Are you using Passive or Active glasses ?

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Jude72

We have the Xbox 360 version of Arkham City and I have to say that I wasn't impressed with the 3D on our system. I think that whilst the Xbox does 3D, it doesn't do it nearly as good as the PS3. I picked him up Captain America and The Green Lantern games to try the 3D out but I've not head back as to what he thinks of them yet.

When it came out, I played Uncharted 3 on our system and all I can say is Holy freakin' AWESOME, Batman! It blew us away. Obviously the Uncharted series is pretty awesome as it is but the 3D was some of the best I've seen! I'd highly recommend it if you've not played through that series yet.

I recently picked up the Sony 3D Display for my husband for gaming while I'm hogging the TV (he had been hooking the xbox or PS3 up to his PC monitor previously) and he seems pretty impressed with it so far. He's currently just got back in to playing Arkham City on there, so I'll have to ask him if the 3D is any better than it was on our TV. I only paid $199 for it from Sony in a sale they had several weeks ago. So far, he thinks it was well worth the money even though he's mainly used it for 2D games (finishing off ME3 and SSX).

Uncharted is pretty amazing in 3D Playing through it right now XD

[Nikka488]

I'm pretty good friends with the thread creator (MovieFanatic2010) and he's been a positive driving factor in my increased interest in 3D technology.

I've gone back and forth between considering active or passive technology. The cost isn't much of a consideration for me. I'm not rolling in money, but I'm happy to spend a little more if it's better IMO.

I like the concept of passive better. I like the fact that the glasses are lighter, cheaper, and more comfortable (to me).

Since the majority of my movies are NOT 3D I'm happy having a 55"+ inch LG TV than replacing my home theater projector. I'm still on the fence but I'm definitely leaning towards passive.

I wish my local Costco or Best Buy had more set ups where I could easily compare the technologies. Without that I can only go off of opinions posted in the forums and articles I've read...

[brian9229]

I've been using my Samsung active 3d glasses(model:ssg-3050gb)with my tv and ive just had no problems whatsoever! Ive scrutinized every inch of the tv screen looking for ghosting, or any abnormalities and none yet. Ive been playing Crysis 2, Arkham city, and even Halo anniversary on my xbox in 3d and no problems thus far.

[BleedOrange11]

Bigger is definitely better for 3D. A bigger screen means the depth recedes further and pop-out extends further, making it more noticeable and more impressive. I love my 42" Vizio and prefer passive glasses, but I would definitely upgrade to a 3D projector in a home theater room if I had the means.

The ultimate setup (besides 4K glasses-free OLED) would be passive glasses with two 2D projectors synced onto a polarized screen (This is how IMAX does it, eliminating the "540p" problem.), but unfortunately those aren't commercially available or compatible with BD3D players. Right now, that would be a DIY project and would require ripping BD3Ds to a hard drive and using special software to be able to play them.

[Nikka488]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Bigger is definitely better for 3D. A bigger screen means the depth recedes further and pop-out extends further, making it more noticeable and more impressive. I love my 42" Vizio and prefer passive glasses, but I would definitely upgrade to a 3D projector in a home theater room if I had the means.

The ultimate setup (besides 4K glasses-free OLED) would be passive glasses with two 2D projectors synced onto a polarized screen (This is how IMAX does it, eliminating the "540p" problem.), but unfortunately those aren't commercially available or compatible with BD3D players. Right now, that would be a DIY project and would require ripping BD3Ds to a hard drive and using special software to be able to play them.

If you can't go bigger then you can sit closer. If I end up with a 55" I'll just sit closer so it fills up more of my peripheral vision.

As much as I'd love one of the 74" or 80" set ups I can't justify spending that kind of money on it (based on my current income level)

[MovieFanatic2010]

Originally Posted by Nikka488

I'm pretty good friends with the thread creator (MovieFanatic2010) and he's been a positive driving factor in my increased interest in 3D technology.

I've gone back and forth between considering active or passive technology. The cost isn't much of a consideration for me. I'm not rolling in money, but I'm happy to spend a little more if it's better IMO.

I like the concept of passive better. I like the fact that the glasses are lighter, cheaper, and more comfortable (to me).

Since the majority of my movies are NOT 3D I'm happy having a 55"+ inch LG TV than replacing my home theater projector. I'm still on the fence but I'm definitely leaning towards passive.

I wish my local Costco or Best Buy had more set ups where I could easily compare the technologies. Without that I can only go off of opinions posted in the forums and articles I've read...

Eric i will talk you into a 3D projector if it kills me Just kidding What ever you get i am sure you are going to love ..... If you get a 3D set will you get rid of you Epson 8350 ? If so "Don't do it" !!!! Seriously 3D on a big screen is really incredible.... I am 100% sure you would not regret it.... The Epson 3010 comes with 2 pairs of 3D glasses ($85 a pop) and i also bought 2 other Sony PS3 glasses ($50 each) and they work just as well as the Epson glasses... Both glasses are very comfortable and after awhile you forget you are wearing them.... Plus the 2D on the 3010 is just as good if not better than the 8350.... I really believe Active is better(that's my conclusion after seeing both active and passive in action) than passive and wouldn't you want the best if you are going to get 3D ? I am done trying to sway you The rest is up to you... Talk to you later

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Nikka488

If you can't go bigger then you can sit closer. If I end up with a 55" I'll just sit closer so it fills up more of my peripheral vision.

