Active 3D vs. passive 3D: Which is better?
CNET reader Taher asks:
I'm trying to decide between two 3D TVs: A Panasonic that's active 3D and an LG that's passive 3D. LG has all these international certificates for the best 3D picture and claims it's full resolution, but you and others claim Passive 3D is half the resolution of real 1080p. Is there a way for me to really tell the difference between active and passive 3D?.
There sure is. ...
The bottom line
Sorry, no winners, only whiners. Both 3D methods are flawed in serious ways. Glasses-free (autostereoscopic) 3D, if it ever makes it mainstream, is going to have its own major flaws.
My advice? Figure out how much time you'll spend watching 2D versus 3D, and how far you're going to sit from your chosen screen size. If you're like most people, you'll be watching far more 2D, in which case I recommend getting the TV that looks better with 2D. If you think you'll watch a lot of 3D, passive might be better, but only if you're sitting far enough away (or your TV is small enough) that you can't see the "interlace" lines.
Read the full story here: http://asia.cnet.com/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-which-is-better-62216606.htm