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?
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?