This idea may or may not work. Sitting at the recommended 3D viewing distance is a little more important than it is for 2D. When you change distance, you change the angle at which your eyes converge upon the screen, which affects the perceived volume of the on-screen images. If you sit too close, objects will look too flat. You have find the best balance between 3D effect and screen immersion.

Recommended viewing distance for 3D is 1.4 x Screen width (not diagonal length).
http://www.practical-home-theater-gu...-distance.html

If I sit closer than ~5 feet to a passive set (or at least the Vizio that I have), I can see the polarized lines, which really disrupts the PQ (I sit slightly further away than recommended.). At 6-7 feet, they disappear, and it's 95% as sharp as 2D.

As much as I'd love one of the 74" or 80" set ups I can't justify spending that kind of money on it (based on my current income level)

Yeah, a 3D projector is probably the way to go for anything over 65+ inches. If you're going to go that big and spend that much, just go as big as possible. A projector is probably cheaper than those monsters anyway.

I have had a great experience with my 42" passive 3D Vizio for my small apartment living room. I watch 3D almost every day and have no regrets. It was budget-priced and has very minimal ghosting compared to active LCDs. Many people report passive technology as being more comfortable to watch for extended hours, and the glasses are just as comfortable as sunglasses. 3D is awesome once you learn the tricks and buy the right content. You just have to go with what is best for your budget and your needs. If you're interested in the format, you won't regret investing in it either way--active or passive.

I will say though that after watching Prometheus on a 60-foot screen in an empty IMAX theater, I want a massive 3D screen for my future home theater--120" minimum, regardless of what type of glasses it will require. Quality 3D content on a larger-than-life screen is quite an experience.

[Rupert305]

Currently using active on my LG plasma in my room, great picture considering it's only a 720p. Sometime in the near future looking to upgrade our living room Samsung to a passive set, only debating on whether to go with LED or Plasma.

[Blu Tiger]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

I will say though that after watching Prometheus on a 60-foot screen in an empty IMAX theater, I want a massive 3D screen for my future home theater--120" minimum, regardless of what type of glasses it will require. Quality 3D content on a larger-than-life screen is quite an experience.

Ha, no doubt. I think that is why I thought the 3D for Prometheus was so great. I have 60 3D blu-ray, but Prometheus is only the third 3D movie I have seen at the theater. 3D is awesome on an Imax screen! I guess I will judge it again when I view it at home on my setup that I am used to.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Rupert305

Currently using active on my LG plasma in my room, great picture considering it's only a 720p. Sometime in the near future looking to upgrade our living room Samsung to a passive set, only debating on whether to go with LED or Plasma.

I don't think anyone makes passive plasmas yet. Should be an easy decision for you.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Blu Tiger

Ha, no doubt. I think that is why I thought the 3D for Prometheus was so great. I have 60 3D blu-ray, but Prometheus is only the third 3D movie I have seen at the theater. 3D is awesome on an Imax screen! I guess I will judge it again when I view it at home on my setup that I am used to.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine any 3D looking really poor on that monster screen. Objects' 3D proportions still look the same on big and small screens though, so I tried judging the 3D that way. Can't wait to see it again on BD3D.

[vertigo12314]

I haven't tried passive glasses for a home theatre but the active ones I have look really good.

[oly]

Originally Posted by kenny3001

passive got an lg tv last year and i never looked back

+1

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by oly

+1

+2

[Infinite]

Active is simply much better.

[DanMc]

Passive, it may split the output to 540 per eye, but your brain still sees 1080 (both eyes).

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Passive, it's the same unless you are sitting unusually close to the TV. It's not about how much resolution you have, it's how much resolution you notice. Unless you have a projector, then you have no choice but to use active.

I disagree, that's not accurate, unless you are sitting at an incorrect distance to begin with, which many people do often due to the size and design of their lounge rooms. If you are sitting at the correct distance for your size display you will notice the differences in the level of detail between passive and active. Just because many people sit further back than they should, essentially cheating themselves out of seeing the full extent of blu-ray's quality, does not mean that a higher level of detail isn't there, can't be seen or should be disregarded. I sit about 7 foot from my 60 inch panel (which is approximately 2.1 metres), which is about the correct distance to sit from a panel of it's size to benefit properly from all the detail in a 1080p image. However plenty of people don't even take viewing distances into consideration, mostly because they don't have any knowledge about it or because they would prefer to have their furniture where it is, so their seating is quite often double the viewing distance to mine, and some are even using small 32 or 40 inch displays, so obviously they aren't going notice any difference. Imo the reason we all bought blu-ray in the 1st place is because of the high detail it offers, but if you are not going to use it correctly then why bother, you should just stick with dvd.

[sookymonster]

[[B]B]

Originally Posted by DanMc

Passive, it may split the output to 540 per eye, but your brain still sees 1080 (both eyes).

For some reason a lot of people just cant grasp this simple logic or accept the independent testing that proves it. Their loss though

[ADstv]

Active for me. Own 2 standard Samsung 3D glasses and 2 lightweight rechargable ones . Also have 2 real D passive glasses incase I get a passive set in the future as a 2nd tv .

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Captain Jack]

I have a passive TV and an active projector.

Which is better?

Active.

Passive is still good, but Active is on another level.

The whole 'your brain turns 540p into 1080p is just sales talk to sell passive sets. Passive does not pack the same resolution, Active on a 120 inch screen oozes detail, passive just does not have the same level.

Still, active glasses are expensive, and lose more brightness, but with the right setup it is without a doubt better.