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

You watch a lot of 3D without the glasses? Any statements made about how it looks sans-glasses should be ignored. Or better yet, not uttered in the first place.

Dude, 2D viewing.

I was responding to the assertion that the lines disappear on the LG passive TV when you aren't wearing the 3D glasses. No, I don't watch 3D without glasses, but when you look at the LG TV displaying a 3D image and you take off the glasses, you still see what look like horizontal lines in the displayed image versus what's displayed on an active-shutter 3D TV with the glasses off.

Which is very different from what you see with the glasses on. I saw one of LG's displays at the store only today, the effect was quite good, ruined only by the fact that I was standing too close to the display (I was testing viewing angles and the like).

Different, but not "very different." I really like the 3D effect on the LG, but the lines are visible to me, with or without the glasses, whether up close or 8+ feet away.

Then passive isn't for you. Simple enough solution. Active isn't for me.

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 original advice stands, in any event.. you'll have to see it for yourself before you decide which is best for you. There is no one choice that's "better" for everyone. What's better for you isn't necessarily better for me, and we all might be wrong in regards to what's better to the OP.

No, passive IS for me, because I like the darker glasses and flicker (cross-talk?) effects I experience with active-shutter glasses even LESS than the lines I see with passive 3D.

I was just wanting to question claims made that the lines aren't visible, when for me they are, as that may be a consideration for persons debating passive versus active. Hopefully I'll be able to see a 65" Vizio or LG at a nearby store sometime in the next couple months to find out if I've just happened to be experiencing a bad Best Buy setup.

I really appreciate the fact that eweiss was so unbiased that someone thought he was an active display fan. We need more of this on both sides. I agree, "darker glasses and flicker (cross-talk?)",are legitimate problems. When I got my un55c8000 Samsung in 2010 I was upset with crosstalk. The problem has diminished since then, with updated firmware, Monster glasses and a new top of the line 3D player. That said, when I see some of the 3D Demos on LG displays they do look very good (not the ones on the 4 display comparison setup with low resolution source material). I'm just a nut for the sharpest picture I can get, to the point of ignoring other issues.

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:

1R- blank
1R-1L
2R-1L
2R-2L
3R-2L
3R-3L

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?

There is some degree of aliasing introduced as a result of the way passive works, that can be visible on straight lines, and can draw the eye if those lines are moving. But it's also one of those things that's subjective. I can see it, because I'm trained to from my experience in VFX, but most of my friends don't notice things like that.

Thanks, I seem to remember hearing something like this before. I might argue that this is just the 1080p passive resolution disadvantage showing itself rather than a true problem of motion handling. I suspect 4k passive (1080p per eye) would basically resolve the problem of aliasing with motion, while I'm positive that 4k active wouldn't resolve the problem of motion tearing one bit (you would need refresh rates of 240hz and glasses to match them to make progress).

Eh, I don't think 4K will fix this. The problem is that there's still a visible gap between adjacent pixels, and the alternate-eye image (that fills in those pixels) doesn't line up (that's the whole basis of how FPR works). That will still be there at any resolution, it just might be less noticeable.

It'll boil down to how visible it is, and how much it bothers you. That is the downside of passive, and it's one of the things to consider when comparing to active. For me, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

This article explains Active vs. Passive and has actual photos to show what you see when viewing them with and without the glasses:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57437344-221/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-whats-better/

It shows the lines you see with the glasses on as well as the jaggies you see with the glasses off, and how active 3D is smooth in comparison. Here is one photo from the article:

http://asset2.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/05/18/passive_and_active_closeup.jpg
Left: Passive 3D through glasses - Middle: Passive 3D without glasses - Right: Active 3D
Edited by eweiss - 11/18/12 at 4:30pm

I rewatched the 55" LG at Best Buy and though the lines are there, I don't see them all the time and don't always see them in all the image, so I think for many viewing situations they'd be tolerable and at times not even noticed. A 65" TV has 40% more screen area than a 55", so I viewed it at both 6' and 8', since we'd be about 9' from a 65" TV.

The 3D effect diminishes if you sit too far left or right, though. Any experience re: 3D effect diminishment from sitting further left or right when comparing passive 3D to active LED/LCD to active plasma? I.e., is one technology better or worse than the others for 3D angle of view? Does increasing the 3D effect via the TV controls for doing this let you sit farther left or right before the effect diminishes noticeably?

I suspect that due to the dimmer glasses and the flicker effect my family, esp. wife, would much prefer passive. She doesn't care if something is SD or HD, DVD or Blu-ray, so I'm guessing the least noticeable 3D glasses would be her preference.
Edited by eweiss - 11/20/12 at 4:14am

Dunno about active for off-angle view, but I can speak to it in regard to my 65" LG passive.

Viewing distance is 8 feet to our love seat, centered on the display. (BTW, I can't see the horizontal lines at that distance). There are also easy chairs on either side. I haven't measured the angles, but I'd say somewhat less than 30 degrees to the chairs at either end, so 60 degrees all up, for field of view. The 3D effect is still strong within that field, diminished very little if at all from straight on. Now, go a little further either side and yes, 3D is diminished. I haven't fiddled with the 3D controls to see if that would make any difference.

