Passive 3D vs Active 3D - Page 2 - Blu-ray Forum

radagast · 05-18-2011, 03:49 PM

I think it's interesting to see the stances taken on the current passive 3D system, by various TV manufacturers. LG and Vizio have gone whole-hog for passive. Vizio has stopped making active systems. I think LG has, or will stop making active. Phlips is joining them in making passive displays. Sony and Samsung refuse to make them because of their commitment to HD.

zicmubleu · 05-20-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinireb

well i was at future shop yesterday and tried out one of their passive lg sets and all i got was alot of flickering..i never get that with the active glasses....i do know that these store dont really set up the tvs and so forth correctly but when i first tried out the active setup, not properly set up i still never got a flicker.

That is hard to understand, the left and right images should be effectively turned on all the time for the LG and Vizio type design I would think. The new Samsung passive design could flicker similar to shutter glasses it would seem. I have viewed JVC passive 3d TVs and don't recall anything like a flicker issue, they seemed quite good just too expensive, and they appear to be the same design as LG and Vizio.

radagast · 05-20-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinireb

well i was at future shop yesterday and tried out one of their passive lg sets and all i got was alot of flickering..i never get that with the active glasses....i do know that these store dont really set up the tvs and so forth correctly but when i first tried out the active setup, not properly set up i still never got a flicker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

That is hard to understand, the left and right images should be effectively turned on all the time for the LG and Vizio type design I would think. The new Samsung passive design could flicker similar to shutter glasses it would seem. I have viewed JVC passive 3d TVs and don't recall anything like a flicker issue, they seemed quite good just too expensive, and they appear to be the same design as LG and Vizio.

The new Samsung/RealD passive should NOT flicker. Flickering is caused by shutter glasses turning on and off real fast which makes other things in the room (like other lights) seem to flicker. The flickering problem with active glasses does not refer to flickering of the TV image, but everything else that isn't dark in the room.

Since the newer Samsung/RealD system uses passive glasses that do not turn on and off, there should be no flickering.

I agree that I don't understand why the other poster said they saw flickering on passive sets. Unless they are talking about some other issue that they think is flickering.

jwoodwar · 05-29-2011, 09:49 PM

Alright well I went up to best buy to check out some 3d tvs. Well they had a active and a passive 3d tv up for show. Well I looked at both for about 10 minutes each and here is what I think.

Active: Well active has been known for the glasses being really high in cost. Well now the prices are going down and you can afford it alot more. Well they had avatar 3d showing on a panasonic tv so I was intrested right away. Well as I sat I thought the picture was really nice and the 3d was intresting. But not really amazing. Little thinks would fly off the screen and that would be cool but nothing special. Well I went over to another tv that was showing avatar. Well I took a look at it again and wow did it suck. The brightness was so low and you couldnt even tell if it was 3d. But I have to say that active is really cool for what it is.

Passive. Well the whole reason why I went to best buy was to check out a passive 3d tv. Well as I put on the glasses and started the demo I thought that the depth of the picture was pretty cool. I did notice the lines that everybody was talking about on the forums but as I walked back they soon went away. I didnt notice any ghosting or anything wrong with it. They had Under the sea showing for about 3 minutes. WOW! That was amazing pop out of the tv! I have never seen anything like that. The detail was also really nice if you stay back away from the tv. I also saw a sports clip. Well lets just say I hate sports in HD because it always looks like crap!!!! But the depth was cool.

OVERALL: Overall I have to say it's up to what you think. To me I thought that passive had more depth and felt more like 3d. But active had a better picture quality. I cant wait to pick up a passive 3d set!!!

thebard · 05-29-2011, 11:47 PM

I think for an accurate assessment, you need to view the same (or at least similar) content on both sets.

You already stated that Avatar looked different on the two active sets; of course different content is going to look different! Under the Sea is known for having several "pop-out" scenes (the potato cod, the sea snakes), whereas Avatar has a more subdued, "window on the world" look to it.

Also, how far back did you move to make the lines on the passive set disappear? Do you have that much room in your viewing space at home? Showrooms tend to be bigger than living rooms...

jwoodwar · 05-30-2011, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebard

I think for an accurate assessment, you need to view the same (or at least similar) content on both sets.

You already stated that Avatar looked different on the two active sets; of course different content is going to look different! Under the Sea is known for having several "pop-out" scenes (the potato cod, the sea snakes), whereas Avatar has a more subdued, "window on the world" look to it.

Also, how far back did you move to make the lines on the passive set disappear? Do you have that much room in your viewing space at home? Showrooms tend to be bigger than living rooms...

I have space for a passive 3d tv in my living room. I stood about 6 feet back. Mabye 7 feet to get rid of the lines. Also when the under the sea started I couldnt even see the lines anymore. It's a shame they do not put a 3d movie on the passive set. I would have loved to see avatar or Tangled on the LG. But it was some demo. Under the sea was shot in Imax 3d so that is made for pop-out 3d. But the LG logo had more depth feeling than avatar did on the panasonic. Avatar was cool and all but I just would like to see it on a passive set. Plus the active glasses darkened the picture and I did not like that at all. But the passive kept the brightness right up there! I would like to go back and check out more of the tv's before I make a finale decision. Maybe as someone to put in a movie on the LG to see what it looks like. Maybe that movie will be avatar.

Blu Tiger · 06-16-2011, 06:48 PM

http://3dradar.techradar.com/3d-tech...ght-19-05-2011

john_1958 · 06-16-2011, 08:48 PM

perfer passive because it has no batteries and you don't have to worry
about the glasses

DragosC · 06-16-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu Tiger

http://3dradar.techradar.com/3d-tech...ght-19-05-2011

That is great about Samsung and RealD. I have Samsung active set right now and I really like it. Sometimes it can be a challenge to watch 3D for too long but I never go over an hour without taking off and relaxing my eyes. Passive would be great if it could only be full 1080p..

seregloth · 06-20-2011, 08:48 PM

I was tasked with buying a tv for a communal space at the shelter I work at, and asked my boss to buy the 32" Vizio. I do movie nights every Saturday, and think being able to show them in 3D to the kids staying here will be cool (particularly as I doubt any of their parents can [or should] spring for 3D if they go to the movies at all)- and affordable to outfit with glassses. And it would be safe for the kids, in the ways that my active tv at home is not (to my nieces sorrow).
So I am very happy with the having the option of both out there. I can't imagine that anyone is going to complain about the decreased visual quality given that it is a 32" tv. and the 3D will be more the exception than the rule. Now I just need to start saving my theater glasses. If my boss goes for the tv.

Disco_And · 06-20-2011, 10:52 PM

I have used Active Shutter for about a year and after about an hour or two my eyes would start to hurt from all the flickering

also there was a lot of cross talk on older films and I only had 2 pairs of glasses so I wouldn't like to let the kids use them just in case at £100 a pair here in the UK, but I have just got a LG Passive TV to replace it which came with 7 pairs of glasses and then I got another 5 pairs of LG for only £10 for the kids and there friends "happy days, jump up and down them kids there only £2 a pair"

The only difference in the picture quality from were I'm sat is that the picture is a lot more brighter in 3D than before and now get no cross talk because it's all on the screen at the same time I guess, just looks amazing.
Also now when the sports on in 3D I can also have 11 m8s around to view it too, because of the wide viewing angle and having all the glasses they just have to bring the beers lol Happy days

kopkiwi · 06-27-2011, 11:57 PM

You say 'well' too much.

kopkiwi · 06-28-2011, 12:00 AM

Who would sit close enough to a 55" set to notice the lines on a passive anyway?

Idiocy.

Sanctum3D · 06-28-2011, 03:09 AM

I had active and do found a difference with passive... passive is better. Both have its ups and downs as the technology is still not as accurate, but I prefer the less hassle with passive. The charging glasses and the blinking nonsense..

Cevolution · 06-28-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanctum3D

I had active and do found a difference with passive... passive is better. Both have its ups and downs as the technology is still not as accurate, but I prefer the less hassle with passive. The charging glasses and the blinking nonsense.

I don't know how often u watch stuff in 3d, but it took my active glasses 3-4 months before they needed charging or their batteries replaced (I had both battery and rechargeable active glasses). I was using them quite often and when it did come time to charge them it took less than 2 hours, about the same time as charging my ps3 controllers, which is hardly a hassle. I say took and had because I no longer own my samsung un46c8000 as I sold it and am about to put the money I made from selling it towards a samsung pn59d8000 plasma.

gekke henkie · 06-28-2011, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluflu

study-finds-little

Maybe study a bit harder/longer?
And/or increase the budget?

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

Blu Tiger · 06-29-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kopkiwi

You say 'well' too much.

Hahaha, that's funny. But active 3D technology rules!!!

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.

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

05-29-2011, 09:49 PM	#24
jwoodwar Banned Top contributor Member since:Aug 2009 Location:Cincinnati, OH Home Theater Gallery:1 Blu-ray collection:254 DVD collection:6 Blu-ray reviews: 72 Trading Score:45	What I think of passive and active 3d sets Alright well I went up to best buy to check out some 3d tvs. Well they had a active and a passive 3d tv up for show. Well I looked at both for about 10 minutes each and here is what I think. Active: Well active has been known for the glasses being really high in cost. Well now the prices are going down and you can afford it alot more. Well they had avatar 3d showing on a panasonic tv so I was intrested right away. Well as I sat I thought the picture was really nice and the 3d was intresting. But not really amazing. Little thinks would fly off the screen and that would be cool but nothing special. Well I went over to another tv that was showing avatar. Well I took a look at it again and wow did it suck. The brightness was so low and you couldnt even tell if it was 3d. But I have to say that active is really cool for what it is. Passive. Well the whole reason why I went to best buy was to check out a passive 3d tv. Well as I put on the glasses and started the demo I thought that the depth of the picture was pretty cool. I did notice the lines that everybody was talking about on the forums but as I walked back they soon went away. I didnt notice any ghosting or anything wrong with it. They had Under the sea showing for about 3 minutes. WOW! That was amazing pop out of the tv! I have never seen anything like that. The detail was also really nice if you stay back away from the tv. I also saw a sports clip. Well lets just say I hate sports in HD because it always looks like crap!!!! But the depth was cool. OVERALL: Overall I have to say it's up to what you think. To me I thought that passive had more depth and felt more like 3d. But active had a better picture quality. I cant wait to pick up a passive 3d set!!!

