Passive 3D vs. active 3D - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #1 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-08, 01:38 PM Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton, ON.
Posts: 137
Passive 3D vs. active 3D

Hello friends,

I was in Bestbuy few days ago and found LG 3D tv on demo. I learnt from sales rep that LG was using passive 3D technology. Due to passive 3D technology, the glasses are very light and cheaper.

What are your thoughts on new LG 3d (passive) TVs? Is passive 3D is the way to go or no?
I will appreciate your feed back.
rookie8155 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-08, 01:45 PM
Member #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Have you searched the forum as there have been several discussions on the competing types of technology already.

IN a nutshell: Passive use polarized 3D glasses, like the kind found in movie theaters. They are much cheaper and certainly lighter. Active 3D will give you better quality image on a plasma tv. I have never seen 3D on an LCD that didn't have ghosting.
hugh is offline  
post #3 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-08, 01:51 PM Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton, ON.
Posts: 137
Thanks for your reply. I did search forum under 3D or passive 3D but could not find much. But from your reply it appears that plasma is the way to go.
rookie8155 is offline  
post #4 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-08, 01:52 PM
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 181
avengingangel is offline  
post #5 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-08, 01:57 PM Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton, ON.
Posts: 137
avengingange, thanks for providing the study.
Great study and gave me lots of info on the subject now.
rookie8155 is offline  
post #6 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-08, 02:46 PM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 243
I bought one of those LG Passives. While the glasses are cheap, the resolution is halved, thanks to the 3D technology.

Needless to say, that LG went right back, and I bought an active 3D Plasma.
DTVGuy is offline  
post #7 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-08, 04:03 PM
Member #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
That study was with LCD televisions and Active Shutter glasses so I am not surprised at the conclusions. As I noted, I would never watch 3D on LCD. Every one that I have seen to date has significant ghosting
hugh is offline  
post #8 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-11, 10:04 AM
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1
Cool Glasses make a difference

What very few people talk about is that you can do a lot better than just use the cheap flat-lens glasses you get with your passive TV or from the cinema (RealD and Masterimage). Several companies now make much nicer glasses and those with curved lenses and frames realy help reduce reflections in the back of the lens - a real problem with the cheapie flat-lens styles you get in the box. Polaroid Eyewear, Gunnar, Oakley all have nice styles that perform well. Prices range from $30-$100 depending on your taste - sounds a lot but you can use for any passive TV and for cinema 3D (RealD and Masterimage systems).
CJKinUK is offline  
post #9 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-11, 06:57 PM
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 338
I had a C7000 series plasma (2010) and had it replaced yesterday(defective) with a C8000 and boy am I sure a lot happier with Active Shutter than I used to be. The glasses are much lighter, sleeker and cheaper than last year. The basic Bluetooth battery powered glasses for $50 are way more comfortable and smaller than the $179 (back in May) rechargeable IR ones for the C7000. I am not sold on the $80 rechargeable headband type...they are flimsy and awkward, but we'll see. The 3D worked okay on the C7000 but there was some crosstalk and some content was hard to watch...particularly "Wild Ocean" (the beginning Nokia animated short and the motion of the people and birds during the film) and Gears of War 3 (the subtitles really seemed to screw up the 3D image). I tested these out on the C8000 as well as a few parts of "Grand Canyon Adventure" where I noticed ghosting on the 7000 and there was a large improvement.

Another person in my family has an 55" LG passive and it seemed fine (watched part of Tron). I like the glasses, however I still think Plasma has the best picture (and obviously better for motion without having to use frame interpolation). The "half-resolution" argument seems to be mute. I haven't read one review where someone talks about a noticeable difference. I would be more concerned about the viewing angle which is worse with Passive. Active Shutter is 1080p to each eye, whereas Passive is 540p to each eye but still a 1080p picture overall once your brain puts the two images together. I don't think you can say your getting 2x the resolution of 1080p with active shutter though so something isn't logical there.

Samsung PN51D8000 3DTV,Sony BDP-S470 BD,Yamaha HTR-5063 7.1 w/Energy & Precision Acoustics Speakers
WetCardboard is offline  
post #10 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-12, 02:47 PM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 243
I agree on the viewing angle on the LG passive series - one of other reasons why it went back to the store, but it is right there in front of you with the ability to see and make out the scan lines, thanks to it being only 540p. The manufacturer says the exact same thing - 540p+540p=1080p. To the average consumer, it sure sounds right, but to you and me, it's not.
DTVGuy is offline  
post #11 of 11 (permalink) Old 2011-11-12, 10:58 PM
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,122

Much like how interlaced TV sets could display an image that looked "sharper" than a progressive scanned image of the same size or less ...

Case in point ... a 36" CRT tube set handled SD signals better than a smaller 27" LCD display showing things progressive. Usually ... images look better on the smaller set but what is the difference here?

The interlacing.

When presented with images that have a scan line structure that the eye can readily see, the brain actually interpolates a full frame image that is crisper than what is actually displayed. A white wall presented to a test viewing group first as interlaced video and then as progressive video will always have the group claiming the interlaced version is somehow sharper to look at ... more detailed.

The passive displays make up for this missing resolution by taking advantage of the brain interpolation that happens. That actually narrows the resolution/perceived resolution gap. Passive 3D also ends up looking crisper than the Active stuff when both images are set up correctly.

(Of course I just got a massive headache at the 2/3 point of watching a 3D presentation of Captain America on my LG top of the line LED/LCD model from 2010. Active shutters all the way ... and the down side to them.)


Michael @ TLVExperience
ISF/THX Video Systems Instructor
Michael TLV is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome