or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Keep 3D active or make switch to Passive 3D TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Keep 3D active or make switch to Passive 3D TV - Page 12

post #331 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by tremor1521 View Post

The brain cannot see both at the same time. If it did there would be no 3D effect.

Stereoscopic 3D is seeing two images at the same time! Our brains put them together into a single whole where it can, but the input is a right image and a simultaneous different left image.

Technically an active display only shows one image at the time, but thanks to persistence of vision we don't see it that way. Active wouldn't work at all if that weren't true.

It's a bit like saying DLP can't show full color because it technically only displays one color at a time.
post #332 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by tremor1521 View Post

With passive 3d each eye is seeing 540p AT THE SAME TIME. The brain sees a 1080p image by taking the info from one eye and adding the info form the other eye thus creating a 1080p combined 3d image.

How can anyone possibly argue against this?
While I agree that Airon's math is wonky, (math is not the end all be all), I also disagree with your theory that the end result image is "1080p." A true 2D 1080p image looks considerably better than a stereo 1920x540x2 image. Just need to see it to believe that. No math, no theories, just real world observation of the phenomenon that is retinal rivalry, caused when you see something slightly different in one eye that isn't there at all in the other eye. This will be fixed when 4K sets come out.
Edited by cakefoo - 3/22/13 at 11:01pm
post #333 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

(math is not the end all be all)

I agree of course, but the numbers are factual. People who believe 540p per eye is as good as 1080p per eye should be concerned that the numbers don't add up.

The numbers also help show how 1080p 3D is superior to 1080p 2D in terms of detail, how we need to treat the two differently, why the concept of image fusion is deceptive, why 3D Blu-rays require more data, why we can't view 1080p 3D at 60 frames per second without a new higher bandwidth version of HDMI, etc etc. The numbers do matter and shouldn't be dismissed.

How much they matter at the end of the day is certainly a different question. The fact that 1080p 2D has twice as many pixels as 720p 2D doesn't mean that it looks twice as good (I'd say 10-20% better, depending on how close you're sitting). And resolution is only one aspect of image quality.
post #334 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I agree of course, but the numbers are factual. People who believe 540p per eye is as good as 1080p per eye should be concerned that the numbers don't add up..
Numbers are factual, but you're comparing interlaced to progressive to 2D to 3D. Brush all that malarkey aside and look at an actual passive set and an active set. With your eyes, not with a calculator.

Even as a conversation-starter, a thought in the back of one's mind, the math is pointless I tell you.
post #335 of 408
As an example, when people started using 720p 3D projectors (which is what I have BTW), many people commented in the threads on AVS that 720p 3D looked much closer to 1080p than 720p. How could that be? Well it's much less mysterious when you look at the numbers. 720p 2D is 1 million pixels. 720p 3D is 1 million left plus 1 million right, 2 million total. 1080p 2D is also 2 million pixels. Coincidence? I don't think so. The math lends credence to their (and subsequently my) impressions.

That doesn't mean they look the same. 1080p 2D offers a more crisp, finely detailed image. 720p 3D has less fine detail but more unique details thanks to the two different views. In the same way 1080p passive 3D (540p per eye) isn't going to look the same as 1080p 2D despite being composed of the same number of pixels. But the math assures us it won't look as good as 1080p per eye active or 4k passive.

I'm not suggesting people look at math instead of actual TVs. If you're thinking of putting money down on a TV, the absolute best thing you can do is leave everything you've heard on the internet aside and look at TVs. Resolution is just one part of the picture anyway. But when someone equated active vs passive to 1080 vs 720 HD, I showed the math to help back up that impression. I find the technical side of this interesting and I like to delve into why one thing might look better than another.
post #336 of 408
3D PC gamers, by the way, have to know the math. It's definitely not just theory when you're shopping for a video card. Performance benchmarks are published in 2D. If you plan to game in 720p 3D, you need to look at the 1080p 2D benchmarks. In both 720p 3D and 1080p 2D the PC has to render 2 million pixels, so you can expect similar performance (though they won't be exact of course). Meanwhile gamers with 1080p active monitors (dual DVI for 60fps 1080p 3D) need to look at the 2D 2560x1600 benchmarks, again, because both are roughly 4 million pixels to render. Gamers with 1080p passive monitors need to know they should make use of top/bottom or interleaved output in order to match the amount of pixels their PC is putting out to what can actually be viewed on the screen.
post #337 of 408
The thing about math that bugs me is how people add 540+540=1080. Based on my perceptions, stereo fusion on passive adds maybe 25% more above the resolution of a single eye. I think most of the detail in passive 3D is attributed not to the stereo fusion, but rather the full HD horizontal resolution being maintained. wink.gif
Edited by cakefoo - 3/25/13 at 12:11am
post #338 of 408
A quick note about PC graphics cards and 3D bistro math: Remember you'll need more graphics memory since you are producing multiple images. The extra $20 you spend for the added memory may well be worth it, especially if running mods.
post #339 of 408
So I've taken a stab at illustrating the difference between active and LG's version of passive. Airion had posted some great pictures illustrating the difference earlier, but I thought I'd take it another step and show how LG is implementing "1080p".

Note that this is for demonstration purposes so it's not an actual image but it does demonstrate why 1080p is NOT "1080p" in the case of the LG.

The important thing to remember is that in 3D there are 2 separate and distinct images, not just 1. The far left of my uploaded picture shows those 2 images; a blue "L" and a yellow "R", both on a black background. For the sake of the demonstration I've assumed that when the brain blends what the eyes see, it does so with equal averaging. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but for this purpose it works well enough.

So when you "combine" the 2 source images you get a "combined" source image which has the yellow R and blue L overlaying one another causing some green areas where the 2 intersect. That's what your brain "should" see.



Now lets look at what your brain does see.

Active:
With active the first 1/120 second you see only the blue L in your left eye and a black screen in your right. For the next 1/120 you see a black screen in your left and a yellow R in your right. Because of the brains persistence of vision, every 1/60 of a second you see a combination of a yellow R and a blue L as shown on the right. Looks a lot like the "source" image doesn't it?

Passive:
With passive the first 1/120 second you see the odd lines of the blue L and the even lines of the yellow R. The next 1/120 second you see the even lines of the blue L and the odd lines of the yellow R. HOWEVER, note that these lines are moved up or down by 1 row because the left eye always sees the "odd" lines of the TV and the right eye always sees the "even" lines of the TV. Because of the brains persistence of vision, every 1/60 of a second you see a combination of a blue L and yellow R with some vertical movement but NO actual overlapping of yellow and blue, so NO green areas. Notice how different this looks from the original source material?

In terms of actual reproduction of the source material, active clearly is better regardless of how LG is doing the scanning. There are hosts of other merits / demerits to both technologies, but with regards to faithfully reproducing the source material, active is superior.
post #340 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by trpltongue View Post

So I've taken a stab at illustrating the difference between active and LG's version of passive. Airion had posted some great pictures illustrating the difference earlier, but I thought I'd take it another step and show how LG is implementing "1080p".

Note that this is for demonstration purposes so it's not an actual image but it does demonstrate why 1080p is NOT "1080p" in the case of the LG.

The important thing to remember is that in 3D there are 2 separate and distinct images, not just 1. The far left of my uploaded picture shows those 2 images; a blue "L" and a yellow "R", both on a black background. For the sake of the demonstration I've assumed that when the brain blends what the eyes see, it does so with equal averaging. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but for this purpose it works well enough.

So when you "combine" the 2 source images you get a "combined" source image which has the yellow R and blue L overlaying one another causing some green areas where the 2 intersect. That's what your brain "should" see.



Now lets look at what your brain does see.

Active:
With active the first 1/120 second you see only the blue L in your left eye and a black screen in your right. For the next 1/120 you see a black screen in your left and a yellow R in your right. Because of the brains persistence of vision, every 1/60 of a second you see a combination of a yellow R and a blue L as shown on the right. Looks a lot like the "source" image doesn't it?

Passive:
With passive the first 1/120 second you see the odd lines of the blue L and the even lines of the yellow R. The next 1/120 second you see the even lines of the blue L and the odd lines of the yellow R. HOWEVER, note that these lines are moved up or down by 1 row because the left eye always sees the "odd" lines of the TV and the right eye always sees the "even" lines of the TV. Because of the brains persistence of vision, every 1/60 of a second you see a combination of a blue L and yellow R with some vertical movement but NO actual overlapping of yellow and blue, so NO green areas. Notice how different this looks from the original source material?

In terms of actual reproduction of the source material, active clearly is better regardless of how LG is doing the scanning. There are hosts of other merits / demerits to both technologies, but with regards to faithfully reproducing the source material, active is superior.
Passive is better becuase of no headaches. Active makes your eyes watch open and closing 120 times per second. Ask an eye doctor.
post #341 of 408
A magnified image at ~700% is not an accurate way to demonstrate passive vs active. You can't convey passive content on a 2D forum. People just need to go to a store to see it.
post #342 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPERSON View Post

Passive is better becuase of no headaches. Active makes your eyes watch open and closing 120 times per second. Ask an eye doctor.

Not sure if serious?

cakefoo, I agree that the example is extremely simplified, and in reality we rarely (never?) have completely different images being shown to each eye, but nevertheless it demonstrates the inherent differences in the technology and hopefully the obvious loss of detail in passive. Having said all that, the current crop of LG TV's look outstanding and the glasses are priced right wink.gif As I said before, the merits and demerits have been discussed ad naseum and each technology has it's place, but *hopefully* this picture helps clear up how things are displayed and what it looks like in a "worst case" theoretical scenario.
post #343 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDPERSON View Post

Passive is better becuase of no headaches.

Indeed passive might be better overall for a variety of reasons. That doesn't change the fact that 1080p per eye, whether that's 1080p active or 4k passive, has superior resolution and detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

You can't convey passive content on a 2D forum. People just need to go to a store to see it.

Indeed it's difficult without actually seeing it, but keep in mind that not everyone has the option to go to a store and see it. Even when stores do have demos, there's often problems.
post #344 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by trpltongue View Post

cakefoo, I agree that the example is extremely simplified, and in reality we rarely (never?) have completely different images being shown to each eye, but nevertheless it demonstrates the inherent differences in the technology and hopefully the obvious loss of detail in passive. Having said all that, the current crop of LG TV's look outstanding and the glasses are priced right wink.gif As I said before, the merits and demerits have been discussed ad naseum and each technology has it's place, but *hopefully* this picture helps clear up how things are displayed and what it looks like in a "worst case" theoretical scenario.
Your image only shows what the screen looks like with glasses off, and even then the brightness/blending is not lifelike. I think the picture might help educate someone who had no idea passive used interlaced lines and that resolution gets lost, but it's not going to help settle any debates in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Indeed it's difficult without actually seeing it, but keep in mind that not everyone has the option to go to a store and see it. Even when stores do have demos, there's often problems.
I think if there is going to be a debate for the sake of those who can't see for themselves, viewing distance and screen size need to be part of the equation, because at a certain distance the loss of detail in passive is not very bothersome. It's somewhere around 2 screen widths distance away for my eyes. The problem with that is the screen is only a small part of your field of view, which hurts the immersion.

At any rate, I'm excited for 4K Passive, more excited for that than 4K 2D.
Edited by cakefoo - 4/9/13 at 11:53pm
post #345 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

I think if there is going to be a debate for the sake of those who can't see for themselves, viewing distance and screen size need to be part of the equation, because at a certain distance the loss of detail in passive is not very bothersome.

Absolutely, and I've mentioned this a few times. The problem has been people who dispute the notion that 1080p passive has a loss of detail in the first place.

The resolution advantage of 1080p per eye active (or 4k passive) is definitely there, but I'll bet a lot of people don't even sit close enough to see it. It's basically the same as the 720p vs 1080p (vs 4k) debates. If people already have a 1080p (2D) display in their home, I'd recommend they take a good 1080p image, preferably with some text or small details that are easily discerned up close. Compare the amount of detail you can see up close vs your normal seating position. If you can still make out the same fine details, then you can resolve 1080p at your seating position and you'll be able to see the flaws in passive. If you lose some detail moving back, then you might have nothing to lose with passive.
post #346 of 408
I must agree with cakefoo, my excitement for 4K is limited to it's use with 3D. My set up would not benefit much (if any) from the higher resolution/pixel count these new sets achieve (in 2D viewing). 4K content being available... this will make the wait for 1080p content and 3D content when those sets were introduced seem like that content was rushed out at the speed of light! With no content available on a physical medium, and limitations with downloading such content, the real world use for the 4K sets currently on the market (or soon to be) will be to improve our 3D experience in the home. I'm still happy with my active 3D set up, and have not experienced any discomfort/headache/nausea/et al... but to be honest, lighter weight glasses (active and/or passive) would be nice, but it's not necessary for me or the kids to continue to enjoy our 3D viewing.
post #347 of 408
Airion,

Completely agree with you. I happen to be in the 1.5x or closer camp and I like my screens measured in feet not inches smile.gif Although, I would say that just because you can't resolve the fine detail doesn't mean that you can't see there's something different. It's analagous to the concept of showing the full red screen with and without glasses that was mentioned earlier. Can you actually see the black lines 10' away from a 55" set, probably not, but you can see something is different. The LG makes it even more comlicated because there's a bit of a strobing effect with the data moving vertically. It's not terribly unlike the stutter of old interlaced displays and for me personally, it can be distracting.

AVTrauma,

You bring up a good point as well. 4k sets will be great for 1080p passive 3D, but as soon as 4k material becomes available we'll be having the same discussion wink.gif Although, admitedly, at 4k resolution you may not even be able to sense any difference when sitting 8' away from a 55" set, let alone actually see it. Now, in the case of 10' wide screens, the 4k resolution could be beneficial in 2D and 3D applications.

And finally just to re-iterate, the current LG's look fantastic and if you want a 3D set you would not be making a bad choice in buying one.
post #348 of 408
Hi All,

I own both TVs - 55inch Samsung with active 3D and 70inch Sony with passive. I agree that active have better resolution, but the cross-talk is totally killing it, period. With all visible lines in passive technology I enjoy it much more then active. It takes some time getting used to but after a while you don't see those lines anymore, where with active 3D I simply turn-off the movie or 3D mode after 15 minutes. Ghosting and flickering is unbearable! (Just my 2 cents to the topic). In the end it is all subjective and for me passive is the winner for now. At least I can enjoy 3D move it its entirety.
post #349 of 408
I have said for a long time that the math is far from all that counts... and when arguing things like "1080p per eye at a time" vs "540 to each eye at all times" you have to evaluate what those things mean in terms of what you see and what' going on with them.

Some important concepts:
  • The biggest one: 3D imformation is not like 2D because there is different info for each eye for the same point in space. In 2D every pixel represents on precise point in the subject being displayed. In 3D each pixel may represent 2 distinct points. This means a 3D 1080p image has up to (and I argue technically always) twice as much image data as a 1080p 2D image. Because even if both eyes happen to see the exact same thing, it's still unique data that happens to be the same pixel information at that precise moment.

    So even though passive 3D does show you 1080p pixels of data at once, a true 3D 1080p image is TWICE that many pixels of information (although realiistically many pixels will happen to be very similar data). This becomes much eaiser to understand when you think head mounted display with 2 1080p displays. Clearly there is twice as many pixels as a 2D 1080p image.
  • Another big one: Active only shows to one eye at a time so it's only showing 1080p pixels at any given time, so it doesn't ever show twice as many pixels as active right? Wrong.

    A film or TV never displays an actual moving image, but we still percieve a moving image... why? Image persistence.

    While yes technically there is never more than 1080p pixels of image adata on the screen at any given moment, image persistence allows for you to effectively experience twice the number of pixels just like phosphor decay time allows a CRT to look like more than 1 pixel being drawn at a time.

    So active 1080p is giving your more pixel information data than passive, and while it's not apples to apples, it's also not apples to elephants.

    In other words image persistance makes active 1080p functionally 2 1080p frames of data even if it's not quite as nice as it would be to actaully have 2 1080p frames simultaneously.
  • Which ties into resolution - spatial vs temporal. May times people argue that because active shows only one frame of 1080p at a time and passive shows one frame of 1080p at a time, if you add the number of pixels per second shown, they are the same number.

    This conflates spatial (detail) resolution with temporal (motion) detail. The idea that because active shows 1080p for 1/120 second then 1080p for 1/120 second alternating, while passive shows 1080 for the full 1/60 second. Means the same resolution (add the pixels per 1/120 second and you ge the same number) is like saying 120hz video content is twice the resoultion of 60hz (or that 48hz is twice that of 24 hz).

    In terms of pixels per second displayed, yes it is. But the way the term resolution is used most commonly (image detail) does not lend itself to that math. When you play a video game at 30fps and 60fps you do not go "ooh that 60fps experience was much higher resolution!".

    Also think about this... if total pixels show per 1/60 second was resolution then I could take a display with 4 only 4 pixels (each 1/4 of the screen) and if I refreshed them fast enough, that would be the same resolution as 1080p refhresed at 60hz. Does that sound like it might possibly be true? Doesn't does it...
  • Then there is the idea that resolution is just counting pixels. This is completely flawed... if it were true the terms screen door effect, scan lines and sharpness would never come into play.

    Truth is pixel layout is as important if not more than number of pixels in many cases and why passive displays have to account for something very important: The HUGE image artifact of a pixel high black line between every set of pixels.

    A display is EXPECTED to have roughly the same pixel spacing in all directions between pixels. When that is not true you care not comparing apples to apples anymore...

    Passive displays do not show 540p to each eye, they show 1080p with MASSIVE (50%!!!!) image artifact.

    Think about this, if I show you a 320x240 picture on a 640x480 display with line doubling (to stretch out the pixels to fit) it will look ok, a little blocky probably or soft.

    Now let's say I take a black fine tipped sharpie and draw a bunch of black lines across your screen over every other row of pixels. That DEFINITELY doesn't look the same does it?

    Just counting dots isn't good enough, how they are laid out counts.
  • Which leads into horizontal and vertical resolution... active is 1080p and passive is 540p right?

    No... if you are going to just through out terms like that you are going to have to expect to be in the same realm and 540p is not 1080p missing every other row... 540p is half as tall AND half as WIDE as 1080p.

    Passive does not show each eye 540p or we would have to be cutting out half the pixels in each row also. Again passive shows each eye 1080p with massive (every other line) artifacts.

    The fact is each eye only gets 540 lines of vertical image data resolution, but they still get the full 1920 lines of horizontal.

    This is a HUGE disparity in the amount of detail that can be resolved from either frame vertically or horizontally. What does this mean for image quality? That's way more complex, but it's important to keep this in mind when thinking about what's happening.
  • Lastly there is the whole idea of brain fusion where one eye sees some and adds it to the other eye for a total higher quality picture. This works in theory if both eyes are seeing the same data set, just differnt parts of them.

    But remember in 3D your eyes are seeing DIFFERENT data sets so even when you see two 1080p frames they are STILL adding them together to get the 3D Data... remember this is a third dimension now where the information from both frames isn't just to produce a 2D result, it's a 3D result which requires more data.

    You aren't just figuring out what you see on the xy plane (which requires only one pixel of data) you are also figuring out on the z plane which requires another pixel of data.

    Think about this... let's say instead of breaking the image down into alternating rows of pixles, I just show your left eye the left half of the image and your right eye the right half. Will it fuse that into one image? No... it will be some weird semi flickery painful mess.

    Also try this, go into MS paint or something and make your canvas full screen, paint the left half red and the right half blue. Get your eyes close eough so each eye see's only one side of the screen.

    You see purple right!

    No... you see some messy odd combination of red and blue.

    Brain fusion comes from a test which originally used very small text that would not be readable at super low resolution to prove seeing both sets of image data gave you a full image.

    The big flaws in this test is one:

    1: The image data was 2D - this proves nothing about your brains ability to percieve full 3D data when some is missing

    2: This proves you can recognize something via fusion, not recreate missing data. There is a difference between being able to tell what it is and seeing it in the same quality. You can poke a LOT of holes in the page of a book, and I can probably still make out what the words say despite large quantites of the letters being poked out... but it is NOT the same as seeing the page unmutiliated.

Here's a little experiment to pull off: Look out the window and close one eye now in front of your open eye rapidly wave your index finger. You will notice that you do not see a finger in the way, but rather just a slight blurring and darkening. But you still see everything you used to, you can still see the cars driving by and if there is a bird on a fencepost or some other small detail, you can still see it no matter where it is.

Now hold a comb up in front of that eye. Don't move the comb relative to your eye. Notice the static artifact. This means that there are times when you cannot see something. If a bird is on a fencepost but that fencepost is occluded by the comb, you never see it at all!

But you say "but your other eye would see it!" No, it would see ITS OWN VERSION of it... but it would not see what your current eye would be seeing which is where 3D data comes from... two views of the same thing.

Hopefully it's clear which of those represents active vs passive smile.gif

That is all to show that the math is not the whole story...

BTW as for 120hz flicker and headaches? I am not so sure of that... it may effect some people (the same ones who get headaches from floursecent lights etc) but I would have to imagine if 120hz flicker was that bad, you would HATE seeing film based movies... even with triple black frame insertion you are getting slower flashes than 120hz... also what would the strobing backlight in many of the newer LCD TVs do to you?

Last note: Crosstalk and ghosting - these are not indicative of active vs passive, they are indicative of the display type and quality.

Active has a rep for crosstalk but that tends to be because it's often viewed on LCD displays with poor decay rates or improperly synced glasses.

The fact DLP uses active and has pretty much zero crosstalk is a testiment to the fact it's not the active that's the problem, it's the display tech that is.

Also while passive is a little more sure in it's technology, it's not without flaw either. Of course passive home displays require a sweet spot middle of vertical viewing distance but also I have never found a perfectly sweet spot with mine. On high contrast areas some part of the screen always ghosts.
Edited by Devedander - 5/24/13 at 11:24am
post #350 of 408
I could buy into your argument a lot better if you followed your logic through.

For example, by that logic we could say that there is no difference between 1080p and 1080i because of the image perception persistence or whatever you called it.

On the other side of the argument, or possibly the same side, we could say that passive 3D is really 1080p while active is 1080i.
post #351 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

I could buy into your argument a lot better if you followed your logic through.

For example, by that logic we could say that there is no difference between 1080p and 1080i because of the image perception persistence or whatever you called it.

You will notice I did not say there is no difference, I said that at the speed it happens it makes it functionally the same as 2 simultaneous 1080p images, not the same... the same way multiple still pictures changing is functionally the same as watching motion.

Human vision has no such tool to assist in making static artifacing functionally the same as not having an artifact however at the size that passive displays cause the artifact to happen at other than to simply get far enough away you cannot make out that level of detail anymore at which point the whole talk of image quality becomes a moot point.
Quote:
On the other side of the argument, or possibly the same side, we could say that passive 3D is really 1080p while active is 1080i.

If you want to make that argument then the correct numbers are passive 3D is 1080p while active is 2160i and you are talking temporal interlacing whnot spatial.

Now to be fair this applies more to the non wobulated passive 3D than LG's new method of wobulating in all the lines of both eyes... at least that way all the pixel data eventually gets shown, but then bring picture degredation through as it's processed to remove interlacing, incorrect spatial location of pixels vertically and of course the fact that this is essentially now an interlaced active image as you see every other line from every othe frame for 1/120 of a second in each eye compared to active which at least shows every full frame for 1/120 of a second to each eye with no spatial placement error or damaging image processing.

