LG released results of a recent survey it conducted which showed 4 out of 5 consumers preferred viewing 3D content on a passive 3DTV over active shutter models. Specifically, LG Film Pattern Retarder (FPR) equipped HDTV and passive 3D glasses over active shutter model TVs and glasses from Samsung and Sony. LG boasted about the results in advertisement (above) which appeared last week in USA Today and The Wall Street Journal.
Morpace conducted the study for LG. Its conclusions: 78 percent of respondents preferred LG Cinema 3D for the immersive 3D experience, 77 percent preferred LG for the 3D effect, 77 percent rated LGs overall picture quality and 78 percent choose LG’s 3D passive glasses over the two competitors.
HD Guru found the performance preferences in contradiction with our own active-versus-passive experiences. We investigated LG’s study further to understand and report the contradictions. To do so, HD Guru interviewed by phone Morpace’s Kirk Baetens who conducted the survey. Here are the details and our own conclusions.
The comparison was performed in five markets with hundreds of viewers. The FPR LG was a 47LW5600
Baetens explained there were two test rooms. At one end of the first room was the LG TV on a table stand 30-inches high. while The Sony TV was on the other end of the room. This height allowed the center of the TVs’ screen to be at eye level when seated. Room two had a similar layout using the Samsung in place of the Sony. All observations were made in the seated position.
The front of each screen was 8 feet from a row of four chairs making the screen to eye distance about 108-inches. According to our HDTV viewing distance chart (link) the optimum viewing distance for a 1080p HDTV 46-inch and 47″ display is 72.16-inches and 73.73 inches respectively. Sitting three feet further away, as the test was conducted, means viewers could not resolve all of the detail within the 1080p full HD image on the Sony and Samsung. This also means the one-half resolution per eye (540 line, link) with 3D content of the LG display was less noticeable. Given the uniformed and untrained eyes of the participants coupled with the farther than optimum viewing distance, we now better understand its results for 3D effect and overall picture quality.
If LG chose the optimum viewing distance for 47-inch screen sizes and positioned the viewers above (as would be case if people were standing in the room while viewing) or below the center (if the panel were mounted higher as many households do when the wall mount a flat panel TV) we believe the poor off-axis characteristics of FPR versus active shutter 3D systems would have greatly changed the survey results.
The glasses issue is one that is highly dependent upon the models chosen. Passive glasses as used with all FPR are still the lightest and cheapest available. However, potential 3D TV purchasers should not be mislead into thinking that because the same glasses as most theater presentations, the experience will be the same.
The movie theaters present full resolution 3D with excellent vertical and good horizontal viewing angles in full resolution. The FPR in LG (and 2011 Toshiba and Vizio models) limits the per-eye vertical resolution to one-half (link) of what one might see in a movie theater and one-half of the capabilities of active home systems. This is scientific fact that cannot be disputed by any company.
Not All 3D Glasses Are Created Equal
All passive 3D glasses are light because they are simply a frame with plastic, circular polarized lenses. Active glasses contain LCD shutters for each eye. They require a power source, a drive circuit, and sync circuit for the LCDs. The cheapest glasses are the heaviest and weigh the most. However, the weight goes down in the rechargeable versions with the Samsung SSG-3700CR coming in at just 1.005 ounces. Had Morpace used these instead of the model SSG-3100B at 1.6 ounces, we believe the results would have been different.
Not All Active 3D TVs Are Created Equal
In our tests, plasma 3D TVs/matching active 3D glasses have the lowest crosstalk of any 3D HDTVs tested. It is followed by 240 Hz LED LCD. The lowest performing 3D TV/active glasses are  120 Hz LED LCD. These, unfortunately,  are the ones LG used to compare 3D performance. We believe, based on our observations, the survey results would have been significantly different if LG choose to compare its FPR 3D TV against one of these sets. Pricewise there almost the same as a Panasonic 3D plasma. For example the survey LG model 47LW5600
It’s All in the Numbers
According to the latest sales numbers by CE research firm NPD, active 3D is by far outselling passive with Samsung Active 3D alone capturing over 60 percent market share during the last 12 weeks. As more FPR passive models enter the market place in the next few weeks, thanks to new models from Vizio and Toshiba (in addition to the LGs) we expect the share numbers to change. The question is, how much?
Conclusion
As the 3D format war goes on, we will learn if consumers will migrate to the FPR sets with its lower vertical resolution and limited viewing angles or continue to support active 3D. HD Guru will continue to update when the next shots are fired.
Have a question for the HD Guru?
HD GURU|Email
Copyright ©2011 HD Guru Inc. All rights reserved. HDGURU is a registered trademark.
