[derek500]

According to recent reports, Sony has a grand plan to start rolling out passive 3D television sets.

Some of you might remember that Sony has been especially keen on active 3D sets, as according to the firm, the image was much clearer and the resolution – sharper.

Although the Japanese firm is yet to confirm the news formally, it has been said that it started to feed these passive products into the Chinese market, while Europe has to wait until September to catch a glimpse of the Sony’s offering during the IFA tech show in Germany (Berline).

Noriaki Negishi, Sony Deputy President of Home Entertainment Products, was quoted as saying that while the production team were not too keen on passive 3D solutions as “it had half the resolution of active shutter 3D”, yet consumers were more open to the former.

The news connects the dots and paints a pretty precise picture: active 3D is costlier and therefore cash-strapped consumers reach out to the cheaper passive option.

Sony to rollout passive 3DTvs | 3D TV Watcher

I'm far from 'cash strapped' and chose passive!!

[bonzobanana]

Another nail in the coffin of active shutter. I think Samsung will resist a while longer before they go passive especially as they will have to pay LG money to do so. They'll probably need to see a huge drop in 3D TV sales before they come to their senses and support passive.

For me the choices are passive 3d, active shutter on plasma and finally the option I won't consider which is active shutter on lcd. Just don't see the point of active shutter on LCD sets they seem so expensive yet don't deliver what a plasma 3D tv or passive 3d set can achieve for far less money. You lose the brilliant smooth motion and decent SD performance of plasma or the vibrant, easy on the eyes and super convenience of passive 3d and pay extra for the privilage. Its like the worst of everything in comparison and they want to charge more for it.

[dazza3]

Yes but you do get increased sharpness and resolution over any passive set

[silkyandy x]

Originally Posted by dazza3

Yes but you do get increased sharpness and resolution over any passive set

and don't forget all that lovely cross talk. Motion resolution on active lcds is actually pretty poor as is any lcd. Plasma might have good motion resolution on active, but also has there faults too.

OP is right for me, Passive then plasma active and finally lcd active.

[dazza3]

Apologies I was referring to led. No crosstalk on mine

[blobby109]

I personally prefer passive, I've owned both active & passive and passive Gives me a more all round 3d effect and and there's no dullness like you get with active glasses. I used to own Samsung le46c750 LCD which dont get me wrong was a brilliant tv, picture quality stunning and depth was very nice until I laid my eyes on my brand spanking new LG 3d passive LED tv, a lot would say it was more of a down grade but I prefer it. Easy on my eyes compared to the old active specs, alot brighter screen, no batteries required 3d effect looks incredible but as far as I'm aware correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think passive 3d can run at 1080p when 3d content is in use. Never the less in my eyes passive 3d is the future

[silkyandy x]

Originally Posted by dazza3

Apologies I was referring to led. No crosstalk on mine

There is crosstalk on all actives even plasma but not as bad.

LED/LCD certainly do but you are lucky if you don't see it. I have no choice but to prefer passive (i have both) but my eyes are very sensitive to flicker and crosstalk on active sets.

[bonzobanana]

Originally Posted by dazza3

Yes but you do get increased sharpness and resolution over any passive set

I don't believe thats true. I feel a 1080p passive set offers a resolution at least equal or superior to a 720p active shutter set and isn't there some active shutter lcd based sets that can't offer the full resolution at 1080p because they simply don't have the pixel response time and are effectively lower resolution.

Lets not forget only bluray 3d discs offer double 1080p images to generate that full 3D. Many games consoles and other videos like SBS etc are effectively much less than 1080p anyway i.e. half resolution etc and you are watching lower resolution whatever your display panel. I personally think resolution isn't too big an issue because much of the 3D source material is low resolution anyway.

The point is though if resolution is most important to you then surely plasma is the option to go for and avoid active shutter lcd sets. On a big plasma screen it will be able to handle motion far better and generally give a more enjoyable 3D experience than active shutter lcd. Plasma pixels respond far faster which helps reduce 3D flicker and also for panning shots it will help prevent blurring or judder.

