Okay, I am going to have my Sony passive 3DTV looked at this Tuesday, and if they can't fix the problem (which I'm sure they won't; the problem is in the monitor), they'll replace the TV. Now I'm thinking of switching to active 3D, but was wondering due to a Sony guy once saying I could now get the same effect with their passives. I learned later he didn't know what he was talking about. I am really leaning towards active 3D. What do you guys think? Should I replace my current TV with an active 3DTV or a passive 3DTV?
Active 3D vs. Passive 3D... Which is better?
- Thread starter edisonprime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 9
- Views 1K
my friend bought a samsung 3-d tv because he games and I tired using it in 3-d mode and it gave me a headache after just a few minutes of watching it.
There are plusses and minuses. I think most people don't get headaches with passive, whereas some do with active. Passive glasses are really cheap, whereas active glasses are pretty pricey. Finally, passive consumes twice the pixels, and works best with 4K if possible. I'd say that if you're happy with the resolution w/glasses on with your present set, then I'd stick with passive.
I have both, passive is easier to deal with, cheaper glasses as pointed out, my FPTV in the bedroom has an RF emitter which works pretty good with rechargeable active glasses.
Agree with all the suggestions. I like Passive for long hours of 3D viewing I do when editing a 3D Video project. But, I prefer my active projector for a movie as it has higher resolution and bigger screen. The active glasses don't give me a headache, but I do get eye fatigue after 2-3 hours of wearing them.
If it's in the budget, go with the newer 4K model, at least 65" size and here, passive will still get you 1080 x 1920 pixels on 3D as they all upconvert to the 4K to make up for the loss from the film patterned retarder on the screen.
If it's in the budget, go with the newer 4K model, at least 65" size and here, passive will still get you 1080 x 1920 pixels on 3D as they all upconvert to the 4K to make up for the loss from the film patterned retarder on the screen.
Took some weeks of haggling, but they exchanged my Sony KDL-60R550A (which is passive) for a Sony KDL-60W850B (which is active). I got it on Wednesday.
I have a Samsung Active and love it. It's 240hz so it's 120hz per eye unlike some older versions of active that were only 120hz thus only 60hz per eye (I can definitely see that causing a headache).
Another disadvantage to passive is since it's polarized, you need to be sitting straight up, with active I can lay on my side in bed and it don't affect it at all.
Passive is crap IMHO.
Another disadvantage to passive is since it's polarized, you need to be sitting straight up, with active I can lay on my side in bed and it don't affect it at all.
Passive is crap IMHO.
Ive had them both and did not see enough quality vs price vs loss of 3D image to warrant using the active glasses; especially when passive glasses at 8 dollars a pop are a lot cheaper to replace, are battery free, and you can even take them to the theatres.
Similar threads
