4K Passive 3D TVs

loz

Well-known Member
I note that the new wave of ultra-high definition 4K TVs being announced appear to be offering passive 3D, that promises to remove any lingering doubts about the performance of passive 3D

Toshiba 55" to 84" 4K TV range
Toshiba 84in 4K TV product preview - TV - Trusted Reviews

Sony 84" 4K TV
Sony KD-84X9005 84in 4K TV Review - Product Preview
The most jaw-dropping moment of our time with the Sony KD-84X9005 came when Sony demoed the 3D trailer for The Amazing Spiderman. The thing is, the TV uses passive 3D tech rather than the usual (for Sony) active system. But because the TV has a 4K resolution, it can deliver all the traditional passive advantages (greater brightness, richer colours, no flicker, no crosstalk and a less tiring experience) without displaying the traditional disadvantages of visible line structure, jagged edges and a reduced resolution.

There's no overstating how much this improves the 3D experience. In fact, it's so good it suddenly got us interested in 3D again - and believe us when we say that this is no small achievement.
 

Jason Shouler

Novice Member
So does this mean LG have now lost their FPR manufacturing monopoly or have they in fact increased their lead even further by continuing to supply Toshiba - with Sony as a new customer in their ongoing passive bandwagon ?

There's no overstating how much this improves the 3D experience. In fact, it's so good it suddenly got us interested in 3D again
Did anyone ever lose interest :confused:
 

Will21st

Well-known Member
So does this mean LG have now lost their FPR manufacturing monopoly or have they in fact increased their lead even further by continuing to supply Toshiba - with Sony as a new customer in their ongoing passive bandwagon ?

Did anyone ever lose interest :confused:
Maybe they did? I didn't,that's all I know! :)
 

loz

Well-known Member
So does this mean LG have now lost their FPR manufacturing monopoly or have they in fact increased their lead even further by continuing to supply Toshiba - with Sony as a new customer in their ongoing passive bandwagon ?
It was confirmed some time ago that LG were supplying Sony with passive 3D displays. Sony already have LG-based 42" sets on sale in China apparently.

e.g.
LG Supplying Passive 3D Technology to Sony and Panasonic

And I can only assume that Sony's 84" model is using the same panel as LG's 84" as there can't exactly be many people making such beasts!

Perhaps 4K is going to signal a wholesale switch to passive. No one AFAIK as so far demonstrated a 4K TV with active 3D - It may even be that the active switching of so many pixels is a problem, who knows?
 
Last edited:

Jason Shouler

Novice Member
And I can only assume that Sony's 84" model is using the same panel as LG's 84" as there can't exactly be many people making such beasts!
Yes; seems quite remarkable that LG are maintaining their manufacturing monopoly for 4K passive screens too

Perhaps 4K is going to signal a wholesale switch to passive. No one AFAIK as so far demonstrated a 4K TV with active 3D - It may even be that the active switching of so many pixels is a problem, who knows?
I notice, reading your link, that the Samsung RealD Active system looks dead now. IMO this was a stupid concept from the outset since why would anyone think it a good idea to convert a true stereoscopic display system (2k or 4k passive) into a single channel system (with only one eye getting to see an image at any one time).
 
Last edited:

dazza3

Active Member
Except that with passive all 4k will give you from a 3d point of view is what active users have now due to the resolution drop that passive technology dictates
 

loz

Well-known Member
Except that with passive all 4k will give you from a 3d point of view is what active users have now due to the resolution drop that passive technology dictates
Sorry, but irrespective of any arguements about current passive vs active resolution, your statement is still incorrect.
 

Jason Shouler

Novice Member
Except that with passive all 4k will give you from a 3d point of view is what active users have now due to the resolution drop that passive technology dictates
In terms of a broadcast standard then passive will deliver the maximum amount of 3D information it's possible to broadcast - which will always be more than an active system (given the same limitation in bandwidth).

For example:

For current HD bandwidth limitations that equates to:

(540↔1080) x 1920

For a true 4k HD transmission (whenever that might be possible) it becomes:

(1080↔2160) x 3840

(↔ = dynamic resolution variation with image content)

If we keep the discussion to existing 3D blu-rays then the TV will almost certainly have an up-scaling capability which means that aside from the inherent advantages a true stereoscopic display provides, the image will also look sharper (for those determined to look close enough to see any difference) than current active technology can provide.
 

loz

Well-known Member
Would you care to explain?
Because 4k doubles current full HD resolution in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. It is 3840x2160.

Hence, even if you think passive is only half the current full HD vertical resolution (i.e. 1920x540 instead of 1920x1080) then 4K still doubles the horizontal resolution of passive the same as it would active.

So even if the vertical resolution is still halved, a passive 4K set would still give you 3840x1080. i.e. 2x current active 3D Full HD
 

dazza3

Active Member
Granted it will be much improved, but you are missing my point. It will still be an inferior experience to the full 3d 3840 by 2160 pictures that active 4k sets will give

And let's not go down the upscale route here
 

dazza3

Active Member
To recap, the fault seems to be you comparing current active to future passive. You need to compare future p to future a for your statements to have any relevancy
 

loz

Well-known Member
Granted it will be much improved, but you are missing my point. It will still be an inferior experience to the full 3d 3840 by 2160 pictures that active 4k sets will give
Your point was

Except that with passive all 4k will give you from a 3d point of view is what active users have now due to the resolution drop that passive technology dictates
Now, you are moving the goal posts...

Do active users have now full 3d 3840 by 2160?
 

Jason Shouler

Novice Member
Granted it will be much improved, but you are missing my point. It will still be an inferior experience to the full 3d 3840 by 2160 pictures that active 4k sets will give
I most unfortunate turn of phrase when you consider the great majority of existing passive 2K users likely consider their present experience of 3D to be the superior variant (seem to remember LG came back with a figure like 80% although likely a little biased ;))

In any 4k active vs passive showdown then any slight sharpness advantage that active might hold now is driven even further into insignificance. (as display resolution increases then the ability to discern any change in resolution diminishes)

Remember too, this scenario assumes anyone bothers to make a 4K active system ( I think it would be cheap enough to do - but can't see it happening myself) and also assumes a new media standard prevails using the same frame-packed format as existing blu-rays (but 2160 x 3840). If such media isn't available then active tech has no advantage in sharpness at all - theoretical or otherwise - and if we're talking broadcast then passive already has the advantage anyway.


To recap, the fault seems to be you comparing current active to future passive. You need to compare future p to future a for your statements to have any relevancy
From a purely theoretical viewpoint, you can keep increasing the resolution to levels way beyond anything our eyes can resolve and assuming you keep manufacturing 'super blu-rays' to match this super resolution (once again they would have to be in some form of alternate frame format to be relevant - which is not a given) then you could always say "it should look theoretically sharper on the active TV"

If that was the point you were trying to make then I agree with you but it has no relevance to the real world.
 
Last edited:

dazza3

Active Member
As you say we don't known yet. I do hope 4k active sets are made since otherwise there will be no point in ever creating 3d 4k blu rays as there will be no tv available to view it in its native resolution.

No doubt you know a 4k active projector is already available.

It seems what we can agree on is the rather in unenlightening fact that future technology will be better than current :)
 

Jason Shouler

Novice Member
As you say we don't known yet. I do hope 4k active sets are made since otherwise there will be no point in ever creating 3d 4k blu rays as there will be no tv available to view it in its native resolution.
That's actually an interesting point although it has little to do with resolution.

Half the data on existing blu-rays is simply wasted on 2k passives (firmware dependant) and yet they still manage impressive 3D which basically proves this data isn't needed (although it is needed by active systems).

I see no reason why future broadcast and media standards shouldn't converge and if that's the case then active tech and the blu-ray alternate frame formats could simply become a part of history.

...in which case there will indeed be no point in ever creating 3d 4k blu rays in the same form as we have today.... but instead develop a media format perfectly encoded for 4k passive sets.
 
Last edited:

loz

Well-known Member
As you say we don't known yet. I do hope 4k active sets are made since otherwise there will be no point in ever creating 3d 4k blu rays as there will be no tv available to view it in its native resolution.
Samsung have been hawking around a prototype 70" 4K TV that uses active 3D for a couple of years now, and was at IFA again. The difference seems to be that whilst the likes of LG, Sony and Toshiba have announced actual availability for this year of their 84" passive 3D sets, the Samsung is still being shown as a prototype. Though clearly it proves it is possible.

No doubt you know a 4k active projector is already available.
Note there is no resolution drop (theoretical or real) with 4K passive projection as there is no need for a filter over the display.
 

Jason Shouler

Novice Member
Samsung have been hawking around a prototype 70" 4K TV that uses active 3D for a couple of years now, and was at IFA again.
So was that pure active or was it tied in with RealD development ?
 

loz

Well-known Member
So was that pure active or was it tied in with RealD development ?
pass. Details I can find are scarce, other than it does use active shutter glasses.

