or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Anybody getting tired of 3D?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anybody getting tired of 3D? - Page 4

post #91 of 217
Not even close. I need MORE!
post #92 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacklight82 View Post

Not even close. I need MORE!

+1!!!

I've had an Epson 3010 for almost a year and still loving 3D on my 120" screen! Also have a 73" Mits TV and 3D is great on it as well but bigger is better.

Ed
post #93 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldemar View Post

I don't own a 3D TV yet, but plan on buying one in the next month, so far undecided between Panny Plasma or Samsung Led, but the plasma its looking like the way to go...
I see some ppl have mentioned they hate it because of eye sore/tiresome. Is it caused only by active 3D glasses?
Also, I read passive ones loose half resolution, but I guess that will be better than been unable to watch the full movie...
What do you think, is passive the way to go, and enjoy better the 3D?

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 eek.gif -- 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! cool.gif

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! wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith808 View Post

Thanks for ruining my joke.......Teacher!!!

Not laughing AT you, Mr. Smith, but rather WITH you! Still like your joke, will have to use it some time! Peace! biggrin.gif
post #94 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranteacher View Post

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 eek.gif -- 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! cool.gif
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! wink.gif
Not laughing AT you, Mr. Smith, but rather WITH you! Still like your joke, will have to use it some time! Peace! biggrin.gif

I'm afraid your logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Regardless of whether you're using active or passive glasses or no glasses at all and staring at a painting in a museum for that matter, your 2 eyes are always simultaneously absorbing and integrating in your brain the image(s) you happen to be looking at. The fact that active glasses block any image to a particular eye for a small fraction of a second is outweighed by 'persistence of vision' i.e. if refresh rates are high enough, your eye won;t perceive any interruption, AND the image you see is always Full HD (all 1080 lines of vertical resolution). N.B: I'm not making an argument for or against the merits of active glasses re: light losses, inadequately rapid ability to turn fully off/on, being too heavy, etc., etc. I'm simply stating that they do indeed provide a full 1080 lines of resolution and that passive 3D panel displays restricted to 540 lines cannot mathematically provide the same resolution, regardless of how appealing the image may 'look' to you, or what you think 1 vs 2 eyes is doing. Think about it this way - and stepping outside the realm of 3D if I may - somebody who is blind in 1 eye can still see a world of difference between a 2D SD and a 2D fullHD image using their one good eye, and all of that is due to a substantial difference in vertical (and horizontal in this case) resolution.
post #95 of 217
Nice to hear so much positive about 3D... but then the question implies the poster has the equipment to comment whether they are getting tired of it. This will naturally weed out most of the "nay sayers" who try to rain on our parade.rolleyes.gif

Active or passive, LED, Plasma, or projection, pop out or depth... seems like most are enjoying the experience and look forward to more content.cool.gif

Personally, I was looking for the finest 2D set I could afford, and it was strictly a bonus that the set I purchased had 3D capability, and when I purchased it (at an amazingly low price!) they included all the equipment needed to take advantage of this capability.biggrin.gif

The "lil woman" enjoys it, but the kids and I love it. Doesn't matter whether its animation (Puss N Boots, Bolt, Lion King, Tintin, .... ) or regular film (Hugo, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Tron Legacy, Pirates... ), if we are going to purchase it for our home viewing, we get the 3D version.

I must be truthful though, I haven't had the "kahonies" to invite any of the anti 3D crowd I know over to experience it for themselves... in fact they don't know I have one! This will change soon... with a growing library of well done 3D, all that is preventing me from dragging their butts in to experience what we all have enjoyed is the constant sunami type disaster the kids leave!eek.gif

Tired of 3D? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! BRING IT ON!!!
post #96 of 217
@ Taranteacher:

I sympathize with what you're saying. Passive looks better (to me) than it should, by a strict technical comparison. Let's leave aside the common observation that horizontal lines are more visible. Folks who say that are: 1) Too close anyway and 2) They're seeing the thicker black matrix mask; that's just how passive sets are. But it's not what most of them assert it is.

