Would you prefer ugly 3D glasses or ugly 3DTV images? Maybe

A friend and I both looked at a couple of passive sets at a local Best Buy. Even though he's not very critical of displays, he immediately noticed the degraded picture, especially when the 3D demo ended and the TV returned to a 2-D display. The missing lines were very obvious.

Maybe it was not set up properly, or maybe it was the bright lights of the showroom, but we both agreed that the sets weren't worth owning given the poor picture.

FWIW, we were both judging the picture against a 65" Panny plasma I own.

I have tried to read all the articles on the in home 3D and current technology...

One thing that I seem to notice is that the when the PASSIVE sets are being compared to active-shutter sets that does not seem to get written about and the one "BIG" topic in a small living room is off center viewing.

The active-shutter reviews when just reviewing a single set seem to point out the off center viewing, with all other things being equal it seems that the active-shutter sets allow better off center / side viewing of the set.

I sure hope this is true as I could not find an in-store display that would allow me to move off center and ordered a Plasma 43" 3D set based on this one selling point alone. As my front seating will be about 6' from the screen at about 30' off center... the farther back in the room the more on center the seating becomes.

The set will be delivered later this week and I will install this coming weekend.


avid

Wow! You really hate passive. You claim that both systems should coexist but you never really talk about actives faults to the degree you talk about passives. How many times in all your articles have you stated that passive systems half the resolution?

You Mentioning Passives Half Resolution Just in the first 1/4 of your first article:
(1) You state, "Manufacturers of passive polarized 3DTVs "claim" their glasses are low cost, that the image is similar to what viewers experienced at some local theaters, and that viewers generally not notice the half resolution per eye (540 lines out of 1080 per eye"

(Counter point: How many active owners notice flicker? You don't focus on this point nearly as much throughout your entire study, or any of actives faults for that matter)

(2) You state, "Although the passive technology shows only 540 lines out of the 1080 lines of resolution per eye the big fuss is that the two half-resolution 3D images are shown to each corresponding eye simultaneously, reason by which 3DTV manufactures "claim" that their final image is a full 1080 image, for the brain to work the mess out"

(Counter point: It's not just the TV manufactures that claim you see full HD with passive. Germany-based VDE, one of Europe’s largest technical-scientific associations, has certified the LG's Cinema 3D as full HD in 3D mode. PC World stated,"When we tested the two technologies side-by-side, we didn’t find a noticeable difference in im­­age quality between the two" This test included all flat panel types including plasmas) http://www.pcworld.com/article/240404/t ... _2011.html

(3) The passive-glasses method could allow that viewer to enjoy 3D at half-resolution as a compromise, but the compromise has to be told when purchasing the set. At the end it is a consumer’s decision, and hopefully the selection will be supported by a well informed comparison of 3D technologies, rather than just by how much the glasses cost.

(Counter point: There are "way" more features and benefits then just the cost of the glasses that cause people to choose passive over active. But you totally fail to mention these)

Im going to stop here on this subject, I could be here for hours counting every time you mention the half resolution of passive though out your study.

Next you mentioned viewing angle:
You state, "Also take note that, although LG Electronics "claims" that their new 3DTVs can be viewed at increased angles, there is a limitation of view angles typical of LCD technology that degrades not only color, contrast, brightness and overall picture quality, but also affects the 3D effect. My informal viewing did not convince me of that wide-angle ability"

(Counter Point: Passive TVs are not conventional LCD TV's as you mentioned and have a much wider horizontal viewing then then both active LEDs and Plasmas in 3D mode. Passive 3DTV's allow head tilt as well, what about this viewing angle? The only viewing angle active has over passive is vertical, and this is nowhere near as important as horizontal when it comes to the number of viewers)

Check out the link below and just view all the images: Then tell me what you think of passives viewing angle. Active LCD or Plasmas can't come close.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/38943/p ... tter-tv-lg

Next article:
You state, "The first article on this series covered the battle of passive vs. active 3DTV methods"

(Counter point: Battle what Battle, your idea of a battle is like a heavy weight boxer fighting a 9 year old asthmatic)

