Is Active 3D really that much better than Passive 3D?

I was reading an article that compared a passive 3D tv with an active 3D tv. In the article, the author said that the difference between passive and active is like the difference between standard def and high def. Is that true?

I am in the market for a 3D tv, and the active ones are more expensive, but if it's really that much better, I'd think it's worth it.

They are different technologies, like the difference in red/blue versus polarized lenses. While passive 3d is proven to have additional artifacts, the difference will really depend on viewing distance, screen size, and the viewer themselves. It all gives my wife headaches - even the active ones - but your mileage may vary.

Personally I don't think either format is quite there yet. I do think 3D television is the future, but the technology still needs to mature dramatically, in my opinion. I'll take a high-quality HD picture over 3D and spend the savings on better audio equipment. :D

Boz

Google

"Staircase" noise is most common in passive 3D; it's covered in the above link.

Boz

I hate Active 3D. I see rainbows and blue and yellow and all kinds of weird artifacts on active shutter 3D tvs. But I didn't see that on the Passive 3D LG I viewed at Best Buy, although that isn't a good judge since it was at a store environment. Either way I don't like 3D.

Passive supposedly has less Crosstalk and supplies a brighter image, at least at this point. The downside is that it cuts the resolution in half, for most 3d content.

Passive supposedly has less Crosstalk and supplies a brighter image, at least at this point. The downside is that it cuts the resolution in half, for most 3d content.

Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

Passive supposedly has less Crosstalk and supplies a brighter image, at least at this point. The downside is that it cuts the resolution in half, for most 3d content.

DJ_Headshot

I'm not sure it affects pc games. I remember reading it was a bandwidth issue.