Active vs. passive 3D: What is better?
- — 10 June, 2011 09:59
If you buy a brand new TV these days, chances are if it's anything more than a bargain-bin model it will be able to play some form of 3D video. Almost all mid-range and high-end TVs from brands like Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, LG, Sharp and Toshiba support 3D playback, but different TVs use different methods to display the 3D effect. The two competing technologies are active 3D and passive 3D. In this article we will be highlighting the major differences between them to decide which is the better technology.
If you're picking out a new television and want to work out what's best for you, read through our LCD vs LED vs plasma TV buying guide.
Want to learn about 3D TV? Take a look at our 3D TV buying guide.
Active 3D
Active 3D is the technology that the first generation of 3D TVs debuted with, spearheaded by Samsung in 2010. Active 3D uses battery-powered 3D glasses which have LCD 'shutters' over each lens. When 3D content is being shown, the LCD glasses darken to block the lens of each eye of the 3D glasses sequentially, in sync with the 3D TV itself. The 3D TV shows sequential frames of 3D footage to each eye. Because one lens is blocked out, only particular video frames are shown to the right eye, and only particular frames are shown to the left eye. The frames shown to the left eye are shifted horizontally compared to the frames shown to the right eye; this horizontal shift is what makes video look 3D. Each frame contains a full 1080 lines in active 3D.
Passive 3D
LG's new 'Cinema 3D' TVs use passive 3D. Passive 3D uses the same basic concept as active 3D — the video frames shown to each eye are off-set against each other to produce a simulated 3D effect. However, passive 3D does not use any fancy technology in the glasses. Instead, each lens is polarised; the left lens is polarised oppositely to the right lens. It's complicated, but essentially each line of pixels on a passive 3D TV is polarised to only display video frames to either the left or the right eye of a pair of polarised 3D glasses; there are 1080 lines in a Full HD TV, so 540 lines for each eye.
Which is better?
There are advantages and disadvantages to both passive and active 3D — the differences exist mostly in the glasses.
Passive 3D glasses are much cheaper than their active equivalent. A bundle of two pairs from LG costs just $19. They are more affordable because they don't have any batteries, Bluetooth or complicated circuitry built in — all they are is a pair of plastic frames and two polarised plastic lenses. You can buy polarised 3D glasses at the cinema for $1; though we assume the polarisation is different, it demonstrates the low production cost of passive glasses. In contrast, active shutter 3D glasses from the big brands like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung cost $100 or more, with premium models costing as much as $150. If you've got a dozen people coming around to watch a 3D movie, passive 3D is a clear winner in the price stakes.
Active 3D glasses are heavier than passive glasses due to having an inbuilt battery and circuitry, as well as thicker lenses, which contain the LCD shutters. This hasn't been a problem during our testing, but if you're watching a 3D movie marathon, active glasses might be marginally more uncomfortable. Active glasses are also prone to flickering — if you've got particular kinds of lighting around your TV (fluorescent globes are the worst offenders), active 3D glasses can show the light as flickery due to the fast on-off effect of the active shutters built into the glasses. This is only a problem with particular kinds of lighting — incandescent globes, for example, remain flicker-free in our experience. Passive 3D glasses don't exhibit any flicker.
To their credit, active shutter glasses are able to display more detail to each eye — the alternating-frame technology means a full 1080p image is shown to each eye, rather than the half frame (alternating lines down the TV screen) that passive 3D shows. This means that the video will have cleaner lines, especially on curves and edges. If high quality video is crucially important to you, active 3D is the choice to make. (You could just watch the movie in 2D and have the best picture, but that's another story.)
So, passive 3D wins out on price, weight, size and anti-flickering, but active 3D is still the go-to for outright image quality.
Comments
Ned
Thu 04/08/2011 - 11:49
Well, I passed by the electronics shop two days ago and tried out Samsung active 3D and LG passive 3D for the very first time, and the LG was much better. I asked the shop assistant how they were going to sell the pricier active 3D sets the shop had, in the context of the present reality...she just smiled and informed me that people were buying them. Was I surprised? I guess folks still spend their monies without hands-on research. Good for Samsung though.
Anthony
Fri 05/08/2011 - 10:43
In my experiences with the two, i truly enjoyed the active glasses much more. Sure they cost more, but it's a pretty common fact that things that are more costly are going to be more of an experience for you.
Sebastian
Sun 14/08/2011 - 09:42
I preferred LG's (have not seen vizio) passive 3D - just a personal opinion, don't be offended if you prefer active. Why did I prefer it?
Yes, some lines are visible if you want to get picky. But to me using the 1080/540 issue as the sole or primary benchmark on video quality is like choosing one car over another because it is faster. Does that make it the superior car?
At any normal distance and even fairly close up, I didn't feel like the LG set was lacking in image quality. Unless you wanted to make and issue out of it, the lines just weren't a big deal to me. If I just wanted to watch something and enjoy it, the image did not leave me wanting.
Passive may only deliver 540 to each eye, but on the other hand detractors sometimes fail to mention that active shutter is rather dimmer because light is alternately being shut off to each eye and sometimes simultaneously shut off to minimize crosstalk risks. Passive seemed brighter to me. Some active sets looked pretty dull in comparison.
As far as 3d effect goes, there was no comparison-LG was the winner by miles. I've seen active from Sony, Samsung and Panasonic. They all look like a frame, beyond which lies a 3d world. It is pretty good.
