TV & Home Theater

[rwillen]

---

nancyscott wrote:

The best tv  i have ever experience yet is 3D....makes me feel live while watching my programs in 3d whether its a FIFA tournament or anything else. Currently Owning LG Cinema 3d have a great experience with this model. Good looking light weight 3d glasses of my tv never irritates me when going to watch for long time.

The one's who have issues with their current Active 3d must try the Passive which comes with light weight 3d glasses like mine.

Cheers

Scott 

---

My Panasonic Active Shutter Glasses weigh less than an ounce and seamlessly switch between 3D/2D mode when I need them to. I've seen all four available types of 3D now, and if I had to pick in order of preference i would be Active/Plasma then Acitve/DLP then Passive/LCD then Active/LCD.

The only advantage that Passive has now is cost. But then again the cost of the glasses for my family was easily offset by the amount of money I saved by gettting my plasma instead of an equivilant LCD.

[Jimmienomam]

I would only correct you in one area rwillen, There are 2 things that passive hold: price and lessened eye strain.

But besides that I think active is definitely the better of the technologies right now, probably because it has had more years to iron out problems then passive. I do see passive being truly viable in the future and taking over, but for now videophiles agree active gives you better 3d experience picture wise.

[rwillen]

---

Jimmienomam wrote:
I would only correct you in one area rwillen, There are 2 things that passive hold: price and lessened eye strain.

But besides that I think active is definitely the better of the technologies right now, probably because it has had more years to iron out problems then passive. I do see passive being truly viable in the future and taking over, but for now videophiles agree active gives you better 3d experience picture wise.

---

Price is only an advantage if you're buying an entry level lcd, and at that point you introduce other issues.

The future will be glasses free 3D. Toshiba and Sony have them, and MIT this nifty prototype:

http://web.media.mit.edu/~mhirsch/hr3d/

[SlimJim77]

---

Jimmienomam wrote:
I would only correct you in one area rwillen, There are 2 things that passive hold: price and lessened eye strain.

But besides that I think active is definitely the better of the technologies right now, probably because it has had more years to iron out problems then passive. I do see passive being truly viable in the future and taking over, but for now videophiles agree active gives you better 3d experience picture wise.

---

I don't believe eye strain to be connected to a specific type of 3D technology. Eye strain in a manifestation of the visual trickery that both type of techniques provide. I noticed no eye strain when viewing active, but did notice some with passive.

[Jimmienomam]

Well I guess you are correct. Since the introduction of more passive TVs they are saying the the majority of the eyes train is from content rather then delivery method. Challenging previous findings that active is more strain on the eyes than passive (passive was judged largely on theater passive tech then home tvs)

[SlimJim77]

---

Jimmienomam wrote:
Well I guess you are correct. Since the introduction of more passive TVs they are saying the the majority of the eyes train is from content rather then delivery method. Challenging previous findings that active is more strain on the eyes than passive (passive was judged largely on theater passive tech then home tvs)

---

I agree. I blame the eye stain I noticed when using passive on the demo material.

[Jimmienomam]

I also read an interesting article for the 5-10% of people with that cannot see 3d material (stereo vision) do to how their brain works that you can retrain your brain to see 3d film.