This again makes it a debate over which you can handle better, spatial or temporal artifacting and as the finger/comb in front of the eye should prove, your brain is far better equippted to handle temporal artifacting than spatial (ie it can get over a flicker quite well, it can't get around static artifacts). And actually in this case image persistence works against you because due to image persistence, the wobulated alternate frame rows appear directly over the previous set of rows casuing conflicting spatial information.

You can't really argue that a full black frame every other 1/120 of a second is more damaging than a static artifact in each eye of every other row combined with getting an incorrectly placed row of pixels directly over a conflicting row of pixels ever 1/120 of a second...

Again image persistence works very well on the former and completely against you on the latter...

This is not a case of measuring numbers and doing math, it's a matter of which method works best with the tools the human body comes equipped with.
Edited by Devedander - 5/24/13 at 4:50pm
post #352 of 408
So that's 2 super long posts attempting to explain why an active 3D should be better than a passive.

My eyes disagree.

It was a lot faster for me to just look at the tv and confirm that my passive set has a better 3D picture.

Just the same as a 1080p display will look better than a 1080i display.
post #353 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

So that's 2 super long posts attempting to explain why an active 3D should be better than a passive.

My eyes disagree.

It was a lot faster for me to just look at the tv and confirm that my passive set has a better 3D picture.

Just the same as a 1080p display will look better than a 1080i display.
It depends what criteria you are specifically examining.

For resolution, active has a very real advantage. And if you disagree, you seriously must have eyesight problems or sit way too far away.
post #354 of 408
What's clear is, Devedander truly understands active vs passive in all its facts and nuances. Nuance is the hard part.

I have provided the math because it's a fact, intending to illustrate nuance. Some people then complain because it doesn't provide the whole picture, which was my point in the first place. You can't look at one measure of picture quality and expect it to provide the whole picture.

So while I wish Devedaner's epically long post could be stated more succinctly, I don't think that's possible. There's no clear winner in active vs passive, it all depends on what you're looking at.

It's clear that passive is better for HowlinWolf. That's great for him, and more than likely true given his display size and seating distance. More power to him.

post #355 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

So that's 2 super long posts attempting to explain why an active 3D should be better than a passive.

My eyes disagree.

It was a lot faster for me to just look at the tv and confirm that my passive set has a better 3D picture.

Who said anything is better? First off better is a subjective term and secondly I never said either is better.

Both have their pros and cons for different situations. There is a reason I own a passive TV and am shopping for an active projector.

What I did do is address many of the micsonceptions/false arguments about the technology.
Quote:
Just the same as a 1080p display will look better than a 1080i display.

I don't think this can be made as an absolute statement...
post #356 of 408
All I know is with Active when I turn my head the picture goes to hell. smile.gif
post #357 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishdoom View Post

All I know is with Active when I turn my head the picture goes to hell. smile.gif

And with passive if you sit anywhere but the sweet spot in the center it's crosstalk central... both systems are best viewed in a specific way.
post #358 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishdoom View Post

All I know is with Active when I turn my head the picture goes to hell. smile.gif

Turn you head 90 degrees to the left and what do your eyes see? Horizontal disparity on the TV turns into vertical disparity in your left and right eyes because the display doesn't move with you (nor do the cameras the video was shot with). This doesn't matter with active or passive, it doesn't work either way.
post #359 of 408
i agree with you,Just compare them for yourself before making a big purchase!thanks 15.gif
post #360 of 408
Hi guys.
It seems there is lots of heated debate going on about passive and active 3D.
I am not a technical person but have just bought an LG 3D TV. This tv comes with four passive pairs of glasses. When I play a 3D movie the image flickers constantly. So much so that it is unwatchable. Funny thing is tho, that if you close one eye the flickering goes away. Close the other eye and it flickers again.
I changed the left/right setting on the TV and it swapped eyes.
I'm thinking, take the 3D TV back and get a 2D one???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Keep 3D active or make switch to Passive 3D TV