Would you prefer ugly 3D glasses or ugly 3DTV images? Maybe

[Rodolfo]

On the previous 4 articles I detailed the differences of the technologies currently in the market for glasses-required 3DTVs, active-shutter and passive polarized. Here is part 1, which links to the other three. I received some questions and remarks from readers and others in the industry regarding the articles. The comments lead me to believe that the concepts are still hard to comprehend by some, so I decided to summarize the subject using a simple visual comparison in one article.

I previously mentioned...

Read Article

[cpto]

A friend and I both looked at a couple of passive sets at a local Best Buy. Even though he's not very critical of displays, he immediately noticed the degraded picture, especially when the 3D demo ended and the TV returned to a 2-D display. The missing lines were very obvious.

Maybe it was not set up properly, or maybe it was the bright lights of the showroom, but we both agreed that the sets weren't worth owning given the poor picture.

FWIW, we were both judging the picture against a 65" Panny plasma I own.

[DavidEC]

I have tried to read all the articles on the in home 3D and current technology...

One thing that I seem to notice is that the when the PASSIVE sets are being compared to active-shutter sets that does not seem to get written about and the one "BIG" topic in a small living room is off center viewing.

The active-shutter reviews when just reviewing a single set seem to point out the off center viewing, with all other things being equal it seems that the active-shutter sets allow better off center / side viewing of the set.

I sure hope this is true as I could not find an in-store display that would allow me to move off center and ordered a Plasma 43" 3D set based on this one selling point alone. As my front seating will be about 6' from the screen at about 30' off center... the farther back in the room the more on center the seating becomes.

The set will be delivered later this week and I will install this coming weekend.


:David

[memofo]

Wow! You really hate passive. You claim that both systems should coexist but you never really talk about actives faults to the degree you talk about passives. How many times in all your articles have you stated that passive systems half the resolution?

You Mentioning Passives Half Resolution Just in the first 1/4 of your first article:
(1) You state, "Manufacturers of passive polarized 3DTVs "claim" their glasses are low cost, that the image is similar to what viewers experienced at some local theaters, and that viewers generally not notice the half resolution per eye (540 lines out of 1080 per eye"

(Counter point: How many active owners notice flicker? You don't focus on this point nearly as much throughout your entire study, or any of actives faults for that matter)

(2) You state, "Although the passive technology shows only 540 lines out of the 1080 lines of resolution per eye the big fuss is that the two half-resolution 3D images are shown to each corresponding eye simultaneously, reason by which 3DTV manufactures "claim" that their final image is a full 1080 image, for the brain to work the mess out"

(Counter point: It's not just the TV manufactures that claim you see full HD with passive. Germany-based VDE, one of Europe’s largest technical-scientific associations, has certified the LG's Cinema 3D as full HD in 3D mode. PC World stated,"When we tested the two technologies side-by-side, we didn’t find a noticeable difference in im­­age quality between the two" This test included all flat panel types including plasmas) http://www.pcworld.com/article/240404/t ... _2011.html

(3) The passive-glasses method could allow that viewer to enjoy 3D at half-resolution as a compromise, but the compromise has to be told when purchasing the set. At the end it is a consumer’s decision, and hopefully the selection will be supported by a well informed comparison of 3D technologies, rather than just by how much the glasses cost.

(Counter point: There are "way" more features and benefits then just the cost of the glasses that cause people to choose passive over active. But you totally fail to mention these)

Im going to stop here on this subject, I could be here for hours counting every time you mention the half resolution of passive though out your study.

