Worth of 3D Tvs.

[Vickey Rastogi]

Are the new 3D TVs in the market worth the price?

 

[jcoultas98]

Do you want to watch tv in 3D?

 

[ssddx]

personally i feel 3d movies are a joke. the effect is like sliding paper over paper.

if you are happy with 2d then no, 3d televisions are not worth the price.

if you want 3d then yes, 3d televisions are meant for this

 

[jcoultas98]

I agree, IMO 3D for movies is extremely gimmickey so far. There isn't very much (or any) live 3D programming at all. Gaming in 3D is a good experience, but even that is fairly limited. DirecTV even pulled their 3D channel from the lineup, because they couldn't acquire enough content for it. I just don't know how far 3D will catch on until it is glasses free.

 

[Mansukh]

They represent new technology for India. We do not have that much HD or 3D content, thought I heard LG’s cinema 3d TV of LM series can covert even 2D content into 3D. Though they are a bit expensive compared to LED TV, the features and picture quality is certainly better. I went to a mall last weekend and saw the demo of the TV and it was awesome! I’ll definitely buy one few months later after I save some money.

 

[gabelevvvy]

I just bought a 3d tv but I didn't factor in 3d feature very much. I just wanted a TV with the best picture quality. It turned out that almost all the high-end models are 3d ready. Since I have one, I watch 3D movies from time to time and it's fun. It is true that there isn't much content yet but if you want a good picture quality, the premium you should pay is very little. It is worth it.

 

[rrruby]

Mansukh - i believe a lot of 3d TV's can convert between 2D and 3D, think its fairly standard

I also think 3D is gimmicky, but its good for gaming, and things are slowly being broadcast in 3D, as more 3DTV's are bought by consumers. And if you are buying a 3D TV, try and get an active shutter TV. The effect is much better than on passive sets.

 

[trepxe]

Mansukh - i believe a lot of 3d TV's can convert between 2D and 3D, think its fairly standard

I also think 3D is gimmicky, but its good for gaming, and things are slowly being broadcast in 3D, as more 3DTV's are bought by consumers. And if you are buying a 3D TV, try and get an active shutter TV. The effect is much better than on passive sets.

You make no sense. You said 3D is gimmicky yet good for gaming. Then you say get an active shutter tv since the effect is better than passive 3D? SMH. I strongly disagree. Sure, active 3D can be ok for those who dont complain about the shutters ( i find the 3D on high-end plasmas such as GT50/VT50 great). Passive 3D is much better for those who plan on watching lots of 3D, rather than an occasional 3D movie. Why else would movie production companies record 3D format in passive 3D? It's just better for the eyes and the 3D effect is very good as well. Active 3D also has a disadvantage on formats that go above 24 fps. It's 1080p per eye advantage is only good @ 24 fps. Meaning, if you move above it, it will blur like crazy. Active 3D has an insane amount of blurring.

 

[rrruby]

What i mean is, I don't think its worth going to the trouble of getting a 3DTV for the effect, but it's nice to play with once in a while. Also, active glasses (such as those on ST50 and up), flicker at 120Hz - 60 per eye. A disadvantage of passive is that you have to be sitting fairly central to the set to pick up the 3D effect, whereas active gives you a bit more room to move (not much mind!).

I'm pretty sure they don't record 3D in passive or active, it's the TV's (or cinemas) which decide whether its active or passive. You find most cinemas use passive because the glasses are inexpensive compared to active.

At the end of the day, it's kind of personal preference, and having been hinted some of the future TV's from Panasonic, I hope that future generations will improve on the effect, and that more content is available to view on them. It's getting to the point now where they struggle to make image quality better each year, so they develop new things to put in, Smart TV and 3D for example.

 

[gabelevvvy]

A disadvantage of passive is that you have to be sitting fairly central to the set to pick up the 3D effect, whereas active gives you a bit more room to move (not much mind!).

It is true that you can get the maximum 3D effect when sitting in the center but I don't think you have a right idea about viewing angle. Passive 3D TVs have wider viewing angle than active 3D TV horizontally and active 3D TVs have more than passive 3D TVs vertically on the other hand.

 

[ssddx]

@gabelevvy

that doesnt make sense.

when using active the frames are shown in sequence L1,R1,L2,R2,L3,R3 with the left and right eye shutters in opposition to match the signal from the tv. in effect your viewing angle should be theoretically the same as the televisions viewing angle.

passive technology is designed to not require active shutter glasses but has an ideal viewing zone.

 

[jcoultas98]

SSDD is correct. My Panasonic 3DTV has a slightly narrower 3D angle than 2D. You actually lose the IR signal to the glasses before the edge of the set. The image does begin to skew slightly at anything over 45 degrees. Neither set does any good on a vertical viewing angle.

http/www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-tvs_Page-3

 

[JeanScott]

I don’t think 3D is a joke; it’s just whether you are watching conceptualized 3D or not. Try some models from LGs 2012 LM series they all are passive and delivers exceedingly bright 3D picture quality. My friend own LM6200 and based on my experience it’s worth buying passive 3D TV in class.

 

[ssddx]

the effect still looks like paper sliding over paper to me. honestly it doesnt look any better than the old days of two color glasses to me. but to each their own.

 

[jcoultas98]

There was a very famous article written by Roger Ebert that I agree with wholeheartedly. Point number two is the biggest factor for me.

3D adds nothing notable to the experience. In fact, as point 3 states it actually detracts from the essence of the filmmaker's vision.

http/www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

 

[wafflecakes]

There was a very famous article written by Roger Ebert that I agree with wholeheartedly. Point number two is the biggest factor for me.

3D adds nothing notable to the experience. In fact, as point 3 states it actually detracts from the essence of the filmmaker's vision.

http/www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

I will have to respectfully disagree with the writer (and thus you)! I think for movies like Avatar, they were, for the most part, created with 3D in mind! Sure, the movie is still great without the 3D effects, but personally, I think the 3D aspects really gave the movie an extra edge to it. And as to the argument about give headaches and dizziness -- that's only in regards to active 3D. From my knowledge, passive 3D doesn't really have those problems at all.

Of course, these are all subjective experiences, so it's different for each person.