In this article you focus on non other then the resolution of passive, there is no mention of any active shutter faults at all. Except this, "Some viewers are said to experience discomfort when viewing 3DTV with active-shutter glasses, I wonder how that discomfort compares with the brain effort required to reconstruct the pixel structure shown by passive 3DTVs, not to mention LG’s"

(Counter point: Your kidding right? Hmm, heavy annoying flickering glasses that causes headaches, nausea, and eye fatigue or passive image fusion that requires my brain to work without me even noticing it, wow hard choice. However, maybe it requires more brian power then even some experts have)

Im not going to even talk about you next articles, I feel they are not worth even mentioning considering the average consumer would be lost in all the technical lingo and hypocrisy. I have to ask though, after writing all of it, weather you actually believe this was a complete overview of both technologies? Saying it seems a bit one sided, would be a complete understatement. This wasn't a battle was it, it never was.

DavidEC,

LCD 3DTV passive and active-shutter uses LCD panel technology which has been known for years for its typical degradation of color, contrast, and brightness when your horizontal viewing is increasingly away from the straight center viewing position. LCD manufacturers continuously claim up 178 degrees on specs, which is almost parallel to the TV frame, I suggest for you to see LCD from that extreme angle and compare it to plasma. 3D adds the vertical angle viewing limitation to the above, which is not your case but since you said you have restricted viewing space you should know that. In my experience the increased degradation of LCD imaging (in 2D and 3D) starts to be noticeable pass the +-15% point off-center (+-10% off-center in the experience of some comprehensive tests) and that is regardless of 3D.

However, you may still need LCD for specific reasons, for example a) room light conditions require a bright screen and LCD is better than plasma in that regard, b) the cost/number of active-shutter glasses exceeds your budget and that pushes you toward passive and that is LCD (today), or c) visual problems with active-shutter glasses/technology which are certainly non-negotiable.

Before you purchase I suggest for you to do your own viewing to confirm that you would be pleased, rather than ordering online without even seeing the image, as many do. The 3D effect on LG passive would not be good if viewing too close (as your case of 6-feet), and from that close range you will see the distracting 540 black lines of the FPR grid.

If you do not have visual problems with active-shutter technology and you are looking for image quality in 2D and 3D the Panasonic plasma brand 3DTV you mentioned would probably be the best choice for you if the cost of the glasses is not an issue, because it has no LCD technology image/viewing limitations (in 2D and 3D), it has full resolution in 3D per eye, it has no extra layer of FPR between the panel and your eyes as LCD (which regardless how innocuous its painted to be by the passive proponents you rather not have anything in the middle of the light path for most of your viewing, which most probaly is in 2D), and plasma has consistently been recognized as better than LCD in terms of image quality, even with all the positive progress LCD has made until today.

Good luck and enjoy whatever your choice is, fortunately both technologies exist to facilitate comparisons to satisfy those that have issues with one and not the other.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

DavidEC, ....Before you purchase I suggest for you to do your own viewing to confirm that you would be pleased, rather than ordering online without even seeing the image, as many do. The 3D effect on LG passive would not be good if viewing too close (as your case of 6-feet), and from that close range you will see the distracting 540 black lines of the FPR grid....

I went to my local "Best Buy" and viewed the 2D image of same set that I ended up purchasing vers the LCD sets in the same price range. I know that the sets were not color tuned. And they did not have freely to ware glasses for a 3D comparison.
I have been watching a Plasma set for the last five years and know about the glare issue.. but is not as bad or worse than the older 32" tube set that it replaced.

The box is sitting in my office now waiting for me to unpack.. but just too tired after work.
And I got the Samsung 43" PN43D490 as I do not have room for a set larger than 46" with out blocking a door way.

avid

DavidEc,

I thought you were getting a Panasonic plasma, that was the one I recommended. Any reason why you did not choose Panasonic?

