Originally Posted by Taranteacher
People SAY you lose half res going passive, but they are WRONG! Lemme see if I can explain:
On a 1080p passive, each eye IS getting 540p at any given moment, BUT, by using BOTH eyes at the same time, when you focus whatever you're looking at -- say, the front of the Polar Express stopping right in front of you
-- you are actually aligning, with crystal clear precision, both images and forming a beautifully pristine 1080p -- FULL HD -- image, without even thinkng about it or having the slightest strain on your eyes! But, hey, don't believe any of us UNTIL you see for yourself!
Besides, if you consider that with active you see 1080p with HALF your sight -- your unused eye being shuttered at any given time --, it could be argued that you're also getting half res???
Mine is LG passive, and I won't get tired of saying that EVERYBODY who sees it has nothing but compliments! PLUS, I own 16 passive assorted pairs of glasses which I could NEVER afford to get active! Good luck with your purchase, and welcome to the 3D revolution!
Not laughing AT you, Mr. Smith, but rather WITH you! Still like your joke, will have to use it some time! Peace!
You can explain it but the math doesn't tell the whole story and your story doesn't include all the math
I explained it in this thread a lot http://www.avsforum.com/t/1437658/keep-3d-active-or-make-switch-to-passive-3d-tv/270#post_22715108
but the long and the short of it is:
1: You do not see 540p to each eye... you see 1080p to each eye with 540 black line artifacts. This is NOT the same as 540p in deifnition nor practice (as in practice all common display types have pixel spacing far less than 1 full pixel height). This is not so much a resolution issue as it is an image artifact issue - and image artifacts tend to be far more damaging to image quality than resolution alone.
2: Image fusion doesn't work until you are far enough away you cannot resolve a full pixel height - which by definition is too far back to resolve the native 2d resolution of the panel... Thus the only time at which image fusion helps overcome the lost resolution is at a distance you couldn't have resolved higher than that resolution in the first place. The easy test for this is get close enough to your dispaly to clearly see the black lines with glasses on (EVERYONE with decent eyeiste should be able to see them at 2 or 3 feet back but definitely at 1 feet). Now what do you see? If fusion worked, your brain would "deinterlace" the images and you would see a solid wall of image with each eyes image data effectvely sliding over and covering the black line of the other eye. What you DO see is solid very definied black lines and eacy eye's image data incorrectly piling directly on top of the other eyes data (they should not as one is a pixel higher than the other). This is because your eyes are not some laser accurate computer device, they cannot tell exactly where a line of pixels is in space and the natural effect of human site is not to slide one set of lines in between the other (if this DID happen, what would be to stop your brain from sliding all the black lines together and only seeing black instead?) but rather to assume your eyes are seeing the same thing and match up what each eye sees - so balck bar to black bar and bright data line to bright data line.
So in theory your brain fuses the two images to make up for missing data (which if you think about it can't even work in theory since the missing data is parallax shifted for the other eye) but in practice your brain just ends up trying to resolve two slightly vertically offset images where it expects two vertically aligned images.
Remember even if you were using the correct math (which you aren't beucase 540p is not the same as 1080p with black lines every other line) the math doesn't tell the whole story.
Here's an easy way to conceptualize why you can't just count dots and say "same fused resolution!":
Imagine your left eye only sees the bottom 540 lines of the screen, the top 540 lines is blacked out. Now your right eye sees the top 540 lines and the bottom half of the screen is blacked out.
1080p lines right!
Obviously not... you would just see half in one eye and half in the other and it would feel very odd as your eyes try to figur eout why they don't see the same thing.
You can't just count pixels and say "that's the resolution!" Image artifacts play a huge role in image quality which is why early displays with huge pixel spacing had horrible image quality.
Try this, load up a 1080p BR and watch it while holding a comb in front of your eyes. Preferably a comb where the teeth and the spaces are roughly equal size thus the teeth block about half the pixels (the spacing showing the other half) and ask yourself - this is still higher resolution than DVD... does this look better than DVD? Most likely your answer is no.
Now try taking away the comb and quickly wave your hand in front of your eyes. You will notice your hand blocks the ENTIRE screen alternating between each eye. Now ask yourself if THAT looks better than a DVD... chances are you can still easily make out the high detail level of the 1080p BR and so it DOES look better than a reagular DVD.
This is why you can't compare how Active blocks half the temporal resolution with dynamic inteference with how passive blocks half the spatial resolution with a static artifact.Edited by Devedander - 12/28/12 at 10:54pm