06-16-2011, 06:48 PM	#27
Blu Tiger Special Member Member since:Mar 2007 Location:Denver, CO Blu-ray collection:725 Trading Score:27	Passive glasses for active system being made http://3dradar.techradar.com/3d-tech...ght-19-05-2011

06-16-2011, 08:48 PM	#28
john_1958 Power Member Member since:Mar 2005	passive perfer passive because it has no batteries and you don't have to worry about the glasses

06-20-2011, 10:52 PM	#31
Disco_And Active Member Top contributor Member since:Sep 2007 Location:Bristol, England 4K collection:102 Blu-ray collection:684 Blu-ray reviews: 7	I have used Active Shutter for about a year and after about an hour or two my eyes would start to hurt from all the flickering also there was a lot of cross talk on older films and I only had 2 pairs of glasses so I wouldn't like to let the kids use them just in case at £100 a pair here in the UK, but I have just got a LG Passive TV to replace it which came with 7 pairs of glasses and then I got another 5 pairs of LG for only £10 for the kids and there friends "happy days, jump up and down them kids there only £2 a pair" The only difference in the picture quality from were I'm sat is that the picture is a lot more brighter in 3D than before and now get no cross talk because it's all on the screen at the same time I guess, just looks amazing. Also now when the sports on in 3D I can also have 11 m8s around to view it too, because of the wide viewing angle and having all the glasses they just have to bring the beers lol Happy days Last edited by Disco_And; 06-21-2011 at 05:51 PM.

05-18-2011, 03:49 PM	#21
radagast Blu-ray Samurai Member since:May 2007 Location:Indianapolis	I think it's interesting to see the stances taken on the current passive 3D system, by various TV manufacturers. LG and Vizio have gone whole-hog for passive. Vizio has stopped making active systems. I think LG has, or will stop making active. Phlips is joining them in making passive displays. Sony and Samsung refuse to make them because of their commitment to HD.

05-29-2011, 11:47 PM	#25
thebard Blu-ray Guru Top contributor Member since:Oct 2010 Trading Score:2	I think for an accurate assessment, you need to view the same (or at least similar) content on both sets. You already stated that Avatar looked different on the two active sets; of course different content is going to look different! Under the Sea is known for having several "pop-out" scenes (the potato cod, the sea snakes), whereas Avatar has a more subdued, "window on the world" look to it. Also, how far back did you move to make the lines on the passive set disappear? Do you have that much room in your viewing space at home? Showrooms tend to be bigger than living rooms...

06-20-2011, 08:48 PM	#30
seregloth Special Member Member since:Oct 2010 Location:New England, USA Blu-ray collection:335 DVD collection:49 Digital collection:980 Trading Score:327	I was tasked with buying a tv for a communal space at the shelter I work at, and asked my boss to buy the 32" Vizio. I do movie nights every Saturday, and think being able to show them in 3D to the kids staying here will be cool (particularly as I doubt any of their parents can [or should] spring for 3D if they go to the movies at all)- and affordable to outfit with glassses. And it would be safe for the kids, in the ways that my active tv at home is not (to my nieces sorrow). So I am very happy with the having the option of both out there. I can't imagine that anyone is going to complain about the decreased visual quality given that it is a 32" tv. and the 3D will be more the exception than the rule. Now I just need to start saving my theater glasses. If my boss goes for the tv.

06-27-2011, 11:57 PM	#32
kopkiwi Special Member Member since:Aug 2007 Location:Christchurch, NZ Home Theater Gallery:10 Blu-ray collection:248 Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:2	You say 'well' too much.

06-28-2011, 12:00 AM	#33
kopkiwi Special Member Member since:Aug 2007 Location:Christchurch, NZ Home Theater Gallery:10 Blu-ray collection:248 Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:2	Who would sit close enough to a 55" set to notice the lines on a passive anyway? Idiocy.

06-28-2011, 03:09 AM	#34
Sanctum3D Active Member Member since:Jun 2011 Blu-ray collection:18	I had active and do found a difference with passive... passive is better. Both have its ups and downs as the technology is still not as accurate, but I prefer the less hassle with passive. The charging glasses and the blinking nonsense..

Best 3D Blu-ray Deals