I have a 60 inch samsung plasma active 3D! My friend has a 55 inch LG passive 3D LED! There is no comparison! The active 3D is crystal clear! Full HD super smooth! Active is way more affective! No flicker what so ever! The highest quality picture and the deepest colours! In my eyes there is no competition! Active 3D all the way!👌👌
Three ways of making 3D and all three have their limitations as of today except some are getting better. Read: 1) The worse of all is passive glasses with passive TV, the TV has half the lines in vertical polarization and the other half in horizontal polarization, the lines alternate and then with passive glasses, one eye sees half the lines while the other eye sees the other half. This makes black lines visible unless your screen has a lot of resolution and also the brightness needs to double on the screen so your half images will appear bright enough. The refresh rate here can be normal since the screen simply interpolates 2 frames into one by projecting half of each. 2) Passive glasses with a screen that has a full screen active polarization that can go from vertical to horizontal for the whole screen. This way the screen itself projects a full frame and the polarization filter in the front makes sure to polarize the light in a way that only one of the eyes will see the whole screen while the other doesn't. The good thing about this is that the frame+polarization sync is done by the screen itself eliminating any mismatching sync which will make your eyes hurt (something that happens in the 3rd active shutter many times because of our current technology). The refresh rate needs to be double here since each frame is projected individually. 3) Best and more future proof technology is a normal TV (with high refresh rate obviously) and active shutter glasses that open and close in sync with the screen so each frame is seen by one eye every time. This creates a few problems with today's technology that can easily be fixed in near future. First of all if the sync between the screen and active glasses is not pitch perfect, each eye might catch a glimpse of a frame that is not supposed to do thus creating dizziness. Also the glasses are heavier since they have electronic parts in them which also require a power source so either a battery which makes it even heavier or a cable which makes it less comfortable to move. Attention: This DOESN'T polarize the image of the screen at all, it completely closes the vision in one eye by making a horizontal+vertical polarization of each eye when it needs to not see a frame while opens the other eye to see the frame. The first two options have one negative fact that makes them practically useless... if you tilt your head a little bit sideways and you are no longer in par with the horizon, then your polarization no longer works, you can only see the screen in the right angle otherwise the polarization doesn't work. You need to stand straight, period. The worst case scenario is that you see the screen while tilting your head by 45 degrees, then you see both frames with both eyes at half the brightness and thus you see blur. you practically see it like without the glasses only in half brightness. The active shutter glasses eliminate this because as explained it simply makes each eye totally blind by making the lens pitch black by polarization to itself only. It is not that your eye can't see just that frame... your eye cannot see ANYTHING in front of you when the shutter is closed for that eye. So when the active shutter becomes pitch perfect in sync with the TV and technology allows for them to be super light and have no issues with the power, then 3D becomes the real thing. ~~ In before you compare this to 3D visors that immerse you into it which of course has it current limitations like the weight, the resolution and the fresnel lens physical limitations
Pretty sure 120Hz is the minimum they use for 3DTVs, anything less would look really bad active or passive. That LG monitor uses 240Hz technology and although you would be sitting pretty close to it (usually 6ft is the closest you want to sit for good 3D), It should still give pretty good 3D, better than an active 3D screen would (my sony was 24" and I got WAY too much ghosting sitting close enough to be worth gaming). Those monitors are also supposed to give CRAZY good for 2D image. Go for it!
Excellent presentation showing only the advantages of passive 3D technology without mentioning that there are any fields where active glasses are better. Overall passive wins so far which is why top Sony Tv's are now using LG screens and glasses.
Companies are always full of shit. Just saying what is convenient to sell their products. Few years down the line, LG is using Active in their latest models now lol
Yes that is the difference between active and passive 3D. I still think it's in the eye of the beholder who prefers which of these 2 technologies ; It is a preference rather than one is better than the other.
I have an 119 cm LG 3D TV and these glasses.I always play Dead Space 2 in 3D because not only does it look awesome but this TV makes it brighter then setting the game on the highest brightness(but dark places remain dark).This TV ROCKS!
Hmm... I wonder why they didn't brag about the interlaced resolution. Those black horizontal lines look great and I love how objects appear more jagged too.
