Are you using Passive or Active glasses ?

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by 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.

Educate yourself -

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_Sho...ecommendations

This proves in a very detailed independent analysis what most already know and those with 20/20 vision and a perfectly functioning brain can/will see.(No offence)

Passive all the way baby!

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

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.


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.

Couldnt have put the whole thing better myself.

Its important just to sit at the distance that you personally can converge all objects effectively whilst still have it it fill as much periphial as possible, but not far enough to lose the detail of the blu-ray. Its tricky.

I have an pretty average size lounge-room and I don't know if bigger would help as the distance to converge i think may be too big.It seems right now. (bout 3 metres I guess). At 42 inches a friend already thinks that my telly is so big its offensive and doesn't get that most think that is actually "small" when it come's to "big" telly's now...lol.

And admittedly with passive there is a smallish "sweet" spot (well with mine) where everything is perfect, middle on the width and below middle of screen and down.Though the picture is certainly watchable from very wide viewing angles too.

All in all, I think where we sit can affect peoples enjoyment of there 3D blu-rays significantly. I have a soniq (lg panel) and dont find any visible lines. Can find them though if I go real close and take of the polarising lenses and look in the "double" image,usually dark on light background. However even close, the lens fills it in.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

Educate yourself -

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_Sho...ecommendations

This proves in a very detailed independent analysis what most already know and those with 20/20 vision and a perfectly functioning brain can/will see.(No offence)

Passive all the way baby!

This is a great read that thoroughly explains and tests the theory behind passive being able to deliver 1080p. However, you have to remember that this is just one study, and there is no way to objectively measure the resolution formed in your visual cortex. "Prove" is a strong word, and you can't really say that this study (or any research study in general) "proves" anything.

They attribute their observation that small text (probably with high color contrast) and fine facial details looked sharper on the passive LG LCD than on the active Samsung LCD to crosstalk issues with active LCDs. On active DLPs, projectors, plasmas, and some newer LCDs, crosstalk isn't as big of a problem. It would be interesting to see a follow-up study that compared different 3D display types.

[Captain Jack]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

Educate yourself -

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_Sho...ecommendations

This proves in a very detailed independent analysis what most already know and those with 20/20 vision and a perfectly functioning brain can/will see.(No offence)

Passive all the way baby!

Anyone who thinks 540p passive has the same detail as 1080p active needs a pair of glasses, and not the 3D kind! It's just not true, like I said I have both and have no particular preference other than wanting the best image, if passive delivered that I'd be all for it, but it doesn't, at least not at the moment.

[Big3dfan]

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

Anyone who thinks 540p passive has the same detail as 1080p active needs a pair of glasses, and not the 3D kind! It's just not true, like I said I have both and have no particular preference other than wanting the best image, if passive delivered that I'd be all for it, but it doesn't, at least not at the moment.

I have seen both active and passive side by side in Best Buy....passive, wile having its other advantages, was nowhere close to active interms of picture quality.

[BleedOrange11]

It's likely that some new 3D display technology will displace active and passive 3DTVs in their current state. If you want to get picky, neither can really claim to deliver an effective 1080p resolution to your visual cortex because they can't display two left and right full 1080p images at the same time. 1080p HMDs and theater 3D are the only displays that can do that (although I need to read up on autostereoscopic displays--not sure how they work).

The advantages/disadvantages of passive and active 3D are kind of summed up in how the two technologies work. With active, you get "fused 3D," so there are going to be more problems with flicker and eyestrain. With passive, you get "fused 1080p," so there is going to be a larger degradation in visual quality.

[Paul H]

24" Glasses-Free 3D TV/PC - Sony's L series ships July 6, 2012

Paul

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

This is a great read that thoroughly explains and tests the theory behind passive being able to deliver 1080p. However, you have to remember that this is just one study, and there is no way to objectively measure the resolution formed in your visual cortex. "Prove" is a strong word, and you can't really say that this study (or any research study in general) "proves" anything.

They attribute their observation that small text (probably with high color contrast) and fine facial details looked sharper on the passive LG LCD than on the active Samsung LCD to crosstalk issues with active LCDs. On active DLPs, projectors, plasmas, and some newer LCDs, crosstalk isn't as big of a problem. It would be interesting to see a follow-up study that compared different 3D display types.

Fair point. Thankyou for the correction.

I really have no log in the fire on this, if I thought active looked and felt better than i would say so.

