Why is there a big push in the media for Passive glasses?

3dfanNZ

Active Member
Active v Passive 3D glasses

Every time I check Google news for the latest in 3DTV, it's been full lately of opinion blogs declaring that 'passive glasses have won the war' and 'the world has decided, they want passive' etc.

How can this be, when the only company manufacturing tvs with passive glasses is LG? Their 3Dtvs have shown in reviews to be inferior to the 'big boys' Panasonic and Samsung in both the 2D and 3D arena. The sets are duller, not as much brightness or colour, the passive glasses still have crosstalk issues, the picture is half the resolution and the resulting image is softer - how on earth is an inferior format from only one manufacturer 'winning' a 3D war? Is Charlie Sheen head of their marketing dept?

There's a definite agenda at work here.

It seems that everyone raves about the Panasonics and the Samsungs, not so much about the LGs. See them in a store, the picture is definitely duller. Why the big push for passive glasses? Yes they are cheap, but the picture quality is not as sharp. Yes, you can use the glasses from the cinema, but I found the cinema glasses to provide a very dark and soft image. Avatar in 2D looked clearer, brighter and sharper than when I saw it in 3D.

Even James Cameron is backing the passive glasses - HDTV Magazine - HDTV Expert - James Cameron Says Passive 3D Is ‘Good Enough’ for the Home - something just doesn't sit quite right about the whole thing.

I find it very sad, if there is going to be a widespread push to make an inferior format the dominant one, just like Beta vs VHS all over again. Most of us here would have the active sets, how do you feel about that?
 

Divide by zero

Active Member
If passive glasses are developed to work as well as active then they would get my vote too... at the moment though, they are not as good.
 

golly99

Active Member
I'm firmly behind passive found it brighter,glasses lighter no sync probs, no batteries and to be honest didn't find the drop in res a problem . Most users who have the new lgs set up correctly have not seen any crosstalk unlike the best sets from samsung, panny etc.
 

gtvscott

Active Member
I'm firmly behind passive found it brighter,glasses lighter no sync probs, no batteries and to be honest didn't find the drop in res a problem . Most users who have the new lgs set up correctly have not seen any crosstalk unlike the best sets from samsung, panny etc.

After viewing A VT30 and the passive LG (not sure of model number) today in Richer Sounds I don't know how or where you have got the comment about the crosstalk on the better Panny sets as I could see none and the 3d was certainly superior on the Panasonic.
Granted the glasses are lighter on the LG , but as a glasses wearer I didn't really have a problem using either type
 

golly99

Active Member
Too many other issues with pannys still floating blacks,50hz issue, cost of glasses. Was open to getting active shutter but seeing a few demos and getting real user reviews passive has actually been making 3d enjoyable to watch
 

3dfanNZ

Active Member
If passive glasses are developed to work as well as active then they would get my vote too... at the moment though, they are not as good.

I agree. It's so frustrating to always have people accept things as 'good enough'.

Good to read comments from passive glasses owners. I wish there was a unified solution right from the beginning that had both the high resolution and the convenience factor.
 

zAndy1

Distinguished Member
Just read the comments from the members on here in the lw550t thread in the LG forum e.g. http://www.avforums.com/forums/14642032-post1706.html and http://www.avforums.com/forums/14643036-post1728.html and http://www.avforums.com/forums/14643371-post1729.html . A few of us myself included have dived in ignoring all the ******** being spouted instore about half res etc and you know what, its a revelation. Finally 3d is watchable with no flickering, no eyestrain, no headaches, no crosstalk (well very very rarely), no major loss of brightness when wearing 3d glasses etc. I'm not the only one that would never go back to active in a million years , seriously people need to do themselves a favour and stop listening to the crap that's dished out about passive and see for themselves on a properly setup tv from the right viewing position . It staggers me to be honest that people are prepared to pay £100 for a pair of glasses, complete madness. My daughter had some friends round yesterday to watch a film, they just excitedly took their pick of the different colours from the 5 pairs on offer in the party pack and off they went. I had no concerns about them breaking the glasses like I used to have with active ones cos they're a few quid to replace :) As for the nonsense about passive being duller, how on earth do you work that out? I've had both systems in my home and seen them on display and I found the Panny's in particular to be very dull in comparison. Don't forget with passive both lenses are letting light through at the same time, with active only one is, half the light getting through straightway, coupled with the already brighter LED technology there's no way passive could be described as duller. I could go on all day, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people think passive isnt as good purely cos passive doesn't sound as good as active but believe you me if you're serious about watching 3d at home you owe it to yourself to give it a chance, I think you'll be very glad you did :)
 
