Passive 3D vs Active 3D

[GreatGreg]

I find the flicker in active displays distracting.

I much prefer passive for reasons of cost, comfort and image quality.

[Joe D.]

I will not knock either format for all that does is hurt feelings. Very satisfied with the active picture on my sony. And hope the same for those with passive sets.

Get an occasional flicker which goes away quickly so no big deal. Crosstalk exists on discs noted for it but hardly a distraction and not an issue in general. Able to adjust brightness for glasses. Along with my darbee get a very nice detailed and sharp picture.

What I haven't read on line is that one doesn't produce more depth than the other or hinders the pop out effect. And that's what 3D is all about.

So everyone enjoy and be grateful for what we have despite preferences. I feel that way even with my den video wizard which converted my flat TV into a nice little anaglyth 3D unit.

[DVD Josh]

Originally Posted by robtadrian

According to Glenn Erickson it is https://cinesavant.com/cinesavant-column-152/

And he really supports his argument too

He's wrong anyway, unless you believe seeing less frames is "better"

[presidentevil3d]

Its odd, i have both, and passive is best usually, but, some films pop better on active and vice versa

Like avatar i found better on my old active

[br3ttD]

I have both and don't prefer one over the other. Passive glasses are more comfortable but my active 3-D projector is so much damn fun. I find the PQ on both active and passive displays either to be acceptable or down right amazing.

[f451]

Originally Posted by robtadrian

According to Glenn Erickson it is https://cinesavant.com/cinesavant-column-152/

Glenn states: "The ‘industry’ decided not to support it here, although passive 3-D monitors are reportedly still made for overseas distribution."

Have any of you come across, or know of sources for, passive 3-D monitors currently made for overseas distribution?

[ZIROK]

Originally Posted by f451

Glenn states: "The ‘industry’ decided not to support it here, although passive 3-D monitors are reportedly still made for overseas distribution."

Have any of you come across, or know of sources for, passive 3-D monitors currently made for overseas distribution?

I think these monitors are made for the Medical community for 3d surgery and probably expensive

[tripletopper]

Here are what I think are pros in the battle of Shutter vs Polar.


Pro Shutter/ Anti Polar
1. Polar gives 2D pictures that are not quite optimal, Shutter doesn't darken or distort 2D Pictures.
2. If you tilt your head more than a couple of degrees, both eyes partially depolarize, causing double images, causing visual confusion causing headaches. My mom gets 3D headaches after 5 minutes in theaters. On my PS3DTV, mom watched a movie for 15 minutes, and quit because she said it's not her type of movie. But no 3D headaches.
3. Sega proved you can add 3D to an existing 2D TV of the 80s. If you compensate for ping, like the ARC connection already does, so let's use it. To "add a polar screen", you have to buy a polar screen for your specific 2d TV model. And probably hire a pro to install it

Pro Polar / Anti Shutter

1. You must charge a shutter glasses (or use a 3.5 mm cable like the Sega Scope.)
2. The more people who watch a 3D movie at once, the more financial sense Polar 3D makes, (25 cents per set vs $10)
3. Imagine passing around Shutter glasses in the Covid-19 era to strangers. Polar glasses you recycle.

I'm surprised why most people prefer Polar at home. The main reason why polar is used in theaters is because polar is a better communal system, and shutter is a better 3Dtv for one.

It seems like most people also prefer Communal surround sound, either multiple speakers or a sound bar vs surround headphones. And I think headphones have more convincing surround sound.

I don't know why people want it theater like when I strive to be better than the theater
It's cheaper, it's more accurate, it's just better (according to me. But then again, it's a personal theater/game room.

[revgen]

Shutter glasses do darken the picture. They have to since one eye must be "shut" when the other eye is "open". This also causes other issues such as "flickering". Also, besides DLP shutter glasses systems, most shutter systems have more cross-talk then polarized systems when sitting in an optimal seating position. The difference between my previous Tv, a Samsung plasma which used a shutter system, and my LG OLED, which uses polarized glasses was immediately noticeable when it came to crosstalk. House of Wax and Dial M For Murder were noticeably improved after switching to the LG.

The other big disadvantage with passive polarized TV's is that they halve the vertical resolution. This was an issue with 1080p passive polarized TV's since they were displaying 1920x540 resolution. With 4K passive polarized TV's, it's not an issue since the full 1080 vertical resolution is being shown without compromises.

Polarized glasses should have been preferred by manufacturers from the beginning. They are more consumer friendly since they don't require a consumer to push a button or change/recharge batteries. They are also more lightweight and aren't heavy on the nose, making them more ideal for those who are already wearing glasses.

[tripletopper]

I don't know whether it was just the choice of titles, but I seen Wreck It Ralph in 3d but in the theater (polar) and my PS3DTV (shutter). I thought the 3D looked better in Shutter.

The Hobbit 1 I saw in a "high frame rate theater" in 3D, the TV like effects were noticable, but I've thrown out of reality by accidentally tipping my head.

As for the light being dimmer on shutter vs polar, the PS3DTV, (arguably the most popular single model of 3DTV) first, the screen is 240 Hz, which means it can do 120 Hz x 2 eyes. It took many more years before others got to 240 Hz. Quicker flashes makes a more persistent vision of the screen. Second, most 3D haters say polarized 3ad ruins 2D viewing of a TV. Shutter TV only appear darkened when viewed through 3D glasses.