The loss of temporal resloution - http://stijndewitt.wordpress.com/201...yth-revisited/ , though is another reason why I believe the tech is not as good. So many people complain of headaches associated with active, and the fact that a lot of people notice the flicker and/or need to play it in a dark room for that reason is another drawback to me. And with this tech, you get the "ghost" or "double images" (different to convergence ghosting)when they try and brighten it too much by reducing the "black" time between frames..Just a mess really.

Also, as I wear glasses already being able to leave my clip-ons ON all the time is just so convenient and something which would be impossible with active. Its like glasses free 3D if you already wear glasses if that makes sense...

[Lovemy3D]

I have an active TV and not yet seen anything on a passive 3D set.

[keb33509]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

I have an active TV and not yet seen anything on a passive 3D set.

There are pros and cons for each. It really isn't worth fighting about. We like what we like.

(Don't worry, I wasn't saying you were trying to start an argument.)

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

Fair point. Thankyou for the correction.

*I really have no log in the fire on this, if I thought active looked and felt better *than i would say so.

*The loss of temporal resloution - http://stijndewitt.wordpress.com/201...yth-revisited/ , though is another reason why I believe the tech is not as good. So many people complain of headaches associated with active, and the fact that a lot of people notice the flicker and/or need to play it in a dark room for that reason is another drawback to me. And with this tech, you get the "ghost" or "double images" (different to convergence ghosting)when they try and brighten it too much by reducing the "black" time between frames..Just a mess really.

Also, as I wear glasses already being able to leave my clip-ons ON all the time is just so convenient and something which would be impossible with active. Its like glasses free 3D if you already wear glasses if that makes sense...

You and I have had a discussion before about the differences in brightness between both techs and calibration, where you agreed with what I said, which was...

Originally Posted by Cevolution

You have misunderstood that post. The post doesn't touch on which of the 2 techs display a darker image through the use of the 3d glasses, as I didn't think explaining that was needed because people who have knowledge of both techs are already aware. The word 'tint' was used not for the purpose of purely describing the tint of the lenses themselves, but rather the level of brightness that each tech displays while viewing 3d content. However that wasn't the point of the post. The point of the post was, that with proper calibration the brightness while watching 3d shouldn't be affected all that much with either active or passive compared to watching 2d. Obviously with both techs being different, calibration in 3d mode is going to be much different as well to achieve a similar result. So with that being said, the brightness shouldn't really be much of a factor when decided between the 2 techs. Unless you are a person who likes to use vivid mode for 2d and 3d viewing that is, which means you don't have your tv calibrated correctly anyway.

As for flicker, there is some serious over exaggerations about it. It's noticeable from time to time, but definitely not multiple times every minute or so. I don't notice it while watching every 3d film, but the one's that I do, it's only noticeable a couple of times throughout an hour & a half to 2 hour 3d movie. Honestly it's hardly noticeable at all, and certainly doesn't take anything away from the quality of the 3d experience. Based on that, IMO it's not really an issue whatsoever. It being noticeable a couple of times over a period of a entire film is hardly anything to throw up stink about, unless you are obsessive and only are concerned with concentrating on everything else other than the film itself, like the people who dislike black bars, who can't seem to focus on much else.

It's already been established many times in these 3d threads that crosstalk isn't much of a problem or concern with active plasma's, DLP's and projectors, it's lcd/led tech which has the most issues in this area with active technology. I've been down the road of owning an active 3d lcd panel (in fact I have owned nothing but LCD panels until last year when I bought my 1st and current plasma), I bought a Samsung c8000 active 3d lcd/led model in 2010, and I'll never make the mistake again of buying an active lcd panel for 3d viewing.

I experienced side affects with the 3d active led Samsung I used to own, headaches, eye strain, fatigue etc (the crosstalk it produced was terrible), however I suffer from none of those affects with my active plasma. If the majority choose the buy LCD panels for 3d, then that's their choice, but as a result they have to put up with experiencing more crosstalk with active than they would with other display technologies available.

I'm not saying everyone suffers from those side affects with active 3d lcd panels, or that some people still don't experience side affects while using active with other display technologies, but the percentage is far less with other display technologies than with lcd. Overall, the percentage of people who do suffer from these affects from all types of active display technologies is very low, and many would find if they consistently used the tech for a couple of weeks, that the affects would likely stop. Some people's eyes just aren't used to it, and need exercising to strengthen them. Maybe the small amount of people who experience these issues feel 'why should I have to do that, I shouldn't have to get used to it to be able to use it', and I can understand that mentality, however if a large percentage of people can use active tech without a problem, then IMO those who can't should be looking more to it as being an issue with their own body, not the tech itself. After all, people who get car, sea or air sick don't go around blaming those technologies for the reactions they suffer from, they accept the fact that the problem is with their body and they deal with it.

