3d tv

[ArkieDukie]

Does anyone have any experience with 3D TVs? I'm in the market for a new television and am seriously thinking of going this route. The space I have for the TV is a bit limited, so I'm looking at LED rather than plasma.

[blazindw]

My parents have a Samsung LED 3D TV and it's beyond awesome. I believe its a 240Hz TV, 55". The picture is the best I've seen...watching TV looks like you're watching shows as they're being taped live. I haven't seen anything in 3D on it yet, but my parents had to get 2 glasses since I don't believe any came with the TV. It did come with a bluray player though.

[ArkieDukie]

My parents have a Samsung LED 3D TV and it's beyond awesome. I believe its a 240Hz TV, 55". The picture is the best I've seen...watching TV looks like you're watching shows as they're being taped live. I haven't seen anything in 3D on it yet, but my parents had to get 2 glasses since I don't believe any came with the TV. It did come with a bluray player though.

Thanks, blazindw! I'm actually looking at a Samsung. BestBuy has a deal where I can get a free 3D Blu-Ray player and 3D glasses. It's a 120 Hz TV rather than 240, though.

[blazindw]

Thanks, blazindw! I'm actually looking at a Samsung. BestBuy has a deal where I can get a free 3D Blu-Ray player and 3D glasses. It's a 120 Hz TV rather than 240, though.

Go to Best Buy and take a look at it. Chances are it's still pretty good, but you want to see how the refresh rate looks on the TV.

[ArkieDukie]

Go to Best Buy and take a look at it. Chances are it's still pretty good, but you want to see how the refresh rate looks on the TV.

Good suggestion; that's the plan. I looked yesterday and immediately eliminated the 60 Hz refresh rate - I could see a slight blur, which is allegedly something that most people can't see. I wasn't looking at 3D TVs, though. One wonders if the refresh rate is a bigger deal with 3D than with HD.

[blazindw]

It is...you'll see more of a lag in the 120Hz than you will a 240Hz. But, 120 is fine...just a matter of preference. Now that my parents have a 240, that's the only one I would get when I upgrade my TV in a couple years (unless, of course, the new hotness has come out).

[OldPhiKap]

I recently got an LG 3D Plasma. (Wanted plasma b/c of angles -- seemed better when not head-on). Really like it, wish there was more 3D content.

[mph]

I purchased a 50" 3D Panasonic Viera about 8 months ago. I went with the plasma for the black level performance and contrast ratio. At the time I purchased it Best Buy was running a special on a package that included a 3D DVD player, 2 extra pair of 3D glasses (3 total), and a 3D copy of Avatar (blech). The 2D picture has been amazing. I've used the 3D glasses 4 or 5 times in 8 months. The quality is great but even with the extra glasses, only 3 people could watch at a time. Also, I have young children and I'm not comfortable letting them use the glasses for very long given the lack of research on how this technology might affect their visual development. Finally, there's not a ton of 3D content out there (I have DirectTV) and even less 3D content that interests me. I will say that I watched a few minutes of a rerun of the ACC football championship and it was awesome.

One final thought. If you route your various components through an AV receiver, you need to make sure it's 3D compatible. I have a 2009 Yamaha receiver and I can't connect my 3D DVD player without losing the 3D capability. Almost all new receivers have 3D pass through capability.

[ArkieDukie]

I purchased a 50" 3D Panasonic Viera about 8 months ago. I went with the plasma for the black level performance and contrast ratio. At the time I purchased it Best Buy was running a special on a package that included a 3D DVD player, 2 extra pair of 3D glasses (3 total), and a 3D copy of Avatar (blech). The 2D picture has been amazing. I've used the 3D glasses 4 or 5 times in 8 months. The quality is great but even with the extra glasses, only 3 people could watch at a time. Also, I have young children and I'm not comfortable letting them use the glasses for very long given the lack of research on how this technology might affect their visual development. Finally, there's not a ton of 3D content out there (I have DirectTV) and even less 3D content that interests me. I will say that I watched a few minutes of a rerun of the ACC football championship and it was awesome.