What they forgot to mention was that passive 3d cuts the vertical resolution in half and the 2d picture also suffer because of the jagged lines that gives you the 3d effect Also, the vertical viewing angle on passive 3d TVs sucks because your eyes have to be in a vertical 20 degree field, or else you'll see the jagged lines and the 3d effect gets screwed Lastly, Samsung has developed active glasses that weighs 30 grams and if your eyes hurts after a few hours, turn the effect off for å bit
Even in some high-end TV's there will be flickering. But that means your glasses are low of charge. Charge them again and they are good to go. BTW, Active is way way way more better (in fact best) than passive
I disagree with you because they use passive glasses in movie theater because its cheaper but also because its more easy on the eyes. With 240 HZ and 4k TV the passive glasses becomes much better on your eyes and gives less flickering than active.
sexydanny21awesome Really depends on the cinema and the frequency of the active system being used. In Sydney we have not only the largest cinema screen, but the largest 3D displayed image. This is at the IMAX Sydney theatre. The screen is quite overwhelming because it's so large (roughly 3 times higher and 2 times wider than the IMAX digital recommended screen - which in itself is significantly larger than a regular cinema). They use extremely high frequency active glasses and the result is absolutely no headache, no loss of brightness and a very, very smooth image. Actually it's so smooth that there appears to be no perceived loss of quality between a 2D showing. But for a comparison, I watched the same movie (Avatar - very high paced and is a tough movie for 3D cinemas to get right). I watched it in a much smaller IMAX with similar spec active glasses. The result was the same. Picture perfect. I then went to a cinema with lesser spec active glasses. The result was reasonable, but led to headaches. The frequency was at least 1/2 of that of the IMAX screens. Lastly, went to a cinema with passive glasses. The image was much darker than the active images (particularly the IMAX screens). There was no headache, and the glasses were obviously easier to wear (no batteries or extra sensors required), but the image for me was better than the lesser active screen but could not match the image quality of the higher spec active glasses used with IMAX. The IMAX theatre would never consider switching down to a passive lens.
***** _"The IMAX theatre would never consider switching down to a passive lens"_ I don't know about Australia, but IMAX uses passive 3D much more often than active. It's their standard technology since 2010. :) And active 3D usually has a darker image, at least in a cinema, because in cinemas the polarized light (in passive 3D) is overlayed (compared to TVs, where you lose half the brightness through interlacing). But I would say that this shouldn't be an issue in better home systems, at least if they are configured correctly. Mostly it boils down to whether your head can ignore the flickering, where some people experience issues even at higher frequencies - if not, picture quality is better at active 3D.
MyGroo thanks for your reply MrGroo. And I have to admit that since 2010 2 things have occurred. Firstly IMAX in Sydney upgraded their screen in 2010. This means they not only kept the world record largest IMAX 70mm screen, but by upgrading the screen they were also able to claim largest IMAX 3D screen as well. Secondly, they switched to passive. If the biggest IMAX cinema in world switched to passive, then I suppose it says something. I think it comes down to resolution and clarity in the end. Although it cannot be compared with IMAX... I recently tried a 4K TV with passive technology and it made my previous statement about active complete nonsense. But then did a side by side comparison with their 1080 passive and it was terrible compared with the active. Nevertheless technology is moving forward.
Having owned both a Sony 3D tv with active technology, and one of these LGs with passive. I can assure you hands down passive is better. No ghosting, no dimming, the 240hz makes the old 540p scan line issue non existant, no 90 dollar glasses that need charging. Its just all around better technology
@Josechuman Esto de acuerdo contigo, pero hay una pequeña cosa, y esque si existen los tv 3D sin necesidad de gafas, pero sale muy costoso - o mas bien caro-, asi que han regresado unicamente a los que utilizan gafas.. Por tal razon, no es que este de moda, sino que la tecnologia va a pasos agigantados y tenemos que ir al paso de ella para no estancarnos, adicionalmente de que en el mercado no hay mejores ofertas por las que escoger
If only all technology ads were done like this then i think the average person would have half a chance of understanding what sales people were telling them.. apart from that, it made complete sense as to how the product operates... these guys should be doing tech explanation videos on technology works...
good question. could probably be that people really have the biggest issues the bigger are the glasses? I dont know. but this video is not exactly biased, it really pushes ones ideas to far off the track. you re right, one really should go to the shop and check what he prefers.