I wear prescription glasses for driving and watching tv, and my fiancée needs to wear prescription glasses 24/7 as she is practically blind without them. Neither of us have any discomfort problems wearing the active 3d glasses we own over our prescriptions eyewear. We've watched 3d films for over 6 hours in one sitting more than once, with still no issues. Perhaps the issue here lies with the shape of ones head and face, or maybe they own heavy prescription glasses with chunky dated frames and thick lenses .

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

You and I have had a discussion before about the differences in brightness between both techs and calibration, where you agreed with what I said, which was...



As for flicker, there is some serious over exaggerations about it. It's noticeable from time to time, but definitely not multiple times every minute or so. I don't notice it in every 3d film, but the one's that I do, it's only noticeable a couple of times throughout an hour & a half to 2 hour 3d movie. Honestly it hardly noticeable at all, and certainly doesn't take anything away from the quality of the 3d experience. Based on that, IMO it's not really an issue whatsoever. It being noticeable a couple of times over a period of a entire film is hardly anything to throw up stink about, unless you are obsessive and only are concerned with concentrating on everything else other than the film itself, like the people who dislike black bars, who can't seem to focus on much else.

It's already been established many times in these 3d threads that crosstalk isn't much of a problem or concern with active plasma's, DLP's and projectors, it's lcd/led tech which has the most issues in this area with active technology. I've been down the road of owning an active 3d lcd panel (in fact I have owned nothing but LCD panels until last year when I bought my 1st and current plasma), I bought a Samsung c8000 active 3d lcd/led model in 2010, and I'll never make the mistake again of buying an active lcd panel for 3d viewing.

I experienced side affects with the 3d active led Samsung I used to own, headaches, eye strain, fatigue etc, however I suffer from none of those affects with my active plasma. If the majority choose the buy LCD panels for 3d, then that's their choice, but as a result they have to put up with experiencing more crosstalk with active than they would with other display technologies available.

I'm not saying everyone suffers from those side affects with active 3d lcd panels, or that some people still don't experience side affects while using active with other display technologies, but the percentage is far less with other display technologies than with lcd. Overall, the percentage of people who do suffer from these affects from all types of active display technologies is very low, and many would find if they consistently used the tech for a couple of weeks, that the affects would likely stop. Some people's eyes just aren't used to it, and need exercising to strengthen them. Maybe the small amount of people who experience these issues feel 'why should I have to do that, I shouldn't have to get used to it to be able to use it', and I can understand that mentality, however if a large percentage of people can use active tech without a problem, then IMO those who can't should be looking more to it as being an issue with their own body, not the tech itself. After all, people who get car, sea or air sick don't go around blaming those technologies for the reactions they suffer from, they except the fact that the problem is with their body and they deal with it.

I wear prescription glasses for driving and watching tv, and my fiancée needs to wear prescription glasses 24/7 as she is practically blind without them. Neither of us have any discomfort problems wearing the active 3d glasses we own over our prescriptions eyewear. We've watched 3d films for over 6 hours in one sitting more than once, with still no issues. Perhaps the issue here lies with the shape of ones head and face, or maybe they own heavy prescription glasses with chunky dated frames and thick lenses .

No I hear you and agree to a certain extent on your points. All valid and its good to have a reasoned informed debate. I personally can't perceive the "flicker" myself but many others swear they can or claim they can "feel it". And I didnt get a chance to go back and thankyou also for your apology for before.

Here is the new range of Passive as looked at by Cnet very recently for those looking into the tech.-

http://asia.cnet.com/passive-3d-tv-r...e-62212638.htm

Its getting better all the time and its safe to say that for active and passive. As I have said before, as long as we as individuals are happy with what we have, then THATS ALL thats matters.:

[Bones Ofmyarse]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

I own an active plasma and have never had any problems... However when I owned an active 3d lcd/led panel, I would experience those side effects all the time... It's not really active 3d technology that people should be taking it out on, but rather the limitations of lcd/led technology.

Now that's a genuinely interesting and valid user-observation. thanks.

[Bones Ofmyarse]

Originally Posted by MovieFanatic2010

Only 12 Grand......

Still cheaper than the first Plasma displays; and bound to come down in price rapidly - provided there's enough content to appeal to us masses i.e. provided the studio's cooperate.