Passive 3D vs Active 3D

[Pizzamorg]

Ah so the difference with passive is the resolution is spread between the two lenses, where as with active it's doubled as both lens is getting the full HD? I don't really understand, so does Active blow up the image into a higher resolution than it is? And with Passive, even if it's spread between the two lenses surely you're still seeing it in full HD unless you're wearing an eye patch?

[Nikka488]

I debated this question internally for a long time before picking up a passive LG TV for the bedroom. I have never had Active, but my friend MovieFanatic2010 has convinced me that when I upgrade to a 3D Projector that Active is the way to go. (Unless technology changes before I get there).

I find the quality on my LG Cinema Screen 47LM6700 47-Inch Cinema 3D to be pretty decent, but I don't have anything to compare it to besides seeing 3D movies at the theater.

I do like the light weight (& cheap) glasses & the TVs ability to convert 2D to 3D is actually passable. I sit about 6 feet away from the TV and find it pretty enjoyable.

My 2 cents for what it's worth.

[Chloenator]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

I've never really cared about this issue myself.

Me neither. I have a passive LED 3DTV (Vizio) and my brother has an active Plasma 3DTV (LG) and I honestly couldn't tell the difference. I wear glasses, so I prefer passive since the glasses are lightweight. I'm happy with the TV I have.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Pizzamorg

Ah so the difference with passive is the resolution is spread between the two lenses, where as with active it's doubled as both lens is getting the full HD? I don't really understand, so does Active blow up the image into a higher resolution than it is? And with Passive, even if it's spread between the two lenses surely you're still seeing it in full HD unless you're wearing an eye patch?

The real difference is that with active, you're seeing all the resolution half the time (each eye sees black half the time on on alternating basis), while with passive you see half the resolution all the time (each eye sees different sets of horizontal lines on the TV)

That's with 1080p sets. However on 4K TVs, with passive you see all the resolution all the time, so it's the best of both worlds.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

The real difference is that with active, you're seeing all the resolution half the time (each eye sees black half the time on on alternating basis), while with passive you see half the resolution all the time (each eye sees different sets of horizontal lines on the TV)

That's with 1080p sets. However on 4K TVs, with passive you see all the resolution all the time, so it's the best of both worlds.

I don't think you've worded active quite right.

With active, as you said, each eye alternates the full resolution frame. Which means you're always seeing the full resolution, half the time with your left eye and half the time with your right. Each eye always sees the full resolution, so you always see full resolution, not just half the time.

With passive, as you said, each eye sees only half resolution.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I don't think you've worded active quite right.

With active, as you said, each eye alternates the full resolution frame. Which means you're always seeing the full resolution, half the time with your left eye and half the time with your right. Each eye always sees the full resolution, so you always see full resolution, not just half the time.

With passive, as you said, each eye sees only half resolution.

Don't like that description? How about this one: With active, you're watching TV with one eye. Or what about this: Your eyes are taking turns watching the TV. Bottom line both methods use trickery to achieve the 3D effect. Active by alternately blocking out the picture and passive by blocking out alternating lines. The "sacrifice" is no less on one than the other.

[Zivouhr]

Having each 3DTV format, both Passive and Active 3DTVs are great IMO, since each one offers a great way to watch stereo 3D movies, and that is what counts in the end, regardless of each format's pros and cons.

Good points about Passive displaying full HD with both eyes combined, and Active 3D with full HD with either eye. Up close there is a subtle difference, but most people won't be sitting up close within a few feet watching their 3DTV.

Active 3D: Great showcase of stereo 3D? Yes.
Passive 3D: Great showcase of stereo 3D? Yes.

Winner? Both.

[sookymonster]

I've got that 55 in Soniq television and I love it!

Passive all the way for me!

[etype55]

Hey guys, been a long time since I've posted but because I still use this site for information and I'm in a unique position to comment on this question, I'd thought it time to repay the help I've received here.

We recently decided to upgrade our television. We had the VT25 and it served us very well over the years, but a relocation and a brighter-room later, it was time to retire the plasma. It should be noted that I was never sold on passive sets. The loss of resolution was too much my sensibilities.

We knew we wanted 55", at least, and 4k but due to a series of lemons and bad advice from Best Buy (go figure, right?) we have actually had 3 of the big 4k contenders in our place. We've had the Samsung 55hu8550, a 55" LG and finally the 65x850b from Sony. Sony finally won our money and its sitting in the living room right now.


My quick nonprofessional review is as follows but bottom line, 4k televisions make a strong argument for 3D. They all do it exceedingly well.

The Samsung has active 3D. We had the television for 2 weeks before the sound pooped out. It had great depth, solid color and the best blacks of the 3 sets. It had the best motion control during 3D mode after some tweaking to the settings. Little to no halo effect and negligible motion blur. You could probably reduce that to 0, but we actually enjoy the soap opera effect so we had coaxed a little more from the set. There was some occasional cross-talk.