@encryption Actually, it DOES halve the overall resolution; the polarization filter on the screen only allows each eye to see half of the onscreen pixels. The other half are blocked (but seen by the other eye) That's how it works. If LG produced a screen with twice as many pixels (not cost effective; aka: they DON'T) it would maintain full-res. And despite shutter glasses blocking the light from the shuttered half, the polarization filter does the same thing full-time per-eye.
To sum up, here are the bad things about the two technologies: Active: - Flickering - Expensive, heavy, glasses with battery - Lower maximum framerate (for film you only need 24 FPS and for video 50/60 FPS) Passive: - Half the vertical resolution for each eye - Reduced vertical viewing angle (cross talk increasing outside +/- 15 degrees) From a recent report, the crosstalk was reported as similar and low for both technologies, thogh passive had higher for large verticla viewing angles.
Dudes-- these are the same glasses you get at most movie theaters show 3D movie. They are just lenses that are polarized (each is polarized differently-- to match the video on the screen). Just keep the ones you get at the theater so you can have a whole bunch of spares.
I was convinced on buying the Samsung but the future shop Salesman spent 2 hours showing all the features on both tvs and at the end we were 100% sure we wanted the LG its soo much better. Go with LG and it has 2d to 3d too. 2d to 3d is a feature that allows you to convert any normal 2d movie/cartoon/news and etc to 3d. GO with LG, you wont regret it
Because Active is what they started with initially.....then they spent too much in R&D trying to fix the disadvantages of active tech, like flickering, heavy glasses, battery runs out etc etc. Now after spending so much on R&D they can't just dump active 3D. They have really raised their game in active 3D but viewers still complain because the problems of active 3D is still their for some viewers
In the case of active shutter glasses for each eye reaches the image quality in which it was recorded. There is no question of any loss in quality. The case is complicated, however, in the case of passive glasses where the two differently polarized images are displayed side by side. Unfortunately, in this case we lose the picture quality to each eye, and the signal is at a much lower resolution 1920 x 540 pixels.
which you dont realize if sitting 2+m away. well, i can deal with that. better than changing or fueling glasses all the time. and not forgeting the headaches i get from shutter-glasses. passive is really the way to go.
El otro dia me compré una LG LW5500 y el 3D, las gafas no molestan y el 3D no provoca dolores de cabeza ni mareos, pero lo malo es que la TV tenga que procesar las imagenes, hacerlas transparentes y mezclarlas, hace que el procesador de la TV no de al abasto en videojuegos o en el cursor del ratón, hay INPUT LAG, o sea, un pequeño retraso que hace que los videojuegos en 3D sean injugables
Aún a riesgo de empezar un flame, voy a decir que esto me aprece algo pasajero, y por una razón muy obvia : Hoy en día la evolución de la tecnologia doméstica gira en torno a ser práctica y sencilla, y llevar unas gafas para ver la televisión no es cómodo. Más bien me parece un paso intermedio, ya que el siguiente, por lógica, será "cómo prescindir de las gafas?". Aunque, claro está, esta "moda" está dirigida a consumidores que quieran tener lo último (no digo que sea malo)
@annnnnnnnnnnnas passive doesn't actually drop to an effective 720. it simply interpolarizes the image using a staggered pixel pattern. They actually explain how this works in the video here. maybe pay attention....
@Josechuman en realidad ya se han desarrollado televisores 3D q no necesitan gafas, pero segun los entendidos y expertos en el tema, se obtiene una mejor "ILUSION" de 3d con gafas polarizadas y/o activas, en lo q se ha mejorado bastante es en el desempeño de las gafas polarizadas ya q ahora son casi transparentes y super ligeras ademas de tener un mejor look, en mi opinion sin gafas seria television holografica pero como tu dices por ahora todo es moda jejejee, a ver q inventan despues
after many researches i go for LG LG is the feature 3D tv :) even if is a lower rate than active samsung. the difference is so small that you can not realise.
Yes at half the resolution, i have one, it looks perfectly fine though. in fact i cant tell a difference in quality. i much prefer passive, their is no flicker and it takes much less light.
I use my telly to watch films, not for playing. The games are just drawn pictures. That 3D is enough for me without any additional 3D screen technology. I use a full HD screen for PC games, that's enough. I don't play on any consoles.
Did you experience both technologies in the store? Different viewers have different viewing experience with both technologies. I'm also doing research and narrowed down to LG or Samsung. But I guess experiencing both 3D in the store will help me decide which one is better for me
Passive is used in movie theatres and I love it the glasses are light you forget you have them on its nice and bright you can still see what's going on. Why would you want active. The only difference between active and passive is passive all the 3d is done on the tv its self were active all the 3d is done with the glasses I'd say passive the way to go why why would you want active just because it sounds more cool passive is the norm
+Ryan Scherbluk well you get FULL 1080p with active not half in the cinema it doesnt matter but at home where you sit closer you will notice jaggies in the glasses itself
by the way, why did LG dump active? They must have found passive better for the viewers. And commercials are always biased. Different viewers have different experiences viewing active or passive 3D, one has to experience it in the store before buying to findout which one is more appropriate for him
@PepeGr4 yo compre un monitor LG 3D Cinema, me costo algo de 327 dolares, fue una buena inversion =D puedo ver peliculas normales de los 70 y los convierte a 3D, bueno no tanto pero el 3D se nota.
This is a big lie. Only the active 3D can be fullHD 1080p. The passive 3D lose resolution. The active glasses are comfortable as well. The active glasses are heavier about 10-15g so you don't feel the difference. Those are not few kilos glasses as in the video. Yes they're more expensive, the difference about 5-10 British pounds, not hundreds. The flicker is extremely fast you never notice, you can't (impossible). I have a Samsung PS51E8000 and I tried the 3D, it was amazing. I loving it.
The rainbow effect isn't seen by most poeple , just a small percentage and if you watch 3d it almost completely eliminates it and when they start using the 3 dlp chip system soon it will be 100% gone.
So you don't notice any flicker? And the glasses have rechargeable batteries or the battery has to be replaced. I saw there are two Samsung 3D glasses, One is a $20 looks quite light. The other one looks little bit heavy and it is priced at $50. Do you know the difference, which is better
The only reason people are favoring Passive is because of the price of the glasses....I have bother active and passive TV's and my vote is on the Sony Active....Better all around....
all you numptys saying Active is better cause you are devastated you have waisted your money on it.i have passive and i have watched lots of movies on my bosses active version after every movie on im left with an uncomfortable feeling on my nose because of the weight of the glasses and a splitting headache.passive 3D is still very high quality and realistic if not just as realistic i cant tell the difference apart from i dont have to put up with an annoying flicker from an active pair of glasses
If you want to buy a projector, why not spend the extra money on a 3D screen and go for passive? Passive has both heaper and more comfortable glasses, and for projectors there is no reduction in resolution. Your 4kHz you refer to, i belive is not the actual framerate. The dmd generates shades of colors by pulse modulation, so at the frequency you refer to, 4kHz , you only have 1 bit color depth (ex DLP3000). Con for a 1 chip dlp projector (typical consumer market) is the rainbow effect.
Not really, higher fps has advantage in fast motion scenes. Go check a fast action scene in a high fps tv, it much more clear & smooth. But 60fps makes blurry trails
apparently they already fixed the "half the resolution" issue by sending a 1080i signal to each eye wich gives a 1080p when the brain process the image, but I better make sure about this before buying one because is a lot of money and I want to play mi ps3/360/PC with no problems
They forgot to tell you tho that it cuts the resolution in half to achieve this so your 1080p resiolution is not actully 1080p. its the same kind of tricks that they use for starioscopic screens. I have observed quite some cross talk on display model LG 3d tvs from wall mart. Its nice but like everything else its not perfect. Now if you want a really good 3d experiance, save your money for the optoma hd33/3300 and get a real theater 3d experiance on a 10foot screen for almost the same price.
@LEWIS3845 Wrong on all counts except to a small extent 3d crosstalk but it's gone with good glasses. Refresh rate/"Hz" is irrelevant as long as it's a multiple of the framerate of the material or can sync to it (Multisync). You aren't actually missing out on lines, just per eye you get half the total image, just like with 30p on 60i. It's still all the detail just not all in one chunk. The downsides to shutter 3D are incredible, and I can tell you are covering for buyers remorse.
