• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Looking to get a 3D TV

Recommended Posts

American Ninja    4

Hello,

I'm looking to get a 3D/1080p TV. Can anyone recommend a good one in the 42in. range that will be good for gaming and blurays?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

Just get a good TV. all the good TV's are 3D today anyway, and you're never going to put on those 3D glasses after the first couple of times anyway.

 

but if you want 3D. you want a panasonic Plasma. they're the only ones I've seen that doesn't have crosstalk. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
American Ninja    4

Well I'm one of the few who happen to like 3D. I have done games and blurays that are 3D so I want to try them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anibal P    2,055

3D is a waste of money gimmick, just get the best TV you can afford

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
American Ninja    4

Thank you for that recommendation, I'll check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GotBored    518

Get the Cinema 3D not active shutters, I had a Samsung TV and couldn't watch 3D for too long cause the active shutter would strain my eyes but Cinema 3D glasses are fine.

 

Also for gaming get LCD/LED or OLED, not plasma because in games you have static things on screen for example health meter and if it stays on screen for too long it burns-in to plasma which leaves a white wash mark. You can remove it by white-screening your TV for some time but is extra time and effort so better to go LED/OLED for gaming.

 

I don't know of you'll get this but every tv store I went to the tv specialist would ask the distance between the tv and couch and recommend a size.. ignore this the bigger the better.

 

I've bought three TV's in 2 years just to get something I've wanted, it all comes down to preference but the things above are what I found to be important when picking a new 3D tv.

(I don't use the 3D much though, was nice at the start and I'll buy a 3D blu-ray every now but I use it in normal mode mostly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Julius Caro    55

you probably want active 3D (if you can handle the possible flicker, dont get headaches, tired vision, etc). passive 3DTVs arent able to display fullHD frames for each eye (the resolution is halved on one dimension).

 

also you wanna make sure 1080p24 3D is supported (with full resolution for each eye), and that you can tune some settings. I read that some samsung TVs dont let you disable motion interpolation when 3D is playing and that everything looks wonky. 

 

look for samsung series 6 above 6400 or series 7. 

(samsung F6400, F6800, F7100, etc)

 

I mean if you really care about the 3D better do it right :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Showan    698

Are your 3D wants more for movies or gaming?... I currently have the LG47lw6500 it's about 2-3yrs olds now, but I love it..

But as someone stated above, the 3D can become 'forgetful' very quickly.

Try and get a 3D that is 240hz or better. Little to no ghosting while watching fast paced images. Yes there is slight ghosting depending on the model you get. And I believe that the refresh rate may also have a effect on button inputs while gaming. Take that into consideration as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

If you're getting and going to use 3D. do NOT get passive 3D. 

 

get a Panasonic active 3D plasma. Plasma is fast enough to avoid the flicker and crosstalk that causes eye strain on the Samsung and other LCD/LED's. 

 

Passive 3D while it eliminates flicker. and to some degree crosstalk, has half the image quality of active. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jerzdawg    338

If you're getting and going to use 3D. do NOT get passive 3D. 

 

get a Panasonic active 3D plasma. Plasma is fast enough to avoid the flicker and crosstalk that causes eye strain on the Samsung and other LCD/LED's. 

 

Passive 3D while it eliminates flicker. and to some degree crosstalk, has half the image quality of active. 

Ill second this.  I have the Panny VT50 and the 3d is great, while I don't use it as often as I should (I have a ton of 3d movies).  The active shutter is certainly better than passive IMO but the shutter effect does effect some people more than other so I suggest you find someone who has one first to test it out. 

Quality is way more important than features so if you are going all in on this TV.. stick with Sony, Samsung or Panasonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCordRm    449

I own the Panasonic Viera VT50 and I love it. For everything, 3D included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme    2,825

Plasma will give you the best all-around quality, but there are a few minor trade-offs.  They are bigger and heavier, more power hungry, and require a darker environment for the true quality to come through.  Just something to consider in case any of those are a deal-breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAZMINATOR    12,416

3D is a waste of money gimmick, just get the best TV you can afford

 

Nope...  My brother has 3D TV .... 3D movies look great in it. 

