ChatterBank25 mins ago
3D Glasses.
7 Answers
I have watched 3D using glasses that cost £1 and £100 the latter requiring batteries . In both cases the 3D was OK so why the difference ?
The TV needing the £100 glasses was also double the price .
The cheaper one was LG which I'm told is Korean which may or may not be significant
The TV needing the £100 glasses was also double the price .
The cheaper one was LG which I'm told is Korean which may or may not be significant
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Most of the major TV manufacturers have invested in the development of 'active shutter' 3D technology, which sends alternate signals to your left and right eyes. To ensure that each eye only sees the images which are intended for it, the glasses have to alternately 'open and close' the two lenses. That requires complex glasses, with batteries to power them.
LG has invested in 'passive' 3D technology, which saves money but at the cost of full HD resolution. The system puts two images onto the screen, with different polarization, with the glasses simply needing to contain lenses with oppositely polarised lenses. (It's essentially the same system that cinemas use).
Which system will win the battle is still debatable. Active shutter sets have got greater backing at the moment but some people can't get used to the 'flicker'. Passive 3D TVs are cheaper (as are the glasses) but full HD resolution can't really be obtained with such sets. Further, there's currently less backing from manufacturers for the system.
My own guess though, is that the passive system will win through simply because people will want all of the family to be able to watch 3D TV. (Active shutter systems are unsuitable for children under 7 years old, who could suffer problems with their optical development if they're subjected to the active shutter system).
For more, see here:
http://www.techradar....ctive-shutter--921432
Chris
LG has invested in 'passive' 3D technology, which saves money but at the cost of full HD resolution. The system puts two images onto the screen, with different polarization, with the glasses simply needing to contain lenses with oppositely polarised lenses. (It's essentially the same system that cinemas use).
Which system will win the battle is still debatable. Active shutter sets have got greater backing at the moment but some people can't get used to the 'flicker'. Passive 3D TVs are cheaper (as are the glasses) but full HD resolution can't really be obtained with such sets. Further, there's currently less backing from manufacturers for the system.
My own guess though, is that the passive system will win through simply because people will want all of the family to be able to watch 3D TV. (Active shutter systems are unsuitable for children under 7 years old, who could suffer problems with their optical development if they're subjected to the active shutter system).
For more, see here:
http://www.techradar....ctive-shutter--921432
Chris
See Q18 (and check out the link from there):
http://news.cnet.com/3d-tv-faq/#18
http://news.cnet.com/3d-tv-faq/#18