Home / News / TV News / LG Confirms First Passive 3D TV (Read: 50p paper glasses)

LG Confirms First Passive 3D TV (Read: 50p paper glasses)

Gordon Kelly


LG Confirms First Passive 3D TV (Read: 50p paper glasses)

One of the aspects which seems to have fuelled scepticism about the potential success of 3D TV is the need for circa £100 a pair glasses. Add to that the fact these glasses only work with the brand of their maker and here comes something many will likely cheer...

LG has broken ranks to become the first TV manufacturer to announce a 'passive' 3D model for consumers after initially suggesting it would only sell televisions with this tech to pubs and commercial establishments. The primary benefit of passive TV is it works with cheap paper/plastic glasses - much as you see in movie theatres - but on the downside critics claim the quality of the 3D image isn't as high as with 'active' 3D which requires the glasses to process the image.

So what is this model? LG calls it the 'LD950' and it will come in a 47in form factor, be fully compatible with Sky 3D and Virgin 3D, sport a Full HD resolution, 4x HDMI 1.4 connectivity so it plays nicely with Blu-ray 3D, there's a USB 2.0 port and DivX, Mp3 and Jpeg codec support), plus 200Hz TruMotion to reduce motion blur and comes with four bundled pairs of polarised 3D glasses.

The LD950 will land in May, but sadly LG hasn't given away the price. This is something of a shame since passive technology is cheaper to produce than active, so it could prove the first (relatively) affordable 3D set. Of course that might be negated by lower production volumes, but at least you won't be shelling out an additional £400/500 to kit out the family only to watch your hair go white every time a pair is left on the floor...

Update: I'm hearing the LG950 will be in the £1,500 to £2,000 bracket which means it is indeed relatively affordable for a first generation 3D TV. How much are active 3D TVs? Considerably north of £2k, plus the cost of the glasses.


via Metro


April 1, 2010, 12:30 pm

Different levels of 3D quality for different price points - I'm okay with that. (If you're cramming it down our throats, then suck more cheaply please.) Less okay though is that design. I hope that's just a bad picture, because that big plasticky looking frame is like some old CRT widescreen telly. A world away from the beautiful clean look of the tiny-bezelled LED 3D model, the LX9500 recently unveiled.

Andrew Fordham

April 1, 2010, 4:16 pm

Having seen one of these on the go at the Ideal Home Show, I thought it gave an excellent and quite convincing 3D picture, especially on the depth shots. Much easier on the eyes (literally) than the Sony active shutter one that I also tried, which gave me a headache after a few seconds!


April 1, 2010, 6:23 pm

This isn't a new technology of course, Zalman and IZ3d have been offering computer monitors using two different implementations of polarisation-based 3d for several years now.

Given how few 3D TVs are expected to sell I guess they felt that most would be high end where the cost of shutter glasses aren't that high in comparison. This is probably just contingency in case 3D TV is more popular than expected.


April 1, 2010, 7:31 pm

3D has certainly sent TV prices to a new dimension.<groan>

@Andrew -I wonder if the headache issue will be prevalent amongst adopters? Maybe whilst we do not perceive the flashing changes from eye to eye our brains register it and hence - problemo. Not sure what research has been conducted into this latent issue.


April 1, 2010, 8:44 pm

When you don't need the glasses at all - then I'll be interested.


April 1, 2010, 9:28 pm

I like and agree with the comment from SRS, no idea when or how feasible though.

I did meet a 'strange person' some years ago who said he'd figured it.

Related news, (if I may).

Sky on their 3D website are (at last) now offering the abily to search for pubs with 3D television transmissions in your area/postcode. I found three within two miles of my home and this coming Saturdays' Man U v Chelsea is being shown in 3D.

God I hate drinking, , , lunchtimes.


April 2, 2010, 4:03 am

@Chocoa: If there does turn out to be an issue then I'd imagine they'll probably just raise the refresh rates. CRT flickering annoys a lot of people at 60hz but is fine at 75-80hz.


April 2, 2010, 4:37 am

As SRS says, 'When you don't need the glasses at all - then I'll be interested'. - I&#8217d much rather have the advantages of brighter colours and comfort over the cost and inconvenience of wearing those things.

Although it&#8217s impressive, 3D doesn&#8217t aid my viewing experience at all. Traditional 2D lets us better appreciate the use of a pull focus and other focus effects that help the viewer follow the narrative and see what the director wants us to see, rather than having the cheap effect of something flying out the screen &#8211 yawn. 3D seems really fake as well because I should have the freedom to look at any part of the scene in detail relative to real life. But in order to counter the previous point I made, the director has to fill it with a blur to make the main part of the shot stand out. I don&#8217t know, 3D is a tricky topic. Its cool and I&#8217m happy for it to be used for the odd movie, but I think it&#8217s just a lacklustre gimmick. I also don&#8217t want every film from now on to have 3D included. This just proves how gimmicky it is.

In extension, (and back on topic), I&#8217m really sceptical over the use of 3D at home. Who wants to wear those glasses while having something to eat with the other half . Watching a film with mates or the other half, or while eating, or doing another task like reading a paper of working, its just too impractical.

1 Area I do welcome 3D is for PC gaming. Where its meant to be 1 guy in front of a monitor on his own, it becomes much less inconvenient I guess. Are you still reading? :P


April 2, 2010, 2:47 pm

I wouldn't bother even if those goofy looking glasses weren't required. I like many others have invested heavily enough in 2D technology as it is.

comments powered by Disqus