After Pioneer Elite was discontinued the plasmas from Panasonic have taken their place regarding image quality.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

DavidEc,
I thought you were getting a Panasonic plasma, that was the one I recommended. Any reason why you did not choose Panasonic?
Rodolfo La Maestra

I have had a real bad experience with Panasonic reliability and warranty service in the past in my market area.
TV's which did not work after 50days that had to be replaced which after the second replacement Panasonic would not honor warranty claiming local electrical troubles even after a letter from my local service provider stating that my wiring exceed local codes.

The COST the Panasonic was close to $200 more in my area.

I could of gone with a 'LG' for the same price as the 'Samsung' but the ones I saw live had really bad off center viewing in the show room.

avid

DavidEC,

Sorry to hear about your Panasonic experience, at least the set did not catch fire like the Vizio or Sony.

I hope you are aware that the panel you purchased is 720p, actually 1024x768 native which gives 20% less horizontal pixels than the 1280 of the 720p resolution standard, which means even 720 content would have to be scaled down to that native pixel grid and 1080i/p all the time, therefore all images would have to go thru video procesing scaling, and with only 786K pixels the panel is a bit shy to qualify for HD in my book (720p is 921k pixels, 1080p is 2073k pixels). All depends of the application.

Based on the 43 inches and 768p the following data could give you an idea of the viewing distances and angles, and what to expect.

Your 6 feet viewing distance would give you about 29 degrees of lateral angle of view for a fair content immersion (SMPTE recommends 30 or greater, THX recommends 36 or greater), but sitting too close to increase the angle of view and excite your peripheral vision for movie immersion may make you see pixel structure.

THX recommends 4.8 feet of viewing distance (with a maximum of 6.8 ) and SMPTE recommends 5.8 feet to obtain their recommended angles of view (36 and 30 degrees respectively).

But the ideal distance before requiring more resolution in the 43” panel with 20/20 visual acuity is 10.5 feet (5.6 for 1080p, and 8.4 for an actual 720x1280). You are 4.5 feet closer than the 10.5. At 6 feet a 1080p panel may be more appropriate if the application requires care for detail imaging, but it will cost more. If you want to reconsider I suggest for you to go to a store and use these numbers to determine if it is worth to you.

Although there are very few owners that are eager to admit their TV babies are ugly, such as those that selected a set not for its quality but for the cheap 3D glasses or from red tag sales they cannot refuse, most owners on Samsung’s web site reviewed the panel you purchased as mostly 5 stars, so enjoy your set David.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

DavidEC,
THX recommends 4.8 feet of viewing distance (with a maximum of 6.8 ) and SMPTE recommends 5.8 feet to obtain their recommended angles of view (36 and 30 degrees respectively).

Rodolfo:

Thanks for the info, only trouble is, too many times when it comes to "TV"s the numbers don't always tell the whole story!

I did plenty of searches and reading before going with Samsung (which really would not of been my first choice ) but it seemed that there were very few negative postings, unlike sets of like size and price, where the buyers were very upset with their purchase. And this was from posting over five different forums. this set and its sister 51" set were loved by most buyers and it seems that there was only bit of trouble with the factory settings was in the over all 'BLACK' setting which it seems that a little bit of tweeking of the color setting gets the black under control, still not perfect, but for the money, a great buy.

David

15-20 minutes into 3D, active or passive, and my head hurts. Not much longer I am nauseous, and about one hour in, prone to vomiting.

It may be because one eye is quite near-sighted with a little astigmatism, and the other eye is far less near-sighted with a good deal of astigmatism. I have read people with eyes with two different prescriptions have 3D problems, and I believe those articles.

I'll stick with my Kuro Elite Pro-151FD for a while, and go straight to 8K TV once it arrives. Meanwhile, try to capture anywhere near the IQ the Kuro has on any of these sets. Even the new Elites (Sharp) cannot yet.

You may think I am being snobbish, but I go to CES every year, and see all the new tech for myself. I can see very well with eye correction, contacts for distance @ 20/15, glasses @ 20/20 (or with contacts, readers) for close up.

