• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Has anyone compared active and passive 3D (TV)?

ControlD

ControlD

Diamond Member
Right now we have a 46" Vizio TV being used as our gaming / movie room display. My wife has, since the day I bought it, felt that a bigger TV is needed for movie watching. Who am I to turn down the opportunity to buy a new, bigger TV?

Anyhow, we have collected several 3D BR movies, the family likes watching in 3D, so I want to replace what we have now with another 3D model. It seems that most of the TVs out now are active 3D (mainly Samsung) while my Vizio uses passive 3D. I have never been able to get a good idea how the two compare because the TVs are always in a brightly lit store which makes everything look crappy.

Has anyone been able to compare the two technologies side by side? I'm a little worried the active glasses might cause headaches.
 
I like active 3D more for two reasons:

1. I find I get less headaches than with any passive 3D including the theater (but excluding the Hobbit HFR releases). And 3D gives me headaches quickly normally so this matters to me.

2. Active 3D is full 1080p for each eye, while outside of a few 4K tvs every passive model is 720p in each eye. It makes a real difference as you are basically cutting the quality of that Blu Ray in half.

Passive 3D basically exists because it is the more "kid friendly" 3D option. You can give you kids/guests some cheap polarized lenses instead of expensive 3D glasses that give you an aneurysm if they break. This mattered a little more around the time I got my first 3D tv in 2010 when glasses were $130+ each. Recently I bought some $30 Samsung active glasses that work pretty good, not as good as my $80 Panasonic ones but pretty good.

A big problem with passive 3D, in my opinion, is that the passive TVs available are crappy tvs. You are basically buying a TV for a niche 3D feature that will barely be used in comparison to 2D. That is especially dumb when you consider 3D might be a dying format, with many companies like Vizio dropping 3D completely and focusing on 4K. In fact when you read TV reviews it becomes obvious that TV model after TV model has worse 3D performance than their 2013 counterparts, as if it is not a priority to get it right anymore and it kinda just a checkbox feature. In a few years maybe the 3D Blu Ray market will dry up when 4K disks are offered.

I would first research and get the best TVs out there, and then give a priority to 3D. And I say that as a guy with three 3D tvs bigger than 46 inches. It is fun but kinda like dessert- good 2D performance is the dinner.
 
Last edited:
poofyhairguy said:
I like active 3D more for two reasons:

1. I find I get less headaches than with any passive 3D including the theater (but excluding the Hobbit HFR releases). And 3D gives me headaches quickly normally so this matters to me.

2. Active 3D is full 1080p for each eye, while outside of a few 4K tvs every passive model is 720p in each eye. It makes a real difference as you are basically cutting the quality of that Blu Ray in half.

Passive 3D basically exists because it is the more "kid friendly" 3D option. You can give you kids/guests some cheap polarized lenses instead of expensive 3D glasses that give you an aneurysm if they break. This mattered a little more around the time I got my first 3D tv in 2010 when glasses were $130+ each. Recently I bought some $30 Samsung active glasses that work pretty good, not as good as my $80 Panasonic ones but pretty good.

A big problem with passive 3D, in my opinion, is that the passive TVs available are crappy tvs. You are basically buying a TV for a niche 3D feature that will barely be used in comparison to 2D. That is especially dumb when you consider 3D might be a dying format, with many companies like Vizio dropping 3D completely and focusing on 4K. In fact when you read TV reviews it becomes obvious that TV model after TV model has worse 3D performance than their 2013 counterparts, as if it is not a priority to get it right anymore and it kinda just a checkbox feature. In a few years maybe the 3D Blu Ray market will dry up when 4K disks are offered.

I would first research and get the best TVs out there, and then give a priority to 3D. And I say that as a guy with three 3D tvs bigger than 46 inches. It is fun but kinda like dessert- good 2D performance is the dinner.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

I also feel like 3D is a dying format. It's too bad because we enjoy it, but with 3D BR discs being so expensive I can see why it never really gained any traction.

Still, it's gonna be a deal breaker if I don't have it on this particular TV (the wife has spoken). I should have jumped on one of the Samsungs on sale yesterday.
 
Oh yeah, I am not saying don't get a 3D Tv. I still think the format has value, I love the new How to Train Your Dragon 2 3D Blu Ray. I am just saying I wouldn't buy a passive 3D TV just for the passive 3D, over maybe an active 3D set with much better 2D.
 
I've got a 65" Sammy plasma and active glasses. While I do enjoy watching the occasional 3D flick, I won't watch a blockbuster in 3D, just too distracting. Foreground objects (like a table during a conversation etc..) tend to get all in your face when they have no business taking over a scene.
 
Squeetard said:
I've got a 65" Sammy plasma and active glasses. While I do enjoy watching the occasional 3D flick, I won't watch a blockbuster in 3D, just too distracting. Foreground objects (like a table during a conversation etc..) tend to get all in your face when they have no business taking over a scene.
Click to expand...

I can see what your talking about. I have to admit I am a bit of a sucker for a lot of the animated movies and those seem to work really well in 3D. Even on my passive 3D TV I find many of those movies look better at home than in the theater. Perhaps it is because I can get more of the screen in focus at one time. It seems like in the theaters some things are always blurry. I don't run into that at home.
 
DaveStall said:
I should have jumped on one of the Samsungs on sale yesterday.
Click to expand...

Many of them weren't 3D. This Black Weekend the deals were for 4K tvs. 3D stuff was hard to find.

With that said, Pauls still has the UN55H7150 on sale:

http://www.paulstv.com/led-televisions/samsung-un55h7150-55-full-hd-1080p-led-tv.asp

DaveStall said:
I can see what your talking about. I have to admit I am a bit of a sucker for a lot of the animated movies and those seem to work really well in 3D. Even on my passive 3D TV I find many of those movies look better at home than in the theater. Perhaps it is because I can get more of the screen in focus at one time. It seems like in the theaters some things are always blurry. I don't run into that at home.
Click to expand...

That can be true. 3D in the theater often requires a real complicated setup, with two projectors- one for each eye. I also prefer 3D at home except at two local theaters that are more high-end and do it right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top