Last edited:

3dfanNZ

Active Member
To be fair, I didn't intend this to be a debate between passive and active tech users - I was hoping we could discuss why there's such a push in the tech media for passive when the overwhelming number of sets on the market use active - even LG themselves.

It just seems rather fishy, that's all.
 

vader100

Well-known Member
Screens are not big enough, 47" would be a step down for me.
 

zAndy1

Distinguished Member
Well probably because it's the only way I think that 3D is going to be accepted in the home until we get glasses free 3D. The buzz on the Cinema 3D stand at the Gadget show and the crowds there in comparison to the other stands prove that LG are onto something and I think they've been very clever spotting a gap in the market and going for it with such enthusiasm. When 3D TVs became available there was active and there was passive and naturally just from the words people are going to assume active is better than passive. LG were right to drop the passive word and call it Cinema 3D because it is more comparable with what you get at the cinema and you can use the same glasses and that's a huge plus point for a lot of people. I can't imagine doing what we did yesterday letting my 9yr daughter and her friends watch a 3D movie I'd have been bricking it about them damaging the glasses and having to fork out £60-£100 for a new pair. And trust me the picture is absolutely fine, I watched some of the Legends of The Guardians that they were watching and the 3D effect was stunning and the picture looked fantastic. As far as I'm concerned the passive system has no disadvantages and some considerable advantages over active and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned. I know what happens in stores I've seen it for myself, 'oh you don't want passive it's half the resolution' and display sets being set up so you're too close to them or ridiculously high above them etc etc, none of those are issues in the home, with the proviso you can sit at least 1.5m from the screen but most people should be able to do that fairly comfortably. Active 3D on it's own will not make 3D a mainstream format, Cinema 3D has a chance of doing that because people are happy or happier to wear the same glasses they wear at the cinema, I for one hope LG pull this off and get 3D into more people's homes as it's only going to be of benefit to everyone at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:

zAndy1

Distinguished Member
Screens are not big enough, 47" would be a step down for me.

Errr they do a 55" :rolleyes:

With the £400 cashback and a pricematch the 55" can be had for about £1300 from John Lewis with 5yr warranty, bloody bargain if you ask me
 

VillanJC

Active Member
It's a question that's easily answered.

Passive tech opens the door to the masses. Glasses that cost 2 quid rather than 62 quid.
 

3dfanNZ

Active Member
Hmmm, in that case, it's definitely a matter of 'watch this space'. Will the big guns, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic switch to the passive tech? Or do they have so much invested in active shutter?
 

RiGoRmOrTiS

Active Member
The reason for a push on Passive (from a business standpoint) is because its easier to market and get people buying into 3D. Which at the moment, Hollywood and manufacturers are having trouble doing. Mainly the fault of this is due to cost and the barriers active shutter presents.

If they hope to succeed they need to entice everyone; not just us hard-core AV geeks; they need your everyday joe's pocket change. You'll never ever do that with Active.

First there are health concerns; all of the following are actual eye health issues (confirmed by a number of independent institutes).

Flicker - Epilepsy Issues**; headaches, dizziness in many users.
**active shutter has been known to bring it out in people who have already lived most their lives without experiencing it. The Shuttering effect is that extreme.
Lack of Brightness - Active Shutter has at least one eye closed at all times; then there is a 3rd blank frame inserted after every frame to improve cross talk. When you couple all of that with the LCD screens in the glasses blocking light. You get a dark picture that takes more effort for your eyes to focus on.
Cross-Talk - Some people see it more than others. In fact the better your eyesight the more likely you are to see it. Even the most expensive sets don't eliminate it. Again causing your eyes additional strain.

