Why Passive 3D > Active 3D

[Roadhog]

http://www.extremetech.com/electroni...-passive-3d-tv

Also disproves the common myth of passive only has half resolution.

Next, while tackling the topic of whether FPR’s “half-resolution” passive 3D provides lower-quality imagery than active 3D, Soneira discovered a surprising result: despite using “just” 540 horizontal lines for each eye, passive 3D still provided “full 1080p” resolution — and better yet, rather unintuitively, passive 3D produces sharper images than active 3D. Soneira gives a complex explanation for why this is so, but it basically boils down to a neurological process called image fusion, or, in other words, “active 3D TVs might sound like they have higher specs, but in practical use, our brains prefer passive 3D.”

[zoomy942]

I'd say

No 3D > 3D

[newparad1gm]

From the article that this one is referencing for the image fusion (http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_Sho....htm#Imaging): "So as long as the viewing distance is sufficient so that the raster lines are not visually resolved (for 20/20 vision the visual resolution is 1 arc min, which corresponds to 6.1 feet for a 47 inch TV) the brain should fuse the images from the right and left eyes into a single full 1080p resolution 3D image."

That's fine for watching movies and such, but I sit very close to my HDTV (~4 feet away on a 42") and my 3D monitors when I game, so I would definitely notice the gaps between the lines for each eye. And I'm also not viewing my monitors from crazy angles when I game either. So I would say for movie watching and such, a passive 3D screen would be better, but until they make a passive 3D screen that does not have to split the resolution lines to render left and right images, I'll stick with active 3D for gaming for now.

[Roadhog]

you sit 4ft away from a 42" tv.. O_O

[Rakeesh]

Originally Posted by Roadhog

http://www.extremetech.com/electroni...-passive-3d-tv

Also disproves the common myth of passive only has half resolution.

Passive 3D is fully capable of 1080p in each eye, but the current LG implementation does indeed only do half of that.

Me personally, I'll never buy an active 3D set. I just hate the idea of wearing those heavy goggles that require batteries and a constant LOS to the TV.

If anybody ever comes out with a TV that does full resolution in both eyes, as well as circular polarization rather than linear, I'd consider getting one. Other than that, I'm not interested in 3D.

EDIT: here you go:

http://www.hdwars.com/news/2011/05/s...-glasses-tech/

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/RealD-3D...news-8097.html

[Rakeesh]

Originally Posted by Roadhog

you sit 4ft away from a 42" tv.. O_O

I sit about that far away from my 46" monitor/tv.

[EciDemon]

last week when i was shopping for new speakers and sub me and my friend tried out passive 3d tv at the store, it was quite good i must say, way better then i thought it would be. I use normal glasses and it was no problem wearing the polarized glasses on top.

The 3d effects in the running demos was quite good, they showed both in game and some movie trailers.

EDIT:
Another cool thing you can do with passive 3d tv's and gaming.

Say you wanna play split screen. and the game is split up and down. Then set the tv source image to up and down, take two pairs of spare passive glasses and put two right lenses in one pair of glasses and the left lenses in the other pair, and presto, now you both of you will each have a full screen to game on

[PiXeL67]

All marketing hype AND short sighted IMHO. Lets change perspective a bit and focus on NOW and FUTURE...

Now: Active has a clear advantage in the home due to crosstalk rejection and artifact reduction, especially when teamed up with a DLP Projector. I have had ghost free 3D for years now with Optoma X2, Samsung DLP HDTV, and now Pro350w. I sat on the sidelines watching the whole IZ3D "new glasses" vs 3DVision debate and could only shake my head. The argument was always around "I don't want to wear dorky glasses while sitting in a dark room alone" rather than which solution provided the best end user experience. It boggles my mind why someone would accept inferior image quality. The industry chose active, for now, because it represents the best end user experience. They realized they weren't trying to make people look cool, they were trying to bring out a technology and give it the best chance of survival in a market of non believers. Consider Zoomy's reply of "No3D>3D" as a prime example of someone who likely had a bad experience with 3D or only has one eye.


Future: I think combining the technologies is a great idea and one that has already been done in the projector market. If it gets rid of any remaining artifacts and provides a more rock solid picture then great! BUT... it is not available now and we can't compare them and judge image quality. I would want to see it in the market first and see the industry adopt it. On partial resolution, you might not notice it at a distance, but i sure did notice the checkerboard pattern of my Samsung HDTV especially on thin objects like chain link fences. Let superior image quality continue to win over vanity and i will continue to be a very content 3D consumer, regardless of the type of apparatus i have to wear to obtain it.

[PiXeL67]

Originally Posted by EciDemon

EDIT:
Another cool thing you can do with passive 3d tv's and gaming.

Say you wanna play split screen. and the game is split up and down. Then set the tv source image to up and down, take two pairs of spare passive glasses and put two right lenses in one pair of glasses and the left lenses in the other pair, and presto, now you both of you will each have a full screen to game on

That is cool. Samsung had this capability years ago with active glasses and PC but it never caught on. I can't recall the marketing name they gave it but it basically accomplished the same thing. Sony is using the same technology with their new 3DTV for the Playstation. They display 2D views at 60hz each i believe.

Originally Posted by DarthBeavis

Not sure about the passive half-res issue but I do know NVIDIA's 3dTVPlay is limited in resolution due to HDMI specifications which allow 720/60 or 1080p/24 but not 1080p/60 at least at least that is how it was explained to me. for gaming you need 60 frames per second for smooth gameplay.

I switched my gaming monitor from a 60" Mitsu 3d DLP to three 23" Alienware 3d monitors in 3d Surround. My next 3d purchase will be a projector though I am hoping for 1080p versions to become feasible in terms of pricing

Nice Upgrade! I have considered adding two more projectors but it is quite a project to undertake. The projectors are the easier part and would probably cost me another 800, but it is the projection surface and seams between the projected images that is keeping me from making the jump.

[EciDemon]

Oh yeah, the ps tv. I'm considering buying that one when it's released, but will it also work with pc gaming though?