Again, it comes down on the favour of the passive system except on resolution, which is a feature of the panel and will improve over time, like any technology.
The article I linked to gives the pros and cons of both
"Consider carefully what kind of material you'll be watching in 3D - will it be primarily kiddie fare or more critically demanding material such as sports?
In our tests, Active Shutter 3D consistently offers the highest picture quality. But Passive's lack of clarity must be balanced against the practicality of its inexpensive eyeware.......
If you're still unsure, mull over these three simple rules:
Buy a Passive 3D TV if…
You mainly intend on watching 3D animation movies with your kids.
You want to host 3D sports parties and invite your mates.
If you intend to buy a relatively small 3D TV (42 inches or less).
Buy an Active Shutter 3D TV if…
You're a film fan who wants to see movies in the highest possible resolution.
If you plan on kicking back and watching sports on your own.
If you plan on buying a large screen 3D TV (46 inches or bigger)."
Personally I went for a 50 inch active set, purely for the Full HD resolution which was particularly important to me for watching Blu-rays and playing PS3 games.
Yes, the glasses are expensive, but I've got around that by searching for bargains and buying them a pair at a time. I now have 7 pairs altogether with no big one-off payments, and I have never paid full price anyway. I have 2 pairs still in their boxes. If we need all 7 at once, then I will happily break them out, otherwise they will eventually go on eBay and probably sell for more than i paid, as they are the 2010 IR versions and becoming harder to find in the shops.
The article I linked to gives the pros and cons of both
Precisely. That's why I don't understand Nigels' comment that active-shutter is the superior technology. That's an absolute statement.
It looks like active shutter wins on the feature of best picture quality at the moment, simply because of the resolution and refresh rates of the displays that are currently available. But it loses on practically every other aspect.
If there was ultra-high panel with an ultra-fine grid that could display full HD 3D on large screen with no limitations, then passive would be the easy winner. Certainly, on a smaller screen, passive seems to the superior technology at the moment.
I just searched through some retailer sites and its even more expensive then I expected! I will probably have no choice, but to buy a second-hand one…(pulls hair out)
Precisely. That's why I don't understand Nigels' comment that active-shutter is the superior technology. That's an absolute statement.
It looks like active shutter wins on the feature of best picture quality at the moment, simply because of the resolution and refresh rates of the displays that are currently available. But it loses on practically every other aspect.
If there was ultra-high panel with an ultra-fine grid that could display full HD 3D on large screen with no limitations, then passive would be the easy winner. Certainly, on a smaller screen, passive seems to the superior technology at the moment.
It doesn't matter which is better imo. As long as those with either Passive or Active sets are happy with their choice. We still get to watch the same 3D content whether it be 3D BD or content from SKY or whatever. The TV I have is active 3D but i didn't buy it for that. I bought it because it was the TV I liked. If it had have been Passive then I still would have bought it. I cannot be bothered with the "mine is better than yours argument". Active 3D is better than Passive, Plasma is better than LED blah blah blah. ALL have their pro's and cons. Be happy with what you have !
Practical, affordable glasses-free 3D is the ultimate aim.
In the meantime, Samsung are working with RealD to create active 3DTVs that can be used with passive 3D glasses whilst maintaining a full HD 3D picture. The Active Shutter element will built into the TV itself.
There may well be a price premium on the TV, but it seems like the best of both worlds!
Practical, affordable glasses-free 3D is the ultimate aim.
So a 3DS on a bigger scale then FF. You know, for as much stick as Samsung take for their products. They seem to be leading the charge in TV technology. Always looking to make things better.
Except more advanced. The 3DS has a very limited 3D viewing angle, for a glasses-free 3DTV to be any real use, it needs to work from multiple angles. Apparently Dolby's new tech is vey impressive.
Are those both Plasma and LED screens or the more advanced OLED screens ?. The latter would cost a fortune no doubt and be out of reach for most people.
Are those both Plasma and LED screens or the more advanced OLED screens ?. The latter would cost a fortune no doubt and be out of reach for most people.
Ok, we are straying off topic, but to answer your question I don't think the underlying type of display matters, but it needs to be a quad-HD to carry enough detail to satisfy all 26 3D viewing angles. So yeah, it's gonna be expensive, although probably less than the £7000 Toshiba which only has 8 3D viewing points.
the price for shutter glasses are ridiculous. I don't understand why people are willing to pay such absurd amount of money for such an inconvenient technology. Samsung needs to either start using passive 3D or reduce the cost of active 3D to win their competitors. It's just making other brands like LG look good with their cheap and comfortable 3D glasses.
jacksonpive, I would agree on that... You seem to make a good point with the cost of passive 3D. I'll leave it open as a viable option on my next HDTV purchase.
........ I don't understand why people are willing to pay such absurd amount of money for such an inconvenient technology. Samsung needs to either start using passive 3D.......
Because it gives the best quality (1080p) 3D picture, which passive doesn't. Samsung (and others) are currently developing ways of getting a Full HD 3D picture with passive glasses using either 2k displays or active shutter panels. Once that happens I'd happily wave goodbye to the active glasses.
I don't see the point in complaining about the cost of active 3D glasses. People need to take that into consideration when buying an active 3D set. Most of them come with a pairs included (mine did) and as I have 4 kids, I needed 4 extra pairs. simple. It's worth bearing in mind that you get 2 pairs of glasses when you purchase the "Mega Mind 3D starter pack". which I found to be excellent value.
I don't see the point in complaining about the cost of active 3D glasses. People need to take that into consideration when buying an active 3D set. Most of them come with a pairs included (mine did) and as I have 4 kids, I needed 4 extra pairs. simple. It's worth bearing in mind that you get 2 pairs of glasses when you purchase the "Mega Mind 3D starter pack". which I found to be excellent value.
I think part of the problem is that people don't actually realise that this is something that they can choose. They go into a shop, see 3D TVs, and think that this is what 3D is. (It's like asking for satellite TV and being sold Sky!). At the beginning, there was no choice anyway. Active shutter was the only feasible technology at the time, even though it was cumbersome and expensive, and people just bought it. Even now, I don't think it's pointed out in shops that there's a difference, it's up to the customer to try all the 3D TVs in the shop and come to their own conclusion by trial and error that the active system flickers and has more cumbersome glasses, but they won't see that as an active/passive thing, they'll just think it's a feature of that particular model/brand of TV.
Having checked out active and passive in the shop, I saw no diference in picture quality (from Sky 3D) between the two.
The free, light and batteryless specs decided it for me.:)
Having checked out active and passive in the shop, I saw no diference in picture quality (from Sky 3D) between the two.
The free, light and batteryless specs decided it for me.:)
When I checked out passive 3DTV I could make out jagged edges and horizontal breaks in the picture. The viewing angles were poor too (the 3D effect was lost when standing up*). I'd rather pay for the glasses and get a better picture.
I'll agree that the passive glasses are cheaper, lighter and more practical. But I would never change until they can deliver a full HD picture.
A true case of horses for courses this one I think.
(*i wonder how many people have walked into Curry's, tried 3D and then walked away saying "I can't see any difference" not realising that you really need to be at eye level with a passive TV for it to work properly?)
I didn't compare the two. I read up about active being better PQ wise so decided to get it. I also took extra pairs into consideration and how much they would cost
When I checked out passive 3DTV I could make out jagged edges and horizontal breaks in the picture.
I first tried out an active set in a shop maybe a year ago and decided I didn't like it and it was a bit of a useless fad. The screen was too small (looked like you were viewing a 3D window in the distance rather than being immersed into something), the glasses made everything far too dark and made me feel quite isolated (yes, really!), and there was an annoying flicker like on a 50Hz CRT.
I tried a passive set about 6 months ago and I could see a definite horizontal line structure and the 3D effect wasn't that convincing.
I tried out two 42"-ish passive sets about a fortnight ago (Panasonic and LG I think, although obviously they're the same panel it seems...) and the picture was fantastic. Couldn't tell that it wasn't full HD, couldn't perceive any line structure. And therefore I've suddenly become a fan of 3D, now that the technology has caught up.
PS I was standing up in Currys when I viewed this passive set whereas the TV was about waist-height on a small stand, so I wasn't viewing it at the same level, from about 9' which is the distance I'd be from the TV at home. The 3D effect was stunning.
At least with passive glasses you've got the option of cutting out the lenses to fit as a flap over prescription glasses! And if it comes to that, it should be easy enough for manfacturers to provide clip-on polarised filters. They did it with sunglasses decades ago!
I am a noob when it comes to watching 3D but have done some research. I have bought an Active 3D 46" TV (Sony KDL-46HX853) - the quality is awesome as is the 3D - and eventually bought two pairs of Sony BR-250's as these seemed to be the only 3D glasses which one could wear over your prescription glasses. I watched the Champion's League Final, with extra time and a penalty shoot-out, as did the wife, and by the end the 3D glasses hurt like h**l on the bridge of the nose. Cardboard glasses don't weigh so heavy but I wanted Active 3D. I tried the Sony Titanium ones because these were much lighter (and expensive) but you had great difficulty wearing them over prescription glasses.
Comments
The article I linked to gives the pros and cons of both
"Consider carefully what kind of material you'll be watching in 3D - will it be primarily kiddie fare or more critically demanding material such as sports?
In our tests, Active Shutter 3D consistently offers the highest picture quality. But Passive's lack of clarity must be balanced against the practicality of its inexpensive eyeware.......
If you're still unsure, mull over these three simple rules:
Buy a Passive 3D TV if…
You mainly intend on watching 3D animation movies with your kids.
You want to host 3D sports parties and invite your mates.
