HDTV Expert - Samsung and Panasonic 3D TVs: Any better than Sony?

[720pete]

After my off-axis viewing tests on Sony's 3D TVs last week, I figured it was only fair to see just how well the competition performed in the same test.

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/06/hdtv-expert-samsung-and-panasonic-3d-tvs-any-better-than-sony.php]Read Column[/url]

[hdtvjim]

Are you sure you were comparing the 3D TV's with the same glasses? Looks like one used "shutter" glasses and the other "linear" polarizers glasses. In your next test it would be nice if you could add that info to the "Test".

[jscott75]

Would 'non-active/passive' glasses have the same effect?

I just did a 3D evaluation of a World Cup soccer game using passive glasses and the results were very good. I also remember the LG demo at CES which used passive glasses rather than active ones. I'm wondering why the market is jumping on the active-shutter bandwagon, is it a marketing thing where they can say that it's 'true 1080p' 3D HD?

I think the picture quality is better with passive glasses and surely the glasses themselves would be a lot cheaper and there would be no need for battery replacement (less moving parts, etc.)...

Am I missing something?

- John.

[pmalter0]

Without testing DLPs, this review is incomplete. DLPs are inherently less susceptible to ghosting because of their greater image speed. More importantly a 3d image looks far better on a properly sized screen( http://www.displaybank.com/eng/info/sread.php?id=5752 ), and most people cannot afford a 65"(or larger) 3d plasma or LCD.