Passive 3D vs Active 3D - Blu-ray Forum

jwoodwar · 06-29-2011, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kopkiwi

You say 'well' too much.

lol. Well...

I do say it too much. Once someone points something out on me I will stop forever! Thanks

swifty7 · 06-29-2011, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwoodwar

lol. Well...

I do say it too much. Once someone points something out on me I will stop forever! Thanks

you say too much of everything!

jwoodwar · 06-29-2011, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swifty7

you say too much of everything!

I like to talk alot.

rubystone356 · 07-02-2011, 02:56 AM

check to make sure the panasonic is on the proper setting. most tvs are set to vivid. you need to try thx or something else to get a better picture.
you should try it again. I think you will notice the difference.
Jacob

jwoodwar · 07-02-2011, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubystone356

check to make sure the panasonic is on the proper setting. most tvs are set to vivid. you need to try thx or something else to get a better picture.
you should try it again. I think you will notice the difference.
Jacob

I went ahead and bought the vizio passive 3d set... and WOW!!! I love it!! The trailers for Open Season look amazing!!!! The laptop was hooked up to the TV so I put some things like Avatar, Jackass 3D (Sky rip), Piranha 3D. When I watched these movies at the theater they looked okay but at home I was amazed how great they looked. Piranha looked freaking awesome!

RonSwanson · 07-07-2011, 02:57 AM

Looked at 3 passive sets at BB. The lines are noticeable from any distance. I understand it's cheaper and that people will always defend their purchases...

But the worst was a playback of the NBA Finals. The lines were extremely distracting and while the 3D itself was fine, I don't see what the point is if it's covered in that awful crap. I watched the NBA Finals in 3d at a friends on an active set and that was sensational, it felt like you were there and the resolution was full without any distracting lines.

Additionally, the underwater IMAX display I saw on an LG 60, the 3d popouts were amazing, but the lines were clearly killing the image quality.

I honestly don't see how anybody can't see them? What's the point in 3D without full resolution?

Personally, I have yet to buy a 3D tv and have been viewing tons of sets. But if companies go Passive, they are being lazy and are simply going to kill 3d before it even gets started. I feel it's similar to the Wii which was really interesting at first, but nobody cares about it anymore. People will think passive 3d is 'cool' but will eventually stop watching because of the lack of full resolution and the distracting lines.

I will definitely be buying an active set, which if companies fully support, 3d Tv will become the norm. The picture is simply beautiful, maybe a little dark but that's it and that can be fixed. The benefit of cheap glasses for passive tv is meaningless if you aren't viewing full quality picture that the disc itself is capable of.

Anyway, my two cents. I'm still saving up for a 3dtv, but I'm definitely going to save up more to get the real active hd sets. Passive is cheaper for a reason, and I get that cheaper can be better, but the difference in quality is way higher than I imagined after viewing the 3 sets I did today for the first time.

rubystone356 · 07-07-2011, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonSwanson

Looked at 3 passive sets at BB. The lines are noticeable from any distance. I understand it's cheaper and that people will always defend their purchases...

But the worst was a playback of the NBA Finals. The lines were extremely distracting and while the 3D itself was fine, I don't see what the point is if it's covered in that awful crap. I watched the NBA Finals in 3d at a friends on an active set and that was sensational, it felt like you were there and the resolution was full without any distracting lines.

Additionally, the underwater IMAX display I saw on an LG 60, the 3d popouts were amazing, but the lines were clearly killing the image quality.

I honestly don't see how anybody can't see them? What's the point in 3D without full resolution?

Personally, I have yet to buy a 3D tv and have been viewing tons of sets. But if companies go Passive, they are being lazy and are simply going to kill 3d before it even gets started. I feel it's similar to the Wii which was really interesting at first, but nobody cares about it anymore. People will think passive 3d is 'cool' but will eventually stop watching because of the lack of full resolution and the distracting lines.

I will definitely be buying an active set, which if companies fully support, 3d Tv will become the norm. The picture is simply beautiful, maybe a little dark but that's it and that can be fixed. The benefit of cheap glasses for passive tv is meaningless if you aren't viewing full quality picture that the disc itself is capable of.

Anyway, my two cents. I'm still saving up for a 3dtv, but I'm definitely going to save up more to get the real active hd sets. Passive is cheaper for a reason, and I get that cheaper can be better, but the difference in quality is way higher than I imagined after viewing the 3 sets I did today for the first time.

I totally agree with your statement. I own the panasonic tcp50gt25. its a wonderful set and full 3D.

Jacob

View Poll Results: Which do you think is better active or passive?
Active	101	61.21%
Passive	64	38.79%
Voters: 165. You may not vote on this poll

07-02-2011, 02:56 AM	#4
rubystone356 Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Home Theater Gallery:1 4K collection:98 Blu-ray collection:1243 DVD collection:284 Digital collection:690 iTunes collection:19	check to make sure the panasonic is on the proper setting. most tvs are set to vivid. you need to try thx or something else to get a better picture. you should try it again. I think you will notice the difference. Jacob

07-07-2011, 02:57 AM	#6
RonSwanson Banned Member since:Jan 2009 Location:Pawnee, IN Blu-ray collection:132 Blu-ray reviews:27 Trading Score:74	Looked at 3 passive sets at BB. The lines are noticeable from any distance. I understand it's cheaper and that people will always defend their purchases... But the worst was a playback of the NBA Finals. The lines were extremely distracting and while the 3D itself was fine, I don't see what the point is if it's covered in that awful crap. I watched the NBA Finals in 3d at a friends on an active set and that was sensational, it felt like you were there and the resolution was full without any distracting lines. Additionally, the underwater IMAX display I saw on an LG 60, the 3d popouts were amazing, but the lines were clearly killing the image quality. I honestly don't see how anybody can't see them? What's the point in 3D without full resolution? Personally, I have yet to buy a 3D tv and have been viewing tons of sets. But if companies go Passive, they are being lazy and are simply going to kill 3d before it even gets started. I feel it's similar to the Wii which was really interesting at first, but nobody cares about it anymore. People will think passive 3d is 'cool' but will eventually stop watching because of the lack of full resolution and the distracting lines. I will definitely be buying an active set, which if companies fully support, 3d Tv will become the norm. The picture is simply beautiful, maybe a little dark but that's it and that can be fixed. The benefit of cheap glasses for passive tv is meaningless if you aren't viewing full quality picture that the disc itself is capable of. Anyway, my two cents. I'm still saving up for a 3dtv, but I'm definitely going to save up more to get the real active hd sets. Passive is cheaper for a reason, and I get that cheaper can be better, but the difference in quality is way higher than I imagined after viewing the 3 sets I did today for the first time.

Best 3D Blu-ray Deals