If you intend to buy a relatively small 3D TV (42 inches or less).
Buy an Active Shutter 3D TV if…
You're a film fan who wants to see movies in the highest possible resolution.
If you plan on kicking back and watching sports on your own.
If you plan on buying a large screen 3D TV (46 inches or bigger)."
Yes, the glasses are expensive, but I've got around that by searching for bargains and buying them a pair at a time. I now have 7 pairs altogether with no big one-off payments, and I have never paid full price anyway. I have 2 pairs still in their boxes. If we need all 7 at once, then I will happily break them out, otherwise they will eventually go on eBay and probably sell for more than i paid, as they are the 2010 IR versions and becoming harder to find in the shops.
It looks like active shutter wins on the feature of best picture quality at the moment, simply because of the resolution and refresh rates of the displays that are currently available. But it loses on practically every other aspect.
If there was ultra-high panel with an ultra-fine grid that could display full HD 3D on large screen with no limitations, then passive would be the easy winner. Certainly, on a smaller screen, passive seems to the superior technology at the moment.
Thanks for your suggestion, but I think if I start blinking that fast, I might end-up having an epileptic seizure… :eek:
It doesn't matter which is better imo. As long as those with either Passive or Active sets are happy with their choice. We still get to watch the same 3D content whether it be 3D BD or content from SKY or whatever. The TV I have is active 3D but i didn't buy it for that. I bought it because it was the TV I liked. If it had have been Passive then I still would have bought it. I cannot be bothered with the "mine is better than yours argument". Active 3D is better than Passive, Plasma is better than LED blah blah blah. ALL have their pro's and cons. Be happy with what you have !
In the meantime, Samsung are working with RealD to create active 3DTVs that can be used with passive 3D glasses whilst maintaining a full HD 3D picture. The Active Shutter element will built into the TV itself.
There may well be a price premium on the TV, but it seems like the best of both worlds!
Except more advanced. The 3DS has a very limited 3D viewing angle, for a glasses-free 3DTV to be any real use, it needs to work from multiple angles. Apparently Dolby's new tech is vey impressive.
Ok, we are straying off topic, but to answer your question I don't think the underlying type of display matters, but it needs to be a quad-HD to carry enough detail to satisfy all 26 3D viewing angles. So yeah, it's gonna be expensive, although probably less than the £7000 Toshiba which only has 8 3D viewing points.
Sounds impressive though. Best start saving lol
Because it gives the best quality (1080p) 3D picture, which passive doesn't. Samsung (and others) are currently developing ways of getting a Full HD 3D picture with passive glasses using either 2k displays or active shutter panels. Once that happens I'd happily wave goodbye to the active glasses.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/SAMSUNG-SSG-3100GB-XC-Active-Glasses/dp/B0055B5DWY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1337932162&sr=8-3
The free, light and batteryless specs decided it for me.:)
When I checked out passive 3DTV I could make out jagged edges and horizontal breaks in the picture. The viewing angles were poor too (the 3D effect was lost when standing up*). I'd rather pay for the glasses and get a better picture.
I'll agree that the passive glasses are cheaper, lighter and more practical. But I would never change until they can deliver a full HD picture.
A true case of horses for courses this one I think.
(*i wonder how many people have walked into Curry's, tried 3D and then walked away saying "I can't see any difference" not realising that you really need to be at eye level with a passive TV for it to work properly?)
I tried a passive set about 6 months ago and I could see a definite horizontal line structure and the 3D effect wasn't that convincing.
I tried out two 42"-ish passive sets about a fortnight ago (Panasonic and LG I think, although obviously they're the same panel it seems...) and the picture was fantastic. Couldn't tell that it wasn't full HD, couldn't perceive any line structure. And therefore I've suddenly become a fan of 3D, now that the technology has caught up.
PS I was standing up in Currys when I viewed this passive set whereas the TV was about waist-height on a small stand, so I wasn't viewing it at the same level, from about 9' which is the distance I'd be from the TV at home. The 3D effect was stunning.
It's a complete joke that they are not attempting to cater for spectacle wearers
roz
Wearing 3D specs over prescrition specs is not a problem, any more than it was with the old school cardboard versions.:)
I am a noob when it comes to watching 3D but have done some research. I have bought an Active 3D 46" TV (Sony KDL-46HX853) - the quality is awesome as is the 3D - and eventually bought two pairs of Sony BR-250's as these seemed to be the only 3D glasses which one could wear over your prescription glasses. I watched the Champion's League Final, with extra time and a penalty shoot-out, as did the wife, and by the end the 3D glasses hurt like h**l on the bridge of the nose. Cardboard glasses don't weigh so heavy but I wanted Active 3D. I tried the Sony Titanium ones because these were much lighter (and expensive) but you had great difficulty wearing them over prescription glasses.
BTW we do not seem to suffer from any eye-strain