Vote

Yesterday, I posted a blog mourning the premature death of so-called "active retarder" 3D technology. That leaves two types of 3D flat panels to duke it out—those that quickly alternate the left and right images on the screen synchronized with active-shutter glasses and those that use a film patterned retarder (FPR) to alternately polarize the odd and even lines on the screen, which are isolated for each eye using passive-polarized glasses.

There are many pros and cons to consider with each technology. Active-shutter glasses unequivocally provide full 1080p resolution to each eye, but they also block more light from reaching the eyes than passive glasses, so the image is typically dimmer. In addition, many people complain about seeing a flickering effect with active glasses that is nonexistent with passive glasses, and active systems are more prone to crosstalk/ghosting. And don't forget that active glasses are much more expensive than passive glasses, not to mention that active glasses are heavier, bulkier, and require replaceable or rechargeable batteries. On the other hand, while FPR displays often have a wider horizontal viewing angle, they have a much narrower vertical viewing angle. And they might not deliver full 1080p to each eye, though this is hotly debated, as discussed in my recent blog.

So which 3D flat-panel technology do you prefer—active-shutter glasses as championed by Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, and Sony, or FPR with passive glasses as espoused by LG, Toshiba, and Vizio? If you haven't actually experienced them, which one seems more appealing to you?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.