[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I would recommend no one takes his advice to by that TV. Its an active 3D tv which means you have to wear heavy, glasses with batteries that cause eye strain. Passive 3D (whats used in movie theaters) is a simpler, better all around technology.

I think that's your opinion and nothing factual. As noted below...


Active 3D vs. passive 3D: What's better? | TV and Home Theater - CNET Reviews

The bottom line
Sorry, no winners, only whiners. Both 3D methods are flawed in serious ways. Glasses-less (autostereoscopic) 3D, if it ever makes it mainstream, is going to have its own major flaws.

My advice? Figure out how much time you'll spend watching 2D versus 3D, and how far you're going to sit from your chosen screen size. If you're like most people, you'll be watching far more 2D, in which case I recommend getting the TV that looks better with 2D. If you think you'll watch a lot of 3D, passive might be better, but only if you're sitting far enough away (or your TV is small enough) that you can't see the "interlace" lines.

Also, you aren't required to wear the glasses unless you are using the 3D features on the TV. Which is going to be very little.