Yes, sometimes things can extend out of the frame on active sets, but nothing like what I saw on the LG set. When I watched LG's passive, the image was much more submersive and felt less restricted by the frame. There was one sequence where I felt like this big fish was swimming around between the screen and my face. It was pretty jaw-dropping; it looked like a very good holograph that you imagine could only happen in a Star Trek Movie. None of the active sets ever gave me that experience. Off axis 3d looked pretty good also, although I did not compare to all the sets.
All things considered, (and only as far as image quality is concerned, not economics or convenience) I still preferred LG's 3d image even though it did not win every category.
Finally, there is the content issue. There is little 3d content available right now, and it will probably be a while before there is. So what you need is a good 2d set, which the LG is, and the 1080/540 is not an issue on 2d.
To sum up, the LG is a good 2d set for now, with wonderful and totally enjoyable 3d (even preferable 3d) when you can get it. On top of that, you can tilt your head more than with passive, easily share 3d with friends at a party without spending enough money on active glasses to buy another nice TV, not have to buy batteries all the time which adds to our waste, not run out of juice for the glasses in the middle of a movie, not have to worry about kids breaking your glasses or whether the glasses are on or off, have fewer worries about long-term comfort (flickering/shuttering w active), all in a very low-energy set. Whatever your preference may be, I would say it certainly has much to commend it, and is worth considering.
jason
Thu 25/08/2011 - 04:59
I have to disagree with alot (not all) of this article in regards to active being superior to passive in terms such as resolution (I actually just posted this on another site where I found a similar claim). It's the complete opposite. Well, it's the complete opposite with the lg brand anyway. As of this month, it is official since the council/panel of individuals who determine whether a picture is full 1080p or not voted that lg's 3-d picture was in fact full 1080p regardless of the "split resolution" that many have argued over. It's on the lg official site right now as we sit here. Also, today I took one of my favorite blu-rays (that has alot of 3-d pop out) to the store I bought my lg 55lw6500 and had it put on a samsung plasma model and then immediately put it on the tv I bought and the pop out was the same on both but my picture quality was better because it showed a brighter picture. The resolution has never been a factor, if it was this panel of experts would not have voted that the picture quality is full 1080p in 3-d mode.
Tayeb
Wed 31/08/2011 - 21:49
Hi
I was planning to bye Samsung 3d tv series 7000 46", but the price was very high in my country.. but when i found the new lg 3d tv lw6510 47" (the new generation of 3d) I changed my mind and I got it. Here is the reasons :-
1/ the price is ok
2/ passive shutter glasses is secure for eyes because u got the Pic. in both eyes at the same time.
3/ affordable glasses with low price
4/ u can move your head to any direction .. but in active shutter it will not work if you moved your head to right or left side.
5/ passive shutter glasses Pic. very bright and not effect the quality.. active shutter make it dark.
This is my word if you want to go 3d.. go LG with new 3d generation.
kirk
Sun 06/11/2011 - 16:35
the LG is a cool tv i also planned to buy a samsung but like many of people price was a factor and i was still gonna get the more expensive samsung 3dtv b ut i went to bestbuy and tried all them out the samsung 240hertz tv is bright but the lg is rite ther with it even the panasonic is cool but the lg popped out like any other if not better at some points B/c of the flicker from sony batt. power glasses and other brands...overall the samsung is got the cooler lookin glasses and i think if lg made there cinema glasses a lil more better with the frame letting in light and glare from behind u...i reccommend the LG and buy glasses that have sides there about 50$ they work great and eliminates the glare...save a 1000$ ...i did..and got the 3d just like everyone else did
Jeff
Sat 21/01/2012 - 16:12
I've been reading the artices on here and noticed that the people on here complaining about active are only doing so cause they can't afford it, Samsung and Sony Rule in TV quality and they chose to stick with active because it puts out a much better quality image then LG or Sharp, i bought the Samsung LED 55" 3D and i can confirm that the 3D images coming from it is simply INSANE, so if you want the best pay for it.....
Brian
Wed 04/04/2012 - 15:05
LG has really good inexpensive 3D and LED TV's. In the end Plasma definately has better picture quality without a doubt and LED is just brighter. The LED's however are catching up. I own both types of TV's in my home (LED for living room and Plasma for basement). You can't really notice the difference, but if you look at them side by side you can clearly see the depth and detail on the Plasma TV. Same goes for 3D, there is a better picture and detail on the Sony and Samsung 3D. However I would purchase an LG 3D, it is also quite good and inexpensive. It's a matter of what you want, your budget and if you think its worth it.
Mr d
Mon 09/04/2012 - 02:14
What isn't mentioned about active 3d is that by using the active shutters you are reducing the refresh time on the screen so for every two images produced your right eye sees one and your left eye the other while for passive the refresh rate is doubled but advertisers dont want you to realise this.
Brailey1
Mon 14/05/2012 - 02:32
i was in a mix thinking which type 3d to go for. after research of the both types of 3d tvs on the market i went for the sharp aquos 60 led 3d tv for movies and games it ticks all the boxes for me picture quality is amazing...each to there own tho meaning we all like diffrent things best advice is try before you buy each tv i viewed i spent around 20 minutes watching 3d so take your time so you get the one thats right for you
Daniel Chung
Thu 14/07/2011 - 16:01
Also the active 3D glasses make the screen size smaller and darker than the passive 3D glasses.