Good to hear from you Jordan,

Your Kuro Elite plasma was and still is the best out there, and I agree with you about Sharp's Elite. Sorry about your vision problems with 3D. Some limited selection of 8K will be available shortly in panels and projectors and I expect to see more 8K products at CES and the price to come down. I am also planning for an upgrade soon of my 1080p projector (for 8K/active-shutter 3D), and so far the Sony meets the specs, but I have to see more of it and lab tests to justify a $25K investment (JVC is an attractive alternative but is not a true 8K and does not input 8K). I will be again at CES, the whole week as always, if you want to get together please call me at the cell when you get there, Joseph told me he will be there as well.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Not snobbish - it is pretty well known that a significant percentage of the population does not adjust to the difference between projected 3D vs. the real world. It is that we must focus on the screen, but converge our eyes elsewhere. And the more the 3D depth, the worse it would be - read as the more it would be fun to watch the more annoying it would be for you. Until Holography, if ever, there will be no solution to this (except maybe eye training/brain exercising??).

Thank you so much for the replies Rodolfo (great to hear from you again too, even if just on the web), and Steve. At first I was angry I could not watch 3D. Now that I see how little there is I am glad it should pass me by with better resolution products in a few.

BTW, I had a 150FD that died 1 year, 11 months into its two year warranty. In April 2010, Pioneer exchanged the 151FD for it, making it one of the last of the Kuro TVs.

Other than fees to calibrate (again) the new Kuro, both were great! I hope one day, there is better.

To start with, my current TV is a Sony flatscreen (Trinitron CRT), so I don't have any strong vendor bias. Also, I'd like to say that I really like your articles, as they are much more in-depth than most of the stuff out there. However, you definitely have an "active" bias.

For example, you state that no passive 1080p TVs currently display simultaneous 1080p images, instead displaying a 1920x540 for each eye. That's true, but technically no shutter glass (SG) tv does either: they display a 1920x1080 for one eye and a 0x0 (black screen) for the other eye. You really have to think in three dimensions: lenth, width, and *time*.

So if the source video is 2x 1920x1080 x 30Hz, and your SG glasses are at the same 30Hz frequency, then you lose half the data because you are playing back at 1x 1920x1080 x 30hz. If your TV and glasses are at 60Hz or higher, then you are fine. Simirlarly, if you have a passive system at 60Hz then you are playing back at 2x 1920x540 x 60Hz and again you can get all the data.

Now I will say that the line swapping thing is pretty stupid - because it is so easy to fix! All you need is a 1920x1081 display. The left-eye odds (displayed on the odd lines) and right-eye evens (on the even lines) can be shown in the first cycle. In the second cycle, the left-eye evens will be displayed on the odd lines - but starting on line 3. The right-eye odds will display on the even TV lines, so the net effect will be the frame lines remain in order but shifted down 1 line. Another solution (using existing 1920x1080 displays) is to do the same shift, but lose the last line of data. The .05% of data won't be missed, although you could no longer make the "Full 1080p" claim. Of course if you are running at 120Hz, then you could add this back in future frames and not lose any data.

Also the new LG IPS screens (xxLV5600, xxLV5700, and xxLV6500) handle the viewing angle problem (of LCDs) pretty well - look at an iPhone4 and see for yourself.

Thanks for your appreciation for the comprehensiveness of my articles.

You basically mention 3 points:

1080p simultaneity

I do not recall writing in any of my articles that active shutter “simultaneously” displays 1080p images on both eyes. I always was specific that it was 1080p per eye in alternate fashion. Would you rather see jagged edge diagonals on half images with cheap glasses? (see the family room carpet on the image of LG's 3D demo at Best Buy). Two simultaneous 540ps from different angles do not show the smoothness that a single 1080p image can show from the same angle.

1081 lines instead of inverted line pairs”
Your 1081 idea seems like a simple solution in the surface to maintain the order of the video lines using the polarity restriction of LCD passive, which is: add one more line and shift the whole image one line down on the second 120Hz cycle. The manufacturing of specialized 1081 panels is subjected to cost efficiency in adapting plants to satisfy the limited application of the chosen LG 3D passive method.

However, there would still be a constant vertical shift at every other video frame with content that is actually sourced from another physical position of the recorded image, which could produce artifacts when constantly flicking the position of every video frame. This is not like the interlace of NTSC, which uses a second cycle to complete a video frame and the lines on that second cycle show the content that was recorded by the camera on those exact lines on the video field.


Active bias

Bias no, personal preference (due to image quality) yes. Quality is usually the main subject on all of my articles on a magazine dedicated to quality HDTV and all of the other content I published. However, I consistently recommend that passive and active should both exist for their particular reasons and people’s requirements, the articles are intended to be read as a sequence or chapters rather than taking one paragraph out of context; since I anticipate that some may not read them as a whole some basic facts have to be repeated (such as the resolution, glasses, method of display, etc.).

So what would be my personal preference regarding 3D picture quality? It would be 1080p (better: 4K) on each eye simultaneously with no 3D glasses and no visual interruptions between viewing zones at a reasonable price. Although 3DFusion is close to that, my preference does not exist, so I have to go for a trade off in features, such as brightness, angle, resolution, blurriness, etc. What Mr. X may prefer is his personal business, what I prefer as second choice today is active shutter using non-LCD technology.

That covers plasma panels, DLP/LCoS (Sony, JVC) projectors, etc. No the DLP rear-projection (Mitsubishi) because their light engines are still using wobulated 1080x960 chips to claim the display of 1080x1920 images, additionally, their horizontal angle of view is even more restricted (starts at 10 degrees) than LCD panels (which start at 15-20 degrees, not to mention 10 degrees vertically and the 3D is gone).

How far that “personal” preference can go in my home? As far as not having any of the non-preferred displays “not even for free” occupying space in any room. Although LG passive may be on that no-list, that panel may be what Mr. X wants because the glasses are cheap, so be it.

Everyone is allowed to claim their preferences using their own set of parameters, my preference is always based in picture quality and constant exposure and experience with hundreds of 3D/HDTVs since the HD standard was an analog prototype in the mid-80s.

I hope I am allowed to have a personal preference without been accused of hating passive when the information I publish is over the head of most magazines. I never worked conditioned to advertising on the opposite page. Consumers can have the whole picture when I see a manufacturer is trying to sell a Yugo like a Ferrari.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

I am currently happy with my "YUGO" of the '3D' TV world, I am able to experience the effect and this allows me to know if it is all "HYPE" or if the effect is really worth the upgrade.... I am no pro.. far from it.. but many of the people that have seen and heard my very budget system are surprised by the difference.... and when I say ""BUDGET"" I mean it! But I have been told by one person that my set up beats out his that cost him four time more...
I choose the "Samsung PN43D490" W/ ACTIVE SHUTTER GLASSES for one reason only.. the ACTIVE GLASSES allowed for the 3D effect in a smaller room with narrower and tighter viewing angles.
The down side is the image is a bit darker than I would like, but when viewed in a "Theater Like" dim lighting you don't notice the slightly darker image ( its like watching TV with your sun glasses on.. but your sun glasses are about half as dark as they currently are.) But I can get up and move around the room with the glasses on with out loosing the 3D effect... with the polarized glasses used by "LG" to name one company if you moved around the room you would loose the 3D effect.
Now while I have my own issues with Samsung and their customer support {Don't even get me started!}... I have read little negative of their TV's on the internet and from review sites their TV's seem to only come in second to sets that cost twice if not more for the same features / size... If you want to try out a 3D set then I would suggest that you try this set on for size. and if you like the 3D then you know you could always move up to a larger & brighter set at a later date.... but for less than $600.00 w/ two pairs of glasses it is hard to go wrong for a first time 3D set.


avid

1080p simultaneity

I do not recall writing in any of my articles that active shutter “simultaneously” displays 1080p images on both eyes. I always was specific that it was 1080p per eye in alternate fashion. Would you rather see jagged edge diagonals on half images with cheap glasses? (see the family room carpet on the image of LG's 3D demo at Best Buy). Two simultaneous 540ps from different angles do not show the smoothness that a single 1080p image can show from the same angle.


Yes, but each eye (on a passive system with glasses on) does not show two 540ps from different angles, they only show one image from one angle and then show the other half (from the same angle) in a short enough time frame that your brain perceives it as a single image.

I have read your past articles, and my comments really apply to the series. For example, "Passive 3DTV Brain Perception - An Excuse for Technical Limitations?" was the title of a previous article. Just as the brain combines the images occuring at different time frames in a passive system , it does the same for an SG system. "Active 3DTV Brain Perception - An Excuse for Technical Limitations?" is just as valid a title. Unless you are teleporting actors, objects and scenefry into your living room, all 3D TVs create illusions that only exist in the brain.


1081 lines instead of inverted line pairs”
Your 1081 idea seems like a simple solution in the surface to maintain the order of the video lines using the polarity restriction of LCD passive, which is: add one more line and shift the whole image one line down on the second 120Hz cycle. The manufacturing of specialized 1081 panels is subjected to cost efficiency in adapting plants to satisfy the limited application of the chosen LG 3D passive method.


Yes, perhaps the other solution I mentioned could alleviate this by displaying 1920x1079 lines on the current scene. Following this method and bumping the frequency to 4 times the original transmission rate (120 Hz), I hope you can see how the missing line could be displayed later so no information is dropped, although this top and bottom line would be displayed half as often as the center lines.


However, there would still be a constant vertical shift at every other video frame with content that is actually sourced from another physical position of the recorded image, which could produce artifacts when constantly flicking the position of every video frame. This is not like the interlace of NTSC, which uses a second cycle to complete a video frame and the lines on that second cycle show the content that was recorded by the camera on those exact lines on the video field.


In terms of the physical shift, I considered that, but I believe this shift is to small to be noticed: .06" on a 65" screen view, "x" feet away. However, depending on the response rate of the pixels, artifacts may be produced, but this is not an issue related to passive or active technology, but more to the LCDs in general. Of course, since the scene is constantly changing anyway, I'm not sure if the artifacts created by this 0.1% shift would be any more noticeable by those caused by the change in scene content.


Active bias

Bias no, personal preference (due to image quality) yes. Quality is usually the main subject on all of my articles on a magazine dedicated to quality HDTV and all of the other content I published. However, I consistently recommend that passive and active should both exist for their particular reasons and people’s requirements, the articles are intended to be read as a sequence or chapters rather than taking one paragraph out of context; since I anticipate that some may not read them as a whole some basic facts have to be repeated (such as the resolution, glasses, method of display, etc.).

So what would be my personal preference regarding 3D picture quality? It would be 1080p (better: 4K) on each eye simultaneously with no 3D glasses and no visual interruptions between viewing zones at a reasonable price. Although 3DFusion is close to that, my preference does not exist, so I have to go for a trade off in features, such as brightness, angle, resolution, blurriness, etc. What Mr. X may prefer is his personal business, what I prefer as second choice today is active shutter using non-LCD technology.

That covers plasma panels, DLP/LCoS (Sony, JVC) projectors, etc. No the DLP rear-projection (Mitsubishi) because their light engines are still using wobulated 1080x960 chips to claim the display of 1080x1920 images, additionally, their horizontal angle of view is even more restricted (starts at 10 degrees) than LCD panels (which start at 15-20 degrees, not to mention 10 degrees vertically and the 3D is gone).

How far that “personal” preference can go in my home? As far as not having any of the non-preferred displays “not even for free” occupying space in any room. Although LG passive may be on that no-list, that panel may be what Mr. X wants because the glasses are cheap, so be it.

Everyone is allowed to claim their preferences using their own set of parameters, my preference is always based in picture quality and constant exposure and experience with hundreds of 3D/HDTVs since the HD standard was an analog prototype in the mid-80s.

