Active or Passive 3d

Yes its full RES for passive (what would be point if 1/2?), your brain adds both together same as everything you see.

Example : before my new contact lenses prescription I was not seeing 20/20 out either eye on their own but both at same time I was.

Optician told me your eye uses the info from both eyes to add together.

New prescription both are 20/20 on their own.

A scientist once wore a special pair of specs that made everything upside down, after a period of time (not sure if it was 1 or 2 weeks) his brain compensated for it and the image was right way up.

3D is a gimmick IMO and seems the BBC who dropped it for now, but try it on a LG LCD and see it at its best, better than Active (or simply read the reviews).

On a monitor for gaming I would prefer Active though.

Its not full res, most passive sets use 1920 x 540 any way you want to try and explain it thats not full res.
 
You say "most" there is the catch and you clutching at straws.

I used a LG passive same as most Theatres.

QUOTE: "LG claims they show all the resolution in the 1080p signal to each eye temporally"

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-whats-better/

No matter what others said there in comments, an Optician know better how eyes work.

If you have 2 windows with slated (venetian) blinds on them and on left window slats #2/4/6/8/10 are missing and on the right window slats #1/3/5/7/9 are missing and you take a photo of both and put on top of each other you see slats #1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10.

You may want to do some homework before posting BS blanket statements, Touché ;)
 
Last edited:
Well it would appear the argument is now moot (from my point of view anyway). The TV arrived yesterday morning not packaged at all well. You can guess what awaited me upon lifting it out the box- several handsome cracks right across the screen and what looked to be the result of some sort of massive impact to the top right corner of the unit itself.

That is the good and bad of the rainforest warehouse in one - you take a chance, sometimes it pays off but at least return is free.

I can't see another deal as good as that for the same unit so I think I will just get the non 3-d version now.
 
That's a shame :(

I ended up buying my TV from a retail store to pick up myself, there's some things I just can't wait around for!
 
I have a Philips passive TV and a Samsung active. I much prefer the passive 3d, the active image is too dark and flickery to watch for any length of time.
 
You say "most" there is the catch and you clutching at straws.

I used a LG passive same as most Theatres.

QUOTE: "LG claims they show all the resolution in the 1080p signal to each eye temporally"

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-whats-better/

No matter what others said there in comments, an Optician know better how eyes work.

If you have 2 windows with slated (venetian) blinds on them and on left window slats #2/4/6/8/10 are missing and on the right window slats #1/3/5/7/9 are missing and you take a photo of both and put on top of each other you see slats #1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10.

You may want to do some homework before posting BS blanket statements, Touché ;)

Some 4k screens do Ive yet to see any hard evidence that a 1080p passive screen can show full res, its the same argument that there is no theoretical difference between 1080i and 1080p
 
Go and see a LG LCD then, the above link states 1080p not 4k so stop moving the goalposts.

The guys TV is cracked/end of thread.
 
Last edited:
Go and see a LG LCD then, the above link states 1080p not 4k so stop moving the goalposts.

The guys TV is cracked/end of thread.

Harsh, way to kick a guy in the balls when he's down :D

As it turns out there has been a turnaround in fortunes somewhat. Did some more scouring of the Internet and found a site that will remain unnamed for obvious reasons that had the 3D version at the same price as everywhere else but with a £40 off voucher bringing it down to a tasty £600 including postage. A slight bit more than the £514 I paid the rainforest people but at least this unit is brand new. Thread resurrected ;)
 
Go and see a LG LCD then, the above link states 1080p not 4k so stop moving the goalposts.

The guys TV is cracked/end of thread.


The website says LG 'claim' their 1080p screens are showing full res passive 3d but it doesn't explain how they achieve it, nor have I seen an explanation anywhere else - I tend to find that 'claims' of AV companies can be greatly exaggerated.
 
Just an update. My (new) Plasma arrived at the start of the week and I picked up a pack of Samsung active glasses yesterday. Have to say I'm very impressed by the 3d. I only stuck on the first 15mins of Pacific Rim admittedly but I thought the 3d was spot on. Not too overpowering yet not underwhelming - if that makes any sense at all lol
 
I'm very fortunate to have owned many 3D TVs over the past few years, for various reasons.

Currently I have a Samsung Active in the bedroom and an LG passive in the living room.

My advice.....go Passive

Passive is MUCH easier on the eyes, it doesn't darken the image as much, no crosstalk, glasses are only a few quid each and the 3d effect is more pronounced.

There really isn't any advantage in going active as far as I can see. There were rumours about active being able to display 1080p whilst active wasn't. I've compared both, and passive looks better to my eyes., but maybe that's down to the brightness.
 
Passive. Easier on the eyes. Doesn't flicker. Has a bright image. Lightweight glasses. It does have full resolution.
 
Owning both active and passive I prefer passive (LG).

More comfortable, better effect and IQ seems identical from realistic viewing distances...
 
i prefer passive as i found active gave me a head ache, plus passive glasses can be picked up for £1 so no big deal is some clumsey sod sits on em
 
Back
Top Bottom