The issue for Samsung perhaps is finding other TV set manufacturers to share the 4K panel manufacturing costs with.

If Sony and Toshiba are both using LG 4K panels and happy to accept the passive 3D that comes with them, then Samsung may struggle to produce active 4K panels economically.

Though I would be surprised if in time we don't see a mix of active and passive 3d 4K displays as we do today. It is easy to understand why Sony and Toshiba would simply reuse LGs 84" passive panels as who else is making anything that size, and they are not going to make them themselves. And Samsung have nothing to offer either.

But for more conventional sizes - say 50-60" 4K TVs for which there is bound to be a decent market, I can't imagine they will not have a choice of passive LG displays or active Samsung displays.
 
Last edited:

Jason Shouler

Novice Member
Though I would be surprised if in time we don't see a mix of active and passive 3d 4K displays as we do today. It is easy to understand why Sony and Toshiba would simply reuse LGs 84" passive panels as who else is making anything that size, and they are not going to make them themselves. And Samsung have nothing to offer either.
I'm inclined to disagree on that point loz. It's pointless to manufacture a product if you don't have a market for it - and who would ever buy a 4k active shutter system when a 4k passive system is already available - unless of course it was substantially cheaper.

With 2k sets, active manufacturers were able to add 3D fairly cheaply to any existing 2D panel (I'd class that as the main advantage of active tech) and thereby make good in-roads (and profits) within the 3D market place. Remember too, LG were on the back foot during a good part of this period (and indeed still happy to profit from active sales)

With LG having already invested in a production line for 4k 84" FPR screens then this time they are in an extremely dominant position from the outset - and we all know what volume production can do for unit pricing. :)
 

dazza3

Active Member
Why would anyone buy a 4k active system? In order to view 4k 3d material which they can't view in the native resolution on a 4k passive system.

Surely you can't struggle to see this?
 

Jason Shouler

Novice Member
Why would anyone buy a 4k active system? In order to view 4k 3d material which they can't view in the native resolution on a 4k passive system.
As explained previously passive 4k will deliver 2160 x 3840 in 2D and (>1080&#8596;<2160) x 3840 in 3D using pretty much the same bandwidth i.e. it doesn't do alternate frame format.

Thus it can display 4k 3D material in just the same way that current 2k passives can display Full HD 3D material.

When considering the double bandwidth provided by the the 3D blu-ray format then I agree this should give an active display a slight advantage in image sharpness. (it's nonsensical to compare resolution because you can't state what it is when viewed - but you can correctly state the bandwidth difference)

However, I'd be very surprised if it's even possible to notice any difference at sensible viewing distances. Many people consider the difference's on 2k systems as an irrelevance, which few notice anyway, so what on earth do you expect their view to be when viewing a 4k system :rolleyes:

Even assuming one might purchase a set based purely on a theoretical advantage alone - you seriously think they'd settle for all the negatives that go with that purchase. You'd be choosing a single channel display against a true stereoscopic one leading to an inferior viewing experience due to increased cross-talk, flicker and reduced brightness - not to mention the potential headaches that many suffer from.

These are not just my comments but are repeated on the review sites at the start of this thread.
 
Last edited:

loz

Well-known Member
It seems rather myopic :))) to consider only one factor of the viewing experience - theoretical ultimate resolution - as the be all and end all of what makes one system "better" than another.
 

dazza3

Active Member
I give up. You guys consistently choose to misunderstand. If you won't notice the difference in reduction then fine, go with what you think is best.

As you know from my previous posts I have both active and passive sets and side by side the difference is very noticeable. You don't want to accept that, but that's your choice.

I cannot see why anyone would pay, let's face it what will initially be substantial costs for a 4k set and yet not have the highest quality 3d available
 

dazza3

Active Member
However Jasons quote of 'half the data on blu ray is wasted on current passives' sic is a quote we can use time and again whenever anyone asks 'can my passive display full hd 3d'
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Samsung HW-Q950T Soundbar Review, Filmmaker Mode, Disney+ $30 for Mulan, AV news and more

Trending threads

Latest News

John Williams' iconic movie themes get Dolby Atmos treatment
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
NAD launches T 758 V3i surround sound receiver
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky unveils next tranche of HDR content
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Acoustic Energy launches AE520 flagship speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Disney drops all 20th Century Fox branding
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom