Passive or Active

[UFAlien]

The OP has made his decision already and there's already a thread for people to keep making the same arguments over this in; perhaps the thread ought to be locked?

[guitarbandit7498]

If you think 1080i and 1080p look the same, then you either have a smaller screen where you can't notice the difference or you have a crap tv. I myself own one of the best plasmas you can buy, Panasonic GT30, 65". Hard to beat...

[scorpiontail60]

1080i and 1080p are the same once the 1080i has been de-interlaced.

I bet you've watched 1080i Blu-rays without even noticing it :P

[Anthony P]

1080i and 1080p are the same resolution 1080x1920 pixels per frame. That being said 1080i is not the same as 1080p and what you will see will depend on the display and the content.

if you have a 1080p source that is interlaced into 1080i and then de-interlaced into 1080p properly to be shown on the display there should be absolutely no difference. If something is filmed in 1080i then there is no way to interlace properly. Some displays/devices will take something that is 1080i60 and since it will show 60Hz (or a multiple) it will just line double to make the frame instead of de-interlacing (combining two 540x1920 images together to make the frame).


As for passive sets, the first thing to realize is that we are talking 3D and not 2D, if you watch 2D on a 1080x1920 screen it does not matter if the 3D is active or passive. If it is active you have a 1080x1920 image for each eye but each one is there only half the time and onlyy seen by one of the eyes at a time (while the other sees black). If it is a passive set you will only have 540x1920 for each eye but both will see it the whole time, that is not 720p that is not 540p it is half but only in one of the dimensions.

[sirhc55]

I for one do not lend myself to arguments over active or passive as everyone has their own taste.

We have heard how one person thought that the LG passive sucked and others who say that active sucks.

I have a 50" Samsung plasma 3D (active) and I really like the TV but for 3D I found it to be lacking and the crosstalk could be very distracting.

A couple of weeks ago I made the decision to purchase a 32" LG LM6200 LED 3D. Basically I wanted a 3D set of smaller size than the 50" for another position in my viewing room.

I have since tested the LG and found:

1. The glasses are so much better than active glasses for comfort and weight.
2. No apparent line interlacing visible
3. Crosstalk - absolutely none
4. Brightness - fine
5. Resolution - fine

Passive sets may reduce resolution but active sets reduce brightness.

So, we all have our preferences and mine is now passive. This is not to say that anyone who has an active set and loves it is wrong in their choice.

Those people who write with venom about one or the other are really not being totally sensitive to the choices of other people and what they say should be taken with due care and fully investigated.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by sirhc55

I for one do not lend myself to arguments over active or passive as everyone has their own taste.

We have heard how one person thought that the LG passive sucked and others who say that active sucks.

I have a 50" Samsung plasma 3D (active) and I really like the TV but for 3D I found it to be lacking and the crosstalk could be very distracting.

A couple of weeks ago I made the decision to purchase a 32" LG LM6200 LED 3D. Basically I wanted a 3D set of smaller size than the 50" for another position in my viewing room.

I have since tested the LG and found:

1. The glasses are so much better than active glasses for comfort and weight.
2. No apparent line interlacing visible
3. Crosstalk - absolutely none
4. Brightness - fine
5. Resolution - fine

Passive sets may reduce resolution but active sets reduce brightness.

So, we all have our preferences and mine is now passive. This is not to say that anyone who has an active set and loves it is wrong in their choice.

Those people who write with venom about one or the other are really not being totally sensitive to the choices of other people and what they say should be taken with due care and fully investigated.

With the whole brightness issue that some have, the fact is that if you actually have your tv calibrated well for 2d viewing, and have the brightness set to roughly half way (give or take a few notches either side, which is where it's suppose to be if you are wanting to stay as true to the sourse as you can), then that leaves a lot of room to be able to calibrate the brightness (similarly this applies to other settings such as the backlight or cell light as well) for 3d viewing, to compensate for the brightness drop once putting on the glasses. It's generally those who like to watch their tv's in vivid mode, practically at maximum level brightness, who complain about this. On my display the drop in brightness is minimal when going from 2d to 3d, therefore it's not a problem. With that being said, it's not so much active technology which is the issue, it's some people's expectations due to their enjoyment of overly saturated bright images. Further to this, the amount of crosstalk that is seen can be greatly dependent on how well your display is calibrated.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by sirhc55

Passive sets may reduce resolution but active sets reduce brightness.

Don't know what model of active display you've been watching but my experiences have always been that the display automatically increases in brightness when in 3D mode and which compensates for the active polarized glasses.

Passive glasses are also polarized which will reduce perceptive brightness. Passive has no flickering, but I'm wondering where there is a difference between the two technologies in brightness?

Paul

[sirhc55]

All I can say Paul H is what I observe when watching 3D.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by sirhc55

All I can say Paul H is what I observe when watching 3D.

Glad you offered your observation. It's interesting. First time I've heard of passive observed as being brighter than active.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Glad you offered your observation. It's interesting. First time I've heard of passive observed as being brighter than active.

agree, there should not be any difference assuming that both are equally bright to start off with (i.e. brightness without glasses).

[steve1971]

Personally I like Active and thats just one of the reasons why I love my HX750 so much. 3D on my set is out of this world and I would never go Passive.