Excellent article on Passive vs Active 3DTV technologies

[yomer]

I found this article really conclusive. Now I'm more inclined to seek a demo of a 3DTV with passive glasses.

http://gizmodo.com/5837907/the-best-3d- ... ve-glasses" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fredz]

Was it sponsored by LG and Vizio ? Because hearing that there is no loss of resolution with passive glasses is really a joke. I also wonder why they didn't compare those passive displays to the best active displays like the Panasonic VT20 (much better in term of ghosting and viewing angles), they only used the worst available 3D displays (ie. LCD 3D TVs). That flicker thing is also very arguable, why don't they find it annoying on 2D TVs at 60Hz ? And that thing about head tilting is stupid, you simply can't see 3D when you tilt your head. I call BS !

[Chiefwinston]

Well, you can get good results from both techs. I agree with Fredz. Plus theres not a mention of gaming resolution (720P/2)
So the articale is well:


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .#=#=#=# . . . $$$$. . . . . .@@ . . . F== . . . . . . . . . . .
. <. . .=#. . . . . . . =% . . %=. . . .@@ . . . ==A . . . .>. . . . . . .
. . . . .#=. . . . . . .%= . . .=% . . . . . . . . . . ===. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .=#=#=. . . =%==%8== . . .@@ . . .1==. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .#= . . . . . .%= . . . .%= . . .@@ . . . ===. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .4=. . . . . . =%. . . . =% . . .@@. . . .==L . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .=#. . . . . . %= . . . .%= . . .@@ . . . @@@@@@ . . . . .
., . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~., . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-., . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . .(:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅[̲̅ ]̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅ ) . . . . . . .\, . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,} . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . .// . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .} . . ;. . . . . . .
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”. . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\, , . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__ . . . . . . . . . . .
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-, . . . . . . .
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . . . . . . . . . '=~-- . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__ . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>-- . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Likay]

Proves more than ever that people needs to check out products of interest and see them themselves before buying.

[yomer]

They didn't mention head tilting. They mentioned different horizontal positions for different viewers.

I haven't seen it myself, but how come they claim that text is still readable with passive. If the res what cut by half, then the small text wouldn't be readable at all. For me, it sounds logical that if you send half the lines to one eye and the other half to the other eye, you end up with one full image created by your brain as a composition of both set of lines, effectively rendering a quasi-full HD image. I'm not saying it will be a full 1080p image but if you use those glasses you definitely won't see a 540p combined image, will you? Has anyone had a chance to test either the LG or Vizio, if so, how was the resolution?

I have noticed that some tests done to passive 3DTVs are done buy taking a picture of the image through the glasses, which is not possible to measure. http://news.consumerreports.org/electro ... 3d-tv.html . They even dared to take the pictures very close from the TV.

I'm no expert in this, and I haven't had the opportunity to have the plasma Active 3D set right next to an LG Passive set. I've seen an LCD 3DTV and was not convinced. I'm just saying that considering cost being the same, the possibility of having less cross talk and flickering, and to be able to use the glasses for a longer period of time without eye strain; passive COULD be an overall better solution.

I would also appreciate comments from people who have seen both TVs in action (The latest models, of course)

Fredz, dif you're right and the Panasonic plasma is better, then by all means I stand corrected and the analysis made by those people would stand as incomplete, since they didn't include the plasma set in their analysis. This might just show that Plasma technology is better for 3D than any other tech (except the new HMDs coming this year, which have the con of being for personal use, but could offer a way better 3D effect).

Well, comparing Active LCD 3D vs Passive LCD/LED 3D, is it still FAIL? Would you say that you'd rather have the active shutters solution?

Thanks for your input.

*EDIT*: I've just read several reviews on the Panasonic plasma GT30 3D TV. I think I might start saving for this TV. I wonder which would give the best experience, this or the new Sony HMZ-T1... Considering my wife has no interest for 3D at the moment.

[Fredz]

Proves more than ever that people needs to check out products of interest and see them themselves before buying.

Unfortunately I'm not sure comparing displays in a store would be fair, they often use that horrid demo mode to boost colors or things like that to make them look better, when in fact it degrades the image quality. And the lighting and viewing conditions in a store are much different from what you have at home. That's why I'm pretty much in favor of objective testing with formalized measurements and numerical results, and feeback from home users too.

They didn't mention head tilting. They mentioned different horizontal positions for different viewers.

From the article :
"Passive Glasses also did considerably better with varying Head Tilt, which is very important during normal TV viewing (...)"

I'm not saying it will be a full 1080p image but if you use those glasses you definitely won't see a 540p combined image, will you? Has anyone had a chance to test either the LG or Vizio, if so, how was the resolution?

I've seen a LG in a store and it was looking good, but it was the only 3D display presented, and there wasn't small text displayed. It's true that the brain is able to make up more details from two 540p images than from one, but at a normal viewing distance it should be nowhere close to two 1080p images. It's still DVD compared to Blu-Ray...

They also didn't mention the visible black lines due to the interlacing, which other tests have shown to be quite visible. And the fact that it creates aliasing which should be quite visible at a normal viewing distance (not smooth lines or curves, ie. jagged).

I have noticed that some tests done to passive 3DTVs are done buy taking a picture of the image through the glasses, which is not possible to measure. http://news.consumerreports.org/electro ... 3d-tv.html . They even dared to take the pictures very close from the TV.

This test looks a lot more objective than the one on Gizmondo, it also shows that there are moiré effects, which is quite logical with interlacing (same problem with parallax barriers). The numbers provided by Gizmondo (ghosting for example) are given without any details about the methodology used. If there was an universal test to measure ghosting I think we would have heard about it since all that time. Unfortunately this article really looks more like an ad for DisplayMate.com than anything.

Fredz, dif you're right and the Panasonic plasma is better, then by all means I stand corrected and the analysis made by those people would stand as incomplete, since they didn't include the plasma set in their analysis. This might just show that Plasma technology is better for 3D than any other tech (except the new HMDs coming this year, which have the con of being for personal use, but could offer a way better 3D effect).

All the reviews you'll read will say that Panasonic Plasmas are the best 3D TVs, it's not just my personal feeling. 3D LCD TVs are also know to be what is worse in 3D compared to LCD monitors, Plasma or DLP TVs and DLP projectors. They are even worse than CRT monitors most of the time. You can find numerous reviews about that on the web.

Well, comparing Active LCD 3D vs Passive LCD/LED 3D, is it still FAIL? Would you say that you'd rather have the active shutters solution?

It's not as simple as that, it's always a matter of compromise between price, ghosting, resolution, viewing angles, color accuracy, brightness and contrast. It depends on what you want to compromise. In the glasses cost league they are better without discussion, but that's all.

*EDIT*: I've just read several reviews on the Panasonic plasma GT30 3D TV. I think I might start saving for this TV. I wonder which would give the best experience, this or the new Sony HMZ-T1... Considering my wife has no interest for 3D at the moment.

The GT30 is not the top of the line of Panasonic 3D TVs, it's a streamed down version of the VT family, but cheaper and still of very good quality compared to LCD TVs.

If you want to buy a 3D TV you should also consider the fact that most of the time you'll watch 2D content, and in this case you can easily find reviews comparing the different displays. In this market, LG and Vizio have never been known to produce good displays, the best ones have always been Panasonic and Sony, and Samsung in a least frequent way.

[yomer]

My bad, you're right about the head tilting.

I saw the VT series, but I don't think the $1K premium over the GT30 is really worth it. I might be able to buy a new TV next year. So I'll have to evaluate the price/value difference between current models and next years'.

It would me much easier if all TVs were similar. Before, we had to choose between DLP, Plasma, LCD, LED, now top that with choosing Active or Passive. Although now Passive seems to be a no contest when comparing it with a plasma. It now seems clearer which option is the best; cost would be the top decisive factor, and for those concerned of energy bill, well Plasmas do consume a lot more than LEDs.

I just noticed that CNet's reviews have gotten way better since the last time I used their site.

[Chiefwinston]

Yomer, I own the Panasonic 50" VT25. I've had it for a year now. I think its Kick ass. And I had been looking for a 3D display of this quality for years. Once I sampled it. Well there was no doubt what I was going with.

Peace

[yomer]

Chiefwinston,
What do you think of the HMZ-T1? If you had to choose between that and a TV for S3D gaming and movies. Assuming you would use either the HMD or the TV by yourself. Which would you choose? I remember having a better depth perception and pop out effect from a CRT+shutters than from an HMD (Maybe the HMD weren't correctly calibrated).

[Chiefwinston]

Yeah I havn't had any experience with the Sony HMD. But I am looking forward to the release of about 3 HMD's. I'm going to keep my eye on them. If there good then I will buy one or two of them. I'm pretty hardcore 3D so I will get use out of all my equipment. I run my panasonic at about 10:1 in 3d:2d, mostly 3D blu-rays and games.

Peace

[Chiefwinston]

One other thing Yomer. When it comes to games the HDMI 1.4a spec. calls for a 720P/60 hz. Now you'll have to figure your halve horizontal resolution for games from there. 3D blu-ray will be at 1080P/24hz and you can figure the max 3d horizontal rez. from there. A guy at work asked me to check out an LG Passive display. So after work I'm going to swing by and check one out. With movies it might not be a problem. Heck it might not be a problem with games either. For games it could be acceptable to a lot of people. I would definately sample games though before buying.

cheers

[Fredz]

Theoritically the resolution loss shouldn't be very apparent on a passive display with 3D games in 720p since 1920x540 is a higher resolution than 1280x720 (without any consideration for aliasing, moiré and black lines).

But since the interlacing can obviously only physically operate in 1920x1080, I fear they must have implemented some kind of upsampling to convert the 720p source to 1080p, which should degrade the image quality even more.

I guess it should only be a problem with the PS3 though, since PC drivers (3D Vision, iZ3D and TriDef) can probably generate the 1920x1080 interlaced image needed for S3D games.

[cybereality]

I have not got a chance to see the LG/Vizio display in person (they use the same panel) but I do have the Zalman Trimon passive monitor, which uses the same technology. I also now have an ASUS VG236 120Hz LCD with the Nvidia glasses. They are both right next to each other, and I use both for different purposes. I have even tested games and videos back-to-back on each monitor. To be honest, I can't say one is better than the other. They both have pros and cons. Depends what you want.

What I can say is that in the perfect conditions, the passive FPR display does have a nicer effect. Not necessarily better looking, but a more comfortable natural effect. Its flicker-free, its brighter, and just altogether more comfortable (for example the glasses are lighter, etc.). However there is a noticeable drop in resolution. It is not anywhere near what people think of when they hear "half-resolution", it does still look decent. But when you compare it back-to-back the passive is a softer image. Also, because of the interleaving, you end up with aliasing artifacts that make the image jaggy looking and text nearly impossible to read. Even worse than that, the viewing angles are really bad. So within the small sweet-spot is looks nice, very low ghosting. But move outside that spot even an inch and it looks like crap. Total double image. And even within the sweet-spot, some content still has ghosting, especially very dark scenes. But all in all still decent looking.

With active *LCD* you do get a little more ghosting (talking specifically about 120Hz monitors), but still within acceptable limits. And the image can be darker. But what you get is the full resolution 1080P and the freedom to move around as you please. With high-end HDTVs (especially plasma) there is very little ghosting at all, and I wonder why they didn't test that. Also I have seen the Sony 3D TVs in the store, and the glasses are very bright. There is barely any darkening at all, so I question the results they give. I also question the fact the they claim small text is readable on FPR when that is just false. If you use an FPR display and have the glasses on, you cannot read small text at all (for example this forum is unusable on Zalman with glasses). Larger text like subtitles are still OK, but any regular type from a website is a no-go. And they also downplay the loss of resolution. I mean, I have done so myself, its not that bad, but its still clearly evident. But I also haven't seen the LG/Vizio panel myself, so maybe they have made improvements since the Zalman came out.

All in all I think it was a positive article, and that is the important part. Honestly both passive and active 3D HDTVs are good enough quality to be enjoyable and its not a huge deal whichever choice you make.

[Chiefwinston]

I doesn't really seam like it should be sold as high def. if you can't read text. Now I do understand that from a bang for the buck 3D stand point. These have a + in their corner. But they don't really meet the high def. spec., but they can be close to it. Just not in 3D.

cheers

[tritosine5G]

No suprise, doc found LCOS better than CRT too (hail to the new king and stuff), now this.
You have to know,
thermonuclear patent war is coming along nicely (for Apple, not for the guys ), looks like they can't win in the courtroom, they play like they won against active 3d.

I have a bunch of good links , I collected thru last few months, its utterly, utterly funny stuff (guys vs. Apple).

-cybereality, please change my name, 2k into 5G. thx!!!

[Chiefwinston]

Okay I went and checked out a 50” LG with their new passive tech. It’ll set you back $1700-$1800.

It SUCKED.