14 replies to this topic

[swissdude]

Looking to buy a new TV with my partner and not sure wether to pay the little more for a "3D TV"

How does it work? YOu have to have a 3D TV - then also a 3D enabled DVD player? And then of course 3D Ready DVD's?

So it's not just good having a 3D TV ... also what does it mean if it is a 3D TV but passive?

Confused by all these terms and way of it working

[Storm]

There are no 3d DVD's
You need a Blueray player at the very least
or theres sky 3d
thanks

[Scorpus]

swissdude, on 08 February 2012 - 10:05, said:

So it's not just good having a 3D TV ... also what does it mean if it is a 3D TV but passive?

Confused by all these terms and way of it working

Passive refers to the type of glasses used to view the 3D effect; passive means that the TV polarizes the left/right images to each eye and the special polarized lenses in the glasses convert what appears to be an overlapped image to "3D"

The alternative is active glasses, where the TV alternates between showing the left and right image; active shutter glasses then alternate between showing your left eye to the left eye image while covering the right, and vice versa, very fast.

Passive glasses require no batteries to run the active shuttering, however the polarization can alter the colors and brightness of the image. Passive technology is used for cinema 3D so this is likely what you'll expect with a passive 3D TV. Active glasses give a better colored image but the glasses themselves are heavier and require recharging.

I don't have a 3D TV myself, but I believe both types of glasses are equally as susceptible to the 3D-blur effect

[choppa]

My friend has a 3D TV and it's awesome..... but I wouldn't own one right now. Watching it makes my head hurt and it will probably get boring and you'll just use it as a regular TV after a while. To me, the extra price isn't worth it.

[Intrinsica]

choppa, on 08 February 2012 - 13:29, said:

Watching it makes my head hurt...

Yeah, it's a good idea to try out the 3D TV first to make sure you don't get headaches.

I wouldn't get a 3D TV myself, HD is all I need. I tried out a 3D TV and it made me nauseous. Also, I'm still of the opinion that it's just a fad.

[spacer]

3D TVs are absolutely not worth buying right now.

They are more expensive than similarly sized "regular" HD TVs. Most require extra, expensive hardware. And current "3D" effects are gimmicks at best.

There are no TV shows that are shot in 3D, and that is a huge chunk of what you'll be viewing. Most movies that say they're 3D are just regular movies that have their 3D added in post; usually for lame "objects coming at the screen" effects. Even Avatar, a movie that was supposedly shot entirely using 3D cameras, wasn't any better for having 3D.

Even the argument of "future proofing" is moot. By the time 3D effects are good enough to actually matter, 3D technology will be way more efficient to produce, resulting in 3D TVs with much better quality and lower cost than what is available today. And, that's assuming the 3D we're using today doesn't change enough to render current 3D TVs obsolete.

So, you're better off getting a really good regular HD TV at the same size for a lot less money, or a much bigger regular HD TV for the same amount as a smaller 3D TV.

[Bambii]

I don't like 3D at all and avoid it at all costs. Mainly because I get headaches and I only seem to gain about 10-20 min per film of actual 3D. I would rather watch it 2D and enjoy it minus a headache.

[Osiris]

I have one with active 3d...the 3d on it is better than the 3d you get at the cinema but just as I dont go out of my way to see a 3d movie I rarely go out of my way to use the 3d functions. Pretty much tv had all the other features I wanted and 3d was just a freebie in my list of features v price. So no I wouldnt pay extra for 3d.

Whilst some form of 3d seems to becoming pretty standard on newer sets tbh I dont see 3d taking off truly until they start mass producing the screens capable of creating a 3d image without the 3d glasses.

[jerzdawg]

First off, what brand TV are you looking at? What is your budget? What size tv fits your room?
The reason that these questions are important is because that will determine what I suggest to you. I also don't know prices if you are in fact in Switzerland.
3D is "worth" it in my opinion, but that is also because I didn't go out of my way to buy 3d, I went out and looked for the best possible picture quality I can get for my budget and size I needed. 3d was a bonus, and I ignored it for the first few months (mine did not come with glasses), after Christmas I had a gift card to Amazon so I ordered 2 pairs of glasses (at $70 each ). The 3d is great and adds something fun to movie night, content is pricey at the moment for 3d blurays unless you catch good sales (I think I have 14 3d blurays and haven't paid more than $20 for any of them).