 

Hopefully starting next year, they release glasses-free 3D TVs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psionicinversion    181

passive and active 3D there both bit meh. ive got a passive 3d LG TV and its good but like ppl say passive 3d runs at half the resolution of 1080p but ive seen active 3d on a 65inch Projector that my friends brother has in his house. converted his dbl garage into a cinema, nutcase and while its 1080p sharp its still not really 3D, it just has a bit of depth and its like that cus people get sick. Ive changed the settings on my LG passive turned the 3D up and started getting really ill. Trust me its a fricking fad. Ive heard doctor who xmas special is in 3D this year so hopefully itll be good but generally its a waste of time. May as well get a good quality normal LED tv.

 

Oh but LG have some smart play glasses where it utilises the 3D where if your playing 2 player on a console, 1 set of glasses only sees the left picture and 1 set of glasses only sees the right so you can essentially have a 2player game fullscreen. havnt got a console or the glasses so cant tell you how well it works but its a good thought on how to utilise 3d.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

Plasma will give you the best all-around quality, but there are a few minor trade-offs.  They are bigger and heavier, more power hungry, and require a darker environment for the true quality to come through.  Just something to consider in case any of those are a deal-breaker.

For an LCD/LED to give good quality you actually need to turn brightness to 50 and contrast to 50-60 as well, and turn of the rapid dynamic contrast.

Without doing this you will get horrible "over exposed" brights. So for a LED to have decent picture quality the room needs to be just as dark as for a Plasma and modern Plasmas have often a lot brighter as wells especially with the advent of 3D requiring much brighter screens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.    1,504

It'd be nice to know your budget...

 

I bought a Samsung 7500 earlier this year, and it's downright brilliant. The 3D, while i dont use it often, is fantastic. Very low shutter, works great. The glasses are light and comfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dinggus    335

passive and active 3D there both bit meh. ive got a passive 3d LG TV and its good but like ppl say passive 3d runs at half the resolution of 1080p but ive seen active 3d on a 65inch Projector that my friends brother has in his house. converted his dbl garage into a cinema, nutcase and while its 1080p sharp its still not really 3D, it just has a bit of depth and its like that cus people get sick. Ive changed the settings on my LG passive turned the 3D up and started getting really ill. Trust me its a fricking fad. Ive heard doctor who xmas special is in 3D this year so hopefully itll be good but generally its a waste of time. May as well get a good quality normal LED tv.

 

Oh but LG have some smart play glasses where it utilises the 3D where if your playing 2 player on a console, 1 set of glasses only sees the left picture and 1 set of glasses only sees the right so you can essentially have a 2player game fullscreen. havnt got a console or the glasses so cant tell you how well it works but its a good thought on how to utilise 3d.

 

I never liked 3D gaming, seemed alittle slow.

 

Also, you have to sit in front of the TV for it to work, can't play on the side or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman    761

I've got a Vizio E3D470VX and I'm pretty happy with it. It cost $600 last year. I thought about what I wanted for a long time, and honestly the 2D quality on that set was enough that the 3D was just an extra. I don't mind the passive 3D at all, but as some have mentioned, passive 3D will cut the resolution in half or even a quarter. Personally, I don't find it to be a big deal. I'd take half resolution over having to deal with active 3D glasses and such. I rarely watch 3D movies, and when I do, I'm perfectly happy with how they come out. Gaming I tried for about 5 minutes then turned back off. The lag is almost unavoidable when you're messing with the signal so much. It's not huge, but you'll have no chance online.

 

It feels to me like it's obvious that the future of entertainment will somehow be 3D. Hopefully we can master glassesless 3D in time, but I don't see anything wrong with 3D even now. As long as movies can get rid of the stupid scenes that throw something at the camera JUST to make a 3D effect and leave it just simply filmed normally, but in 3D, I really like it. I can watch a movie and halfway through not even be able to tell I'm watching 3D anymore because my eyes are just used to the depth. But of course film makers can't stop treating it like a gimmick and having to do stupid scenes just to prove it. Because of the low quality of 3D films, I tend to rarely watch 3D. I still think the biggest issue isn't the lacking technology, but the lacking quality media.

