3D [video and gaming]

[Fzero]

I want to know a bit more about these 3D tellies.


Specifically, the "passive V active" argument.


Sure some of us here have knowledge even if not owned one themselves, so if you've researched the tech please add your thoughts/comments.


I have been looking at quite a few YT vids the past couple days - generally it seems the majority of people are preferring "passive"


Then I popped into Currys [a popular high street shop in the UK] - the resident expert there was advising "active"


So, obviously still not persuaded which is the better option.


See 2 nice tellies, one Samsung and one LG.


Samsung is active.


LG is passive.


The Samsung I was told is better picture.


The LG though had a couple of great features, namely, Dual Play [allows 2 player gaming with both players getting a full screen] and their Magic Remote, which works a lot like a Wii remote and is far better for navigating the smart apps menu and generally 'all' menus on the telly.


I'm looking if there is any way to use an air-mouse with the Toshiba, to make navigation more like the Magic-Remote on the LG, as clicking the left-cursor ten times to get to the far side of the menu would be a nightmare I imagine - I think this Magic-Remote from LG is a great idea.


My main concern though, and I couldn't tell this in the shop as the glasses were locked down on a pole that only allowed you to move them on the vertical axis ... and I couldn't see anything on YT about this ... are:


- Are there any differences in the viewing angles of passive or active in terms of the horizontal axis?


I believe the active glasses work much better on the vertical axis, as demonstrated in the shop, when you moved up/down with the passive ones the image overlayed/blurred. This did not happen with the active and was a better image, though due to the glasses being on a pole I wasn't actually wearing them, so couldn't determine how [un]comfortable these type are.


Obviously with more than one person watching the telly, you'd not always be in the sweet spot of sitting directly in front of the screen ... so are the passive glasses rubbish when viewing from an angle horizontally, and leave the image blurred?


Anyone know?


Any other comments on 3D tellies welcome too, we might be chipping in for one in the new year.

 

[Monkfish]

I believe the "active 3D" TVs have those glasses with the computer controlled micro-shutters to facilitate the 3D effect. As far as i'm aware, apart from making you look like a bit of a knob, these glasses are also good for that percentage of the population that cant handle passive 3D effects like at the Cinema or on the 3DS. When using the active 3D they can perceive the full 3D effect.


Other than this i'd say 3D is 3D but then i've never been that into new technologies, however regarding your point about passive 3D being rubbish if you're not in the visual "sweet-spot" - As a wheelchar user i'm never in the visual "sweet-spot" when i go to the cinema 90% of the time i'm right on the edge at the back, and i've NEVER had any problems with blurring or lack of 3D effect, even when in a position thats far from optimal viewing conditions.


My guess is that the shop-monkey is trying to sell you something more over-engineered for a higher price when you dont really need it (unless you are one of the percentage that cant deal with passive)

 

[infinity]

My opinion about 3D TV is, you will use it once then the glasses laying around and no one cares about that.


I have a Samsung 3D TV because it was the largest TV that fits in to the cabinet(37") all the other none 3D TVs had bigger borders and then only a 32" would fit, so I purchased the 3D model.


The first reaction to 3D was "wow, 3D" so I bought a 3D Blue Ray it was Tron.


So I watches the movie a while, looked great.


After a while it was a bit boring and i switched to 2D mode, after that I never used the Glasses again.


So, if you don't need a 3D TV because it has something special like the more or less border less Series 7 Samsung I have, don't care about 3D

 

[Fzero]

yeah I did suspect the bloke in shop just tried to sell the more expensive one.


I'm beginning to think though that the passive technology used in cinema is different to that used in passive 3D tellies.. as you say, at the cinema the image is fine, but the screen I see in shop definitely got blurred as I moved up and down the vertical axis.


Either that setup in shop was rigged, to tempt you to buy the active styled one...


Or, it is dif tech to cinema...


Or, it blurs on the vertical axis, as seen in shop, but not on the horizontal, which is the most important as I would be perhaps sat at an angle to the telly but I wouldn't be particularly lower/higher than the screen.


ultimately though, think I agree with you Infinity, it is a novel thing I'd use now and then and mainly would be on 2D.


for this reason I'm thinking the LG is good as I'd probably be on 3D more for gaming than watching 3D films... and then could use the Dual Play feature when have someone to play against

 

[Monkfish]

the passive technology used in the cinema and on the TVs is the same the technology and based on polarised lenses and functions in exactly the same way, i would suspect that it blurs on the vertical axis but it wont on the horizontal. Any vertical movement you make in the cinema would have a negligible effect as its so scaled up that you dont notice. The misses (who works in optics) tells me that you can even get prescription lenses for passive 3D use and if you wear glasses this is a good choice, especially if you're doing a lot of gaming. It's looking like the LG is going to be by far the best choice for you.


oh and the misses also says: "just because passive 3D lenses are polarised this DOES NOT MAKE THEM SUNGLASSES" i think she's used to dealing with barely evolved customers at her work

 

[Asmo]

The active system ideally utilises the full resolution of the display for each frame, rapidly switching between L/R images - the passive ones use a polarising layer that basically splits the resolution of the screen for the L/R images, as it has to display both frames simultaneously with the available resolution - so for full HD stuff the active screens have a big advantage that way, no drop in resolution for 3D material, their 'downside' is that they need a really good refresh rate (getting better all the time) and more expensive glasses. Until 4k sets (with resolution that would make passive 1080p native) arrive at decent prices, I would have to cast my vote for an active setup.


A really good active 3d system has much less 'ghosting' too - that is, less 'bleed' of the opposing eye's image.


Unlike the TVs with polarised setup, in cinemas, the passive system uses alternate full frames for L/R images, polarised appropriately each time by an additional synchronised device, so suffers no drop in res. but the glasses don't blank out the frame for each eye as effectively as the active shutter system can, those type you'd find in 'digital' cinemas, the quality of 3D is noticeably superior, but the semi-industrial strength glasses you have to return later are a bit tiring - home versions are much flimsier.


The performance of an active system should be relatively unaffected by viewing angle any more than normal viewing would be, the passive one depends on the interaction of the polarised glasses with the surface layer of the screen, which could be compromised as you move from the sweet spot.


Pubs & Clubs love the Passive screens because they can afford to lose loads of the cheap glasses.