Assuming you had a choice or were able to compare the two, why did you go with the LG at 2x the price of the same-sized Vizio? Is it twice as good and/or is the Vizio at half the price so much worse that the savings aren't worth it?

I really don't know. When I got my LG 65LW6500, there wasn't anything to compare it to at that size in a passive TV in the BB I visited. I do recall reading a review that said the 65" LG didn't have quite so obvious horizontal lines as the comparable model 65" Vizio at that time. It was a Cnet review I think, but personally I don't have as much faith in their reviews as some others do. I suspect they were imagining things, as it's highly likely the two TVs have the same panel. Samsung and LG are the two giants when it comes to panel manufacturing and most everybody sources from them. Except for Chinese cheapie TVs.

Now, plasma lovers will say no LED/LCD can match a decent plasma, and they're right (I have a plasma too). But LEDs have come a long way since I bought my first LCD, a 47" Philips in 2008, I think. (This was before Philips abandoned the NA market except for low-end TVs). Blacks are better, color accuracy overall is better, less motion blur, and way better motion interpolation. Plus the LG has really fine adjustments, so you can get way down into the weeds when calibrating the set. The uneven edge backlighting is not very noticeable unless you like a really "vivid" picture. My settings are pretty close to the "standard" settings. I don't notice the uneven backlighting when watching a Blu-Ray except for really dim scenes with a uniform background. Even then I have to be looking for it.

Personally, I wouldn't be afraid of going with Vizio. The latest models have gotten good reviews. Hey, you can return it if it isn't up to your expectations.

Good luck.

I should add that when I got my LG almost a year ago, the comparable Vizio wasn't all that much cheaper. But, as you say, right now current model Vizios are a good deal cheaper than the LGs.

tom

look at your own picture (I think this was yours)



each eye gets 1080i in passive, each gets 1080p in active

I just picked up my first passive 3D tv and it's a 55 lm4700.... despite not liking the low res and scanlines in store it was on a great sale so it was worth trying out.

After giving it several hours of viewing for the last few days I can safely say that at 8-9 feet viewing distance the scanline issue is still perceivable and I really don't understand how anyone can claim the resolution hit doesn't exist or is somehow combined by the brain.

I mean I just don't get the idea that seeing alternating lines of black and image with one eye will combine with the other in the brain to make one picture.... by that logic it's just as likely that all the black lines will combine and your brain will end up with a black square and ignore the actualy image lines... I mean no one claims that when looking through a screen door because the screen blocks different things for each eye so realistically everything is seen by one of your two eyes it will get combined in the brain to be as if the door wasn't there. No one would argue that if listen to a conversation on headphones where each ear gets every other word your brain will just combine it and it will be the same as stereo or if you smell cinnamon in one nostril and vanilla in the other it would be the same effect as both blended together....

I don't get all the math mumbo jumbo that tries to prove that it's full 3D 1080p... technically I suppose you get 1080 lines of picture info (and that's ignoring the whole 2160p issue) but even if it was a 2D picture you are still only getting half of it to each eye and that's just not the same as getting all of it to both eyes as the scanlines exist and are visible. I would say detectable up to 8 feet and perceivable well beyond that (just like your eye may not be able to resolve 1080p at 42 inches any further than a few feet but you can still tell its' 1080p from across the room because it "feels" 1080p vs 720p).

The small text test doesn't prove anything in my book other than it's better than not having the other half of the image at all... but it's also not as good as having it all there for both eyes as is evident on ANY text overlay in passive which shows scanlines and aliasing like crazy.

My only other 3D tv is the 24 inch Sony PS3 tv which is hardly a fair comparison however it definitely gives contrast to some of the differences and as my tests in store demos have confirmed for me, there is much to be said for not having scanlines.

This is what also makes me think that 4k won't fix the problem... it will greatly alleviate it at current sizes and 1080p content much like watching 480p content on a 32 inch passive from 8 feet would but I don't think it will go away due to the fact you perceive the scanlines even at distances you can't resolve them anymore (much like you can see a screen door much further than you can make out the wires. I would argue that not until the pixels are as thin as the current gap between pixels are now will the issue go away as much as scanlines and screendoor have done on our current line of TVs. I would imagine that's much closer to 9.6k or whatever comes after 4k. That is also assuming that thinner lines doesn't mean reduced vertical viewing angles as the bands of polarized filter are thinner and thus have a smaller sweet spot to block the light.

BTW those who claim they see no scanlines at all... I am not calling you a liar but I would love to see your setup or better yet see through your eyes... I have to admit that after breaking in my eyes a bit the scanlines got a lot less pronounced much like RBE did on my DLP projector but I can still definitely see them or at least detect/feel them...I think it would be interesting to setup some kind of test for exactly that like may be a 2D picture on the screen and somehow do a double blind with polarized and non polarized glasses... so the only thing that would be different to the viewer is the scanlines and see if the viewer really can't see them somehow. I definitely feel like after some time getting used to it and at proper viewing distances you can become used to it and almost forget its there, just like I get used to watching Netflix 1080p until I switch back to BR 1080p, but it's not really "not there"

That's not to say I am dogging passive... for all it's flaws it's still got a lot of pros, especially for video content (it suffers a lot in gaming though largely due to the drop in resolution and aliasing as games tend to have a lot of hard, regular, defined edges) and active is certainly not without it's shortcomings, however I just don't understand how people continue trying to argue some math behind the resolution when you can just look at it and see... I mean even the LG 3D demo - when the big LG logo spins on to the screen on the passive it looks like a 2D overlay in a 3D game engine (super chunk) but when watched on an active system no such issue...

BTW I don't want to just jump in and thread jack/crap so OP if you are still deciding I would say assuming proper seating distance I would go with passive if it's mainly for video use as you will benefit from the cheap glasses for your buddies etc however if you will be less than 2x screen distance away or will be doing much gaming might want to consider to sticking with active unless something about active (motion tearing?) is strongly bothering you right now...

I am liking my new LG a lot but I am definitely getting the feeling already it will be relegated to living room for video watching and I will be looking into an active for my gaming corner...

EDIT just realized for the scanline test this can actually be done... put u a solid screen (if you get into the service menu there is a test pattern screen - I think red shows it the best) and get close to the TV, you should see no scan lines. Now put on the glasses - at close enough everyone will see the scanlines as they are physically there. Once you see them, start moving back occasionally lifting the glasses off. You should note that with the glasses off there are no visible scanlines starting only a foot or two back (there are gaps between rows pixels regardless) but with the glasses on you will see them for quite a ways . Keep moving back and repeating until you honestly can't tell the difference between with glasses and without. For me even at 10 feet I can still tell (albeit only barely).

This also says something about the idea the brain meshes both eyes together...if the brain really did this, you would only see a solid screen color but you will certainly see some scanlines at close range and depending on your eyes probably see them for quite some distance.
Edited by Devedander - 11/26/12 at 12:30am

I believe the confusion here exists because really resolutions should have framerates after them like 1080p60 or 1080p30 to denote what's happening...

Realistically you can argue that 1080p60 is kind of like 2160p30 just like 1080i60 is basically 1080p30.

So while it's true that 2 back to back 1080p frames is not really 1 2160p frame if you count the data sent to the eye per second or something it really is twice as much data as just 1080p alone... basically it's 1080p120 which again is to 1080p60 as 1080p60 is to 1080p32.... I think we can all agree 1080p60 is twice as much pixels/data as 1080p30?

I believe HDMI1.4 has a bandwidth issue with 1080p stereo which lends credence again to it being more data (ie more pixels) than 1080p/60 that we are used to.

As for the same 2 million pixels as passive... if you count at any given moment in time, yes, passive is showing 2mill pixels (half to each eye) and active is showing 2 mill pixels but to only one eye at that precise moment.

But at anything greater than 1/120 of second measurement, passive is still showing 2 milll pisels (1 mill to each eye) but active is actually sending 2 1080p images which are different (or else there would be no 3D effect) for a total of twice the number of pixels as passive...

Your post might cause me to reconsider active again, even though I was going to live with the lines in order to have lighter, cheaper glasses and less visual problems with cross-talk, etc. Thanks!

Honestly I would see if you can give it a try... many big box stores will let you do returns on open items within 30 days... in hindsite I shoudl have just bought one of each at a local store to test and returned the one I like least.

The level to which any issue will bother you is largely dependant on the person, and as I said active is absolutely not without it's own issues, but passive in it's current format is not a panacea... I believe Samsung has active glasses for $30 a pop... not cheap but not bank breakers like they used to be.

Don't mean to turn anyone off passive, it might be the best option for you but don't want anyone to be missinformed either.

Would love to hear more from someone who has both and can compare apples to apples... my 24 inch to 55 inch is not a fair comparison.

I saw that just within the last few days the Vizio 65" M3D651SV jumped from $1,488 to $1,728 at Wal-Mart. Bummer.

Can I ask what you mean flexibility? I only have my tiny Active set so a lot of limitations occur just because of it's size... other than price what are the limits you are finding with active glasses?

Is that an actual price jump or just the end of the BF sales prices?

That earlier low price had nothing to do with Black Friday, as I saw it several days before Black Friday when I was talking to the family about a possible future TV. In fact, I think it was on Black Friday that I decided to look again and saw that it had increased ~$240 in price. Which may mean that it may drop down again to ~$1,500 for Christmas sales, unless the price jump represents a cost increase from Vizio due to higher manufacturing prices for new stock.

Maybe it was as short-term fluke by Wal-Mart, because NO ONE is selling it for less than $1,748 now. If it wasn't an accident, and the rise in price was not due to higher manufacturing costs, then I suspect it will be close to $1,500 again just before Christmas or the Super Bowl if you can wait a month or two.
Edited by eweiss - 11/29/12 at 6:55am