Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What would be the better way to buy active 3d or passive 3d?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
July 31, 2012 5:16:57 AM

It seems to have a war in between passive and active 3d manufacturers from past couple of years. Everyone claims to have the best technology and 3d sets in class while, on the other hand passive over active considered as best or vice versa. This situation is so mystifying to decide which one is actually the preeminent in market.

More about : buy active passive

July 31, 2012 2:11:13 PM

Purely from a numbers perspective, Manufacturers that produce active sets ( Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung) sell far more TVs than Passive (LG and Toshiba). There are debates every direction that say which is better, but my suggestion is to go to a local store, and try both. I will nearly guarantee one of LG's paid fanboys will show up here spouting about LG , Passive 3D, Smart TV, and blah blah. Go check both out for yourself!

For a brief and true description, check out home theater magazine's quick blurb.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/passive-vs-active-3d
m
0
l
August 1, 2012 7:52:42 AM

Terry Brown said:
It seems to have a war in between passive and active 3d manufacturers from past couple of years. Everyone claims to have the best technology and 3d sets in class while, on the other hand passive over active considered as best or vice versa. This situation is so mystifying to decide which one is actually the preeminent in market.


I agree that you should go to a shop and try both passive and active 3d tvs. Best is a very subjective term and it greatly depends on your wants and needs. What's really mystifying is the basis of what the other user has shared. Come to think of it, panasonic released their own passive tv earlier this year and sony is also planning to manufacture their own. If active 3d tvs are indeed more profitable why would these manufacturers want to sell passive 3d tvs? I checked the link provided and the claims are not really well substantiated. If you want real statistics and lab tests here's what you should check:

http://www.displaymate.com/3D_TV_ShootOut_1.htm

FYI, that site is that reliable that even David of CNET uses it for reference.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20102018-1/study-fi...

It's very obvious that the user just doesn't like lg or passive 3d tvs for that matter. I'm a proud lg fan and how I wish what that user said was true. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 1, 2012 11:17:44 AM

Terry Brown said:
It seems to have a war in between passive and active 3d manufacturers from past couple of years. Everyone claims to have the best technology and 3d sets in class while, on the other hand passive over active considered as best or vice versa. This situation is so mystifying to decide which one is actually the preeminent in market.



I bought an LG passive 3dtv earlier this year after checking both types out at a Best buy and a Microcenter. At the time I bought it, the 3D was better on the LG passive than any of the active shutter sets that were there. Not having the bulky glasses that needed batteries or to be recharged is a definite plus as well as the glasses are so cheap you can get many pairs so you can host a movie night and be able to hand them out to everyone.
I love it and don't regret my decision, but as others posted, it is best if you look yourself and see what you like. It is my opinion that the 2 technologies are going to keep leapfrogging each other until a reasonable non-glasses solution comes out.
m
0
l
August 1, 2012 4:45:23 PM

I don't dislike LG TVs in any way! If you search my many posts, I normally recommend them along side of Sony and Samsung for LCD. What I do dislike, are the dozens of nearly identical fanboy rants containing LG's marketing jargon on the boards. I just have a sneaking suspicion LG has people posting their marketing on the board wherever possible (including non-related threads). Many of these posters clearly don't even own the product, and appear to be simply posting off a spec sheet.

That aside...

If I were purchasing a set today, I would look at LG LCDs becase the design is absolutely amazing, and the image quality is good. For the money, I strongly believe LG is a tough cookie to beat. Their feature set is solid, but doesn't really stand out ahead of any other manufacturer. In terms of absolute picture quality, you can find Sony or Samsung LCDs , and Panasonic plasmas that will outperform them, but you can bank on spending at least $500 more.

I would purchase a TV set based on 2D picture quality first, 3D second. If the set is poor in 2D, it's going to be poor in 3D. Not to mention, 3D content is fairly difficult to find right now. From my personal experience with 3D, I own an active Panasonic VT-25. I did not purchase the set for its 3D, but for the 2D image. I have seen Toshiba, and LG's Passive 3D systems, and both are good. As the poster above me said, I do not feel that one technology is leaps and bounds ahead of the other. It really is personal preference.

m
0
l
August 2, 2012 9:02:30 AM

jcoultas98 said:
I don't dislike LG TVs in any way! If you search my many posts, I normally recommend them along side of Sony and Samsung for LCD. What I do dislike, are the dozens of nearly identical fanboy rants containing LG's marketing jargon on the boards. I just have a sneaking suspicion LG has people posting their marketing on the board wherever possible (including non-related threads). Many of these posters clearly don't even own the product, and appear to be simply posting off a spec sheet.

That aside...

If I were purchasing a set today, I would look at LG LCDs becase the design is absolutely amazing, and the image quality is good. For the money, I strongly believe LG is a tough cookie to beat. Their feature set is solid, but doesn't really stand out ahead of any other manufacturer. In terms of absolute picture quality, you can find Sony or Samsung LCDs , and Panasonic plasmas that will outperform them, but you can bank on spending at least $500 more.

I would purchase a TV set based on 2D picture quality first, 3D second. If the set is poor in 2D, it's going to be poor in 3D. Not to mention, 3D content is fairly difficult to find right now. From my personal experience with 3D, I own an active Panasonic VT-25. I did not purchase the set for its 3D, but for the 2D image. I have seen Toshiba, and LG's Passive 3D systems, and both are good. As the poster above me said, I do not feel that one technology is leaps and bounds ahead of the other. It really is personal preference.



For a regular consumer like me, I can't really see how picture quality of sony or samsung is better from lg. This is also why I am not ready to pay more for their tvs. I think if there is really a difference, it would only be signifcant for video/tv experts. But not many people are like that.

I agree that tv purchase should not be solely because of 3d.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 6:23:52 AM

Active has its own advantage and passive has its own. People who says passive is better than active or vice versa; so there is nothing bad in it. I think it’s an individual perception based on their personal experience. Being a 3D user I would say I like active technology too, but its heavy and expensive 3d glasses seems annoying to me over passive. Though Samsung & Sony have couple of nice 3D sets out there, but LG passive is undoubtedly the most liked TVs for me.
m
0
l
August 20, 2012 8:54:05 PM

It's largely based on preference, so I would recommend comparing active and passive 3D side-by-side to make a decision.
m
0
l
!