Then there are the non-health related issues making active shutter unmarketable.

Expensive Glasses - 50-100 Pounds a pair? Really don't need to explain why that's hard to market. The profit margin on this isn't high by industry standards either..
Glasses Need Charging - Even if the costs of the glasses were not an issue; you need to charge them. Once you have more than 2 this becomes a hassle; what if they run out of power mid-movie? These are all things people don't want to consider when enjoying a movie..
Uncomfortable - The glasses have batteries, IR receivers and LCD screens built into them. They are heavy and can be very uncomfortable for people. Yes, there will always be someone who says they are fine; but for most; they are not.
Sync-Issues - Related to the cross-talk point above. Why should the customer need to know how to fix "sync" issues with their glasses? its another barrier for the consumer.
Restrictive Angles - Want to relax and lie on your side while watching a 3D movie? forget it with active shutter. Turn your head; the 3D effect is gone. Viewing angles are very limited along the horizontal as well. Sit close together! :)

Why Passive is a better solution for the market.

No Eye health concerns. More marketable..
No Flicker - No Shutter, No Flicker.
High Brightness - Roughly 2-3x brighter than active shutter. Both eyes are always open; no LCD screens to block light; no blank frames needed to improve crosstalk.
No Cross-Talk - No Shutter effect; both eyes always open; cross-talk is not technically possible in the same way. Cross-talk is only visable at strange vertical angles beyond around 30-35 degrees (this gets better as the screen size increases as well)

and..

Cheap Glasses - £2 a pair... very easy to market.
Comfortable - Glasses have no technology in them; very light, very comfortable. You can even get prescription glasses with the polarisation built in.
Glasses Don't need Charging - Another market barrier removed.
Less Restrictive Angles - The polarised glasses that come with 3DTVs use circular polarisation. This means you could lie on your side; tilt your head etc. and still see the 3D effect. Also the horizontal viewing angles are greatly improved over active shutter; meaning you can fit more people around your TV to enjoy the 3D effect.

Loss of resolution?

Basically; the resolution hit you take with Passive is far far out weighted by a number of other benefits and unless you have your nose pressed against your TV; the loss of resolution isn't so great to bother most people and it's certainly not "half" resolution. 540p per eye when both eyes are open does not directly relate as "half resolution" to a method where 1080p is sent to only one eye at a time (alternating).

Also this sort of techno-babble is right at the bottom of Joe Blogg's list of concerns when buying a 3DTV. He wants the "easiest" solution. and companies want the easiest product to market. Passive is it..

One thing to mention, James Cameron is backing Passive. He isn't daft and there isn't any benefit for him to back the wrong side...
 
Last edited:

J4CK DANIELS

Active Member
It's not difficult for me....

Active glasses give me a headache.
Passive don't....

End of!
:cool:
 

3dfanNZ

Active Member
While I appreciate the points made, my Samsung active glasses have none of what you are describing.
-They are lighter than most sunglasses - they are not bulky, they are comfortable.
-They are very bright, and you can adjust the picture to what you want.
-Because they are bluetooth, they have no sync issues.
-There is no flicker. Have you been basing your information on last year's models?
-There is no crosstalk. Occasionally you pick up a little bit of it but it is really a non-issue.
-I don't lose the 3D effect when I tilt my head on the side - though I know this was an issue with last year's models.

The only concern I have are the 'unseen' health issues. After too much 3d, the eyes can get a bit weirded-out adjusting back to reality. Mind you, I felt the same way after watching Avatar at the cinema, and they used passive glasses. Moral of the story, be careful and enjoy in moderation!

I do think however, that health issues should be a high priority for any manufacturer when it comes to this type of technology, active or passive.
 
