There are actually 3 different types of 3D out on the market at the moment. There is Passive 3D, Active 3D and the type that doesn’t require glasses at all. However for big screen 3D TV’s the options are limited to Passive and Active. Fortunately I’ve had the chance to see a lot of both and here’s how I think they compare to each other. (By the way you can see what I consider to be the best 3D TV on the market right now by following the link)
Active 3D vs Passive 3D
If you’ve been to the cinema to watch a 3D movie (or to the pub to watch some 3D Sport) then chances are you have experienced what is known as Passive 3D. In essence you are wearing polarised glasses that show one image to the left eye and another to the right eye. The TV splits the images to match the polarisation of the left and right lenses. I think you’d agree that the glasses tend to be comfortable, light and very easy to wear. I’ve heard very little complaint from people getting eye strain wearing passive 3D glasses. It’s also worth noting that the 3D effect stands up well no matter what angle you hold your head at. Passive is a great mass market, large audience solution then with the glasses themselves only costing a few pound. On the down side it’s often muted that passive glasses have a negative effect on the contrast and brightness (images appear darker and washed out) and there is also the problem of resolution. For the true image freak will notice that with passive 3D you don’t get true full high definition. In the home only LG have manufactured passive 3D TVs. The TVs themselves are much more expensive than “Active” alternatives because all the technology is in the TV. That is the key difference between active and passive 3D.
The cheapest way of getting to see Active 3D in action is to take a trip to your local TV dealer and ask for a demo! We’d strongly recommend you demo any active 3D before buying because unlike passive the quality varies massively between manufacturers. Active 3D is also a very personal choice for what “looks good”. Whilst the cost of 3D TVs has come down in recent months (with several Samsung models going for under a grand) the cost of the Active 3D glasses hasn’t really budged. It’s going to cost serious bucks to kit out a family of 4 with their 3D glasses (for example LG active 3D glasses cost anything from £100 per pair and upwards). The Active 3D technology works by syncing the images to the left and right lenses of the glasses. The glasses have active shutters which block off each eye in turn so only the correct eye sees the correct image. In order for this to work properly your Active 3D glasses need to be charged and you need to have a line of site IR link to your TV. Seating position and head angle is important. Low battery power and a bad sync is the biggest cause of 3D image problems for active 3D TVs. You’ll find that the glasses themselves tend to be less comfortable because of the extra size and weight required to house the active shutter technology plus battery. Because of the flickering there is also more of a tendency for this technology to cause eye strain. The pay off though is what is for most people a much more immersive, “better” 3D experience. Thanks to my daughter we have had a constant stream of friends through our living room who had previously only seen 3D in the cinema. Every single person has mentioned how the 3D is “so much better than at the cinema”. The only possible downside in terms of image quality in Active vs Passive is that you may notice a reduced frame rate with Active. This doesn’t really affect movies at all but is noticeable on some fast paced sports. At the moment Sky 3D works in side by side mode so you do lose half the horizontal resolution no matter what technology you use but when this is changed to a more future proof method of broadcasting the 3D those using active sets will get to enjoy full 1080p 3D. As it is now some 3D Blurays will play at full 1080p 3D to those with Active 3D and it really does look stunning. This has been one of the biggest complaints about the passive technology to date, it is fine for Skys TV output but falls badly behind Active for Blurays and other 1080p sources.
In summary then with Passive 3D you have a technology that requires a larger initial investment in the TV but the glasses are cheap and easy to replace. It is family friendly comfortable 3D. Active 3D on the other hand requires a significant investment in glasses but produces a better all round 3D experience. If you’re a big AV fan then there is only 1 real choice at the moment.
Whilst neither technology is perfect they will only get better in time and we can’t wait to see what the TV companies come up with next!
Loading ...
I have been to a few stores and demoed both active and passive 3D sets for the past few month’s and they’re both exactly the same.
If you have a medium sized family, I would choose passive tech.
Definitely, especially if there are any younger children involved and the chance of some glasses damage.
I have tried both technologies and found the passive to be much easier to watch. I have yet to meet a pair of active shutter glasses that I liked, they flicker noticeably are very uncomfortable for someone that wears glasses and they cost too much. The picture on the passive sets seems to have better depth, brighter picture and no ghosts. Plus you can buy a sack full of cardboard real d glasses for the kids for a few bucks. I certainly didn’t find them to be the same.
