Passive 3DTV Brain Perception - An Excuse for Technical Limi

I see your point, it has gotten ugly with the mud slinging between LG and Samsung. However, the public seems to not really care about 3D either way. I love 3D, though I'm on the passive bandwagon, I see it's potential. I don't see it going anywhere with cable or satellite providers offering regular shows and sports in 3D. Though blu-ray movies are better, the real aim should be focused more on video games. Passive does give you half the resolution but like you said the untrained average consumer wouldn't be able to notice. Well this is exactly why LG has a better product for consumers. It offers hassle free, comfortable, affordable 3D, that can be viewed in any light. LG's target market is the average consumers which there are a lot more of then the tech savvy consumers. Also you didn't mention LG Cinema 3D TV's ability to perform (Dual Play). This allows two people to view two separate 2D full screen images while playing video games. All passive 3D TVs can do this with a simple modification to your passive 3D glasses. (2 left lenses on one pair and 2 right on the other) Passive 3D TV is just better, maybe not in 3D resolution, but in everything else. It seems as though active 3D may have some technical limitations as well.

Here is a couple of videos to show you what I'm saying
LG's [Dual Play] (1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjFtNsjrZZs
Vizio's [Versus] (2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo

memofo,

As I said before, I have no objection to considering 3DTV passive technology as an alternative to other parallel technologies such as auto-stereoscopic and active-shutter glasses. I do have an objection in naming passive technology as “the best” when not all the criteria to qualify for “the best” is met, especially resolution and image quality, but also limited angle of view, which affects color, contrast and brightness depending where the viewer sits, not to mention a 540 black line FPR structure that can be easily perceived and disrupts the 3D viewing at normal distances, to mention a few.

As an alternative technology, passive 3DTV offers choice and should be welcomed as such, like any technology of any product that serves a purpose for certain needs, such as your need of dual view for video games, or flicker issues, or glasses cost (although not display device cost).

The capability of dual view has been implemented in the past by autostereoscopic in cars for driver and passenger to see their own content, and as long as the display device is capable to show two distinct images with the proper content even active-shutter glasses technology should be able to do it by synchronizing the 3D glasses to view only the left or right images by both eyes using speed rather than polarization, in this case with a benefit over the passive method because the left or right gamer should be able to see their own 2D image fully resolved at 1080p/60fps, not at only 540p/60fps, and image quality is a key element on video games.

I am glad you are enjoying your choice of passive technology, that is and should be the purpose of alternative technologies. I hope that one day you would not regret your choice when not able to see the full resolution of today's 3D Blu-ray on your non-upgradable passive 3DTV display because it only shows half of the original 3D image until the day of replacing it.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Thanks for the response! Your absolutely right you do get half the resolution with the passive (dual play) technology, but it's available now for all the passive 3DTVs. Yet, if you have an active shutter system you have to tinker with your expensive glasses possibly breaking them to get this to work in this way.

Sony came up with this idea for their new Play Station 24" 3DTV. But to making active (Dual Play) type glasses that sync with all of their current and previous models would be needed to compensate for what Passive TVs can already do. Yes, with the active you would see full 1080 HD, but do you think Sony will spend the money to make compatible (dual play) type active glasses for all their recent and previous 3D TV models? The most likely answer is no. That's why they came up with the new Play Station TV that offers this technology in the first place.

All 3D TVs can do this but with active it takes more effort to achieve the result because of the electronics of the glasses and the syncing issues of different makes and models. Sony would rather sell you a new TV then upgrade your old one, even though your old TV is just as capable. They have proven that this is their intention with the release of the new Play Station TV. The thing is just 24" and this is the only active 3D TV that has this technology without damaging your active glasses.

Also i think your wrong about the actives viewing angle advantages. Passive's horizontal viewing angles advantage is far more important then active's vertical viewing angle advantage. You can tilt a passive TV to get the right vertical viewing angle, but there is absolutely nothing you can do to improve horizontal viewing angle. Passive TV's have wider horizontal viewing angles meaning more people can sit around the TV at eye level. If mounted above eye level just tilt it toward the viewers. Also when it comes to head tilt which I categorizes on the same level as viewing angle passive hold a clear advantage over active due to the circular polarized 3D glasses.

Lastly about brightness and color. Active shutter systems constant flickering causes one eye lens to be shut every millisecond. This can't help brightness or color and the brighter a room is while viewing active the more you'll notice flicker. Passive uses circular polarized glasses that allow 3D viewing in any light and both eye lenses are always open to bring in more light and consistent color.

I hope that one day you will not regret your choice when your not able to buy your TVs model of active shutter glasses in 5-10 years because they got discontinued. Whereas I will always be able to find circular polarized 3D glasses at my theater or online, 20 pairs of $5.00.

Yours truly,
MeMoFo

Memofo (realmente te estas mofando?),

Good points. You are forgetting that in the active-shutter technology there is also plasma, DLP and LCoS, and as a panel plasma traditionally renders a better image quality than LCD, unless you enjoy watching all content like cartoon characters in blurriness when they move. Even in 2011 models the LCD ghosting is still an issue and is not present in plasma, not to mention the poor vertical resolution of LCDs measured while the image is moving, which drops to about a half of the 1080 lines, while plasmas are still up the upper 900-1000 lines of vertical resolution according to a study performed by Pete Putman presented at a Display Search conference in California a couple of years ago.

LCD (2D or 3D) is famous for the very limited horizontal angle of view, in the range of +-10% off center that affects color, contrast and brightness, please check the research done in the subject (one in the link below). 3DTV passive adds the vertical limitation to it, whereby those sitting in the carpet viewing up in angle will see the image quality affected, if they can still see 3D at all. The 540 black lines of the FPR are a nuisance that forces viewing from distances that are too far away for the image size, LG recommends 15 feet to view their 60” 3DTV passive 3DTV, rather than the typical 7-8 feet (the typical 3 times screen-height ). None of that happens with plasma, and plasma happens to be with active-shutter technology:

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

According to Insight Media research on a presentation at CEPro today there are 197 models of 3DTVs in the US as of October 2011, only 18 of them are passive (179 active-shutter), there are 44 HT 3D projectors in the market, 35 are active-shutter and 9 are passive polarized or passive spectral glasses.

I do not think 90% of the market made of active-shutter technology is going away anytime soon to live the market to the “the best” 3DTV. 32 models are DLP, 105 are LCD, 60 models are plasma, although that does not reflect who dominates the sales market, which is LCD, but not necessarily because of image quality.

Regarding your comment of the 3DTV market not being of interest to consumers, you should know that household penetration of 3DTV has been and is higher and faster than HDTV, even considering that HDTV was part of a DTV’s mandated television standard with an implementation deadline.

Regarding video games, I frankly do not follow how many passive 3DTVs will be attractive to households with two gamers that like playing their 1080p games at DVD quality with 540 black FPR lines in the middle of the action, but if the active-shutter glasses 3DTV market finds an opportunity in the double-play feature manufacturers may certainly be motivated to make glasses that perform that function without expecting anyone to thinker the glasses with the expert instructions in You Tube.

The brightness claims is a double blade without looking at the other side. Passive may claim showing 540 lines per eye at the same time the other eye receives the other 540 lines, but each eye not only receives half of the resolution but also half of total brightness of each original image as recorded by the camera (because the lines are gone). The active-shutter sends 1080p lines of brightness to each eye alternatively but it does it with all the lines at once with the full resolution and brightness of each pixel of the whole set of lines. In my opinion both are still dark for the sake of oferring depth for my taste, and in that situation the one with more resolution and better image quality leaves the brightness issue secondary until both technologies improve considerably in that area.

Again, both technologies should exist for their own reasons, but passive should not claim is the best technology, much less under the current circumstances of mainly LCD technology with the issues of LCD panels and with 10% of the models, the same way active-shutter should never be imposed as the best 3D technology to those that have vision issues or gaming priorities like yours, not even with a better image from plasma. The important thing for you is that you are enjoying your passive 3DTV and it meets your particular requirements.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

I'm not and expert but a very informative consumer who diligently researches everything I'm interested in, especially when it comes to expensive purchases. I've read the study performed in the link you provided. The problem with the study is it does not include any passive TVs. This study was performed by Dr. Raymond Soneira. This same expert did yet another recent study that I'm sure you have come across. If not I think you should read it before moving on with my comment.

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm

I believe that active plasmas are better then active LCDs in every aspect but power consumption and heat output. Power consumption and heat output is important when it come down to pure performance. Mainly because something that may last upward of 20+ years will be taking a toll on your electric bill. I did not overlook active 3D plasma, however they again have less benefits compared to passive 3D TVs. Also, you mentioned other 3D methods like projectors and DLP and what not. Though for the sake of staying on topic lets just discuss flat panel 3DTVs only. After all, your article is focusing on the “best 3DTV”.

Passive 3D offers:
Best overall color (in any light) / Brightest overall image (in any light) / Greater depth / Sharper images (this is debatable less crosstalk but split pixel count) / No Flicker / Viewable in any light / Less cross talk (ghosting) / Wider horizontal viewing angle (superior to vertical viewing angle when it comes to amount of viewers) / Less overall power consumption / Ability to tilt your head ( No 3D effect but you can see just fine) / Lighter glasses / Cheaper glasses / No recharging / No worry of breaking expensive glasses / Sharing a 3D experience with more people (due to cheaper glasses and wider horizontal viewing angle) / No eye strain, no head aches, no nausea (due to flicker, improperly synced glasses and heavy glasses) / Longer more comfortable 3D viewing time (due to no recharging, no flicker to strain your eyes, lighter glasses, and being able to tilt your head) / Easy of use (no syncing, replacing batteries, recharging, making sure glasses are on) / Passive TV to passive TV glasses compatibility / Passive glasses to theater compatibility / More style choices of glasses / Full screen split screen for gaming now! (the ability to do this without buying a new TV or tinkering with your expensive glasses).

Active LCD/LED 3D offers:
Higher resolution 1080 image in both eyes then passive (this is debatable due to more cross talk) / Higher vertical viewing angle then passive / Less power consumption then plasma (but more then passive due to the active glasses) / Ability to sit closer to the TV (during 3D viewing) / No Jaggies (caused by splitting pixel count) / Better at displaying lower resolution 3D from cable or satellite providers then passive.

Active 3D Plasma offers:
Highest overall resolution (then both passive and active LED) / Less crosstalk then active LCD (equal to passive under normal conditions) / Better color then active LCD/LED (equal to passive in certain light) / Brighter then active LCD/LED (equal to passive in certain light) / Greater depth then active LED (equal to passive) / Highest overall vertical viewing angle / Ability to sit closer to the TV (for 3D viewing) / No Jaggies / Best overall at displaying lower resolution 3D from cable or satellite then passive.

As you can see there are strengths and weaknesses to both. For me passive takes the cake when it comes to my overall expense, comfort, convenience, and viewing experience. Active plasma does seem to be better then active LED, but power consumption and heat issues may be a deterrent for some people. However, people have different preferences and may hold one strength or weakness as more or less important to them. You obviously think resolution should be the ultimate determinant in what qualifies as the "best 3DTV". Though some may agree with you, others would still see the overwhelming majority of benefits in passive to qualify it as the “best 3DTVs”. It’s comparable to the (breath vs depth) concept. Passive is on average (exceptional) in a broad number of categories (breath). Active plasma is (excellent) in a focused small amount of categories (depth). It truly is up to the consumer to determine what’s more important.

I agree with many of your points, reason by which I always recommend both technologies to coexist for different purposes and peoples’ needs.

The first Soneira’s report was about LCD vs. plasma, I included its link just to indicate that the weaknesses of LCD (vs. plasma) continues also in 3D passive, he did not include passive on the report because it was made before 3DTV passive was released.

On his second report I disagreed with Soneira’s conclusions on his comparison between passive and active, and I told him that, he left out of the comparison the panel with the best image quality in the market: plasma; his response was that he left plasma out to avoid more work in the comparisons. In other words, he is not comparing what passive and active technologies can do, he is comparing what LCD can do with them, and actually, what a person perceives, rather than how good is the image by imaging standards.

Also, the report says nothing about LG’ reverse pixel display on the second 120Hz, which is an issue for image quality when all the lines of the second video frame are inverted. I wonder why in one report he downgraded LCD with the limited viewing angle limitation (10% off center) producing uneven color, contrast, etc. and later he reports LCD is good.

You buy a TV driven by cheap 3D glasses and the electric bill, although plasmas are low in consumption now I buy a TV only driven by image quality, and the market has products for both, we both agree in that no TV is the best for everyone, perhaps you did not read my other articles where I am coinciding with your points:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/03/3dtv-are-competing-technologies-necessary-including-autostereoscopic.php

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/03/3dtv-technologies-which-one-for-you.php

Enjoy your set. Good exchange.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Rodolfo,

Thank you for your input and great responses, I do agree that Dr. Soneira did not have a complete study that showed all of what active has to offer. It turns out I have read your previous articles before without knowing you had produced them. I personally think the active vs passive feud brings competition to benefit the consumers quicker. Sony, Samsung, Panasonic and other active pushers have stepped up their game in light of LG's passive FPR tech. Allowing for universal glasses, lighter glasses and price drops. I would like to see improvements to FPR in the near future as well. I say let the TV manufactures fight, if anything just keep throwing fuel on the fire. Keep up the good work.

Best wishes,
Memofo.