Originally Posted by Jedi2016
I actually ran into a guy the other day that was the complete opposite of the folks that have issues with 3D, in that he got headaches when viewing passive
content, and could only view 3D comfortably in active-shutter. I didn't even know that was a thing.
My sense is that people associate headaches, eye strain, or other ill effects too strongly with the display technology. I suspect the core problem is 3D itself, as some people have a need to get used to the focus/convergence mismatch inherent in any stereoscopic 3D technology. For many people, their first experience with a 3D TV was active shutter, and they got a headache because their eyes weren't used to 3D yet. Later they try passive, and don't get a headache because they've physically gotten used to 3D, but they'll blame the difference on active vs passive. For some people the opposite could be true. And certainly, for some people I'm sure active or passive really could be the source of their headaches, but absent a scientific study I think it's really hard to pin down the causes of headaches. People come in with a lot of preconceived notions, hearing that 3D gives headaches, or that active gives headaches. If people happen to get a headache while watching 3D they'll think, definitely, it's because of 3D. But problems with headaches existed long before 3D, and there are a million causes besides 3D that could happen to give you a headache while watching 3D.
Flicker is another thing about active that I think gets too much attention. To me, my main complaint with active is motion tearing (I have a 720p DLP projector active setup). Active works on the principle that your brain will put a left and right image together despite a small time lag. However, your brain has no way to tell when a frame is changing, and will inevitably end up combining two for an instant when the display is changing to a new frame. For example, with 60 frames per second content, the eyes are receiving:
1R - blank
blank - 1L
2R - blank
blank - 2L
3R - blank
blank - 3L
But we don't perceive it that way because because our eyes/brains fill in all the blanks with the image it was just shown, so we perceive:
Notice the mismatches. How noticeable this is depends on how much motion there is. I also find it more noticeable in 24fps movies than 60fps PC games, despite the fact that more frames necessarily means more chances for tearing. I think that's because at 24fps, the difference between two frames during motion is larger, whereas 60fps is fast enough that the differences between frames even in motion is small. In any case, it's not a big problem, but all things being equal, I could do without it.
So, that's to say motion handling is a big advantage of passive that I don't think gets enough talk. Does passive have any issues with motion that I'm not aware of?