 

But hey, everyone is different. Some people can't watch 10 minutes of 3D without getting a headache, some like passive, some like active. Passive is cheaper if you're on a budget, active is usually more expensive but requires powered glasses that are a little more bulky. Go to someplace like Best Buy and try out all the different manufacturers' 3D sets and see what fits you best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandosis    107

I have a 47" 3D tv from LG and would highly recommend looking at their tv's. Its passive 3D so it wont really give you head aches like the active are notorious for. I also have a 3D sony bluray player and movies look way better in 3D in my opinion. Its just a better picture over all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

I've got a Vizio E3D470VX and I'm pretty happy with it. It cost $600 last year. I thought about what I wanted for a long time, and honestly the 2D quality on that set was enough that the 3D was just an extra. I don't mind the passive 3D at all, but as some have mentioned, passive 3D will cut the resolution in half or even a quarter. Personally, I don't find it to be a big deal. I'd take half resolution over having to deal with active 3D glasses and such. I rarely watch 3D movies, and when I do, I'm perfectly happy with how they come out. Gaming I tried for about 5 minutes then turned back off. The lag is almost unavoidable when you're messing with the signal so much. It's not huge, but you'll have no chance online.

 

 

We got one of the highest end philips TV's at the store with passive. their passive has gotten a lot of good reviews for being the best.

 

When I tried it I thought it was horrible compared to the less than best active 3D on my E6 series Samsung(6 series isn't fast enough, hz wise), crosstalk that I figured shouldn't exist on passive was worse than I ever saw it thanks to the interlacing and objects that moved fast towards the viewer or passed over object further back caused weird... sort of flicker due to the interlacing. 

 

As for gaming, it shouldn't be affected by activating 3D, not as long as you have game mode on that turns off all the filters anyway. when I tried AC3 on my xbox and samsung it worked perfectly, didn't see the flickering to the same degree as with the movies either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman    761

We got one of the highest end philips TV's at the store with passive. their passive has gotten a lot of good reviews for being the best.

 

When I tried it I thought it was horrible compared to the less than best active 3D on my E6 series Samsung(6 series isn't fast enough, hz wise), crosstalk that I figured shouldn't exist on passive was worse than I ever saw it thanks to the interlacing and objects that moved fast towards the viewer or passed over object further back caused weird... sort of flicker due to the interlacing. 

 

As for gaming, it shouldn't be affected by activating 3D, not as long as you have game mode on that turns off all the filters anyway. when I tried AC3 on my xbox and samsung it worked perfectly, didn't see the flickering to the same degree as with the movies either. 

Yeah, see I think 3D can be a bit of a crapshoot on some of these sets, and it can definitely be affected a lot by the settings on the TV. I'm relatively impressed with the passive 3D on this Vizio set, but I'm far from a 3D expert so it's possible I'm oblivious to some issues. I haven't ever really noticed crosstalk too bad or anything, maybe a little bit of interlacing. I do think my mind accepts 3D at a slightly lower quality for the fact that it's 3D and the issues involved though. I really don't go to the movies much and I think I've seen 2 or 3 3D movies in a theater, so I don't have as good of a frame of reference of what really high quality 3D should be like. I think if you want the best quality I'd definitely start at active, but with the issues some people have and dealing with the active glasses, passive isn't a bad alternative.

 

I bet AC3 wouldn't be too terribly affected by 3D. I only tried it on CoD and I got it tuned to have very little lag, but in a game like that even a split second of lag is too much and I couldn't get it smooth enough to be anywhere near as competitive as I was in 2D. It also throws your mind off a bit when you're not used to 3D though. I just really wasn't much of a fan on a game like that, but games that don't rely on a there being no lag at all like AC would fare much better, and would probably be more enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

But activating 3D in and itself shouldn't induce any more lag than 2D. I dunno, maybe passive 3D has more lag sinc ehtne it actually needs to split up the image, whereas active just pushes the frames. but interlacing is a straight forward process, it merely cuts out ever second line and put it on top of the other, if the TV has a decent image processing chip, there should be no lag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.