Last edited:

panman40

Distinguished Member
If i had to i would rather pay £60 for Passive glasses than go back to active :eek::),

I have had Active for a while now and the switch to Passive is jut a no brainer , it wins hands down for me :smashin:,
All we need now is Plasma Passive :laugh:
 

wignos

Active Member
To be fair, I didn't intend this to be a debate between passive and active tech users - I was hoping we could discuss why there's such a push in the tech media for passive when the overwhelming number of sets on the market use active - even LG themselves.

It just seems rather fishy, that's all.

I believe its all down to the cheap light weight glasses, its a more family orientated way to view 3D. All this without not worrying about batteries running out, glasses syncing with the TV and concern about expensive shutter glasses being broken and lost. I think its also because shutter glasses do cause some people eye problems and of course its relatively new Tech (lg had a passive 3D set in 2010).
 

Nibbo68

Active Member
I can't use active glasses as they give me a headache. I had a Samsung PS51d6900 which I tried using the glasses at home and they flickered like mad, could only manage 15 mins before my head hurt and I thought my brain was going to explode. The set has since been returned due to brightness fluctuations on 2D and I'm eagerly awaiting my LG passive set to be delivered tomorrow so I can watch 3D.
No real argument in my case, it's the only option I can watch. I think many others are in the same position as me.
 

vader100

Well-known Member
Errr they do a 55" :rolleyes:

With the £400 cashback and a pricematch the 55" can be had for about £1300 from John Lewis with 5yr warranty, bloody bargain if you ask me

Do they? Not seen that anywhere, the 47" is being given the big push. Are there any backlight problems? Every LCD I've had suffered backlight bleed.
 
Last edited:

daredevill

Active Member
Just my 2 pence worth, but I have the bluetooth active glasses with my samsung a 2011 model and there is no flicker when watching unless I try and look out the window and then I can sense a bit of it. Last years glasses were quite bad for flicker and synch but that is in the past. Most of my movie watching is done with the curtains shut and a darker room so this eliminates the flicker issue full stop.

I don't want to take a step back 5 years and start viewing non full HD material on my set, I LOVE FULL HD thats why active is for me.
 

zAndy1

Distinguished Member
Do they? Not seen that anywhere, the 47" is being given the big push. Are there any backlight problems? Every LCD I've had suffered backlight bleed.

There are at least 2 or 3 people that have the 55" including Martin (panman40), JL will pricematch Electrocentre for just over £1700 then £400 cashback from Sky :)

http://www.johnlewis.com/231239603/Product.aspx?SearchTerm=55lw550t

You'll have to ask the 55" owners if there are any backlight problems, I'm not gonna say my 47" is perfect but it's better than most of the LCD's I've had (this is an LED edgelit though) and it has a form of local dimming which helps, during normal viewing I have never seen anything of concern
 
Last edited:

zAndy1

Distinguished Member
While I appreciate the points made, my Samsung active glasses have none of what you are describing.
-They are lighter than most sunglasses - they are not bulky, they are comfortable.
-They are very bright, and you can adjust the picture to what you want.
-Because they are bluetooth, they have no sync issues.
-There is no flicker. Have you been basing your information on last year's models?
-There is no crosstalk. Occasionally you pick up a little bit of it but it is really a non-issue.
-I don't lose the 3D effect when I tilt my head on the side - though I know this was an issue with last year's models.

The only concern I have are the 'unseen' health issues. Mind you, I felt the same way after watching Avatar at the cinema, and they used passive glasses. Moral of the story, be careful and enjoy in moderation!

I do think however, that health issues should be a high priority for any manufacturer when it comes to this type of technology, active or passive.

So honestly you can watch 3D in a living room with the curtains open during the day with light coming in from outside and you don't see any flickering? I can say without any hesitation there is no flickering even when looking directly at the window on a sunny day (well there wouldn't be obviously) but I bet the same can't be said of active glasses, this years or last years. That sentence 'After too much 3d, the eyes can get a bit weirded-out adjusting back to reality' is interesting, I felt the same way with the active glasses but not felt anything like that at all with the passive ones.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Movies Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
AV Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
REL Acoustics announces new Serie HT subwoofer trio
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Marantz set to launch new Cinema Series of AV receivers
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
iFi Audio launches NEO Stream music streamer with DAC
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom