To cut a long story short I'm in the market for a new TV for my lounge to replace my ageing Pioneer PDP510XDE 50 inch Plasma.

I'm looking at a few screens over 60 inches as well as several 3D TVs, however I'm trying to grasp the technology.

Bearing in mind, in 1987 I watched Jaws in 3D on VHS (source) via a CRT TV, why do I need a) a 3D disc, a 3D player and c) a 3D TV???

That aside, does anyone have a current 3D TV, and what are their thoughts?

i have got a lg 42inch 3d tv and never use the function its good for gameing and not bad for tv but would i buy a tv for the 3d again the answer is no but at the end of the day its each to their own hth.

The Panasonic 3d TVs are the best for pretty much everything.

Realistically most of the decent kit will come 3D equipped whatever, but then I tend to find most people won't sit at home wearing glasses to watch it...

Samsung and Sony still use active 3D I believe, whereas Panasonic and LG mostly use passive (identical glasses to the cinema). The passive is preferred by most!

Last time I checked there was only 1 Panasonic that was passive, my Panasonic 42ST50 plasma is active 3D, supposedly the better format and I have to agree but I would'nt buy a TV just because it had 3D, why, because I've watched 1 3D film in 8 months and whilst it is awesome viewing, wearing the glasses takes away most of that enjoyment although it doesn't help as I wear glasses already so had to double up. My wife however doesn't wear glasses all the time but still found that it hindered her enjoyment of the film.

As said most decent sets come with it now as standard, so you may not have a choice.

The best recommendation I can make is go and view some sets but not in currys, instead go to a specialist shop where they set them up properly and are able to answer your questions rather than push the set that they have the biggest mark up on, or one which they have high stocks of. Richer sounds is as good a place as any helped by the fact that they're usually very competitive with their pricing.

Active glasses need a battery to power the shutter technology, the result is heavier glasses whereas passive glasses need no power so are lighter but the 3D image is better with active, horses for courses but if you're not going to use it then it doesn't matter

BTW, Pioneer take some beating but for me a Panny plasma is your best bet.

As above get a panny don't bother with 3d unless you've got a 100 inch screen

The Panasonic 3d TVs are the best for pretty much everything.

Realistically most of the decent kit will come 3D equipped whatever, but then I tend to find most people won't sit at home wearing glasses to watch it...

Samsung and Sony still use active 3D I believe, whereas Panasonic and LG mostly use passive (identical glasses to the cinema). The passive is preferred by most!

Panasonic use active for Full HD on their plasma screens.

The LCD may use passive (I'm not sure) but the plasma certainly don't.

Unless you want to change for a reason though, I doubt you'll beat the picture form your pioneer.

Edited 11 February, 201313 yr by cheezemonkhai

I have a Sony LED 3D tv, but I have never used the 3D function. I didn't know it was a 3D tv until my kids told me

Personally I think 3D is over rated, I remember 3D films at the cinema back in the 70's and they weren't very good.

Its a bit of a catch 22 with 3d tv's there needs to be lots of 3d programs around in order for the facility to be utilised, also the technology needs to be smarter fully to make it worth paying out for it.

I do wonder why we must wear glasses to see 3D when we already have the equipment built in to do this job - Our eyes, they do this job better than anything around (even with corrective lenses).

Panasonic use active for Full HD on their plasma screens.

The LCD may use passive (I'm not sure) but the plasma certainly don't.

Unless you want to change for a reason though, I doubt you'll beat the picture form your pioneer.

Reason I want to change is that I've "got used to" the size of the 50 and want to increase it, as well as invest in a decent BluRay player as I'm currently using a PS3 gen 2 and Denon DVD3910 as my DVD source

Had looked at the Kuro panels from Pioneer but slightly out of my budget unfortunately. The 8000 Series Samsung seems to come in between 3-3500.

As my TV only offers 1080 interlaced I figured I'd go full hog and upgrade resolution as well as screen size. I also like the fact I can continue to get LoveFilm through the Samsung if/when the PS3 does get replaced

Reason I want to change is that I've "got used to" the size of the 50 and want to increase it, as well as invest in a decent BluRay player as I'm currently using a PS3 gen 2 and Denon DVD3910 as my DVD source

Had looked at the Kuro panels from Pioneer but slightly out of my budget unfortunately. The 8000 Series Samsung seems to come in between 3-3500.

As my TV only offers 1080 interlaced I figured I'd go full hog and upgrade resolution as well as screen size. I also like the fact I can continue to get LoveFilm through the Samsung if/when the PS3 does get replaced

I have a samsung 3D LED 7000 series albeit only 46 inch. I love the 3D but have to admit i hardly use it. Everything i have watched in 3D is far btter however than 2D so given the choice id waych everything in 3D. I wear my glasses under my 3D glasses and it doesnt bother me one bit. The 3D image on mine is simply superb. There was a gadget show test recently whereby one make of TV ( I cant remember which, sorry) had rubbish 3D as the image was not very "immersive" so not all 3D images are the same.

Are 4K TV's not out yet as if its a big 60 incher and 4K becomes available at least yours will be future proof. They may be far too expensive though.

I also have a panasonic 42 inch plasma for my xbox and did look at panasonics for the living room and their 3D was equally immersive as the samsung IMO. The sumsung was far sexier though and that matter in the living room im afraid plus the menu and general interface on the panasonic is very dated looking and not a patch on the samsung IMO.

I would avoid Sony TBH as Samsung manufacture componnts for them so you can guess where the best ones end up.

There is an 80 inch LED in Costco at the moment and every time i go in i almost cream myself.Thank god the hot tub's are not on display at the moment as otherwise it would get messy.

Edited 12 February, 201313 yr by Jockdooshbag

3D TV is something you use for 5 minutes then get bored and lose or break the glasses. But you can still pose to say oh, I have a 3D TV!

3D TV is something you use for 5 minutes then get bored and lose or break the glasses. But you can still pose to say oh, I have a 3D TV!

Yup it's gimmick to sell more tellies. You also need a 3D compatible bluray player before it'll work. 3D makes me nauseous for teh most part because it's not really 3D, it's stereoscopic. More like a series of flat layers than what your eyes really see.

The TV industry has already twigged that 3D is a busted flush so they're moving on to super hi-def or whatever it's called. You'll find almost all tvs will have 3D built in soon. If you must get it, get passive 3D. The glasses are only a couple of quid each where as the active glasses are £30-70 a pair.

SmartTVs are also a bit of a waste of time. You'll usually need to fork out £60 for a 'special' branded wifi dongle (a normal one is about £5) then the manufacturer will never update the system so it stays out of date and a bit crap forever. Better to get one of the new little android media boxes you can update that yourself with any telly.

3D TV is something you use for 5 minutes then get bored and lose or break the glasses. But you can still pose to say oh, I have a 3D TV!

Its hardly a pose to claim to have 3D.

Things like avatar are stunning in 3D. Its so much better than watching it in 2D. Yes these moments are rare but why deny yourself something that is better especially considering 3D generally comes a standard.

Would anyone rather see in 2D? I doubt it. The only downsides are having to wear glasses which in fairness does not bother me one bit as im sitting in privacy in my lounge not walking round the streets. The other downside is that some purists say that the image quality is less due to two images being displayed so i assume this means the resolution is lower. Saying this everything i watch in 3D seems so much sharper for some reason, maybe its an optical illusion but i certainly havent noticed any picyure degradation when watching 3D, wuite the opposite actually.

When things like the new hobit film are available on Blu ray i just know that this will be better watching in 3D so why would you not want to? Doesnt matter that you use it only on rare occasions as when those rare occasions occur you will be glad you have it and it costs nothing to have this feature anyway.

We have 6 pairs of active glasses for when relatives are up. None are broken or lost yet either, not sure why they would be to be honest and the batteries in the active glasses last for years.

If 3D is something you want then make sure the TV has a good version of it. Same goes for resolution and image processing or smart TV features. Figure out which features you want then research the best TV foe those functions.

Mine is a smart TV and i never use it but i would definately make sure my next TV does 3D well as i love it.

3D TV is something you use for 5 minutes then get bored and lose or break the glasses. But you can still pose to say oh, I have a 3D TV!

Not sure. there seem to be more and more 3D films being released on BluRay and I'm quite a film buff so would definitely get it's use.

One thing I don't understand is, why do I need a 3D TV when the disc and player are the source??

Yup it's gimmick to sell more tellies. You also need a 3D compatible bluray player before it'll work. 3D makes me nauseous for teh most part because it's not really 3D, it's stereoscopic. More like a series of flat layers than what your eyes really see.

The TV industry has already twigged that 3D is a busted flush so they're moving on to super hi-def or whatever it's called. You'll find almost all tvs will have 3D built in soon. If you must get it, get passive 3D. The glasses are only a couple of quid each where as the active glasses are £30-70 a pair.

SmartTVs are also a bit of a waste of time. You'll usually need to fork out £60 for a 'special' branded wifi dongle (a normal one is about £5) then the manufacturer will never update the system so it stays out of date and a bit crap forever. Better to get one of the new little android media boxes you can update that yourself with any telly.

I'll be honest, Smart TV functionality for me will be limited to LoveFilm, iPlayer etc and possibly online gaming if it comes into it's element. Connecting the TV will be a doddle... I have a Pioneer AV/HDMI switching box so there will be one HDMI, one power cable and one network cable sunk neatly into the wall. Sod paying for a dongle when my router is 5 feet away from the TV

3D TV is something you use for 5 minutes then get bored and lose or break the glasses. But you can still pose to say oh, I have a 3D TV!

+1

I have one, because I wanted the other features of a smart TV. I've used it a couple of times, but its frankly crap for films as the screen doesn't fill most of your face. It does work really well if you're sat close and gaming though. Starcraft II looks stunning on it. I have a 3D capable bluray player too, but I don't bother.

I must admit I am no TV addict. I dont have Sky, only recently got a Humax recorder and when I have visitors the TV stays off because your guests visit you to socialise, not sit and watch a screen. I do have a Sony media player for playing movies and displaying pictures and for iPlayer and Lovefilm etc, which is also 3D compatible and a big ole 7.1 AV amp and they do get lots of use. But, I couldn't sit and watch a film in 3D. Tried the movies, not for me. its 2D all the way.

The smart TV's are a great idea, but the brands dont or wont make them compatible with enough formats. For instance Panasonic Viera's format the hard drive to be TV specific so you cant save a file to a hard drive and watch it.

Personally I bought the best plasma screen I could and I mean Screen, no tuner or anything. Millions of inputs, and much better quality than any TV.

But If I had to buy a LED 3D TV, it would be the Samsung U8000 series

+1

I have one, because I wanted the other features of a smart TV. I've used it a couple of times, but its frankly crap for films as the screen doesn't fill most of your face. It does work really well if you're sat close and gaming though. Starcraft II looks stunning on it. I have a 3D capable bluray player too, but I don't bother.

I dont understand "the screen doesnt fill most of your face" thing. Do you mean compared to a cinema where the screen virtually fills your peripheral vision? Certainly things look better in the cinema because of this but is till think a film in 3D on a TV looks amazing. If the layout of our lounge permitted it i would have the biggest TV i could fit in as basically you can never have too big a TV.

Was tempted to take the xbox downstairs and try it with the 3D but would then have to play 2nd fiddle to emmerdale and the rest of the tripe she watches.

I dont understand "the screen doesnt fill most of your face" thing. Do you mean compared to a cinema where the screen virtually fills your peripheral vision? Certainly things look better in the cinema because of this but is till think a film in 3D on a TV looks amazing. If the layout of our lounge permitted it i would have the biggest TV i could fit in as basically you can never have too big a TV.

Was tempted to take the xbox downstairs and try it with the 3D but would then have to play 2nd fiddle to emmerdale and the rest of the tripe she watches.

Precicely the reason I want a 65" screen. I had been toying with a projector for films and just keeping the Pioneer for TV, which would be ideal if I had a dedicated cinema room, but in the lounge it will just start to look a little cluttered

I dont understand "the screen doesnt fill most of your face" thing. Do you mean compared to a cinema where the screen virtually fills your peripheral vision?

Yes, exactly that. The 3D effect is mostly lost as you're looking through a relatively small window. You can see the 3D, but it just looks weird rather than immersive. I agree, certainly if you want to do this, get the biggest screen you can fit, then it will look decent. I have a reasonably sized screen, but have a large lounge so while for 2D its fine, it just doesn't scale for the 3D.

Precicely the reason I want a 65" screen. I had been toying with a projector for films and just keeping the Pioneer for TV, which would be ideal if I had a dedicated cinema room, but in the lounge it will just start to look a little cluttered

Have pondered projectors as well. Thing that concerned me was how bright they would be i.e probably not that great unless its dark outside with light dimmed etc.

There was a pair of glasses on the new gadget show that when you wear them they give the impression of watching a 65" screen. They were 3D enabled also with smart TV functions. They actually were testing them while in a range rover so they are portable too. Seemed a great idea but pretty antisocial if you and the wife each have a pair on.

House could get burgled also and you wouldnt even notice. I think these may be superb for gaming though seeing as gaming is pretty much an antisocial activity anyway.

Thing to bear in mind, a TV that has a half decent 3D picture is pretty much guaranteed to have a fantastic 2D picture.

I have a Samsung 51" 3D plasma and I love it. Have lots of blu rays and a few are 3D. Certain games on my Xbox are played in 3D as I like the depth gained. Nothing beats Avatar in 3D either!!! Active glasses tend to be choice for plasma due to the almost instantaneous refresh rate they have. Generally you won't find a passive 3D non LED set as it just doesn't work as well.

Tbh, most people don't use it as unless you buy specific footage, most TV is 2D. I do use mine and love it. Best thing to do is go to John Lewis as they are extremely helpful. Just don't ever feel pushed into buying as Currys/PC World/Comet (when they were around) are monthly sponsored by companies to make their TVs look better in order to shift more. It's the reason when you go to a big TV place, some look simply epic and some...well, don't!

Hope this helps...I realise I have gone on a bit lol

Chris

Another point regarding active / passive 3D: the benefits of passive 3D (cheap, lightweight glasses) are, depending on your point of view wiped out by the fact you're halving the resolution.

If you want 3D HD as a consumer, then you have to go active to get the full 1080p picture. The downsides of active 3D is that on some older / cheaper models, there can be ghosting visible that results from left and right eye pictures and LCD glasses not updating fast enough.

As others have said, best is to go to a specialised home cinema retailer where they have a range of equipment properly set up for 3D. If you see it in its best light, then you can decide whether it's worth it or not. Be wary of magazine reviews which can have skewed results depending on the publication. Forums such as avforums.com (UK based) or avsforum.com (US based) are great resources for in depth trials and feedback from people who really know what they're talking about.

The majority of 3D seen on Blu-ray is post-produced 3D giving that "layers" look which in turn can look fake. You need footage to be shot natively in 3D to get the best picture. Avatar, Prometheus, Life of Pi etc, were properly shot in 3D which is why they can look stunning if properly set up.

Another point regarding active / passive 3D: the benefits of passive 3D (cheap, lightweight glasses) are, depending on your point of view wiped out by the fact you're halving the resolution.

If you want 3D HD as a consumer, then you have to go active to get the full 1080p picture. The downsides of active 3D is that on some older / cheaper models, there can be ghosting visible that results from left and right eye pictures and LCD glasses not updating fast enough.

As others have said, best is to go to a specialised home cinema retailer where they have a range of equipment properly set up for 3D. If you see it in its best light, then you can decide whether it's worth it or not. Be wary of magazine reviews which can have skewed results depending on the publication. Forums such as avforums.com (UK based) or avsforum.com (US based) are great resources for in depth trials and feedback from people who really know what they're talking about.

The majority of 3D seen on Blu-ray is post-produced 3D giving that "layers" look which in turn can look fake. You need footage to be shot natively in 3D to get the best picture. Avatar, Prometheus, Life of Pi etc, were properly shot in 3D which is why they can look stunning if properly set up.

Yeah, I worked in the AV industry in a mid range retailer for about 8 years so well aware of the benefits of seeing units side by side, from the same source, and how magazines are prone to liken manufacturers that boost their advertisment income

Another point regarding active / passive 3D: the benefits of passive 3D (cheap, lightweight glasses) are, depending on your point of view wiped out by the fact you're halving the resolution.

If you want 3D HD as a consumer, then you have to go active to get the full 1080p picture. The downsides of active 3D is that on some older / cheaper models, there can be ghosting visible that results from left and right eye pictures and LCD glasses not updating fast enough.

As others have said, best is to go to a specialised home cinema retailer where they have a range of equipment properly set up for 3D. If you see it in its best light, then you can decide whether it's worth it or not. Be wary of magazine reviews which can have skewed results depending on the publication. Forums such as avforums.com (UK based) or avsforum.com (US based) are great resources for in depth trials and feedback from people who really know what they're talking about.

The majority of 3D seen on Blu-ray is post-produced 3D giving that "layers" look which in turn can look fake. You need footage to be shot natively in 3D to get the best picture. Avatar, Prometheus, Life of Pi etc, were properly shot in 3D which is why they can look stunning if properly set up.

This explains why i thought the 3D image i see was very sharp i.e HD as mine is active 3D. So its only the passive type that suffers this resolution decrease? Interesting. Glad mines active then but when i bought mine passive wasnt available. Id still rather pay more for glasses to get the best solution though.

My brother in law told me that the Hobbit was shot in 4k resolution at really high refresh rates or something as this was to ensure that we still enjoyed the full HD experience at a minimum of 24 FPS after it was transformed inro 3D. Seeing as cinemas are passive 3D that expalins it. If my undersatnding of your post is correct does this mean that if cinemas were active 3D then they wouldnt have needed to shoot the film at such an increased level of resolution etc??

This explains why i thought the 3D image i see was very sharp i.e HD as mine is active 3D. So its only the passive type that suffers this resolution decrease? Interesting. Glad mines active then but when i bought mine passive wasnt available. Id still rather pay more for glasses to get the best solution though.

My brother in law told me that the Hobbit was shot in 4k resolution at really high refresh rates or something as this was to ensure that we still enjoyed the full HD experience at a minimum of 24 FPS after it was transformed inro 3D. Seeing as cinemas are passive 3D that expalins it. If my undersatnding of your post is correct does this mean that if cinemas were active 3D then they wouldnt have needed to shoot the film at such an increased level of resolution etc??

Bit of forward planning for the new standards too. 4k and 8k have already been approved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-19370582

Edited 13 February, 201313 yr by Aspman