Read through the article. No "misconception" broken yet. Didn't find anything I didn't already know except for personal opinion of some online blogger/reviewer. I'm talking from my own experience here (lg 55" passive & epson tw8100, samsung plasma with active 3d) instead of quoting some article. Everyone will have their own experiences and preferences. Claiming that half HD res is the same as full HD just coz you or someone else couldn't tell the difference is not right IMO. What next? 720p is sharp as 1080p coz most of us (myself included) won't be able to tell the difference from the distance we normally watch tv? The difference, as subtle or as hard to notice as it maybe, is there.
But in the end, my own personal opinion is that passive didn't feel as sharp and active didn't feel as comfortable. Both in the end give me enough headaches to not bother with either. Like I said in my last post too, YMMV. Both are easily available for demo. Check them out and choose the one you prefer.
I have read that article - and it is not just any blogger on just any website - it is Raymond Soneira, the founder and president of Displaymate. He is the kind of person that can give masterclasses to TV reviewers - but that is beside the point. The point is - the "misconception" about the effect of halving of vertical resolution on 3D image. Let us take up the issue.
Now, it is a fact that passive FPR screen on a passive 3D TV does indeed halve the resolution - no one can deny that. If you take a magnifying glass, and watch the passive 3D Tv screen with it closely, you can actually see the lines. But, is that how you watch a TV - up close with a magnifying glass?
Now, since we have agreed that passive 3D Tvs INDEED halve the vertical resolution, the natural corollary is - does this have any effect on the forming of a 3D image? Now, I am sure that you will understand that the halving of resolution would matter ONLY in case of 3D viewing - so that question stands to reason. And as per the displaymate article, the halving of resolution does not, repeat NOT have any effect on how a 3D image is rendered. Here, I will quote the relevant para of the article where Mr Raymond says so -
By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes its easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and cant get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.
But its not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isnt any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see. That is the theory and fundamental principle behind 3D Image Fusion for FPR TVs so next we actually tested it to see how accurate it is and how sharp the 3D images actually appear.
The emphasis added in the above extract is all mine.
But of course, what a potential buyer sees with his/her own eyes should be the ultimate decisive factor.
