Passive vs. Active 3D

[Brian Iannone]

Basically, I'm starting this thread because I'm asking for a discussion of passive 3D versus active 3D.

I was recently discussing with someone about the image quality of a film played on a passive 3D system in a theater compared to watching the same film on Blu-ray 3D with active shutter glasses. He made the point that the image on a passive system is cut in half while an active display plays the image at full resolution. (By the way, the film we were discussing was Underworld 4.)

So, would the same film be showed at "higher quality" in a theater on a passive system or on a home TV with active shutter glasses? I know there are a ton of articles online about this, but I'm wondering what the RED community thinks of this.

 

[Kwan Khan]

Both technologies have there issues when it comes to the picture (active: crosstalk, flickering) (Passive: supposed jaggies).

Off-Topic: Toshiba's 26" glasses free unit was released in Japan months ago.. can't wait to hear some feedbacks

 

[M Most]

I was recently discussing with someone about the image quality of a film played on a 4K passive 3D system in a theater ...

There is currently no 4K stereoscopic display system in theaters, in part because there is no delivery system for it (there is no 48fps, 4K DCP format, which is what would be required) and in part because there are no current 4K stereoscopic projection systems, at least none using a single projector. The 4K DLP projectors just coming on line are capable of it, but as I said, there is no current delivery format for it. All theatrical projection of stereoscopic material that isn't IMAX is 2K at this point in time.

 

[Brian Iannone]

There is currently no 4K stereoscopic display system in theaters, in part because there is no delivery system for it (there is no 48fps, 4K DCP format, which is what would be required) and in part because there are no current 4K stereoscopic projection systems, at least none using a single projector. The 4K DLP projectors just coming on line are capable of it, but as I said, there is no current delivery format for it. All theatrical projection of stereoscopic material that isn't IMAX is 2K at this point in time.

True. That completely slipped my mind... Thank you for catching that.

Okay so, let's continue comparing 2K passive 3D and 1080p active 3D.

 

[John Schick]

Well, from my limited experience, I'd tend to favor some kind of passive system. Active-shutter glasses cost a whole lot more than passive glasses, as well as requiring batteries (or some form of electrical power).

Another thing is that the active glasses need to stay in sync with the TV. I recently had the opportunity to work on a stereoscopic 3D project and we were using an active-shutter 3D Plasma TV to preview the edit. If something blocked the line-of-sight to the TV's receiver, the glasses would shut off. I also noticed that the active glasses made any other light sources appear to flicker (i.e. computer monitor).

Although the image quality was very good on the TV, the expensive, flickering glasses are one of the biggest drawbacks (in my opinion).

 

[Petri Teittinen]

Both technologies have there issues when it comes to the picture (active: crosstalk, flickering)

Thoroughly disagree with this. With active it's at least possible to get rid of crosstalk (for proof, see current DLP 3D projectors like the Optoma HD33) while on a passive system crosstalk is pretty much "baked in" because of imperfect polarization. As for flickering, just switch off light sources except the display/projector and flickering is history.

(Passive: supposed jaggies).

Nothing supposed about them on current passive 3D TV sets. I can see the half-rez jaggies from 10 feet away on a 55-inch display.

Off-Topic: Toshiba's 26" glasses free unit was released in Japan months ago.. can't wait to hear some feedbacks

Autostereoscopic displays offering high resolution per viewpoint and good image quality at a reasonable (for consumers) price are still several years away. The industry is doing itself a massive disservice by pushing current autostereoscopic tech on consumers.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

Personally had better results with active cinema systems. Saw a demo lately in Paris at Idiff and it looked amazing to me.
The best 3d I had seen so far.
I know Jim will want to prove me wrong , and he probably might have a reason for it; with passive systems I had always ghosting and such and was not certain if it was 100% ok for my eyes and brain, feelt somewhat weird, while with the active systems in cinema I felt 100% comfortable