Thanks for the great feedback Duane. Which passive 3D TV did you buy that had better depth, no ghosting and especially a brighter picture than the current active 3D TVs? I’d really like to go and test one for myself as that’s just not even close to the experience we’ve seen with all LGs passive sets to date.
I have tried out a few 3D TVs and have found the few at Best Buy to look cheesy (this was with Avatar in). Tried a Samsung and a Panasonic Plasma. I actually enjoyed the new budget Vizio passive 3D tvs. One thing I noticed is with the shutter lenses is I could see a potential issue with motion sickness for people sensitive to that. The passive lenses the Vizio probably isn’t the best outbust it’s hard to argue with a sub-$700 42″. The 3D content can be viewed at almusing is circular-polarized so you can rotate your head.
Ok, heres what I believe thus far about 3d tv. Active you have better picture quality as far as the resolution. however, act glasses are way more expensive andmay have flickering as well as darker images. Now I’ve seen some good plasmas were I hardly noticed flickering unless you took your eyes off the screen. yet just the weight of the active shutter glasses and the slight flicker gave me a head ache after just a few minutes. As a gamer, I love the idea of 3d but I play games for a few hours almost every day. this is why i choose passive, I love good graphix (active shutter’s higher resolution) but game play is more important to me. I bought the LG 47″ lw6500 and I love it. The lack in resolution is a small price to pay considering headaches and the charging of batteries, I could play in 3d all day with no flicker or hint of an aching head. The tv was initially slightly more expensive then some other 3d tvs using active but I have friends and my girlfriend has friends so watching a 3d flick with more then 4 people on an active shutter system would be ridiculous. what if one of my friends breaks a pair of glasses, it would be no biggy with passive tech. as some one who has seen and thought of everything dealing with 3d tvs, passive is way more realistic. just thinking about recharging more than 2 pairs of glasses upsets me.
LG glasses are much expensive about £100 per pair.
Why the LG glasses are so expensive as compared to the others??????????
LG ACTIVE glasses are more expensive, just like every active glasses out there. For passive systems, LG TVs come with 4 out of the box, and each pair costs less than 10 dollars. Also the $1 3D glasses from the movies work with these TVs.
IMHO, there’s market for both tech. If you’re AV freak and absolutely must get the best resolution (Btw, you can get 2560-by-1440 on Apple 27″ LED monitor), and you’re single or childless couple, then active 3D it is.
On the other hand, for someone like me who has three small kids and the occasional extended families come calling, passive 3D is my choice.
I recently bought LG 47″ and it hasn’t dissapoint apart from needing a special LG dongle for wifi. After previewing Sony, Samsung & Panasonic 3D, the decision against them was made due to the expensive glasses. Imagine kids leaving glasses on sofa or floor and we accidentally step or it. And all above brands came with either 1 or 2 ‘free’ active glasses. Needing 3 or 4 more would be a significant cost. And a Sony rep told us that their newer glasses are rechargable but inferior compare to the older ones with dry batteries. How true I’m not sure bcoz i didn’t sample their usb rechargable glasses.
Yes it is true with passive 3D you get half the resolution on 1 eye but how many of us watch tv with 1 eye close (no offense to those with disability). I do notice a res difference between passive & active but really not a deal breaker for me.
Just my 2 cents.
I have to disagree with alot (not all) of these posts in regards to active being superior to passive. It’s the complete opposite. Well, it’s the complete opposite with the lg brand anyway. As of this month, it is official since the council/panel of individuals who determine whether a picture is full 1080p or not voted that lg’s 3-d picture was in fact full 1080p regardless the “split resolution” that many have argued over. It’s on the lg official site right now as we sit here. Also, today I took one of my favorite blu-rays (that has alot of 3-d pop out) to the store I bought my lg 55lw6500 and had it put on a samsung plasma model and then immediately put it on the tv I bought and the pop out was the same on both but my picture quality was better because it showed a brighter picture. The resolution has never been a factor, if it was this panel of experts would not have voted that the picture quality is full 1080p in 3-d mode.
Jason, this technology is moving quickly and everything commented here is done at a point in time. For the Best 3D TV you need to check out this page:- http://www.best3d.tv/best-3d-tv-right-now/
Which you’ll see as of now agrees with you. However before the latest generation of Passive TVs from LG the passive technology was blatantly inferior. Sorry but it was. Great for families but no good for AV freaks! LG have perhaps changed the course of the war with their new cinema passive but even since you’ve bought your TV Samsung have upped their game with a new Active 3D TV which experts are claiming is producing the best 3D images to date. There are no right and wrong answers in all this, it’s just opinion
Hey Paul, I did like that site in your response! (that’s a fantastic link to keep current with) Oh and I agree about the “point in time” response too. But to tell the truth, I was just getting a little aggrevated at alot of the sites I was looking at b/c it was obvious they were pro-active 3d or pro-plasma 3d who refused to recognize any of the newest technology of the 6500 series and some of the advantages it was introducing (I hate it that it has to be divided into 2-3 camps) So my research was mainly focused at that group of people.
Hey, it’s pretty obvious u know quite a bit about the 3d technology so do u have some suggestions on some 3d blurays with alot of nice out of screen shots lol? I have plenty that give the added inner depth, but i’m still a sucker for the out of screen shots too. Appreciate the response and that site again man!
Hi Jason, my favourite movie I’ve seen for stand out moments (and believe me I’m embarrased to admit this) is Step Up 3D. There are a couple of moments involving balloons, feet and confetti that really stand out and are great for showing off to mates with (just be sure to tell them you only watched it because of the hot girl in it). I also enjoyed Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs. If you were in the UK you’d also have access to Sky 3D and some of the nature programs on there have some real jump from your screen moments, I’ll see if I can dig out the names for you.
If there’s one thing that disapoints big time with 3D at the time being it’s the number of new 3D action movies coming out where the 3D is so flat to be pointless. I guess it’s a learning curve for movie makers as well and it will get better.
Yes, I’ve read up some on Sky and yes, it would be nice if we had that over here.
I also agree with the new action movies that are coming out that were converted to 3d in post production. We can only hope it gets better before it kills the 3d world. And that could easily happen, especially right now when it’s trying to make a comeback. I watched capatain america in 3d and the ed effect was so flat with the exception of one pop out scene. The inner depth was not all that great either. The best movie I’ve watched thus far for pop out and depth has been yogi bear. I have not watched step up 3d but after reading your post, it sounds like it was a 3d frenzy. lol so just say there is a hot girl in it, got it lol.
I recently bought the amazingly inexpensive theater 3d ready Visio. Don’t know the model number, but it uses the passive polarized glasses and looks absolutely incredible. It’s elevated but there isn’t any ghosting, I can lay on my side and still have a clear 3D picture. It’s brilliant. I did a lot of shopping around, and the active systems’ cons far outweigh higher resolution. As a customer, I want to have a home theater experience that is a close as possible to what I would I would get going to an actual theater. Being able to use reald glasses with my tv is a part of that, which shutter glasses just can’t deliver.
I’ve not viewed any active 3D sets,but I’ve just bought myself an LG 42LW650T and the passive is excellent.
I haven’t experienced any flicker or crosstalk on any movies yet (only on Killzone 3 on my PS3) so I’m extremely happy for something that only cost me £800
While passive 3D TVs from makers like Vizio and Westinghouse show inferior resolution and image qualities to active 3D TVs, I have to say LG 3D TVs display high quality images with high resolution. I’ve seen LG Cinema 3D and an active 3D TV from Samsung side by side and there wasn’t any difference (at least that’s noticeable) between the image qualities on them.
Very well explained !
Does passive 3D glasses work with ANY passive 3D tv??
YES, the cinema glass works on all passive 3D TV.. and cheap too!!!
I was big on active 3d and tried the demos and thought they all were pretty good. I did notice flickering and tad blurryness from Panasonic and Samsung 7000 series. I herd how passive having lower resolution etc but thought I would just try it. Wow! Not only was it more vibrant but had zero flicker and no crosstalk (at eye level). I was amazed how the 3d effect seemed more natural and much more effective, maybe because I had no flicker distracting me I don’t know but it was brilliant, so much so that I looked into both tech.
I read that yes active has full HD to both eyes but showed noticeable flicker, ghosting and far less viewing angles which lead to much more crosstalk/blurryness. I found that because active shutters flicker each lens in sync with the movie I read that although some people didn’t notice flickering, they still experience headaches. So I read that flickering to have to be seen to have an effect, its called subliminal flickering.
So it seems that for higher res on active, you don’t actually achieve this due to the effects mentioned.
With passive you have half the resolution to each eye but your brain puts these together to create full HD. Alot of reviews I found misleading about passive being not full HD and read an article about some test carried out on both 3d tech. They claimed to prove passive is full HD and done this by viewing text on both active and passive. It was said that active was clear and readable. Passive now if wasn’t full HD wouldn’t display text that was readable but infact text on passive was not only pin sharp and more then readable but appeared sharper then active. So this to me made it clear that passive was the way to go.
I have also read that with passive LG TV’s that their is input lag with gaming and that its been fixed with a firmware update, can anyone confirm this?.
Another pro for passive is being able to convert the glasses so you can play 2 player games on full screen.
So with many pros for passive, I’m planning on getting the LG 42LW650T. I was gonna wait for 2012 models but they not gonna be priced at £699 like the LG is lol.
Thanks
Maxon, that’s a great summary. I’ve just invested in a new Philips Easy 3d (passive) which uses the LG display with Philips processing, review to follow soon.
The new LG 650 range (December 2011) is looking good – 200Hz LED passive 3D. So far only seen a demo in Currys (UK).
One ‘feature’ of these TVs is a sharp cut off in the 3D effect in the veritical angle of view. So looking down at the TV eg standing when the TV is on a normal TV table, there is no 3D – just the fuzzy double image you get without the glasses. This means that you would need the TV more or less at head height when viewing 3D or tilt it backwards slightly (don’t know if that’s possible on the TVs own stand) for best 3D effect. Then it is really good! In the shop they do tilt the demo TV back for viewing when standing to avoid this problem. Wonder if this is an issue with passive 3D TVs generally.
Does passive 3D mean that the effective horizontal resolution is reduced to 860? Perhaps someone who knows could answer that. If so how is normal 2D viewing affected?
I have discounted active 3D completely because of the glasses problem but wanting to find out if normal 2D viewing is compromised by the light polarisation in passive 3D before taking the plunge.
Hi John, the 650 models are last years (I can say that now
) and have been available for quite a while. In fact when I looked at the 3D performance I made it my “best 3D TV money can buy”. The vertical limits are there on all passive sets that I’ve seen to date and if there was a way around it I imagine it would have been sorted for the pubs first.
There have been numerous tests on the resolution difference with passive and like so many things it’s not being seen by large numbers of test groups. Text is as clear if not clearer with the latest LG models compared to active 3D. I’m just about to test one of the new Philips Easy 3D TVs which use an LG panel with Philips (for my money anyway much bettter) processing in the background.
Happy new year everyone!!
Hello there Admin, by “Philips Easy 3D” you mean that you get a 7000 series TV right ? im interesting for Philips 21:9 50″ Cinema Gold. Have you seen this model ?? I really want to know how the 3D effect (passive) is display on a 21:9 TV before i make a purchase. i’ve already seen some LG’s cinema TVs on the stores here in my country and i really like the passive tech. i have the Samsung LE40C750 3D TV and i find the passive 3D better in my eyes (less crosstalk, more brigther) plus cheap glasses and battery free. Also i cant spot the lower resolution unless if i seat really close infront of the TV (less than a meter)
PS: soz for my bad english.. xD
i want an advice because i want buy either LG 5700 3d or samsung 40UA6400. i want to know which is better in 2d to 3d conversion???????????
Hi,
I honestly wouldn’t consider a 3D TV for 2D to 3D conversion only, none of them work very well, at the very best you get a very shallow looking 3D effect. At worst you end up with a blury mess of rubbishness!
In terms of proper 3D the 5700 features passive Cinema 3D tech which for my money is the best example of 3D you can buy right now.
Hello All
I hunted for well over a year for a 3d and was a huge fan of Samsung and though passive was very bad. Until I viewed a lg cinema 3d set. I was stunned the pop out is stunning and the colours are amazing. Ive viewing sets side by side and have to say that passive is the way to go. active can look sharper (if your paying serious money) yes. But its always darker even on top priced sets. LG great Tv with 7 sets of specs, i very happy. Also gaming is no problem. For pure 2d id still go samsung, but for a great al rounder its LG.
Which one has better 3d depth?
Depends on the individual TV but for my money the best Active set with a very good source is “deeper” than the best Passive TV. However if you haven’t got the faultless source then Passive wins hands down for depth.
I disagree passive, is as deep but has better pop outs. Ive tried all the top sets. Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, LG. Its matter of taste and depends on your budget. You really need to view the same source material when your buying a set. Also another thing Samsungs are bad in light, you need a black out room.