Active vs. Passive 3D–which is better?

I own (as of August 2011) the top end Samsung (active 3D) and top end LG (passive 3D) televisions. Just bought them both this Summer.

The Samsung’s active 3D glasses are state of the art. They use bluetooth and give a stunningly sharp 3D picture.

The LG came with several pair of passive 3D.

Here’s the verdict (and frankly, I can’t imagine any sane person coming to a different conclusion because it’s not a close call): The passive is better – by far.

Yes, the active is slightly sharper. But the fact is, right now anyway, active 3D means 60hz which means flicker. Watching something on active 3D glasses for a length of time is going to give most people a headache. It’s a great demo though.

By contrast, the passive 3D is comfortable.  It’s like watching 3D at the movies.

I don’t really find 3D very compelling anyway – in general. It is, however cool that both sets will convert 2D to 3D and do so quite well – remarkably well. So watching the occasional home movie on either one is nice.  The active 3D is sharper but gives you a headache. The passive is less sharp but comfortable. I’d prefer comfortable.

So there you go. If there’s a future for 3D glasses, and I’m not sure there is, it’s passive.

83,731 views 43 replies
Reply #1 Top

I think if 3D at home has any future, it'll be once someone figures out how to make it work without the glasses.  The 3DS is a brilliant piece of tech, and made me a big fan of the 3D.  If I had to wear glasses, I could see myself simply opting to not view 3D at all.

I didn't realise the sets could convert 2D into 3D though - that's something I'd be interested in.  How does it work?

Reply #2 Top

There are a few things I don't believe in. 3D is one of them. I just don't see it catching on. I think I read a report that said sales of 3D tickets at the movies are on a decline as well. I'll stick to 2D. did I mention 3D gives me a bad headache?

Few other things I don't believe in. Bluray. HD. Spending large amounts of money on useless gear. Another thing. Why pay $8 bucks to see a movie on the silver screen then spend over $30 for the Bluray movie?

Anyhow...

Reply #3 Top

So there you go. If there’s a future for 3D glasses, and I’m not sure there is, it’s passive.

Brad... the future is likely to be glasses-free.

Technology is aiming for the truly 3D television ... no glasses needed at all ...;)

Reply #4 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 2
Few other things I don't believe in. Bluray. HD. Spending large amounts of money on useless gear. Another thing. Why pay $8 bucks to see a movie on the silver screen then spend over $30 for the Bluray movie?

Anyhow...

I bet you're still using VHS. ;)

Reply #5 Top

Quoting CarGuy1, reply 4
I bet you're still using VHS.

When Beta was the industry standard ...;)

Reply #6 Top

No - standard DVD player and old school television that still has a crisp nice picture. I've had people show me HD compared to standard TV. I see very little difference other than the price to upgrade to all the latest gear and a huge bill for HD programming. I'm happy with what I have.

Reply #7 Top

Honestly, I wish this whole 3D movie thing would hurry up and vanish. :)

 

Reply #8 Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 1
I think if 3D at home has any future, it'll be once someone figures out how to make it work without the glasses.  The 3DS is a brilliant piece of tech, and made me a big fan of the 3D.  If I had to wear glasses, I could see myself simply opting to not view 3D at all.

The usage so far suggests that most people actually turn the 3d off on the 3DS and leave it off because it doesn't work unless you're perfectly stationary. So you can't use it if you're playing on say a bus/car/airplane, or are a fidgety person, or you need something resembling decent battery life (it helps a bit there at least, but the 3DS battery is a sad joke).

Glasses-free 3d TV doesn't work because the viewing angle is so small to get the effect properly. You can't have your friends over to watch something because they all have to crowd around in the small viewing angle. It's an impressive tech demo, and not practical at all in real life.

 

I'm with Island Dog. I can't stand 3d movies because of what they do to my eyes, and the sooner this whole fad goes away the better.

Reply #9 Top

I buy BlueRays at $9.99 or less or I buy the combo 3D/Blueray/digital.  I don't get headaches watching my active 3DTV.  Mine is a Sony.  Bet Brad bought the Samsung 59", almost bought that one.

Reply #10 Top

The third deminsion is a waste until it is a hologram that gives surround imagery.

Blu-ray on the otherhand has practical applications: namely cheap, long term, bulk storage. Not to mention it involves advances in laser tech which is always good.

Reply #11 Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 8
Glasses-free 3d TV doesn't work because the viewing angle is so small to get the effect properly. You can't have your friends over to watch something because they all have to crowd around in the small viewing angle. It's an impressive tech demo, and not practical at all in real life.

Yet.

Reply #12 Top

WOM - Even a 10 dollar Bluray costs more than admission to see the original movie on the big screen.

Quoting Gwenio1, reply 10
Blu-ray on the otherhand has practical applications: namely cheap, long term, bulk storage. Not to mention it involves advances in laser tech which is always good.

External hard drives are a better choice. Bluray burners are still quite expensive.

Reply #13 Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 11

Quoting Tridus, reply 8Glasses-free 3d TV doesn't work because the viewing angle is so small to get the effect properly. You can't have your friends over to watch something because they all have to crowd around in the small viewing angle. It's an impressive tech demo, and not practical at all in real life.

Yet.

Well, let me know when they have something that works as well as my 2d TV from anywhere in the room and doesn't make me want to sit in a pitch dark room for hours afterwards until the headache subsides. What they have right now is nowhere near there.

Reply #14 Top

WOM - Even a 10 dollar Bluray costs more than admission to see the original movie on the big screen.

Ah, but lets not loose sight of the fact that you can get popcorn for $1 a bag, soda for $1.25 a 2 litter, candy for $1 for 2 and the most comfortable seats in town. Not to mention privacy, movie extras, the ability to skip the ads, to pause to use the restroom and to watch it any time you want and as many times you want. The way i see it, $9.99 is a bargain, especially when it's a kids movie that your kids need to watch several times a day everyday.

Reply #15 Top

Dam, Joeuser and Google Chrome are definitely like oil and water.

Reply #16 Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 3
Technology is aiming for the truly 3D television ... no glasses needed at all ...

I'll wait for that technology.

Reply #17 Top

I wish I had the time, and \ or money to worry about this.

Reply #18 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 12
External hard drives are a better choice. Bluray burners are still quite expensive.

You are thinking short term storage. I am talking about for archiving things forever.

And from a quick look at Newegg Blu-Ray discs are better priced for the capacity they provide. Which in the long run (or if you are archiving lots of data) will make Blu-Ray cheaper. Plus the failure rate of discs is likely to be much lower than that of drives.

For normal users backup needs Blu-Ray is not the best choice, but it does have its place.

Reply #19 Top

I believe the plan is to end up with a passive, glasses free system which will be double the resolution we have now. You'll of course need a New t.v. and a New DVD player.

Reply #20 Top

I find few things more amusing than people getting 3d tv's to watch skewed images of 3d objects just to give themselves a headache faking abnormal scene depth.

Reply #21 Top

Quoting kona0197, reply 2
Few other things I don't believe in. Bluray. HD.

Ahahaha, you don't believe in HD?  Do you believe in the wheel or do you not want that either?

Reply #22 Top

Quoting Gwenio1, reply 18

Quoting kona0197, reply 12External hard drives are a better choice. Bluray burners are still quite expensive.

You are thinking short term storage. I am talking about for archiving things forever.

And from a quick look at Newegg Blu-Ray discs are better priced for the capacity they provide. Which in the long run (or if you are archiving lots of data) will make Blu-Ray cheaper. Plus the failure rate of discs is likely to be much lower than that of drives.

For normal users backup needs Blu-Ray is not the best choice, but it does have its place.

Blu-ray disks (like all burned media) have a shelf-life. It's not a "forever" solution.

Reply #23 Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 22
Blu-ray disks (like all burned media) have a shelf-life. It's not a "forever" solution.

Exactly....

....and the 'failure rate of drives' won't apply if they are a pure storage medium...not used daily as in a system drive.

I'd expect a HD to have a FAR longer shelf life than a piece of 'photo-etched' plastic...;)

Reply #24 Top

Considering solid state drives can have somewhere between ~230-4000+ years "between failures", I'd say Blu Ray probably won't be replacing hard drives for outright storage anytime soon. I mean, the entirety of the data is exposed on a disc. At some point in time, you have to move it from storage to player, and something can happen (or a 3 yo can simply walk by and it becomes a new coaster).

 

Regarding 3D... it's always seemed like the movies are doing it to draw an audience specifically for the novelty. It often adds absolutely nothing to the story or experience other than "wow, it's 3D".

The only two movies that I felt did fairly well were Aliens vs Monsters, and Tron. Both had reasons for it (one was about emphasizing the different sizes involved, and the other spent most of the time in a video game), and they flowed very nicely. Neither were "too" blunt about it (although the first time it shows up, they make sure you are aware of it).

Most movies just use the 3-D for a new way to pull a Scare Chord on the viewers. Way too gimmicky.

Reply #25 Top

I like 3D movies

and it does mater if you buy just the regular movie ticket or Fork & Screen or Cinema Suites the 3D is better in them  and their is 2 types they offer

RealD 3D and  IMAX 3D 

Quoting kona0197, reply 6
No - standard DVD player and old school television that still has a crisp nice picture. I've had people show me HD compared to standard TV. I see very little difference other than the price to upgrade to all the latest gear and a huge bill for HD programming. I'm happy with what I have.

Question have you ever see the new TV show (covert affairs) on USA If you have cool but now go to a friends/Family who has HD 1080p lower ones might work

and you will see the Mustache the leading female has... ok black peach fuzz ... My brother did not believe me tell he watched it at my house cause he as the antique TV.. 

I can say I don't like the digital signal over the analog signal ... seems to me the digital messes up a lot more frequently like all most every show.. 

 

I like blue-ray well it's ok  I don't like that it take long for it to read the disk.. as in movies    

 

oh edit  I have cable and they don't charge any more for HD programing  but most of the time I don't watch the HD cause some of them want to make my 52" screen to a 32" which is STUPID  Fill my hole screen up you damn TV show makers.. If I wanted a 32" I would have got a 32"  so basically if you got a 32" you'll get 12" view +/-

yes I know I can hit the zoom button or every it's call..