[Matt.Wild]

As above?

Or is this simply par the course for passive LEDs/technology?

Thanks peeps in advance!

[scottthehat]

simple answer is not its a downdise of passive 3d.

[loz]

It depends on how you want to measure it?

Do you want to sit and count lines whilst you are watching TV, or do you want to go by what you - the viewer - actually perceives whilst watching TV.

Derek500 provided some good links by way of explanation

Originally Posted by derek500

or for balance this one.

3D TV Display Technology Shoot-Out

or this one which explains how the new algorithm on LG's FPR Cinema 3D sets works.

LG improves 3D picture quality on Cinema 3D TVs - FlatpanelsHD

So technically, yes it might be said passive sets "lose resolution".

But in terms of what the viewer actually perceives, then it isn't fully the case.

[scottthehat]

you can see the difference if panels are side by side and the detail lose is a far bit,
also as you can see in that thread the op cheacked out a few passive and active set and went with active as in his op the passive sets cant touch the active sets.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/3d-tv...questions.html

[Matt.Wild]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

you can see the difference if panels are side by side and the detail lose is a far bit,
also as you can see in that thread the op cheacked out a few passive and active set and went with active as in his op the passive sets cant touch the active sets.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/3d-tv...questions.html

Active is out due to the fact it gives the misses headaches. Altho tempted to get a Sony 46" 723 and tell her to be quiet

Thanks for the links!

[Jason Shouler]

The question as stated is nonsensical unless you add the words "with one eye only" in which case of course you wont see 3D. I'm not aware of any true 3D test cards anyway - which is going to make testing rather difficult.

3D image quality is compromised in any 3D TV although from purely theoretical observation you can make a few deductions:

When watching a blu-ray then passive suffers a bandwidth reduction compared to the better active TVs which you might well expect to show as a greater compromise in image quality (but be prepared for actual observation to counter this view). However, for broadcast material the theoretical advantage falls back to passive although this is purely academic since such a full resolution standard isn't even in use yet.

There a good chance that future passive technology will be based on 2160 line sets (naturally, a lot more expensive). If they did exist then you could quite correctly ask the question "Can you still buy the old passive sets which don't raise the resolution?"

Unless your question is entirely theoretical then the best advice is to use your own eyes for making a decision and largely ignore the theory anyway

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by Matt.Wild

Active is out due to the fact it gives the misses headaches. Altho tempted to get a Sony 46" 723 and tell her to be quiet

Thanks for the links!

is that with the newer blutooth glasses.

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

However, for broadcast material the theoretical advantage falls back to passive although this is purely academic since such a full resolution standard isn't even in use yet.

jason why is this.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

jason why is this.

The proof I did earlier is covered here Scott:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/3d-tv...-standard.html

As said AFAIK it's never been broadcast like this although it's easy to see that it works if you own a passive set.

You might want try it on your active and let me know how it looks as it's always interesting to get different views

[scottthehat]

will have a look abit later, but im not really sure what im suppose to be seeing and why passive has an advantage for tv braodcasts.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

will have a look abit later, but im not really sure what im suppose to be seeing and why passive has an advantage for tv braodcasts.

Well; you wont be able to see what passive owners can see of course but what I really meant was take a look and see if the test card looks half reasonable - since future broadcasts may well be like this.

If you have trouble viewing can you post directly to the thread and I'll try to resolve it.

[scottthehat]

if your on about the first test card i have tried it before in 3d and it looked great.

[scottthehat]

looked at both the clips and they look identical to me, what is it that passive owners see.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

looked at both the clips and they look identical to me, what is it that passive owners see.

That's exactly as it should be for an active set.

With a passive set, the correctly encoded OU sequence looks identical to the first test card (assuming both are viewed in 3D mode).

On your set, were you able to resolve all the horizontal lines of the wire grid OK (like you can on the 1st test card) ?

[scottthehat]

Will double check again tom Jason and get back to you.

[ArmitageShanks]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

simple answer is not its a downdise of passive 3d.

More complicated answer: it's a downside of current passive 3D. With the new quad-HD panels arriving on the scene, it should be possible to do 1080p 3D passively, but so far none of the manufacturers have done this (Toshiba went for a dreadful auto-stereoscopic approach).

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by ArmitageShanks

More complicated answer: it's a downside of current passive 3D. With the new quad-HD panels arriving on the scene, it should be possible to do 1080p 3D passively, but so far none of the manufacturers have done this (Toshiba went for a dreadful auto-stereoscopic approach).

true, but the new gen tvs will be pricy but will be a step up for sure, where as the new 4k active tvs will they upscale 3d to 4k.

[ArmitageShanks]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

true, but the new gen tvs will be pricy but will be a step up for sure, where as the new 4k active tvs will they upscale 3d to 4k.

I don't think upscaling would make a huge amount of visible difference with 1080p material unless they start producing 100-inch screens where the normal HD resolution might start looking slightly ropey. Regardless, upscaling doesn't really buy you any additional picture detail (although it might be perceived that way).

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by ArmitageShanks

With the new quad-HD panels arriving on the scene, it should be possible to do 1080p 3D passively, but so far none of the manufacturers have done this (Toshiba went for a dreadful auto-stereoscopic approach).

Quite agree with AS here

Investing in 3D technology that can't even match that of current passive is madness just for the sake of not having to wear glasses. Surely it would have made more sense to invest in a production line to produce 2160 line polarizers together with the actual screens. That said, apart from poking Samsung in the eye (it would almost certainly kill active technology dead), I'm not sure the market is that big for a product that would by necessity demand a high starting price.

What I'd really like to see is research into plasma passive technology (green considerations withstanding) and general improvements in screen quality so we see 0% problems with banding & DSE. As always, the search for the perfect black level is always welcome too.

[loz]

Well hats off to Toshiba for investing in the research.
But madness to actually bring such a duff product to market that will only give 3D a bad name rather than make it more attractive.

[ArmitageShanks]

I suspect the only 3D technology that will satisfy both image purists and the glasses-free brigade will be some sort of holographic TV.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

you can see the difference if panels are side by side and the detail lose is a far bit...

But you can't compare directly as you need to put on different glasses and adjust your eyesight.

Also, what viewing distance are you comparing at? In normal household set ups the majority of people are going to be viewing from a distance that any difference in resolution (if there is any) will not be noticeable.

[loz]

Having sat at the BBC through formal, controlled side by side comparisons of different HD resolutions, bitrates, and encoding techniques trying to "spot the difference", I can atest to just how difficult it is!

90% of the time when people do this in a shop for example, the actual comparison is probably totally invalid due to the differences in source material, setup, and all sorts of differences that mean it isn't a controlled test.

How often in a shop would you see the same size active and passive displays right next to each other, with exactly the same material, not to mention calibration!
Rarely.

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by derek500

But you can't compare directly as you need to put on different glasses and adjust your eyesight.

Also, what viewing distance are you comparing at? In normal household set ups the majority of people are going to be viewing from a distance that any difference in resolution (if there is any) will not be noticeable.

it like saying you cant see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 60" screen but you can, ok on smaller screens it will be harder but as screens get bigger the diffrence becomes more apparent, even viewing at different distances, its like printing photos large from different resolution cameras the diffrence can be seen easly.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by derek500

Also, what viewing distance are you comparing at?

Originally Posted by scottthehat

it like saying you cant see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 60" screen but you can,.....

I'm sorry but you've completely lost me here

Are telling us you could tell the difference at say 20' ?

Screen resolution is already approaching the point at which the human eye is unable to resolve at accepted viewing conditions. Once this point is achieved then it's entirely pointless to go any further unless really large screens are produced or some complex multi-view technology is implemented.

A further point, often overlooked, if that even assuming one technolgy can produce a sharper image than another when at the very limits of its resolution then such an advantage becomes irrelevant if the material being viewed can't even match the resolution of the display device (as is often the case for example when viewing ITV or BBC HD)

[ArmitageShanks]

Originally Posted by derek500

But you can't compare directly as you need to put on different glasses and adjust your eyesight.

Why not compare the image quality from a 3D BD on the same passive panel in 2D and 3D mode?

With the Samsung 6-series active LCD panels, a lot of people noticed pretty quickly that there was a major drop in resolution when switching from 2D to 3D (this was due to limited processing capability in the panels rather than active tech). I don't think the perceived resolution drop for passive is anything as drastic as the Samsung fiasco, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least noticeable from a few feet away.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by ArmitageShanks

I don't think the perceived resolution drop for passive is anything as drastic as the Samsung fiasco, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least noticeable from a few feet away.

I think "perceived resolution drop" is a good term since a single line can still be resolved however there's no question that a full HD image looks less sharp in 3D than 2D on passive (you only have to wear the glasses to see this).

Does not a similar thing happen with active tech then ?

[flippence]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

What I'd really like to see is research into plasma passive technology (green considerations withstanding) and general improvements in screen quality so we see 0% problems with banding & DSE. As always, the search for the perfect black level is always welcome too.

Do not believe passive will ever be implemented on Plasma. LG have stated that they will not convert plasma due to lower light levels.
I believe, that the Ultra Violet being emitted by plasma screens would degrade the film overlay used for passive by LG. Also that the faster screen response of plasma gives less crosstalk and flicker that was a problem with LED early adopters.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by flippence

Do not believe passive will ever be implemented on Plasma. LG have stated that they will not convert plasma due to lower light levels.
I believe, that the Ultra Violet being emitted by plasma screens would degrade the film overlay used for passive by LG. Also that the faster screen response of plasma gives less crosstalk and flicker that was a problem with LED early adopters.

Have you possibly got a link for that LG statement?

I'd have thought, with passive being the brighter 3D technology, that it would make the perfect match with plasma and of course it has no concerns about image decay (fast or slow).

As you suggest there may well be good reasons why it can't be done but it would certainty be interesting as unexpected benefits might be discovered (or for that matter drawbacks).

[ArmitageShanks]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

I think "perceived resolution drop" is a good term since a single line can still be resolved however there's no question that a full HD image looks less sharp in 3D than 2D on passive (you only have to wear the glasses to see this).

Does not a similar thing happen with active tech then ?

No, if I look at my 59" active plasma at a close distance in terms of resolution and sharpness it looks the same. Slightly more plasma dithering is visible in the colour reproduction (probably due to the boosted brightness levels), but that's really about it.

On an active LCD/LED panel I'd expect similar results (unless it's a Samsung 6-series )