Next you mentioned viewing angle:
You state, "Also take note that, although LG Electronics "claims" that their new 3DTVs can be viewed at increased angles, there is a limitation of view angles typical of LCD technology that degrades not only color, contrast, brightness and overall picture quality, but also affects the 3D effect. My informal viewing did not convince me of that wide-angle ability"

(Counter Point: Passive TVs are not conventional LCD TV's as you mentioned and have a much wider horizontal viewing then then both active LEDs and Plasmas in 3D mode. Passive 3DTV's allow head tilt as well, what about this viewing angle? The only viewing angle active has over passive is vertical, and this is nowhere near as important as horizontal when it comes to the number of viewers)

Check out the link below and just view all the images: Then tell me what you think of passives viewing angle. Active LCD or Plasmas can't come close.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/38943/p ... tter-tv-lg

Next article:
You state, "The first article on this series covered the battle of passive vs. active 3DTV methods"

(Counter point: Battle what Battle, your idea of a battle is like a heavy weight boxer fighting a 9 year old asthmatic)

In this article you focus on non other then the resolution of passive, there is no mention of any active shutter faults at all. Except this, "Some viewers are said to experience discomfort when viewing 3DTV with active-shutter glasses, I wonder how that discomfort compares with the brain effort required to reconstruct the pixel structure shown by passive 3DTVs, not to mention LG’s"

(Counter point: Your kidding right? Hmm, heavy annoying flickering glasses that causes headaches, nausea, and eye fatigue or passive image fusion that requires my brain to work without me even noticing it, wow hard choice. However, maybe it requires more brian power then even some experts have)

Im not going to even talk about you next articles, I feel they are not worth even mentioning considering the average consumer would be lost in all the technical lingo and hypocrisy. I have to ask though, after writing all of it, weather you actually believe this was a complete overview of both technologies? Saying it seems a bit one sided, would be a complete understatement. This wasn't a battle was it, it never was.

[Rodolfo]

DavidEC,

LCD 3DTV passive and active-shutter uses LCD panel technology which has been known for years for its typical degradation of color, contrast, and brightness when your horizontal viewing is increasingly away from the straight center viewing position. LCD manufacturers continuously claim up 178 degrees on specs, which is almost parallel to the TV frame, I suggest for you to see LCD from that extreme angle and compare it to plasma. 3D adds the vertical angle viewing limitation to the above, which is not your case but since you said you have restricted viewing space you should know that. In my experience the increased degradation of LCD imaging (in 2D and 3D) starts to be noticeable pass the +-15% point off-center (+-10% off-center in the experience of some comprehensive tests) and that is regardless of 3D.

However, you may still need LCD for specific reasons, for example a) room light conditions require a bright screen and LCD is better than plasma in that regard, b) the cost/number of active-shutter glasses exceeds your budget and that pushes you toward passive and that is LCD (today), or c) visual problems with active-shutter glasses/technology which are certainly non-negotiable.

Before you purchase I suggest for you to do your own viewing to confirm that you would be pleased, rather than ordering online without even seeing the image, as many do. The 3D effect on LG passive would not be good if viewing too close (as your case of 6-feet), and from that close range you will see the distracting 540 black lines of the FPR grid.

If you do not have visual problems with active-shutter technology and you are looking for image quality in 2D and 3D the Panasonic plasma brand 3DTV you mentioned would probably be the best choice for you if the cost of the glasses is not an issue, because it has no LCD technology image/viewing limitations (in 2D and 3D), it has full resolution in 3D per eye, it has no extra layer of FPR between the panel and your eyes as LCD (which regardless how innocuous its painted to be by the passive proponents you rather not have anything in the middle of the light path for most of your viewing, which most probaly is in 2D), and plasma has consistently been recognized as better than LCD in terms of image quality, even with all the positive progress LCD has made until today.

Good luck and enjoy whatever your choice is, fortunately both technologies exist to facilitate comparisons to satisfy those that have issues with one and not the other.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[DavidEC]

DavidEC, ....Before you purchase I suggest for you to do your own viewing to confirm that you would be pleased, rather than ordering online without even seeing the image, as many do. The 3D effect on LG passive would not be good if viewing too close (as your case of 6-feet), and from that close range you will see the distracting 540 black lines of the FPR grid....