The LG is passive but was not with us for very long. The stand is ridiculously wide, wider than the TV and our base was too narrow to house it. We watched Avatar and my impressions are positive but my time with it was too short to speak in greater detail. I will say that the colors were uncomfortably flat compared to the Samsung and Sony. Even if the stand wasn't an issue, I doubt we'd have kept it.

The Sony x850b. Colors in one word = wow! I know this is a 3D thread but man, the colors deserve mentioning. They pop and sing with rich and saturated eye catching zeal. My eyes just drink them in. Anyways, back to 3D talk.

If we're being honest, in regards to 3D the Samsung has 2 advantages over the Sony - slightly more depth and slightly better motion. We're not talking a significant performance gap in either category, but the difference is there. However, that's the where the advantages stopped for me.

Sony has 0 cross-talk, the image is bright, crisp and clear and we can even comfortably watch 3D during the day. Sony is the clear winner and I know for a fact it will convert some naysayers to the 3D fan club. Watching Under the Sea (Potato Cod!) is simply marvelous.

4k technology is definitely elevating passive technology to a new level and I can't wait to showcase it to friends and family. I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in 3D use as 4k televisions sell. Its delivering HD resolution without any of the hassles that usually accompany active sets. I watched Gravity last night and I can honestly say, despite having already watched it on the vt25, it was one of the more enjoyable 3D experiences I've had at home.

The Sony colors, the ease and virtual weightlessness of the glasses, and the resolution sold me completely on passive 3D. In the extremely unlikely event we see native 4k 3D I may be enticed back to the active camp, but for right now - no way, Sony nailed it.

tldr : Active for 1080p. But cross over into 4k territory and passive is better (imho).

[Ray O. Blu]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by etype55

Hey guys, been a long time since I've posted but because I still use this site for information and I'm in a unique position to comment on this question, I'd thought it time to repay the help I've received here.

We recently decided to upgrade our television. We had the VT25 and it served us very well over the years, but a relocation and a brighter-room later, it was time to retire the plasma. It should be noted that I was never sold on passive sets. The loss of resolution was too much my sensibilities.

We knew we wanted 55", at least, and 4k but due to a series of lemons and bad advice from Best Buy (go figure, right?) we have actually had 3 of the big 4k contenders in our place. We've had the Samsung 55hu8550, a 55" LG and finally the 65x850b from Sony. Sony finally won our money and its sitting in the living room right now.


My quick nonprofessional review is as follows but bottom line, 4k televisions make a strong argument for 3D. They all do it exceedingly well.

The Samsung has active 3D. We had the television for 2 weeks before the sound pooped out. It had great depth, solid color and the best blacks of the 3 sets. It had the best motion control during 3D mode after some tweaking to the settings. Little to no halo effect and negligible motion blur. You could probably reduce that to 0, but we actually enjoy the soap opera effect so we had coaxed a little more from the set. There was some occasional cross-talk.

The LG is passive but was not with us for very long. The stand is ridiculously wide, wider than the TV and our base was too narrow to house it. We watched Avatar and my impressions are positive but my time with it was too short to speak in greater detail. I will say that the colors were uncomfortably flat compared to the Samsung and Sony. Even if the stand wasn't an issue, I doubt we'd have kept it.

The Sony x850b. Colors in one word = wow! I know this is a 3D thread but man, the colors deserve mentioning. They pop and sing with rich and saturated eye catching zeal. My eyes just drink them in. Anyways, back to 3D talk.

If we're being honest, in regards to 3D the Samsung has 2 advantages over the Sony - slightly more depth and slightly better motion. We're not talking a significant performance gap in either category, but the difference is there. However, that's the where the advantages stopped for me.

Sony has 0 cross-talk, the image is bright, crisp and clear and we can even comfortably watch 3D during the day. Sony is the clear winner and I know for a fact it will convert some naysayers to the 3D fan club. Watching Under the Sea (Potato Cod!) is simply marvelous.

4k technology is definitely elevating passive technology to a new level and I can't wait to showcase it to friends and family. I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in 3D use as 4k televisions sell. Its delivering HD resolution without any of the hassles that usually accompany active sets. I watched Gravity last night and I can honestly say, despite having already watched it on the vt25, it was one of the more enjoyable 3D experiences I've had at home.

The Sony colors, the ease and virtual weightlessness of the glasses, and the resolution sold me completely on passive 3D. In the extremely unlikely event we see native 4k 3D I may be enticed back to the active camp, but for right now - no way, Sony nailed it.

tldr : Active for 1080p. But cross over into 4k territory and passive is better (imho).

Good read. Thanks for the post & info.

[sidders]

3d on the sony xbr 65a is probably the best 3d I have ever seen 1080p passive to each eye looks sublime

[petrified-eye]

I just got 55" Philips (55PUS7908) and the passive 3D in full HD is INCREDIBLE! I previously had Epson projector with active 3D and was very happy with it, but this is totally from another world. I actually laughed out loud when I popped in the Hobbit BD. I also tested LG with similar specs in the store (4K with passive) but it had too much crosstalk, this has almost none. Before the Philips I also tested Sharp Aquos 60" at home but the 3D was absolutely horrible.

[xianxian]

I'm not sure if the debate has been raised here, but here are my comments and questions on the topic active vs passive 3D TV's.

I understand that Active 3D is displaying 2 times the full HD pictures, one for the left eye and one for the right eye and the active glasses are switching one image on each eye using electronics in the glasses. So we have full HD 3D with Active, right ?

Now I also understand passive HD uses the polarized 3D passive glasses (the cheap ones) to put half the picture to each eye, so technically we are getting only half HD on each eye, right ?

Now about the 4K TV with passive 3D (like LG) do you confirm that the TV is using the 4K resolution to have half the 4K (so full HD) on each eye ?
That would make sense to me so we are getting the best 3D in that case. I mean the picture is twice better than with 2K TV passive 3D.
if so, I'm wondering why other manufacturers (Panasonic, Sony, Samsung) did there 3D active with 4K models ?)

[xenoninjax]

https://www.cnet.com/news/4k-tvs-wit...-those-pixels/

Originally Posted by xianxian

if so, I'm wondering why other manufacturers (Panasonic, Sony, Samsung) did there 3D active with 4K models ?)

I'm guessing they already spent $$$ on R&D on their active techs and don't want to abandon what they've been selling since the beginning. Or active glasses bring in extra $$$ for them enough to keep it.

[xianxian]

Thanks for the reply.
So, passive 3D in 4K appears to be the best;
And you are probably right regarding R&D costs

[poke smot]

Originally Posted by xianxian

Thanks for the reply.
So, passive 3D in 4K appears to be the best;
And you are probably right regarding R&D costs

you better get on it if you actually want a new 3d tv. btw passive, no matter what the resolution, will always top active, IMO.

[Joe D.]

Originally Posted by poke smot

btw passive, no matter what the resolution, will always top active, IMO.

There's always those like me who love the active ones. Personally, I bet they're both good.

[Wicked He Bad]

is now 2017 i must know when u put a 3d 1080p bluray to a active shutter 4k 3d tv what resolution do u get 3840x2160p or 3840x1080p or something els cus passive does 3840x1080p cus it gets cut down so one would think a active tv gets the 2160p or does it just get 3840x1080p like passive plz help?

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Wicked He Bad

is now 2017 i must know when u put a 3d 1080p bluray to a active shutter 4k 3d tv what resolution do u get 3840x2160p or 3840x1080p or something els cus passive does 3840x1080p cus it gets cut down so one would think a active tv gets the 2160p or does it just get 3840x1080p like passive plz help?

It'll depend on the tv, minus some Russian trailers though and some video games on pc there is no 4k 3d content so it hardly matters and won't for at least a few more years. My understanding is 4k 3d active sets run in a 1080p mode per eye for 3d.

[revgen]

Originally Posted by brdmaverick

Newbie here, so please bare with me. I'm really wanting to get a 3D but realize I have much to learn. In going through these forums it appears that the biggest differences between ACTIVE and PASSIVE are.......

ACTIVE
FULL HD but...
expensive glasses
ghosting
headaches
flicker

PASSIVE
Cheap Glasses, no ghosting, but......
lower resolution 540P

But then I read how 4K TV can do PASSIVE in FULL HD. Shouldn't this be the end of the conversation that this is the perfect solution (well, except for the money that needs to be shelled out).

I'm doubting myself b/c why aren't all 4K TVs passive if this is in fact the best solution?


Also, when we say that 4K can do full HD that is to say that if I have a 3d Blu ray player and a 3D Blu ray movie, I should be able to watch it in FULL HD right?

it's not like it has to be a 4K 3d movie, right (do those exist)?

1) The only 3-D equipment that can legitimately be called "ghost-free" or crosstalk free are DLP projectors with RF active glasses. Passive glasses tend to have less ghosting than active glasses on non-DLP equipment. Unfortunately, DLP projectors and TV's tend to have lousy black levels, resulting in poorer contrast than plasma, OLED, and some high-end LCD's.

2) You can see the flickering if you're not looking straight at your TV in a room with ambient light. This isn't much of an issue with a projector since most people watch projectors with the lights turned down or off.

3) Passive glasses are fine resolution-wise if you're watching on a 4K TV since the 4K TV automatically upscales all 1080p content to 4K. So when the vertical resolution is halved, you're watching the full 1080p resolution instead of 540p resolution on a 1080p tv.

4) Most manufacturers probably don't want to spend R&D on a passive 3-D system when they already spent $$ and time developing an active glasses system. LG developed their passive 3-D system when 1080p 3-D TV's came out, so adding it to their 4K TV's wasn't too difficult.

5) This is why I like my 2016 E6 OLED. Full 1080p resolution with passive glasses, less crosstalk than non-DLP active glasses, and way better contrast than DLP projectors.

6) 4K 3-D movies don't exist yet in the consumer marketplace, and are very rare commercially. I saw one (Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk) very recently at the Cinerama dome. The dome and another theater in New York were the only two theaters with the projectors capable of doing it. For now, outside of experimental commercial engagements, 4K 3-D is non-existent.