[quote name='blitz6speed']You're still seeing 1080p (540p per eye), its just halved. Active is garbage tech and i'd never tell anyone i know to purchase one, they do more harm then good for 3D. Passive is the way to go, way better experience. Ive owned a active 3dtv and passive, passive is the best by far.[/QUOTE]
Best for you possibly, but many reviewers and techs alike agree that passive (as of right now) is not the way to go. Active doesn't do damage unless your eyes are sensitive to the shutter, short term that is. Long term studies have been showing varying data on both active and passive, which is normal for newer tech.
2 540s is NOT the equivalent of 1080. It is a blending of (2) 540 pictures and as such can complement eachother so that it looks better than 540, but when you have drastic 3d effects you will see that it will start to become fuzzy. The reason being the further offset the picture is the greater the 3d effect. The problem then becomes the further offset the picture the less the 2 pictures can complement eachother to get higher resolution.
Basically think of it as a layered photo where if the (2) 540 pictures are later flat and aligned perfectly it is a 1080 picture. This is great for non 3d aspects. But the way you achieve 3d is to offset certain objects in one of the 540 pictures. When these 3d aspects get offset it starts lowering the effective resolution (not sure if that would be a correct term just trying to say that the full 540 picture will not be usable as the offsetting of the 3d parts will start to encroach on other aspects of the picture). This is why the greater the 3d effect the more fuzzy it will become.
While I agree passive is less strenuous on the eyes, I think it is still a while away from rivaling active shutter. Considering the implementation of non glasses 3d, I think passive tech won't be researched as strongly as it should be as the majority of funds will go to making cheaper 3d active displays/glasses.
I am not saying that active cannot be better, just the research won't be there as it is just a 2nd avenue for something that is Already there. As of right now it is not up to par, spec wise, as active shutter tech.