The question is image fusion. Can you justify calling passive 3D "full" or "true" 1080p 3D on that basis? This article asserts that the answer is yes:

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

Personally, I just dunno. I've done the tests suggested in the article, as I have the Imax Space Station 3D Blu-Ray. I'm not certain it proves his case. OTOH, he may be on to something when he says hardware is only half the story. Vision and how the brain processes it are inadequately understood.

Anyway, I have an LG passive 3D set myself (65") and don't regret buying it.

Bring on more content! But please, it must be done well. They shouldn't have released Clash of the Titans and Conan the Barbarian in 3D. Do a better job or don't bother. OTOH, just to name two, Hugo and Prometheus were lovely, even though there was no aggressive popout to satisfy some people out there.
post #97 of 217
The notion of image fusion survives because it makes sense and in a lot of situations it works just fine. But it depends on what you're looking at. Consider when one eye can see things the other can't, such as a portion of the background behind a character. In these areas, your other eye can't even see it, so there's nothing to fuse with.

But in the end of the day, active or passive, it's 3D and all the same as far as this thread is concerned.
post #98 of 217
Nope! Loving 3D!
post #99 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenjabil View Post

I'm afraid your logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Regardless of whether you're using active or passive glasses or no glasses at all and staring at a painting in a museum for that matter, your 2 eyes are always simultaneously absorbing and integrating in your brain the image(s) you happen to be looking at. The fact that active glasses block any image to a particular eye for a small fraction of a second is outweighed by 'persistence of vision' i.e. if refresh rates are high enough, your eye won;t perceive any interruption, AND the image you see is always Full HD (all 1080 lines of vertical resolution). N.B: I'm not making an argument for or against the merits of active glasses re: light losses, inadequately rapid ability to turn fully off/on, being too heavy, etc., etc. I'm simply stating that they do indeed provide a full 1080 lines of resolution and that passive 3D panel displays restricted to 540 lines cannot mathematically provide the same resolution, regardless of how appealing the image may 'look' to you, or what you think 1 vs 2 eyes is doing. Think about it this way - and stepping outside the realm of 3D if I may - somebody who is blind in 1 eye can still see a world of difference between a 2D SD and a 2D fullHD image using their one good eye, and all of that is due to a substantial difference in vertical (and horizontal in this case) resolution.

Like I said, you have to see for yourself!

Scrutiny or otherwise, that was intended more as a joke. OTOH, While it is true that with passive 3D you see 540 lines per eye FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, you still see 1920 lines FROM LEFT TO RIGHT with BOTH EYES at any given moment -- FAR FROM HALF RES!!!

Really, though, you have to see for yourself! cool.gif Take IMAX Deep Sea 3D or Under The Sea 3D, you will be BLOWN AWAY by the IMAX 3D opening countdown sequence (it's the same one you see at IMAX theater viewings!) and you and those with you will not believe how stunningly beautifully crystal clear those underwater (or outside) scenes look -- WITH PASSIVE 3D TECH! eek.gif
post #100 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

@ Taranteacher:
I sympathize with what you're saying. Passive looks better (to me) than it should, by a strict technical comparison. Let's leave aside the common observation that horizontal lines are more visible. Folks who say that are: 1) Too close anyway and 2) They're seeing the thicker black matrix mask; that's just how passive sets are. But it's not what most of them assert it is.
The question is image fusion. Can you justify calling passive 3D "full" or "true" 1080p 3D on that basis? This article asserts that the answer is yes:
http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm
Personally, I just dunno. I've done the tests suggested in the article, as I have the Imax Space Station 3D Blu-Ray. I'm not certain it proves his case. OTOH, he may be on to something when he says hardware is only half the story. Vision and how the brain processes it are inadequately understood.
Anyway, I have an LG passive 3D set myself (65") and don't regret buying it.
Bring on more content! But please, it must be done well. They shouldn't have released Clash of the Titans and Conan the Barbarian in 3D. Do a better job or don't bother. OTOH, just to name two, Hugo and Prometheus were lovely, even though there was no aggressive popout to satisfy some people out there.

