Originally Posted by frenchy2k1
My problem with passive 3D is the loss of resolution, as half of the fields are displayed for each eye.
This is the new interlace.
This is probably quite sufficient for movies, but i'm not sure I would like it for PC usage.
I can read specs all day, but until you put them side by side and see the brighter/crisper/flicker free picture on the passive set you won't understand.
If you want to talk about an interlaced picture or really go retro and see a flicka show, then I'd have to say that active shutter glasses are closer to that. I have loved using active shutter glasses, and watching each generation getting better and better with less noticeable flicker. There is a lot of variation between different active shutter setups and some overcome the dimness better than others. I can tune it out, I can even forget about it, but I'm one of those cursed people who -always- see flicker at 60Hz. That is just not enough per eye. It's tons better than it used to be at 60Hz/eye, but still not quite enough.
This passive set has no flicker. None. Nada. The glasses with this passive set are light enough that you'll completely forget you have them on if you're already used to wearing glasses. The brightness, color saturation, and contrast of the TV completely overcomes the slight tinting the polarized glasses cause.
You're looking at those numbers and you can't quite believe me I'm sure. Been there, done that. You probably can't even detect the flicker on your active setup. If you put the active and passive sets side by side and watch scenes from the same movie, going back and forth between the two you will soon notice that you have just been overcoming that flicker effect. The thing is it's just like overcoming a bad smell. You just get accustomed to it after a while until you take a break and breath a little fresh air for a bit and go back into it. Then you know it's still there.
I know what the specs are and I know what the experience has been for me. Although it seems "unintuitive" (as Roadhog's article said) it's true. Something about the passive system has that analogue feel, like vinyl has that analogue sound. I understand that analogue sound is lossless and it's a poor analogy. I'm just telling you what it felt like to me going from active shutter to passive.
I think that even though we are still watching 24FPS movies and 60FPS games with both 3d techs, I think the brain likes it better when both eyes are seeing those FPS at the same time rather than l/r/l/r/l/r/l/r.
I do miss the rez when 3d gaming
, even though I run with twice the AA, but the feel is still better.
I love it when there are competing technologies, especially when there is room for both because they're compatible! One upping each other with each generation inching closer and closer to that elusive perfection which is just on the horizon.
Maybe active shutter just needs a slightly higher refresh per eye? We're more likely to see if that's the case, now that there is some competition. Then maybe we will see higher res passive or glasses free sets using familiar tech or new tech entirely. It will still be stereo-vision 3d, because that's how we see the world.
Win, win, win.
3d is finally becoming mainstream.
Now I want my fracking holodeck. A flying car might be nice too, but I digress..