Has anyone done a study of 3D headaches with Polar vs Shutter. My mom lasted longer on a shutter 3D system, and quit for lack of interest. In the theater, she gets sick in 5 minutes, due to double exposures. I think she can watch a 3D movie "from Once to After" (a short way of saying from "once upon a time" to "and they lived happily ever after")

When 3D TVs die. Nothing replaced them. I'm thinking aftermarket 3d add one.

Shutter is easy. Sega proved it possible. Polar would require bothvs specialized part and skilled labor to add it on.

If it's true that a polar shield ruins 3D, then why not have a cartridge to load in front of the screen,.that contains a removable 3D polar filter?

Polar shields are light. They are slightly thicker than a page in a softcover book. The most important fact is that it must "line up" with the pixels or you'll have a weird picture.

What exactly is "cross talk"? I experienced cocked head 3D errors but I am not sure of what crosstalk us and how to avoid it.

Would a shutter screen be better for one, and a polar at hundreds at a time?

There are also two sleeper 3D display formats. Parallax filter 3D, used in the Nintendo 3DS. The main problem with that is that even though it's classics free it only works for one person at a time.

and then finally cell phones got it the old-fashioned way put a bunch of plastic eye goggles around your eyes insert phone and make sure there's something in between the bridge of your nose in the top of the screen so that you could see two separate isolated to give use as a true stereoscope with no glasses other than the over goggles the phone is put in.

The good thing about this one is that it's truly a privacy issue. One person can watch it in 3D while another watches it into 2D. And they can both be in the same room and talk about it while they watch it together.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

Here are what I think are pros in the battle of Shutter vs Polar.


Pro Shutter/ Anti Polar

2. If you tilt your head more than a couple of degrees, both eyes partially depolarize, causing double images, causing visual confusion causing headaches. My mom gets 3D headaches after 5 minutes in theaters. On my PS3DTV, mom watched a movie for 15 minutes, and quit because she said it's not her type of movie. But no 3D headaches.

That is the not the case with circular polarisation, which is what is used in Real D and on passive 3dtvs. Some Imax 3D systems use linear polarization which is less friendly to tilted heads, but I can't say I've found it a major issue, or an issue at all.

As someone who regularly wears eyeglasses, my preference is for polarized, and one reason is because I find there are more options available in terms glasses that fit comfortably over glasses. Most shutter glasses I tried were not ideal, at least for me.

One advantage of active glasses, is that it should be more widely compatible with different TVs. In theory many(most?) modern TVs have all the functionality required to display 3-D images with shutter glasses.

[tripletopper]

Yes the fact that you can add 3D to any TV just spy adding a middle processor the sink up the glasses and portrayed the video as Left Right alternate frames, makes an aftermarket shutter base 3D more viable than a polar based one.

no I don't understand the differences between different forms of polar 3D.

You do understand that partial depolarization happens in polar 3D when you tilt your head to the side. That's where my mom gets her 3D headaches. I never heard of that much confusion caused by shutter 3D.

You talk about circular polarization how does that work so that you can tilt your head a reasonable number of degrees and still not get double images?

By the way is the lag the issue that causes crosstalk, meaning if you think it right or you're using a CRT TV then there should be no crosstalk issues or am I misunderstanding shutter crosstalk? Would the 240 Hz help with cross talk?Also cat Hertz rates only being multiples of 60 in atsc regions, and multiples of 50 in pal regions or is it a variable refresh rate like a computer monitor that can have unusual numbers like 144? So you could do 48 (24 x 2 x 1) 96 (24 x 2 x 2) 144 (24 x 2 x 3).

[Lee A Stewart]

Linearly polarized glasses vs Circularly polarized glasses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari...arised_glasses

[Vizzy]

Passive is the best.

[presidentevil3d]

http://amazing-int.com/VPOD/service/pain-distraction/

this uk company makes them for hospitals and commercial install

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by Vizzy

Passive is the best.

Why? Based on what? Passive can be prone to ghosting (depending on your monitor) where active is not. I have a DLP protector and 100" with active glasses, and in over 50 3D movies that I have watched since we got it last year, there has been absolutely 0 problems with ghosting. None whatsoever on any film.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

Why? Based on what? Passive can be prone to ghosting (depending on your monitor) where active is not. I have a DLP protector and 100" with active glasses, and in over 50 3D movies that I have watched since we got it last year, there has been absolutely 0 problems with ghosting. None whatsoever on any film.

That's probably why IMAX went with active instead of passive when it introduced IMAX 3D. A lot more expensive to install but the end result was worth it.

[Brahby]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

Why? Based on what? Passive can be prone to ghosting (depending on your monitor) where active is not. I have a DLP protector and 100" with active glasses, and in over 50 3D movies that I have watched since we got it last year, there has been absolutely 0 problems with ghosting. None whatsoever on any film.

i definitely had ghosting on my active sony set back in the day. i actually had to take the set back because it was so distracting

[Lee A Stewart]

Passive Polarized vs Active Shutter: Which 3D Glasses Are Better?

https://www.lifewire.com/3d-passive-...hutter-1847836

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by Brahby

i definitely had ghosting on my active sony set back in the day. i actually had to take the set back because it was so distracting

I'm surprised by that. Maybe it's because I'm watching a DLP projector, but I've been blown away by the 3D. As I said, in about 50 3D movies there's never been any trace of ghosting at all.