I got a mild headache with active shutter when testing on a lcd set. Actually headache is over stating it, more of a noticable light pressure that something wasn't quite right. It was a slightly unpleasent experience, it seemed to feel better if I concentrated on the main central part of the 3D image. If I tried to take in the whole 3D image it felt uncomfortable. I have no such issues with my 3DS console or viewing a passive 3D set. Passive 3D is incredibly comfortable which to my mind means safe. I still view anaglyph movies and they can make my eyes uncomfortable in a similar way although slightly worse and I don't want to repeat that with active shutter I much prefer passive.

[dazza3]

Originally Posted by silkyandy x

There is crosstalk on all actives even plasma but not as bad.

LED/LCD certainly do but you are lucky if you don't see it. I have no choice but to prefer passive (i have both) but my eyes are very sensitive to flicker and crosstalk on active sets.

That is patently untrue. Such a sweeping statement, there is not crosstalk on all active sets.

I too have both, plus a 3d projector. That's active too and will blow any tv out of the water

I prefer passive for a quick watch, for a film, ignoring projector for a moment, my active tv gives superior results.
I do think passive is a good cheap solution for bedroom tv etc

[dazza3]

Originally Posted by bonzobanana

I don't believe thats true. I feel a 1080p passive set offers a resolution at least equal or superior to a 720p active shutter set and isn't there some active shutter lcd based sets that can't offer the full resolution at 1080p because they simply don't have the pixel response time and are effectively lower resolution.

Lets not forget only bluray 3d discs offer double 1080p images to generate that full 3D. Many games consoles and other videos like SBS etc are effectively much less than 1080p anyway i.e. half resolution etc and you are watching lower resolution whatever your display panel. I personally think resolution isn't too big an issue because much of the 3D source material is low resolution anyway.

The point is though if resolution is most important to you then surely plasma is the option to go for and avoid active shutter lcd sets. On a big plasma screen it will be able to handle motion far better and generally give a more enjoyable 3D experience than active shutter lcd. Plasma pixels respond far faster which helps reduce 3D flicker and also for panning shots it will help prevent blurring or judder.

I got a mild headache with active shutter when testing on a lcd set. Actually headache is over stating it, more of a noticable light pressure that something wasn't quite right. It was a slightly unpleasent experience, it seemed to feel better if I concentrated on the main central part of the 3D image. If I tried to take in the whole 3D image it felt uncomfortable. I have no such issues with my 3DS console or viewing a passive 3D set. Passive 3D is incredibly comfortable which to my mind means safe. I still view anaglyph movies and they can make my eyes uncomfortable in a similar way although slightly worse and I don't want to repeat that with active shutter I much prefer passive.

I couldn't say but I would imagine a 1080 passive would be superior to a 720 active. However they are both inferior to a 1080p active

[bonzobanana]

Originally Posted by dazza3

I couldn't say but I would imagine a 1080 passive would be superior to a 720 active. However they are both inferior to a 1080p active

To be fair you need to state inferior to active shutter 1080p resolution, because thats just about the only way they are superior in practically every other way passive is superior. I personally consider active shutter inferior to passive despite the resolution issue. When I bought my 720p plasma I could have paid £100s more for a 1080p set and direct viewing of such sets at my normal room distance showed I couldn't tell the difference in resolution and went the 720p route.

I would strongly recommend people when viewing 3D sets make sure they test them at normal viewing distances for their living room. You may find in such a situation the advantages of passive become even more obvious. Also in fairness make sure you test both 1080p bluray 3D material and lower resolution 3D material like ps3 games if you intend to play them and 3D files (SBS) etc if you plan to use them. Remember though that Plasmas can look a little dull in brightness in showroom conditions especially doing 3D. They look better in real living rooms. You have to factor that in.

[flippence]

If the majority of your viewing is in 2D. Then active is the way to go. Given that you are not limited, at this time,
to IPS Technology with its inferior black levels and contrast. Also the FPR Film must be a detriment to picture quality in 2D.
The Samsung, according to reviews, has the best 2D LCD picture quality.
Obviously it is horses for courses. I am waiting to see the panasonic Active ET50 as, my priority is Motion Processing at which Panasonic excels IMO.

[silkyandy x]

Originally Posted by dazza3

That is patently untrue. Such a sweeping statement, there is not crosstalk on all active sets.

I too have both, plus a 3d projector. That's active too and will blow any tv out of the water

I prefer passive for a quick watch, for a film, ignoring projector for a moment, my active tv gives superior results.
I do think passive is a good cheap solution for bedroom tv etc

Name me one active model with no crosstalk.

You own an led active with no crosstalk what model is it?

Out of interest what resolution is your 3d projector as I have been looking at them recently.

[silkyandy x]

Originally Posted by flippence

If the majority of your viewing is in 2D. Then active is the way to go. Given that you are not limited, at this time,
to IPS Technology with its inferior black levels and contrast. Also the FPR Film must be a detriment to picture quality in 2D.
The Samsung, according to reviews, has the best 2D LCD picture quality.
Obviously it is horses for courses. I am waiting to see the panasonic Active ET50 as, my priority is Motion Processing at which Panasonic excels IMO.

FPR film does not impact on a 2d picture at normal viewing distances.

IPS has much better contrast but I agree on black levels compared to a panasonic plasma.

Then again if you are viewing in a room with sunlight then maybe the black levels are not an issue and screen brightness might be more important.

People assume that conditions don't play an important factor and just recant titbits of information but there is much more to weigh up. Same with this active vs passive debate.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by derek500

I'm far from 'cash strapped' and chose passive!!

I'm exactly the same.

I was more than happy to pay extra for what I firmly considered to be the more advanced technology.. It might have been a little risky at the time (14 months ago) but has been shown to be a sound investment and I've certainly enjoyed a lot of 3D in the meantime

Originally Posted by dazza3

That is patently untrue. Such a sweeping statement, there is not crosstalk on all active sets.

There IS crosstalk on any 3D TV - just a hell of lot less on passive sets

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist - although I suspect you'd become aware anyway if you watched a lot of 3D on both active and passive.

These things can be measured you know - there's even a thread on the Forum if you want to give it a go.

[SteveCritten]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

I'm exactly the same.


There IS crosstalk on any 3D TV - just a hell of lot less on passive sets

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist - although I suspect you'd become aware anyway if you watched a lot of 3D on both active and passive.

These things can be measured you know - there's even a thread on the Forum if you want to give it a go.

Sorry dazza I have to agree with Jason here there is an article (Jason maybe able to post the link) that says that the eyes could not see the difference between a passive 3D TV and a 1080p active TV. Infact even the professionals mention the lack of crosstalk on passive sets. I have said right from the begining passive was the better technology its just taken the manufacturers longer to realise. But I will be cynical and say they had a plan from the begining!! Sell a load of active sets at inflated prices then market the passive ones as the cheaper alternative as glasses are cheaper

[postmaster]

I have a LED 3D active shutter tv which gives me excellent 3d viewing. Clear, sharp, bright picture with great depth and pop out moments. I have yet to see any crosstalk and have never suffered any ill effects from active shutter technology. Even the cost of the glasses has dropped dramatically since they first went on sale. Active/Passive - in the end its down to personal preference. There is room for both types of technology.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by SteveCritten

But I will be cynical and say they had a plan from the begining!! Sell a load of active sets at inflated prices then market the passive ones as the cheaper alternative as glasses are cheaper

If that's the case it backfired. IMO active shutter technology has instilled all the negativity in the public about 3d. Slowly but surely passive is gaining ground as a comfortable way for prolonged 3d viewing for the majority.

These sort of articles have done a lot to taint non-3d owners' perception.

Sky is to investigate the effects of 3D television, following warnings that it can leave viewers feeling dizzy and nauseous.
Experts have also said that 3D footage can disorientate the brain, causing eye strain and headaches.
Sky launched its first dedicated 3D channel in October. Two months later, a study showed 3D TV can make up to 20 per cent of viewers physically sick.

What an eyesore: Watching Sky 3D TV for hours 'can make viewers feel queasy' | Mail Online

[SteveCritten]

Originally Posted by postmaster

I have a LED 3D active shutter tv which gives me excellent 3d viewing. Clear, sharp, bright picture with great depth and pop out moments. I have yet to see any crosstalk and have never suffered any ill effects from active shutter technology. Even the cost of the glasses has dropped dramatically since they first went on sale. Active/Passive - in the end its down to personal preference. There is room for both types of technology.

LED? are you sure. Do you mean an LED backlit LCD TV?

[flippence]

Originally Posted by SteveCritten

LED? are you sure. Do you mean an LED backlit LCD TV?

Pedantic me thinks. Given that industry uses LED or LCD to differentiate the different backlighting arrangement on LCD Screens.
Just google "LED or LCD TV"

[SteveCritten]

I was just making sure, if it is true LED I would have been interested how good it was to be honest. Regards google that search is dictated by what people view, it is a joe public perception brought on by dodgy industry marketing!!

[postmaster]

My error. Of course should have read LED/LCD 3D tv.

[tpr007]

From my own personal experience with an Active shutter TV is that it's a hassle (and VERY expensive).

You have these expensive glasses, which reduces the number of people who can watch it, and then powering the glasses up/syncing them etc... is an extra step which makes watching 3D a pain in the bum. It's only a few extra seconds but it's a psychological barrier as much as anything.

I'm getting a passive 3d set this week, so I'll see how I get on.

[ArmitageShanks]

Originally Posted by tpr007

You have these expensive glasses, which reduces the number of people who can watch it, and then powering the glasses up/syncing them etc... is an extra step which makes watching 3D a pain in the bum. It's only a few extra seconds but it's a psychological barrier as much as anything.

Aaaah, it depends on the glasses you buy My Samsung glasses auto-power on instantly when picked up or moved, and sync automatically when there's a 3D image onscreen. It's literally as easy as putting on a pair of passive glasses. The only drawback is having to recharge them every few weeks.

Personally I think passive is the way to go, but only if they start producing 2160-line passive displays capable of displaying 1080p in 3D. The current solutions don't cut the mustard with me, so I'll stick with my active plasma for now

[NMF]

Originally Posted by bonzobanana

To be fair you need to state inferior to active shutter 1080p resolution, because thats just about the only way they are superior in practically every other way passive is superior. I personally consider active shutter inferior to passive despite the resolution issue. When I bought my 720p plasma I could have paid £100s more for a 1080p set and direct viewing of such sets at my normal room distance showed I couldn't tell the difference in resolution and went the 720p route.

I

My god you lot still bickering over passive or active?
It's like a playground here sometimes.

Just get the tv you want do not take members words for it here to much bias from one side or the other, check it out yourself.
I find neither better than the other both show 3d thats all you want. Cost of glasses if the tv you like is active will cost more thats it. Simple

[_Ollie_]

Some head honcho at LG said he expects Samsung to be the only brand to be producing active 3D sets before long. I reckon the main issue is that due to expense some sets don't even come with glasses (no Panasonic ones do) which is an absolute joke when you think about it. If you've shelled out for a 3D TV you should be able to view 3D right out of the box.

[bonzobanana]

Originally Posted by NMF

My god you lot still bickering over passive or active?
It's like a playground here sometimes.

Just get the tv you want do not take members words for it here to much bias from one side or the other, check it out yourself.
I find neither better than the other both show 3d thats all you want. Cost of glasses if the tv you like is active will cost more thats it. Simple

Actually your comment seems the more childish and I'm not sure why you have singled out my comment especially as I repeatedly point out the importance of getting a demonstration of each type of 3D system. I myself went in expecting to prefer Active shutter being a a plasma fan and found that passive was the first solid reason to choose LCD/LED over Plasma. So because I was surprised by my own personal preference I keep pushing the importance of trying both systems.

Sadly the choices aren't simple though which is the problem because its really down to which features you are willing to compromise.

[celsius]

[QUOTE=_Ollie_;16643503]Some head honcho at LG said he expects Samsung to be the only brand to be producing active 3D sets before long. QUOTE]
That has been my prdiction for a while.
Passive is the way to go. Manufacurers will accept this trend if they have sense.
Up to now it seems only LG is producing the panels and everyone is buying passive panels from LG.
LG and Samsung have been enemies so there is no way Samsung will buy panels from LG.

[_Ollie_]

Panasonic are already doing it on their budget 3D LED set and I bet it sells very well for them. The fact of the matter is that it's all very well saying one is better than the other but it's what the consumer wants so they all have to fall in line with demand eventually. Panasonic are also now offering bigger LEDS, now all this is despite them continuing to say that bigger TVs should be plasma and that active 3D technology is superior. They all have to look at what's working for their rivals and compete.

[tipster]

I have active shutter
3d and I'm looking to change to passive we font watch much 3d anyway there's 5 of us with 3 sets of glasses passives definately the way to go