[CNET]

… [conclusion]

My take: My only experience with 3D front projection has been in commercial theaters, all of which used passive 3D. My experiences with active shutter glasses technology used in current 3D TVs has been a mixed bag. I haven’t seen any of the above projectors in person, and with my limited 3D flight time I’m no Captain Sullenberger, but nonetheless I’m intrigued by all of these products, especially the passive LG.

The LG CF3D ($14,000) uses 3D passive technology. Intriguing.

(Credit: LG)

All five are capable of producing full HD 1080p to both eyes, as specified, meaning that the 3D on the huge screens they’ll illuminate should look as sharp as any flat-panel TV. And size is definitely a good thing, especially with 3D. Judging from the specs, the LG can deliver a brighter image, and thus be capable of filling a bigger screen, than the others. The larger contrast ratios of the active models, for what they’re worth, could imply that black levels might be an issue on the LG. I doubt a silver screen can help in that department.

The downsides of 3D in my experience include artifacts, especially crosstalk, and viewer discomfort that intensifies with poor content. All three makers’ press releases say their technologies reduce crosstalk, aka ghosting, but since the active glasses are a major contributor to the problem, I’m curious how far passive glasses can go toward solving it. The same goes for discomfort: how much is caused by the rapid shuttering of the active glasses, and how much could be alleviated by going passive? I know one thing: in the theater viewing 3D via passive glasses, crosstalk and discomfort were not issues for me.

Because of priorities that focus on flat-panel TVs, I doubt I’ll be subjecting any of these projectors to a thorough review for CNET. But if I were to buy a 3D rig for my house and had money to burn, I’d definitely get a projector. What do you think?

Read the full story here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20017374-1.html?tag=mncol;txt