I went to my local "Best Buy" and viewed the 2D image of same set that I ended up purchasing vers the LCD sets in the same price range. I know that the sets were not color tuned. And they did not have freely to ware glasses for a 3D comparison.
I have been watching a Plasma set for the last five years and know about the glare issue.. but is not as bad or worse than the older 32" tube set that it replaced.

The box is sitting in my office now waiting for me to unpack.. but just too tired after work.
And I got the Samsung 43" PN43D490 as I do not have room for a set larger than 46" with out blocking a door way.

:David

[Rodolfo]

DavidEc,

I thought you were getting a Panasonic plasma, that was the one I recommended. Any reason why you did not choose Panasonic?

After Pioneer Elite was discontinued the plasmas from Panasonic have taken their place regarding image quality.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[DavidEC]

DavidEc,
I thought you were getting a Panasonic plasma, that was the one I recommended. Any reason why you did not choose Panasonic?
Rodolfo La Maestra

I have had a real bad experience with Panasonic reliability and warranty service in the past in my market area.
TV's which did not work after 50days that had to be replaced which after the second replacement Panasonic would not honor warranty claiming local electrical troubles even after a letter from my local service provider stating that my wiring exceed local codes.

The COST the Panasonic was close to $200 more in my area.

I could of gone with a 'LG' for the same price as the 'Samsung' but the ones I saw live had really bad off center viewing in the show room.

:David

[Rodolfo]

DavidEC,

Sorry to hear about your Panasonic experience, at least the set did not catch fire like the Vizio or Sony.

I hope you are aware that the panel you purchased is 720p, actually 1024x768 native which gives 20% less horizontal pixels than the 1280 of the 720p resolution standard, which means even 720 content would have to be scaled down to that native pixel grid and 1080i/p all the time, therefore all images would have to go thru video procesing scaling, and with only 786K pixels the panel is a bit shy to qualify for HD in my book (720p is 921k pixels, 1080p is 2073k pixels). All depends of the application.

Based on the 43 inches and 768p the following data could give you an idea of the viewing distances and angles, and what to expect.

Your 6 feet viewing distance would give you about 29 degrees of lateral angle of view for a fair content immersion (SMPTE recommends 30 or greater, THX recommends 36 or greater), but sitting too close to increase the angle of view and excite your peripheral vision for movie immersion may make you see pixel structure.

THX recommends 4.8 feet of viewing distance (with a maximum of 6.8 ) and SMPTE recommends 5.8 feet to obtain their recommended angles of view (36 and 30 degrees respectively).

But the ideal distance before requiring more resolution in the 43” panel with 20/20 visual acuity is 10.5 feet (5.6 for 1080p, and 8.4 for an actual 720x1280). You are 4.5 feet closer than the 10.5. At 6 feet a 1080p panel may be more appropriate if the application requires care for detail imaging, but it will cost more. If you want to reconsider I suggest for you to go to a store and use these numbers to determine if it is worth to you.

Although there are very few owners that are eager to admit their TV babies are ugly, such as those that selected a set not for its quality but for the cheap 3D glasses or from red tag sales they cannot refuse, most owners on Samsung’s web site reviewed the panel you purchased as mostly 5 stars, so enjoy your set David.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[DavidEC]

DavidEC,
THX recommends 4.8 feet of viewing distance (with a maximum of 6.8 ) and SMPTE recommends 5.8 feet to obtain their recommended angles of view (36 and 30 degrees respectively).

Rodolfo:

Thanks for the info, only trouble is, too many times when it comes to "TV"s the numbers don't always tell the whole story!

I did plenty of searches and reading before going with Samsung (which really would not of been my first choice ) but it seemed that there were very few negative postings, unlike sets of like size and price, where the buyers were very upset with their purchase. And this was from posting over five different forums. this set and its sister 51" set were loved by most buyers and it seems that there was only bit of trouble with the factory settings was in the over all 'BLACK' setting which it seems that a little bit of tweeking of the color setting gets the black under control, still not perfect, but for the money, a great buy.

David