I hope I am allowed to have a personal preference without been accused of hating passive when the information I publish is over the head of most magazines. I never worked conditioned to advertising on the opposite page. Consumers can have the whole picture when I see a manufacturer is trying to sell a Yugo like a Ferrari.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Preference is stating that you prefer SG technology over passive; bias is stating that active technology is superior to passive. While you do present an honest, throrough discussion of passive TVs with many valid drawbacks, I haven't seen the same approach applied to active ones in this series of articles. For example, in your articles, you don't mention that cross-talk is a much bigger problem with active hardware than with passive hardware. If you haven't already, I'd encourage you to check out tis site: http://displaymate.com/shootout.html for quantatative comparison of the Passive vs Active.

My personal preference would be for a plasma with a passive display, but these are not on the market.

BuyTheNumbers,

I believe you did not understand well the passive method. Let me see if I can help on that.

but each eye (on a passive system with glasses on) does not show two 540ps from different angles, they only show one image from one angle and then show the other half (from the same angle) in a short enough time frame that your brain perceives it as a single image

.

On a passive system one eye receives 540p lines from one angle while the other eye receives 540p lines from the other angle. The lines are interleaved at the same time (not "and then... in a short enough time frame" as you said). Each 540-line image is missing 540 lines of the original image taken by the camera from that angle, the missed 540-lines are important information when showing detailed content or diagonals for example, which would show as jagged edges because the other eye cannot exactly compensate the missing pixel with the pixel provided by the other angle because that pixel is viewed from a different angle. Go to Best Buy, test the 3D demo of the LD passive, look at the diagonal edge of the carpet on the floor of the family room, and tell me if you see the jagged edge effect produced by one eye missing the 540 lines of that eye.

I agree that the brain perceives the interleaved lines as a single image but the quality of the image is not the best it could be due to panel resolution limitations.

Just as the brain combines the images occuring at different time frames in a passive system

Again, the passive system shows the two 540-line pairs at the exact same time within the same video frame of 1080 lines. LG passive adds to that their proprietary method of using a second 120Hz cycle (as I explained in the articles) with video lines showing the remaining data missed from the original 3D image-pair, but as inverted lines (although that was not your point I explain that as well).

"Passive 3DTV Brain Perception - An Excuse for Technical Limitations?" (active could be the same you said)

The title refers to the way LG Display (and the study you included in the link) justifies how "perception" of two half images is good enough for the passive method to many viewers, not me. I agree in that the active shutter method also uses the brain to blend two full resolution video frames using time sequence rather than interleaved passive lines, but the active manufacturers did not start the claim of superiority, LG did.

In terms of the physical shift, I considered that, but I believe this shift is to small to be noticed

Is small when looking at the pixel size, but is large when considering that the whole half of the image is shifted, and is actually shifted 2 lines down not one. I.e. if we shift everything down, the original line 2 that is missing on the left image can only be displayed with a left-odd retarder video line to reach the left eye, if done by the odd-line 1 it would reverse the content of every line (what LG does today), so it has to be done by odd-line 3 also reserved for the left eye , which means the content of line 1 of the left eye would be followed by the content of line 2 of the left eye but displayed in odd-line 3 for that eye. The line-skipping would happen to the right eye as well (line 3 of the right eye actually shown in line 4 of the right image with the content of line 2 of that image).

Doing it with 1079 or 1081 would produce the same consequence of line skipping. Two lines showing a blue sky with no clouds may be reasonable, but if the image has to show a lot different pixel detail like in the example of my article it could become objectionable to the point that I rather not see that information and may prefer to see the same repeated two-540p images on the next 120Hz cycle, possibly with pixel motion interpolation, like standard passive 3DTVs did originally.

bias is stating that active technology is superior to passive

Please indicate a statement in my articles that uses the "superior" word, and if I use another way to express similarly I always qualify in some paragraph in the same content that both technologies are necessary in the market for different people, regardless of my preference.

Regarding the displaymate comparison please note that plasma, the panel type of better image quality, was ignored in the comparison, so the comparison was actually "what LCD can do with active vs. passive", not a comparison of what the 3D technologies can do. In addition many of the LCD technology limitations the same author expressed in another report were ignored in this report, such as limited viewing angle, impact of color, contrast, brightness, etc. which also impacts 3D perception, so the report is not consistent with "his own" previous findings on LCD, reason by which it lost credibility to me.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra