Active vs Passive 3DTV Polarizes Industry, Experts and Consumers Alike

[admin]

3D HDTV technology has polarized the TV industry! Two opposing camps have emerged with different methods of achieving 3D effects for home televisions, and each side is claiming superiority. In one corner we have active 3D, supported by most of the top manufacturers and video expert Joe Kane. In the other corner is passive 3D, the upstart contender in 3DTV that’s being evangelized by LG and film director James Cameron. So, before glasses-free 3D renders moot this dispute - let’s delve into the differences between the two and learn how many years it will be before we can ditch the glasses permanently.

Discuss "Active vs Passive 3DTV Polarizes Industry, Experts and Consumers Alike" here. Read the article.

 

[nickboros]

"Passive 3D Advantages

* Low cost 3D glasses
* Lightweight glasses for comfort
* No 60Hz shuttering means fatigue-free viewing"


I don't really understand how everyone is claiming "fatigue-free viewing". I have seen three films in the movie theater and I don't have any desire to see another. The reason why is that it gives me a splitting headache (fatigue) after about 45 minutes. This is with passive glasses. Maybe the fatigue can be worse with active glasses, but I have problems with passive glasses. This is why I could not care less about 3D.

 

[smurphy522]

Totally agree about the commercial theater passive 3D experience...it is in no way fatigue free. My entire family cannot make it through an entire movie w/out getting a headache.

I have yet to see what I would consider a properly executed 3D experience either. By properly executed I mean one which adds to the movie not just added onto it to enable the Production Co./theater to collect more $.

Avatar was the closest successful execution and I would argue that even that was still not so much additive to the experience. I enjoy the 2D version more after multiple viewing of each version. Same to be said w/Tron, How to Train Your Dragon, Alice In Wonderland, Up, Toy Story 3 & The Polar Express. Listing In no particular order.

 

[stratman]

Bluray vs HD-DVD remember that little episode, how many bought into the "wrong" camp?!....oh crap here we go again.

 

[gliz]

I feel like the only person that wishes that 3d would just go away!

 

[ctwed]

If I am going to be forced into a technology (3D) that by all accounts I will use only between 2% and 10% of the time, I choose the form of that technology which allows me to have the best picture 90% to 98% of the time (non-3D). Therefore I select the technology that will allow me to choose a plasma screen so the vast majority of flat screen viewing will be on the superior picture... Cast (1) vote for active 3D.

 

[Wayde Robson]

What I don't get is ... the proponents of 3D claim it's an elevated dimension in viewing movies. But it brings nothing that isn't already there.

The 3D viewing experience is not a revolution comparable to talkies, color or HD - it's just a circus side-show.

Sure it's cool sometimes to see things pop out at you, I think it can be fun the odd time. But it's just a gimmick. It lends nothing else to the storytelling art of movies. Personally I'm sick of movies in 3D at theaters and HATE when they do things on screen to manipulate the 3D effect.

...besides, we already have 3D. We have always percieved depth in our movies, a flat image has been able to protray depth since renaissance painters discovered perspective.

It's not revolutionary and brings nothing new and nothing new or revolution to the movie-watching table.

 

[Krusty Blade]

I am very happy with my active 3d

I am very happy with my active 3d TV. (Samsung). We don't get any 3d TV broadcasted up here in deep dark Africa, but the couple of 3d movies I have purchased has been very enjoyable. I guess I can consider myself lucky that I dont suffer from any of the ill affects associated by watching 3d movies. The 2d to 3d up conversion does need a lot of work though, I am not impressed with that at all.

I dont mind the glasses and I dont see what the big fuss is about charging the batteries. Its simple, just plug it in.

 

[avnetguy]

Sure it's cool sometimes to see things pop out at you, I think it can be fun the odd time. But it's just a gimmick. It lends nothing else to the storytelling art of movies. Personally I'm sick of movies in 3D at theaters and HATE when they do things on screen to manipulate the 3D effect.

...besides, we already have 3D. We have always percieved depth in our movies, a flat image has been able to protray depth since renaissance painters discovered perspective.

I will be glad when they stop exaggerating the 3D effects in movies and when TV makers start to focus on other, better features.

Steve

 

[highfigh]

3D HDTV technology has polarized the TV industry! Two opposing camps have emerged with different methods of achieving 3D effects for home televisions, and each side is claiming superiority. In one corner we have active 3D, supported by most of the top manufacturers and video expert Joe Kane. In the other corner is passive 3D, the upstart contender in 3DTV that’s being evangelized by LG and film director James Cameron. So, before glasses-free 3D renders moot this dispute - let’s delve into the differences between the two and learn how many years it will be before we can ditch the glasses permanently.

Discuss "Active vs Passive 3DTV Polarizes Industry, Experts and Consumers Alike" here. Read the article.

So, you're saying the A/V industry has trotted out competing formats, without determining which is actually better and they're acting like both are the best version? How can this happen? They'd never do that! They wouldn't come out with a format that is bad or will fail for some reason, would they?

Oh, um, Beta vs VHS, LaserDisc vs the RCA and JVC versions, HD-DVD vs BluRay, HD Radio, AM stereo, 8-Track......

 

[highfigh]

I will be glad when they stop exaggerating the 3D effects in movies and when TV makers start to focus on other, better features.

Steve

I'd like the studios focus on making better movies. All they're doing now is coming up with all kinds of gimmicks to distract the audience from the fact that most movies are bad remakes of old classics, without benefit of good acting. Keanu Reeves in 'The Day The Earth Stood Still'? GMAB!

 

[Wayde Robson]

So, you're saying the A/V industry has trotted out competing formats, without determining which is actually better ...Beta vs VHS, LaserDisc vs the RCA and JVC versions, HD-DVD vs BluRay, HD Radio, AM stereo, 8-Track......

I love the sarcasm!

I don't like conflicting standards either. The industry would work better if it got universally behind one way of doing things - like HDMI, wi-fi, EDGE/CDMA yes, even Blu-ray/HD-DVD.

But I appreciate choices when you're not accepting self-imposed limitations by accepting one. Sadly, this is becoming all too common, especially with DRM laden content.

But that's not the case with the competing 3D formats.

I would liken the difference between active and passive 3D being more like the difference betewen plasma and LCD, it's just about what works for you. They're not competing for content-exclusives to limit anyone's choice.

However, they will both fade away pretty quickly when an HD-lenseless-3D hits a certain cost threshold.

 

[stratman]

It's called MARKETING 101.....dazzle with B.S. and figures.

 

[chefboyrd311]

Looking ahead to 3D

Seems to me that Passive has no choice but to win out over the competing formats "active" or "freeviewing" IF 3D is going to be a widely adopted format for all displays.
By widely adapted I mean for a significant amount of broadcasts (primetime, movies, and sports). That being the case, advertising, internet and anything that can be displayed could follow.
Imagine a world where you go to a mall and 3D signs and advertising grab your attention. Imagine driving down the road and billboards and signs provide added depth. Imagine web content delivered in 3D. Imagine going to a sports bar and a good portion of the TV's are broadcasting 3D sports.
Obviously a lot has to happen for 3d to be that widely used, but it could also be as simple as your house being 3D'affied with your TV and your computer (and possibly your phone and your watch).
OK, you get the point. Multiple sources, multiple signals and different manufacturers.
I'll go one step further. The adopted 3D format for the future will be Passive where the polarized light is circular. It is the only format that allows for viewing of multiple sources at multiple angles.
Active 3D will stifle the growth of 3D, consider it the beta max of 3D (superior technically but functionally inferior). It's not practical and not possible to view multiple sources at one time outside of a controlled environment. Walk into a sports bar and your active glasses will most likely not sync because of different manufacturers, multiple signals and Doppler effect (I'm not sure about Doppler effect at the speed of light at these distances though, but it's a thought).
Freeviewing? Well, if you look into it, then you'll realize that anything over 1 source isn't feasible.
Why circular? Because it accounts for head tilt and off-angle viewing while linear does not.
Just some thoughts. But I might be purchasing stock in Real3D soon.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I feel like the only person that wishes that 3d would just go away!

You're not alone - I'd trade our crappy so called 3D for 2D 4k HD any day

 

[Chu Gai]

Has the adult entertainment industry weighed in on their preferred format?

 

[ArgoZero]

Why does Passive offer the superior viewing experience?

That it does is really beyond doubt once you start to take in actual user feedback but the more interesting question is WHY should that be?

The main inherent technology advantage of passive over active are:

1. Absolutely no flicker
2. Very low levels of crosstalk

A. Cross-talk
Cross-talk certainly degrades 3D so this seems an obvious contender. Modern active sets have improved greatly over their early 2010 counterparts with cross-talk becoming far less of a reported issue. However, if only at subliminal levels, the crosstalk is still present compared to the low levels that passive can deliver so this remains a contender.

B. Flicker
We've been exposed to flicker since the earliest days of cinema and yet it's never been considered an issue. However, it's possible that alternating the flicker between each eye might be something the brain is unhappy in having to deal with so this remains a possible

C. Image deconstruction/construction.
A more radical idea relates to the very way passive technology displays an image. Passive basically pulls apart the left and right images, displays them as an interlaced mix of 1080 lines and then relies on the brains ability to reconstruct them back into a Full HD 3D image. That it does this is well proven but is it just possible this also generates a more natural viewing experience?

It could be that the resultant perceived image is more 'correct' since our brains auto-correct for what we would expect to see. With active the brain is exposed to two time displaced pre-formed 1080p images which without enforced reconstruction are perhaps more likely to be rejected.

It's interesting to theorise but I suspect we wont know the answer any time soon