There are two 3D tech's out there as for a glass-3D experience:

Active 3D which used active shutter glasses to make you see both the images.

It produces high resolution 3D but it also produced darker images

This tech is also used in most Cinema's with the name XPAND 3D

Manufacturers: Samsung,SONY,Panasonic,etc

VS

Passive 3D uses polarized 3D glasses

It produces colorful images but has lower resolution 3D

It is also used in IMAX 3D

Manufactures: LG

My take:

I think Passive displays are by far the best taking its colorful 3D.

I hate 3D movies in cinemas which have active 3D.I love IMAX 3D.

Though Active shutter 3DTV's are better than Theater Active 3D

For cinemas, passive/polarized is better. Glasses are cheap, it has almost none of the shutter glass technology's disadvantages and even resolution isn't reduced because it's using two projectors.

When it comes to panels however things are not so clear. I recently bought a 3D PC monitor that unlike most other 3D-capable monitors uses passive glasses. I did not chose this monitor because I wanted passive, I just did it because using active shutter glasses under Linux is a bit troublesome, it only works with certain graphics cards, certain glasses etc. My 3D monitor on the other hand works with every graphics card and doesn't even require drivers etc.

But anyway, while I like my monitor, I have to admit that the polarized light technology it uses is not without problems. Maybe it's just a characteristic of this particular model, but the 3D effect is extremely sensitive to the viewers position. There is one spot for viewing where the 3D effect is perfect, but as soon as I move my head by just a few centimeters in any direction (even forward/backward) the 3D effect starts to become distorted.

As I said, other panels with this technology might be much better in this respect, but they still share what I consider the even bigger downside: Resolution is effectively cut in half. And it's not just that the resolution is reduced, each eye effectively really sees only half of the picture, if you're close enough to the screen it's easy to see that every second row or column is missing. And because of this the luminosity is of course reduced too, though maybe not as bad as with shutter glasses.

You're missing an option!

My favorite form of 3d is autostereoscopic. Sure they aren't as common but they still exist and some are for sale. I've built my own but the second most impressive screens are from holografika.com

Sure they cost a lot more but when active and passive 3d tvs already cost so much it's a good investment.

if you read the first line of OP,it said 2 types of glass-3D.

as for glass-free,it is nowhere near use in BIG screen TV's and Cinemas so no point debating it.

And how the hell is an electronic device an investment?

It's kind of a figure of speech, it implies you pay a lot of money for it and you want it to be the best possible

OT: I like the passive type, "shutter" just sounds fragile and troublesome for some reason. I don't own a 3D display though

i knew what he meant

i was trying to point out that electronics chnage so fast that investment 'term' shouldn't be used for them is most cases.

I'm sorry I rushed my response and didn't really explain myself.

My point was that both techs are already headed out the door in the home market and in just a few years will be for bargain buyers only. It doesn't really matter which glasses system is best because both are only transition technologies. Third option should be it doesn't matter. This isn't like Blueray vs HD DVD where we're stuck with a winner for the next ten years.

But since everyone does have opinions even when pointless I'll admit I prefer passive glasses for viewing quality (no flicker) and price.