MyGroo Resolution. Passive 3d shows two screens in one screen. So resolution is halved. Active 3D changes between right and left eye, so you get true 1080P picture.
mrzoya123 That is correct, and is indeed a benefit unless the 1080p comes with an epileptic seizure, which will (I presume) be solved as refresh rates increase over time. As you know, active glasses give full resolution at half the refresh rate, so active 1080p @ 120Hz is actually 1080p @ 60Hz, much like passive 1080p @ 120Hz is actually 720p @ 120Hz. With passive, you lose half the resolution. With active, you lose half the refresh rate - and the whole hardware loop gets much more complicated. All things equal, it really boils down to your subjective feeling: whether the active shutter is noticeable and distracting for you, or not. But I was actually only trying to get the clarification of "ten times better". I am not saying they don't produce a better image (well, in practice, most of active ones I've tried had a noticeably darker image and still noticeable flickering, but YMMV), but the resolution is objectively the only advantage - an important one, but also the only one.
@miguelsaez340 La TV en sistema NTSC muestra imagenes a una velocidad de 29.7 cuadros por segundo aprox, y esto crea la ilusion de movimiento PERO el ojo humano no "lee" a ninguna velocidad determinada, la vista humana no funciona a base de cuadros por segundo, además no existe nada como ojos "profesionales" que vean mas "rapido". Te recomiendo te heches un clavado en wikipedia o alguna otra fuente acerca del tema.
yea,but dose forum cinema use passive 3-d glasses? when i went to watch a movie and put on the 3-d glasses,the image went darker and the glasses were heavy as shit..... although the 3-d effects were still awesome.
They get by at theatres because the the image is produced by LIGHT PROJECTION and not LED/LCD creation like home tv's. And yes, passive glasses cut your tv resolution in half. Matter of fact, passive 3d resolution looks no better on a 4K tv than a 1080 tv. I verified this personally.
I can't use Active 3D glasses. Like many people I wear prescription glasses and no one makes clip on active 3D glasses. My kids wear glasses too. In fact most people do. Even if I had good eyesight, I wouldn't want to exclude any of my family from being able to watch it. Active 3D is just not an option for us.
You guys looking to buy a 3d display should do some research if you are sensitive to 60hz flicker most tv's and computer monitors operate at this if they give you a headache get passive if you don't notice flicker which most people don't get active it has a better picture. Matter of fact I just got back from the store and checked out a Vizio 3d passive tv the 3d compared to my active setup is bad. I can see the black lines "venitian blind effect" and the jaggies and the drop in resolution.
What a load of...... Passive 3d glasses ALSO lower your brightness level because the lenses are (polarized) filters! They look like sunglasses. Funny LG didn't mention that. They also fail to mention that passive cuts your effective picture resolution in half too.
its 720p instead of 1080p ... thats not a big hit besides from that, the glasses are way better and you dont need multiply graphics cards on the pc to play games with polarized technology
Fail....I just watched this with active 3D glasses and didn't notice any of the problems this guy mentioned. Mind you it's just a promo video designed to make those who can't afford active 3D (i'm not judging since I only barely got an active 3D tv) feel better about themselves whilst making LG richer
@Frogmanwildi911 only part true... the eye itself can't catch all frames abbove 48 fps, however things is getting complicated... when the real world is providing your eyes light they come in swarms... a movie is based on a serries of pictures... as you probably know. The camera will only catch a small part of the light takes a break when it changes frame and continues... this means you loose some light which your eyes won't get... your brain sorts it and that can cause a blur.
DLP 3d technology is the best for 3d..no ghosting no crosstalk for active 3d setups LG's sub hd 540 passive 3d doesn't even compare. The DMD dlp chip operates at much higher speeds than lcd,led,plasma. If you want the best quality and can afford glasses buy active.
It damn sure isn't lol had nothing to do with active vs passive. Just so people know active 3D is better than passive 3D. With passive 3D you are not really getting full 1080p resolution. The resolution is cut down in half giving viewers 540p in the left eye and 540p in the right eye to give the so called full 1080p resolution, but it's not so people are losing picture quality that is why you must go with active. With active your getting full 1080p in both the left and right eye.
"Conventional sets show 3D at a mere 60 frames per second while ours is 240fps" Human eyes cannot tell the difference. Our max frame rate per second is about 24 to be fluid motion so that conventional 60fps will look the same as the 240fps to our eyes.
No, doubt the 50$ glasses. Cheap 3D glasses might show a much darker screen and some of the cheap glasses has a very bad quality, like they do so some Full HD movies looks like 720p
Hmmmmm I'm really between an LG 3D tv and a samsung one... LG is passive, samsung is Active. IDK which to pick. My PC monitor is passive (an 23" 3D LG monitor) so I have no Active 3D experience. What do you guys suggest?