20 Comments
Leave a Reply
If I understand the setup correctly, two rooms used with the LG compared to the Samsung in one room and the LG and Sony in the other? If all three performed identically, would about half the people pick “A” in either room? 50 out of 100 picking the LG in one room and 50 picking the LG in the other? I suppose it could be said that the LG with 100 votes was preferred two to one over each of the others receiving 50? Just checking the math.
Addmony are you serious? So what you’re saying is anything less than 1080p won’t fill up the whole screen? So if you’re watching a 720p resolution tv, part of the screen will be cut off too? Get your facts right before you start misleading people with your “knowledge”.
Hey morons, your eyes don’t SEE anything. Your BRAIN sees a composite image combined from both eyes.
If you only saw 1/2 the resolution (540) you would only see 1/2 the image with black lines covering 50%. If you are seeing a complete image YOU ARE SEEING 1080 LINES.
Geoff: The point is, you can see the lines. If you’re sitting far enough way not to see the lines, you’re also sitting far enough away not to be able to resolve 1080p resolution. I deleted the rest of your comment because it was factually wrong and misleading. Well, technically so is the part I left in, but just enough rope… you know?
Been in the business for years, and this test seems fine to me. People are just now starting back to buying tvs larger than 50″, this now only since after the great dlp bust of a few years back. Throw screen distance out the window, because the matter of fact is that people constantly sit too far from too small. (representative sample in other words). I personally think that 3d is silly and uncomfortable, and is being used to keep the normal public interested because “pros” have been griping for kuro black on everything for years. So insert novelty 3d. TO MY POINT. Every customer with no brand pref. states they feel the experience is better on passive. Can’t lie to the buyers you bozos
“Pricewise there almost …” Incorrect form of “They’re”
“…resolution per eye (540 line, link) with 3D content …” Broken Link
Fixed, link is working. Thanks for the catch.
HD Guru
Back off Walt. I wish I was getting paid by Samsung – I would be making some big bucks! Hah! But to call me a “Samsung shrill”? You can piss off buddy. Hey, if you bought an LG and are deluding yourself that half the resolution is just as good as full-HD, more power to you. Glad I’m not subjected to it in your household. I have “test-driven” many of the 3D HDTVs – the don’t pass my eye test. Me, I would sooner wear glasses a whole half-ounce more and 1080 to both eyes – call me cookie! Besides, I love Panasonic plasmas. You can keep your LED/LCDs for now!
@Ryan, I think you’ve been drinking too much of HDGuru/Samsung’s Kool-Aid.
When a new technology comes along, it takes some time for consumers to catch on. If memory serves, LG’s Cinema 3D came out a few months ago while Samsung’s active sets have been around since last year. So of course people are still buying more actives than passives. That’s like saying six months after the introduction of the iPod that the fact that people are buying more cassette players is because MP3 technology is a bust.
Do you really believe the c#*p that you’re writing or do you just like getting paid to be a Samsung shrill???
GO HDGURU!!!
BUT…. WHO ARE YOU GUYS ANYWAY??
ANOTHER MEDIA POST FOR SAMSUNG?
I personally own a Sony LED 3d TV(got a great deal through the company) . I work in a tv store, and to say that passive looks better than active is ridiculous. Considering passive glasses cut the resolution in half, you can see noticable difference in details. People who purchase it (passive glasses) are in denial because they don’t want to feel their product is inferior to others. I say conduct a real test that is not issued by LG, so itd be less biased.
Don’t get me wrong, the LED passive doesn’t look bad. It’s not terrible. But to say its better than Samsungs and Sony’s active shutters? GET OUTTA HERE..
Of course if you wanted the best 3d TV, you’d want to look at a plasma, which has no ghosting issues, and displays the best 3d display.
Why am I recommending a plasma when I have an LED? Like i said before, I got a great deal through the company, 600 bucks for a KDL55NX810 is a steal.
Sorry Tim, HDGURU totally busted your company on this one! If this was truly an apples to apples comparison of 3D-HDTVs and people really preferred the LG over the others by an 80% rate, then sales would reflect that percentage quite a bit more… they do not…
As far as picture quality goes, this was not an even fight. The LW5600 is edge-lit with local dimming. The Samsung and Sony are not. For picture quality, it would have been an even fight had they used the Sony NX720 and Samsung D6900.
As far as active vs. Passive, i like passive a lot, but not better than active. Passive glasses are comfy and they maintain a bright picture, and their 3D effect is very good to boot. But I still prefer active for overall picture quality and 3d effect.
After reading Gary’s analysis of the new third-party 3D TV research, LG Electronics USA would like to address a few points as we stand firmly behind the methodology and findings of the Morpace study.