Back to your situation - lets say you wanted the best quality Samsung, Sony, Panasonic TV - not for 3d, but for the best picture you can get. Guess what, you are getting a 3d TV because they come with it. Just this past weekend the Samsung 55" D8000 + 3d bluray player + 4 pairs of glasses was $2000 at Best Buy.
As for passive vs active - its certainly a matter of opinion, I checked out an LG this weekend (passive) and it was tough to see 3d at all. The real benefit to passive is how cheap the glasses are (like 6 for $20). Active glasses are usually around $50 a pair (some less, some more).

Long story short, when looking at new TVs you should be looking for the best picture quality available (within budget) first - then look at the extras like 3d, web apps because that stuff will come 2nd to just normal TV watching.

[Mr Spoon]

A lot of wise posts in this thread

[jdegree]

Do not buy. 3d is going to be a flash in the pan. I do not see the TV/Movie industry embracing the technology. They will never make a decent return on their investment.

[HawkMan]

Scorpus, on 08 February 2012 - 10:55, said:

Passive refers to the type of glasses used to view the 3D effect; passive means that the TV polarizes the left/right images to each eye and the special polarized lenses in the glasses convert what appears to be an overlapped image to "3D"

The alternative is active glasses, where the TV alternates between showing the left and right image; active shutter glasses then alternate between showing your left eye to the left eye image while covering the right, and vice versa, very fast.

Passive glasses require no batteries to run the active shuttering, however the polarization can alter the colors and brightness of the image. Passive technology is used for cinema 3D so this is likely what you'll expect with a passive 3D TV. Active glasses give a better colored image but the glasses themselves are heavier and require recharging.

I don't have a 3D TV myself, but I believe both types of glasses are equally as susceptible to the 3D-blur effect

Not all cinemas do passive, anyway, passive 3d on cinema polarizes and who's the full left and right frame on top of each other at the same time, and gives ou full quality on th picture. On a tv however it every second line of each frame, and you WILL see the interlacing.

Active gives the best quality, IF it is a plasma tv as only plasma is fast enough to switch quick enough to avoid ghosting.

As for 3d being worth it today, no, it's not. HOWEVER. 3d tv's are worth it because they only put 3d in th better models, and all the better models have 3d, so if it's a 3d tv it's also a better tv, even if you never use the 3d. And if you do want to use it for 3d make sure to get a plasma.

[Ian Wilcox]

I have never joined this 3DTV hype! i like a good HD tv!

[AbandonedTrolley]

HawkMan, on 12 February 2012 - 14:21, said:

Not all cinemas do passive, anyway, passive 3d on cinema polarizes and who's the full left and right frame on top of each other at the same time, and gives ou full quality on th picture. On a tv however it every second line of each frame, and you WILL see the interlacing.

I've got an LG passive TV and I honestly do not see any interlacing. I also do not see the supposed softening of the picture either that people claim with passive instead of active.

As for the OP

Right now I love my TV, I paid £650 for a 47" TV, less than I paid for my 37" 3 years ago, so I feel the prices aren't that bad. The films look great on it as do some of the games that are getting put out on the PS3. GT5 in 3D with steering wheel and cockpit view is amazing. Uncharted 3 worked really well with 3D too as does Wipeout and Super Stardust HD. So in answer to your question of 'is it worth it' that all depends on your expectations and what you have to use it for. If it is just for movies then possibly not as there isn't a great amount of must see movies in 3D. If you plan on a gaming experience as well then I would say go get one right now and enjoy it.

[+Ely]

I love my Samsung 3D TV, if you are in the US. get DirecTV, They have three 3D channels available 24/7 and then some PPV channels too.