Is Passive S3D Superior to Active S3D?

[Synexious]

This article argues that passive is superior to active, and NVIDIA chose active to make more money. Any truth to this? I've always thought active is superior.

[Fredz]

This article is dated from 2008 and is full of errors, it comes from a web site that is particularly badly informed on the subject of stereo 3D (and most other subjects too btw). To me the Inquirer is basically the equivalent of a tabloïd for the electronic press.

History as shown that most manufacturers have been taking the active route for the past 3 years too, so when they say that this choice by NVIDIA was contrary to the one made by the entire consumer electronics industry they were clearly wrong. They based their analysis on technologies used in the cinemas, but these are not easily transposable to the home.

Both technologies have their good and weak points, in the end it only depends on the compromises you want to do (compatibility, resolution, angles of vision, ghosting, brightness loss and budget for example).

[cybereality]

All things being equal, passive is the better technology. However, all things are not equal. Considering current implementations, active provides a higher quality viewing experience. That is not to say that active glasses are automatically better than passive. Just that passive displays usually have a number of downsides that effect picture quality (at least with the FPR, xPol-style). Mainly being a loss of resolution and restrictive viewing angles. There can also be increased ghosting depending on where you are sitting. Passive glasses are lighter, though, more confortable since there is no flickering and usually have a brighter image. Active glasses maintain the full resolution, thus have a higher picture quality, but suffer from flickering, loss of light, heavier glasses, battery issues, and possibly more ghosting depending on the display and glasses. So they both have pros and cons. Also, the Inquirer is a tabloid.

[tritosine5G]

All things being equal , the two can converge, the universe is not 1 bit.

(its qubit )

[Thomas]

All things being equal, passive is the better technology. However, all things are not equal. Considering current implementations, active provides a higher quality viewing experience. That is not to say that active glasses are automatically better than passive. Just that passive displays usually have a number of downsides that effect picture quality (at least with the FPR, xPol-style). Mainly being a loss of resolution and restrictive viewing angles. There can also be increased ghosting depending on where you are sitting. Passive glasses are lighter, though, more confortable since there is no flickering and usually have a brighter image. Active glasses maintain the full resolution, thus have a higher picture quality, but suffer from flickering, loss of light, heavier glasses, battery issues, and possibly more ghosting depending on the display and glasses. So they both have pros and cons. Also, the Inquirer is a tabloid.

I think I would agree? I saw my first polarized 3D not too long ago when I saw Thor, and in my opinion, it beat my shutter lenses hands down. This is just my opinion and since my eyes are as autistic as the rest of me, y'all may feel differently about it.

I was thinking about checking the Tridef control panel for this, but then I realized that polarization requires some oddball things with the screen that I am sure my Samsung plasma does not have. But it seems to me this would be easy to implement for the market? Why have they not put these on TV's already? Why did they go with field sequential? Was it so they could get $$$ for the glasses?

[cybereality]

There are passive HDTVs. From Vizio and LG.

[Thomas]

There are passive HDTVs. From Vizio and LG.

Links, please?

[Fredz]

But it seems to me this would be easy to implement for the market? Why have they not put these on TV's already? Why did they go with field sequential? Was it so they could get $$$ for the glasses?

The polarization technique used in the cinemas is not easily transferable to the home because it needs a 120Hz projector with a ZScreen electronic polarization filter and a silver screen, both being very costly.

You can have a very good approximation by using two projectors and static polarization filters, but it's still very costly and not affordable by many customers. Software support for such a configuration doesn't seem to be that good either (dual output mode needed for stereo), and you also need to precisely align the projectors.

The polarization technique used in 3D monitors and TVs is used differently, it is based on an interlaced polarization filter placed directly on the screen which does halve the resolution horizontaly and greatly reduce viewing angles.

[cybereality]

Here is one for under $500:
http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-Class-Theat ... B004T1YAEI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However the quality is not going to be like the cinema. It is very different technology, even though they use the same glasses. That Vizio TV (and most other passive monitors/HDTVs) use what is called FPR (film patterned retarder). This is an interleaved style (similar to interlaced) that effectively cuts the resolution in half. Even worse, it restricts viewing angles so you have to be on a perfect eye level with the center of the display. This can range from being annoying to unacceptable, depending on your setup. But, for the price, its probably not a bad deal.

[tritosine5G]

I think I would agree? I saw my first polarized 3D not too long ago when I saw Thor, and in my opinion, it beat my shutter lenses hands down. This is just my opinion and since my eyes are as autistic as the rest of me, y'all may feel differently about it.

I was thinking about checking the Tridef control panel for this, but then I realized that polarization requires some oddball things with the screen that I am sure my Samsung plasma does not have. But it seems to me this would be easy to implement for the market? Why have they not put these on TV's already? Why did they go with field sequential? Was it so they could get $$$ for the glasses?

50 kilobuck DLP projectors use sequential 3d .... Sure ,polarized, crosstalking, hotspotting cinema 3d with 100:1 contrast beats that, hands down, sure sure.

Sure, its sequential so they can sell you those 0.1 kilobuck glasses, sure , sure.

COLOSSAL CONSPIRACY JUST GOES ON!!! ^^

(or maybe ur time sequential display is just pure, plain obsolete)

[Shilar]

A good question. It basically depends on the person. If you wish to see each in action, go to a local Best Buy or Conn's.

I did this, and found Active to be a headache-inducing pair of expensive glass, just to get depth in the picture. Passive doesn't cause a headache, and actually jumps out at me. I choose passive over active any day (I even choose analglyph over active!)

[Fredz]

What sort of active displays did you see to have a so bad opinion about this technology ?

[cybereality]

Well anaglyph is technically passive.

[tritosine5G]

-we also know how a polarizer looks like on the micro and nano level, you have a "steel wire mesh" .

So with passive polarized, instead of colorfilters , etc. etc.

MEMS is better.

BTW it will be interesting once these DLP projectors start to show their age!!

I can imagine combining 2x H5360 into a single space. And I saw a patent about combining 2X DLP light engines for time parallel , with zero brightness loss polarized light!. Bright, pulsed, parallel 120hz sounds decent, especially with that depth based temporal upsampling.

[Shilar]

What active displays did I see? Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, LG.

Passive: I saw LG, Vizio, Toshiba, and the iZ3D monitor.

[Fredz]

I saw the Panasonic VT25 and DLP 3D projectors, I'm not surprised you were disapointed considering the displays you saw, they are the worst available with this technology, even worse than CRT monitors.

[cybereality]

The Sony Bravia 3D HDTVs and the Sony glasses are top-notch. I did not get any headaches at all. Though I can also use anaglyph or even watch cross-eye 3D videos without any problem either.