Panasonic is to launch a passive 3D TV in a bid to compete with LG's punter pulling models. The Viera ET 5 eschews the full HD 3D that active 3D tech makes possible in order to use the same kind of cheap, polarised specs that you use to watch 3D movies at the cinema. The downside: lower, 720p resolution 3D content. The upshot: …
But is there a downside?
>> The downside: lower, 720p resolution 3D content. The upshot: …''
PC World had this to say about passive 3D last September:
"Our own subjective comparisons echo DisplayMate's results. We tested several sets in our Active 3D vs. Passive 3D feature, and while you can certainly see the passive TVs' interlaced look staring at the screen without glasses, all the passive 3D TVs we've tested in-house (the LG 47LW5600, Vizio XVT650SV, and LG 47LW6500) produced a 3D image that looked every bit as detailed as their active-shutter counterparts."
Re: But is there a downside?
I suspect that even if there is a discernible difference between active and passive, passive will win anyway because the consumer will choose the lower quality product in order to have the freedom of more people watching (and cheap glasses), just like they have done with mp3. There are higher quality formats than mp3, but people would rather have a wider choice of lower quality stuff than the reverse. Not my view but there we are, each to his own and the money of the masses talks. :-)
Is there an upside?
Yes. Active 3D TV glasses are prone to losing sync, provoking eye strain and eventually a headache. Now let's hope Panasonic won't restrict its 32" screen to Europe like LG does (LG must be assuming every North American home runs a DIY movie theatre; I just want to look at my own 3D photographs in my living room.)
Re: Is there an upside?
And if you already wear glasses then passive may have a big upside in that the passive glasses (being cheaper and thus being able to be larger) will probably fit over exisitng glasses much better than active ones + if 3D really does take off then I think you could even get a set of prescription passive glasses (i.e. lenses that correct your eyesight with the appropriate polarization for the 3D).
You can buy clip-on passive glasses for a few quid on e-bay - probably worth it if you wear glasses and expect to use these TVs.
LG's 6500 models can be firmware upgraded to show 3D 1080i. Other passive TV makers need to match this although 720 lines is better than 540 of other models out there.
i have also heard of LG owners hacking their TVs to get a better picture and blacker blacks too.
when i saw 'overlocking my TV' i thought they were taking the piss! :)
Been looking at a new TV recently and so have been trying to get my eyes on demos of as many screens as I can. So far it's LG all the way. I prefer passive 3D. Active glasses are heavy, they don't fit well over my own glasses and they really gave me a headache after about 30 minutes. Plus the weird flickering you can get around the screen is incredibly distracting.
No such issues with passive technology, and if there is any difference resolution wise it was impossible to pick up.
It is great news that Panasonic are now entering the passive 3D market.
Re: Passive wins
no offence - but if you cant see the differences in 1080p and 720p then you either need glasses or have never used a decent screen. i find the difference staggering.
Re: Re: Passive wins
Then you've never done the comparison for 3D content.
At this rate I can't see (ahem) active getting the upper hand over passive. Cheaper, less complex and less side-effects are always going to win out.
However the real killer 'app'/elephant is content. As several commentards have said over the years; dross in 3D is still dross.