active glasses 3D creates a small timing discrepancy between visual information sent to the Left eye, compared with the Right. I am very sensitive to this effect. It creates a mirage-like, watery, look to the video for me. My personal ratings are as follows:
  • 1080i25 side by side free to air sport with 100Hz alternation - initially almost unwatchable, but my eyes adjust after a while
  • 720p50 Blu-ray sport with 100Hz alternation - better than the i25 sport above
  • 1080p24 Blu-ray movies with 120Hz alternation - slightly jumbled look, watery at times
  • 24p movies at a RealD public cinema with 144Hz alternation - hardly ever watery, but an unusual strobing effect visible during rapid movement, e.g. the commanding officer's boots in Avatar as he enters the briefing room to address the new recruits. This may be more a problem of the basic frame rate, than of the alternation rate. Each frame is displayed as follows: L R L R L R. A triple flash of Left then Right.

I find passive 3D LED displays (all odd lines one polarisation; all even lines the opposite polarisation) give none of this watery effect. Both eyes are shown the next new frame at the same time. On the other hand, the ventian blind look at close viewing distances can be annoying.

I find the screens of the 2010 model 2D and 3D Panasonic 50"plasma TVs noticeably flickery when displaying a 1920x1080p60 computer desktop. However some people I've asked don't notice the flicker at all, even if specifically asked to look for it. So indeed human vision does vary a lot in this area.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 94
5/6/12 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post


What factual data do you have that it is common?

If it wasn't low, then active shutter technology wouldn't have made it out of the R&D lab. This isn't hard data, but it is common sense.

I have no factual data at all either way active or passive, was just commenting that he didn't either and to say that it has to be low isnt accurate. Actually most people have said the glasses give them headaches that I have spoke with and I didn't dive into whether it was active or passive either way.

And again now your saying it had to be low just for them to consider making the technology which isnt true either
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 94
5/6/12 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

What factual data do you have that it is common?

If it wasn't low, then active shutter technology wouldn't have made it out of the R&D lab. This isn't hard data, but it is common sense.

thanks Airion, this is what I'm saying, but some people don't have common sense.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 94
5/6/12 at 1:47pm
I Sat and watched 2 hole games of football one after another with my active set and not one problem at all and no head ache and no flicker and that's with like 4 hours of it.
I think people put active down because of the infared glasses but Samsung are using Bluetooth and the difference is ten fold.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 94
5/6/12 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis3845 View Post


thanks Airion, this is what I'm saying, but some people don't have common sense.

Well plenty of products have made it out R&D that later were found to be bad ideas. And common sense? Your questioning my common sense? I know what the spirit of what he was trying to say, just pointing out that in a few years we may find that either one of the technologies isn't good for anyones eyes and maybe when were 80 they find out 3d causes brain damage, not a lot of testing had been done so that is why they put the warnings in front of home viewing devices for young childrent, that was only put there to cover their asses
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 94
5/6/12 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

Well plenty of products have made it out R&D that later were found to be bad ideas. And common sense? Your questioning my common sense?

I personally didn't mean to question your intelligence, I just mean that without hard data, common sense is probably the next best approach to answer the question. I do think that if flicker with 120hz displays was a problem for all but a small percentage of people then they wouldn't be making and marketing them. That's why they don't make and market 60hz 3D displays (save for a tiny niche).

That said, a small percentage doesn't equal zero, and a fair amount of people (in terms of raw numbers, not percent) will see flicker with active shutter glasses. But the problem with anecdotal evidence of people saying "active shutter glasses give me headaches" is that it's very hard to isolate the glasses as a source. Stereoscopic 3D itself can give you headaches, depending on the content and how used you are to 3D. Plenty of other things can give you a headache at any time that have nothing to do with display technology.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 94
5/7/12 at 7:53am
I went to see The Avengers yesterday. I do not exaggerate, I had my first 3D headache. I also experienced pain on the bridge of my nose from the Reald 3D passive glasses. I do not get headaches from my active display and glasses. i believe the headaches are caused by strain of the eye muscles from rapid movement caused by the stereoscopic effect. They are not necessarily caused by shutter glasses.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 94
5/7/12 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

I went to see The Avengers yesterday. I do not exaggerate, I had my first 3D headache. I also experienced pain on the bridge of my nose from the Reald 3D passive glasses. I do not get headaches from my active display and glasses. i believe the headaches are caused by strain of the eye muscles from rapid movement caused by the stereoscopic effect. They are not necessarily caused by shutter glasses.

That is a very common complaint from people who watch passive 3d. I have more people tell me this is why they don't like 3d. Im not advocating either technology since you educated me Robut. I would welcome either display type into my home as long as I get to enjoy 3d. I do not get headaches with passive 3d and do not know if I would get one with active, but I don't think that I would.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 94
5/7/12 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

That is a very common complaint from people who watch passive 3d. I have more people tell me this is why they don't like 3d. Im not advocating either technology since you educated me Robut. I would welcome either display type into my home as long as I get to enjoy 3d. I do not get headaches with passive 3d and do not know if I would get one with active, but I don't think that I would.


Thanks for the kind words. it's posts like yours that should teach us, definitely including me, to be balanced and fair with the words we post. I know sometimes I try to mix it up with people to strongly because of some misleading advertising statements that all Manufacturers make.

When i see your name I know the post will be fair and factual.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 94
5/8/12 at 8:01am
I don't care about resolutions and technical jargon. Bottom line is, FOR ME AND MY WIFE AND OUR EYES, passive blows away active based on our hour long viewing experiences. Now that we own an LG passive I couldn't imagine owning anything else. That does not mean that Sony active 3d sets (or any other brand for that matter) are no good. I think 3d is subjective and every person should "test drive" both technologies personally and for at least a half hour or so before deciding on one or the other. One can make arguments for and against both technologies until the cows come home but that doesn't mean you'll be right. I honestly think there is no right and wrong in the arena of 3d televisions, at least at this stage of the game. All I know is that we are VERY happy with our decision and hopefully everyone else here is happy with theirs. Every manufacturer will spin their products as better than the rest, that's their job. I LOVE my PS3 as well and have a couple other Sony products that have been great and reliable but I usually shy away from Sony TV's because they usually don't give you the most bang for the buck and when we were looking at the different brands and sets Sony active was the worst of the bunch for flicker and crosstalk. That may have been attributed to the glasses or the set itself but that's my experiences.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 94
5/8/12 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jscott70 View Post

I don't care about resolutions

If you don't care about resolution why do you buy and pay for a 1080p TV? Why do you pay for an expensive Blu Ray player? Why do you buy or rent Blu Ray movies?

I'll tell you why. It's because you really do care about resolution.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 94
5/8/12 at 5:05pm
In a dimly lit room I rarely notice flicker with active glasses, however in a well lit environment the effect can be quite jarring, and can persist some time after actually watching the movie or game.

Passive in my personal experience is much easier on the eyes and brain, however I can see the lines on my monitor especially with lettering. The vertical "sweet spot" is a bit narrow as well.

As others have said time and again, it's best to see both in action and judge for yourself, since everyone is wired a bit differently. If company propaganda can effect your visual process, than you're probably better off sticking to 2D anyways.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Active Better Than Passive Per Sony