The article is misleading. The reality is that you are seeing 540 lines from the left image and 540 lines from the right image so you are seeing 1080 lines but its an interlaced image with all the normal inaccuracies interlaced introduces.

Tired of 3D? No! Tired of poor 3D yes but I never tire of really good 3D.
post #101 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcdesign View Post

The article is misleading. The reality is that you are seeing 540 lines from the left image and 540 lines from the right image so you are seeing 1080 lines but its an interlaced image with all the normal inaccuracies interlaced introduces.
Tired of 3D? No! Tired of poor 3D yes but I never tire of really good 3D.

I'm not sure the comparison w/ a 2D interlaced image is entirely appropriate. After all, the rapid refresh rate w/ a 2D 1080i interlaced image means that each eye is always seeing a full 1080 lines (assuming 60Hz refresh). With a passive fixed pixel 3D panel, each eye only ever sees 540 lines. Yes, your brain integrates/stitches those images into a coherent whole, but fraqnkly, your brain does an analogous thing w/ a 2D image. However, with a passive fixed pixel panel, it's still only 540 lines for each eye, as opposed to 1080 lines for each eye w/ a 2D interlaced image.

In order to gauge the resolution difference, you need only compare the 3D image from a passive TV set with the 3D image from a passive projection experience (e.g. RealD), where the screen is able to reflect an infinite (in practice, slightly above 1080) number of lines, since it's a truly passive device and isn't constrained by limited pixel count built in to the display. Yes, I know the sizes b/e the 2 experiences aren't comparable, but assuming you get a similar width to viewer distance ratio, you should clearly be able to see the difference in vertical resolution.
post #102 of 217
So, OK, all things being equal (GO PASSIVE, I say), this is my conclusion:

1. All special Blu-ray presentations, whenever applicable, SHOULD INCLUDE THE 3D AS AN EXTRA OPTION. What's one more disc in a bundle/combo package anyway? Consider Princess And The Frog (not 3D): as of today, the 3-disc combo is OVER 30 dollars on amazon! The 2-disc is ALMOST 30 dollars! Prometheus collector's 4-disc edition is well worth including a 3D disc for UNDER 30 dollars IN CASE YOU NEED IT SOME DAY!!! $24.97 amazon price today, BTW. wink.gif

All those against having that 3D disc will someday be happy to own it, since their TV, BD player etc will soon be 3D capable (ALSO MORE INCLUSIVE AS TIME MARCHES ON). I mean, c'mon! SOMEBODY in their homes is BOUND to want to see ANY MOVIE in 3D eventually!

2. If I could have my way, I would make Blu-ray 3D EXCLUSIVELY for passive set-ups: that extra Full HD image (one for each eye eek.gif) information takes up the space of AN ENTIRE SECOND MOVIE -- image-wise anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a PASSIVE Blu-ray 3D disc would contain only the information (contained in single-movie storage) for a divided constant image filling the 1080 lines without the need for your devices to be skipping from left-eye to right-eye and back a jizillion times per sec LOL, leaving space for extra goods -- and thus making 3D much more affordable?

Of course that has other serious implications into the actual market (let alone SONY/SAMSUNG/PANNY/etc consumers) and probly would never happen, but one indeed can dream! Boy, ACTIVE should NEVER HAVE EVEN EXISTED in the first place! It gives people headaches even when not using it! mad.gif

3. The way I see it, 3D quality is ever improving upon itself, so 3D shall live on!!!

Peace! smile.gif
post #103 of 217
When I close one eye while watching 3D from Blu ray I cannot tell it is not 1080p, I have to get right up close to notice it's lower. It looks very clear, with both eyes it looks 1080 too. i would rather have the easy to use glasses and battery free than worry about weather or not it's true 1080 in each eye. I've gotten tired of movies not doing pop out 3D. I want more 3D movies content. Pop out 3D is the whole reason to watch a movie in 3D. I get used to depth and forget it after awhile, if they add popout 3D once in awhile it will be more immersive. It's all about getting closer to VR and if you have a movie with stuff popping out and scaring the #$%* out of you it's the best you can get right now. I think I may check out Journey to the Center of the Earth, SAW and Final Destination next for popout.