• First, the TVs were set up at approximately the distance that a typical consumer would view them in their home. The viewing distance was derived using the general industry-accepted rule of thumb — 2X the horizontal screen size. For a 46-/47-inch set, that equates to about 8 feet. The study was done while sitting in front of the set rather than standing for obvious reasons.
• Second, we agree that “not all glasses are created equal.†That’s actually a great part of the appeal of Cinema 3D to consumers. Polarized glasses are inexpensive, light weight and more comfortable. We chose the active glasses we did because they are the models most people will be using. These models are the most commonly available, bundled with the TV for free or part of starter kits, and are the least expensive. Again, everything was designed to replicate the typical consumer experience.
• Finally, our selection of the TVs used was based on the most popular and widely available models with similar features and at similar price points. The LG Cinema 3D model is also a 120Hz model, just like the active models we tested.
At LG, we’re focused on giving consumers the technology and viewing experiences they prefer  not the technology that the “experts†say is better. Our approach is basic: focus on the consumer benefits and what real consumers think about Cinema 3D.
We’re committed to providing the best consumer option to spur future market growth and we expect to see an even greater shift to passive 3D technology in the very near future.
Tim Alessi
Director, New Product Development
LG Electronics USA
It took me about 5 minutes of watching a passive 3D set to wonder why in the world they ever made active 3D sets to begin with. The newer actives are better than my older one, but still…I think it’s done. Time for the active camp to put their efforts into something better than passive :)
Thanks to HD Guru for keeping us informed on all the tech and sales info. But, not too sure what can be determined from sales numbers because still few people are buying TVs for the 3D.
Not only do current passive TV technologies cut the effective resolution of the display in half to 540 lines, but current US broadcast 3DTV is already half resolution to begin with. My guess is that LG probably showed study participants a Blu-Ray and that the results for at least picture quality may have been different had they used a 3D broadcast like a sports event.
I got my LG 47LW5600 from Fry’s and got these LG clip-on glasses, AG-F220 3D. I do not want to wear an extra heavy glass on top of my optical glass when I watch 3D. With these clip-on glasses, my 3D experience would be so much enjoyable and comfortable.
I think the test is very fair, the LG one is 120Hz LED, the others are also 120Hz LED, the LG one is their entry level 3D LED TV, so as the other 2 brands, same room conditions… as for the distance, well, in the “lab”, the “Guru” suggested 73.73 inches… in normal people’s home in real life, I doubted any one will measure exactly 73.73″ between the TV and their Home theatre couch set or sofa, at least I won’t. According to what the “Guru” said, does it mean if I want to watch 3D on my TV, I cannot or better not move/sit back beyond 73.73″ from the TV? We are living in a country with freedom, am I wrong? I want to recline a bit when I was setting on my Home theatre couch to watch my movies. About the Panasonic 3D plasma TV was missing from the test… they are comparing “LED” 3D TVs, right? Please let them compare a race car to a race car and a race bike to a race bike… let’s don’t mix them up… that is more fair to everyone, I think? I don’t have a 3D TV myself but has been looking and going to buy one, I tried all Samsung, Sony’s active and LG’s passive in the same store, as an ordinary consumer, I like the LG passive, I felt very comfortable when the sales rep put on the 3D glasses for me, I wear prescription glasses and the sales rep showed me the feather weight “clip-on” 3D glasses for the LG 3D, just like my clip-on sun glasses, I don’t have to wear glasses over glasses for 3D… that is great! Back to my ordinary person “testing” experience, I was able to watch longer than 30 minutes of that 3D movie they showed me in the store but not more than 10 minutes on the same 3D movie on the active 3D TVs, not to mention I watched the active ones first… . I think I am buying that TV this weekend.
Pete, you can disagree with the resolution but facts are facts. There’s no grey area here, the LG passive 3D have lower resolution. It’s not debatable.
I’m usually against frivolous litigation, but I think Sony and Samsung should sue LG for their brazingly faulty methodology. Companies shouldn’t get away with this crap.
What next, the IPTV companies (like Telus) can claim that 4 out of 5 people though their picture quality was better than Bell / Shaw / Direct TV because they compared the picture quality on a 32″ TV at 10 feet away?
I notice that Panasonic was conspicuously absent from LG’s challenge. Gee……I wonder why ?
I have an 47 in LG and I don’t agree with your statement on resolution. To my eye and others the display appears to be much better than half resolution. Not as good as full 1080p but not so that the ordinary person would notice. The passive viewing experience is much nicer than active. My eyes can’t take more that 15 minutes of the Panasonic and the Samsung and Sony sets are even worse for me. For me it was passive or no 3D. What you don’t mention is the sync problems, batteries and charge running low and the clear fact that active glasses are fragile.