One final thought. If you route your various components through an AV receiver, you need to make sure it's 3D compatible. I have a 2009 Yamaha receiver and I can't connect my 3D DVD player without losing the 3D capability. Almost all new receivers have 3D pass through capability.

Thanks for the tip! That's pretty key - I have a stereo that I purchased during my grad school days in the early 1990s. I'll go out on a limb and assume that it's not 3D compatible.

[OldPhiKap]

FWIW -- I have ordered my last two televisions (55" and 62") from Amazon -- beat Best Buy's price by a bunch and there were no hassles.

[Jarhead]

For what it's worth, I look askance at 3D. We have actually had it around since the 1870s, but it hasn't really ever been a commercial success. When 3D moved over to motion pictures it was mostly a novelty, with a comedy or horror tilt to it that had little box office success. The glasses were part of the problem, and will remain so until Apple (who else?) invents something to replace the glasses. The big problem will be the corruption of production standards to take advantage of the 3D effect. The story telling and acting qualities of the programming will suffer. Only special effects will benefit, but who wants all of those things crashing into your viewing room. I will reconsider, though, when they come out with a one quarter scale hologram that I can watch in the center of our viewing room where I can walk around and rerun live action and closeups of the bad calls the referees make all the time. I still hate run on sentences.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

For what it's worth, I look askance at 3D. We have actually had it around since the 1870s, but it hasn't really ever been a commercial success.

Jarhead, I can only assume you checked it out then (the 1870's)?

[Indoor66]

Jarhead, I can only assume you checked it out then (the 1870's)?

That is harsh.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

That is harsh.

Jarhead knows I wasn't that far behind him!

[Indoor66]

Jarhead knows I wasn't that far behind him!

I'm a lot closer than you and it is still harsh.

[ArkieDukie]

I purchased a 40" Samsung LED HDTV with 3D. Got a free 3D Blu-Ray player and 2 pairs of 3D glasses as well. I haven't tried out the 3D yet, but the HD picture is very good. Today I made the happy discovery that I recorded the 2010 NCAA Championship Game in HDTV. Am watching it now.

[moonpie23]

i'll have to stick with 2D till i can get another left eye...

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

I thought that this article might be interesting to add to the discussion: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainmen...ccfxYzpDLXx4iN

I haven't yet seen a 3D movie in the theaters or at a home. I just don't care at all. I have a fantastic HDTV that I don't plan to upgrade unless it breaks. My own view of the industry, which is echoed in the article, is that 3D just won't be catching on in any real way. That said, I highly endorse a move to HDTV. If you can save a bundle getting a TV w/o 3D and still get a great picture, then I would jump at that chance.

[Jarhead]

Jarhead, I can only assume you checked it out then (the 1870's)?

Gimme a break, Oz. I'm not that old. Besides,, my comment about the 1870s was a bit off. The first patent for a 3D viewer, better known as a stereoscope or a stereopticon, was actually awarded in 1838 in England. The last time I recall seeing any such pictures was in the American History Museum at the Smithsonian before they redid the whole building a couple of years ago. 3D was around for a long time, and it still hasn't really caught on. See HaveFunExpectToWin's post for a link to the NY Post article on just that subject. That's a pretty good post that I agree with completely, and it's worth repeating here:

I thought that this article might be interesting to add to the discussion: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainmen...ccfxYzpDLXx4iN

I haven't yet seen a 3D movie in the theaters or at a home. I just don't care at all. I have a fantastic HDTV that I don't plan to upgrade unless it breaks. My own view of the industry, which is echoed in the article, is that 3D just won't be catching on in any real way. That said, I highly endorse a move to HDTV. If you can save a bundle getting a TV w/o 3D and still get a great picture, then I would jump at that chance.

By the way, OZZIE only gets harsh when he thinks about those Carowhiner folks.

[devildeac]

I purchased a 40" Samsung LED HDTV with 3D. Got a free 3D Blu-Ray player and 2 pairs of 3D glasses as well. I haven't tried out the 3D yet, but the HD picture is very good. Today I made the happy discovery that I recorded the 2010 NCAA Championship Game in HDTV. Am watching it now.

SPOILER:


Heyward still misses his shot.