Back to the passive vs active, the only thing that bothers me with passive is that there isn't anything bigger than a 65 from LG. Sharp makes an affordable 80inch but it's active. I really don't know why anyone would buy/manufacture active TVs. There's no need to have technology in glasses. You've got batteries, more to go wrong, more expensive. I think I paid about 80 dollars and I have over 20 pair. Especially if you have kids. They leave them all over the house. I've had to pop a lens back in already on the kids pair. If I had active...no i would not have bought an active 3D TV with kids. it wouldn't work for our house.
post #104 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranteacher View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a PASSIVE Blu-ray 3D disc would contain only the information (contained in single-movie storage) for a divided constant image filling the 1080 lines without the need for your devices to be skipping from left-eye to right-eye and back a jizillion times per sec LOL, leaving space for extra goods -- and thus making 3D much more affordable?)
Complete nonsense...
post #105 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post

When I close one eye while watching 3D from Blu ray I cannot tell it is not 1080p, I have to get right up close to notice it's lower. It looks very clear, with both eyes it looks 1080 too. i would rather have the easy to use glasses and battery free than worry about weather or not it's true 1080 in each eye. I've gotten tired of movies not doing pop out 3D. I want more 3D movies content. Pop out 3D is the whole reason to watch a movie in 3D. I get used to depth and forget it after awhile, if they add popout 3D once in awhile it will be more immersive..
I never forget a movie is in 3D unless a scene is shot with subtle interaxial distances. None of the great 3D films suffer from this- generally it's just the careless postconversions that have this problem, in part I think because the stronger they try to make the 3D the more careful digital scrubbing and repainting and restructuring they have to do.
Quote:
It's all about getting closer to VR and if you have a movie with stuff popping out and scaring the #$%* out of you it's the best you can get right now.
The best 3D-driven films are Hugo, Tintin, Avatar, and the like. All the horror movies with popout get abysmal reviews, because what do you have after the candy coating wears off? 90 minutes of flying swords just for the sake of showing off.
post #106 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranteacher View Post

2. If I could have my way, I would make Blu-ray 3D EXCLUSIVELY for passive set-ups: that extra Full HD image (one for each eye eek.gif) information takes up the space of AN ENTIRE SECOND MOVIE -- image-wise anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a PASSIVE Blu-ray 3D disc would contain only the information (contained in single-movie storage) for a divided constant image filling the 1080 lines without the need for your devices to be skipping from left-eye to right-eye and back a jizillion times per sec LOL, leaving space for extra goods -- and thus making 3D much more affordable?

Oh this is great. You could maybe save a little money now (?), as well as stick it to those jerks who are otherwise enjoying active 3D in the comfort and privacy of their own homes. Then, when 4k passive sets come out and you decide that 1080p per eye was great after all, the studios will get to cash in selling the same movie yet again, now in Full HD per eye 3D Blu-ray!
post #107 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Oh this is great. You could maybe save a little money now (?), as well as stick it to those jerks who are otherwise enjoying active 3D in the comfort and privacy of their own homes. Then, when 4k passive sets come out and you decide that 1080p per eye was great after all, the studios will get to cash in selling the same movie yet again, now in Full HD per eye 3D Blu-ray!

I honestly think 4K sets are far from becoming mainstream any time soon, and, when that happens, BD players will be doing a much better job at upscaling TO 4K. Heck, it could well be argued that Blu-ray 3D will have 4K per eye by then. We'll be arguing the exact same things all over again going on to infinity-K... Blu-ray will become Pink- or Green- or "Gru"-ray or whatever-ray... on and on and on and on!

LOL You guys have just got to take a chill pill!

NOT TIRED AND WON'T BE GETTING TIRED OF 3D ON A PASSIVE SET IN THE COMFORT AND PRIVACY OF MY OWN HOME!!!!
post #108 of 217
Is someone saying that Blu ray isn't 1080p per eye? As far as I know it is and it's just the passive TV's that aren't displaying it 1080 in each frame. Combined frames are are 1080p. Most people that I talk to say, if they were to buy 3D, they'd go with passive too. Having technology in the glasses is just a bad idea and adds to cost and inconvenience, which having to wear glasses when watching a movie already is the biggest inconvenience.

I agree the movies that are using popout are B movies but they could just as easily be used in Prometheus or Avatar. I might actually watch B movies now if they keep doing it. The other movies like Avatar are fine in 2D and not that impressive in 3D.
post #109 of 217
So anyone here who has looked at Active 3d and Passive 3d technologies, I know on passive that you loose a good portion of resolution compared to active but to me at least I feel I get more of a 3d presence with passive then with active... what has your experiences been?
post #110 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Chaves View Post

So anyone here who has looked at Active 3d and Passive 3d technologies, I know on passive that you loose a good portion of resolution compared to active but to me at least I feel I get more of a 3d presence with passive then with active... what has your experiences been?

I agree, although my experience with active is limited and confined to showroom viewing. So that's a rather unsatisfactory basis for comparison.

Nevertheless, I'm certain that passive is brighter and more comfortable (for me). I feel I made the right choice with my LG 65LW6500.
post #111 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

I agree, although my experience with active is limited and confined to showroom viewing. So that's a rather unsatisfactory basis for comparison.
Nevertheless, I'm certain that passive is brighter and more comfortable (for me). I feel I made the right choice with my LG 65LW6500.

yeah tax return season is when Im going to get a new TV and Im finally going to go 3d, Im looking at between 46 to 55" LED LCD TVs and well after spending the last few days staring hours at a time at different stores comparing active and passive, Im leaning towards LG Cinema line, it could be just my eyes but I get that total want to reach out and grab the 3d object more then on active TVs now I dont know how much calibration can take place and if these various places dont have then set up right or not thus why I figured I would ask. smile.gif Plus with passive I can get clip ons to go over my glasses so thats awesome ^_^
post #112 of 217
I've seen both active and passive and passive looks just as sharp. When you see both frames 1920x540 you're seeing 1080 together. Some have said there's some black horizontal lines if you sit right in front up close, but I've never been able to see it. Cinema 3D is the only way I would go with 3D. I also have the 65LW6500. My only complaints with it, is that it just doesn't work for gaming, at least on fps, it lags too much. That and the glossy screen is annoying at times. Not from a seated position, but from standing in the back of the room durning the day it shows up bad if the light hits it just right. If you arrange your room right you can avoid it. Not sure why the went with glossy. Matt reflects some glare too, just not as bad.
post #113 of 217
It's my understanding that the black horizontal lines are the result of a thicker black matrix mask. Perhaps to ensure clean separation between the alternate lines? I've read comments comparing it to interlacing, but that's not right at all. You gotta get pretty darn close to see them.

As to image fusion making up for half resolution, I just dunno. It certainly looks good at 1.5x viewing distance (~ 8 feet in my case). To me. So I'll leave that aside as unproven.

There are a couple undeniable minuses to passive. Sharp horizontal (especially *almost* horizontal) lines are prone to jaggies, but it's not egregious. And moire for parallel patterns, like a checkered pattern shirt. If you can visualize what I mean. Again, not egregious. The only crosstalk you'll ever see is if you get too far above or below the screen.

I've read other comments that the LG 3D LEDs are bad for gaming. There is a setting for gaming that turns a lot of image processing off. Since I don't game, I dunno if that reduces lag enough to be acceptable. If I did game, I'd use my older 42" plasma; it's not used much since I got the LG.

The screen is very reflective. Not a problem in my dedicated home theater room unless I open the drapes and blinds. The TV is plenty bright for a well-lit room.

From time to time I bring home RealD glasses from the theater, which work just fine. I have enough to equip as many people as I can seat in my theater.
post #114 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranteacher View Post

LOL You guys have just got to take a chill pill!
NOT TIRED AND WON'T BE GETTING TIRED OF 3D ON A PASSIVE SET IN THE COMFORT AND PRIVACY OF MY OWN HOME!!!!

I like the juxtaposition of those two lines.

It's great that you're very happy with your passive display. But you should also be comfortable with the fact that other people are very happy with active displays. While we all want to have the perfect display, the fact is active and passive each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Those are worth discussion, but there's not much sense in picking sides and declaring war. Instead of declaring this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranteacher View Post

Boy, ACTIVE should NEVER HAVE EVEN EXISTED in the first place!

You should just be happy that we're all enjoying 3D!
post #115 of 217
Granted, opinions will differ on active or passive... but the point remains, which ever one people decide on, they will most likely enjoy the experience. I do have a question though....

Reading posts from those who enjoy 3D, it seems the biggest enthusiasm is generated from those who have projection displays with the very large screen sizes we all wish we could accomodate in our homes. Do projection displays utilize active, passive or both types of glasses?
Just curious for when I win the lottery and decide to upgrade. biggrin.gif
post #116 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

Do projection displays utilize active, passive or both types of glasses?
Just curious for when I win the lottery and decide to upgrade. biggrin.gif

Both, but for practical technical reasons, the vast majority utilize active.

Passive home theater projection set ups are out there but it requires a silver screen, which preserves polarity but isn't good for 2D. Furthermore, you need two projectors, one for each eye, each with it's own polarizing filter. But for the money and the hassle you get the ultimate 3D set up: large screen, full rez per eye, with light cheap glasses and no motion tearing. So get that when you win the lottery.
post #117 of 217
I wouldn't go as far to say active should have never existed but perhaps as 3D evolves only one format will be used. The main problem with 3D is having to wear glasses. I made the same argument back when I was against getting a 3D TV for my next TV addition and my friend's response was "Yes, you HAVE to wear glasses! Why does everyone say that? It won't work without them." I was coming from the point that I just didn't want to wear glasses because it would be annoying, and it still is inconvenient when watching Directv and switching to 3Net.

I've actually switched from wearing contacts most of the time to glasses around the house now so it isn't even an issue now, but at the time I thought it would be. But glasses still are the main problem with 3D. New adopters are going to look at what's easiest, after they get past having to wear glasses they're going to look at what they need to do with them to get 3D. And having to charge up your glasses (are they working? Are they charged up?), paying extra money for them, the larger more cumbersome size, flicker and eye strain will be the first issues addressed. With all that eliminated with passive I can quicker see it becoming the standard before active. That is, if only one becomes standard. Not to say that the results aren't good with active, just the unneeded hassles of the active shutter glasses, when you can just throw on a pair of sunglasses (passive).

I made this point to some friends that haven't got 3D yet and are actually against buying 3D and think it's a gimmick. They admitted that having technology and batteries in glasses is dumb and more to go wrong. They still aren't buying a 3D TV, but can see a big advantage to getting passive and would be the only option if they were to buy one.
post #118 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post

I've seen both active and passive and passive looks just as sharp. When you see both frames 1920x540 you're seeing 1080 together. Some have said there's some black horizontal lines if you sit right in front up close, but I've never been able to see it.
Black lines during the display of a bright scene, or aliasing in general are the two ways of seeing the downside of polarized half-res 3DTV. I can see it from about 1 diagonal screen size's viewing distance away, and then 90% disappears after I get about 1.5 screen sized distance away.
post #119 of 217
sweet real D glasses work on the Cinema AWESOME, I have a tub full of them already ^_^

edit: so wait if Real D glasses work on the Cinema line does that mean if I buy LG clip on glasses that I can use those when Im at the theater watching a Real D movie? oh man that would be so great.
Edited by Daniel Chaves - 11/10/12 at 12:20pm
post #120 of 217
Yes, you can do that.cool.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Content
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Content › Anybody getting tired of 3D?