3D TV

[Dinovector]

We went to the cinema today to watch Titanic in 3D, it was the first time either of us had seen a 3D movie and we both loved it. The thought crosses our minds that a 3D TV might be a good idea and getting Sky. Anyone already doing this and if so what do you think?

 

[badger748]

Funnily enough I'm in the same boat. Already have Sky. TV mainly used for streaming films via Apple TV and watching sport - Sky show Premier League in 3D i think - I also watch the F1 every race. (I do go out sometimes....)

Am thinking seriously about this one in John Lewis £1200 Samsung plasma 3D 51".

http://www.johnlewis.com/231531149/Product.aspx

What I am unsure about is why is an LED one - same size and spec - twice the price?
It didn't seem twice the quality - was a tad sharper maybe - am I missing something?

Cheers

 

[johnfromnorwich]

We went to the cinema today to watch Titanic in 3D, it was the first time either of us had seen a 3D movie and we both loved it. The thought crosses our minds that a 3D TV might be a good idea and getting Sky. Anyone already doing this and if so what do you think?

Don't own one but one of my former colleagues is involvolved in research trying to solve the perceptual (psychophysical) problems associated with 3D sources and directly in the design of 3D monitors. His take on it is that whilst we can get away with it on the scale of a cinema screen, at TV scale it's always going to be a strain. The visual system doesn't like being tricked and reacts accordingly! YMMV, but since he's still getting industry funding, I assume it hasnt been cracked.

 

[Rodrat]

I would hold off until the glasses free technology kicks in.

 

[Stevie A]

We went to the cinema today to watch Titanic in 3D, it was the first time either of us had seen a 3D movie and we both loved it. The thought crosses our minds that a 3D TV might be a good idea and getting Sky. Anyone already doing this and if so what do you think?

Anyone who has the full sky package gets the 3D programmes,most major premier league game,F1,Masters Sky Arts,ETC all looks stunning.
Its better still with good BD transfers,and as always bigger is better.

 

[Stevie A]

Funnily enough I'm in the same boat. Already have Sky. TV mainly used for streaming films via Apple TV and watching sport - Sky show Premier League in 3D i think - I also watch the F1 every race. (I do go out sometimes....)

Am thinking seriously about this one in John Lewis £1200 Samsung plasma 3D 51".

http://www.johnlewis.com/231531149/Product.aspx

What I am unsure about is why is an LED one - same size and spec - twice the price?
It didn't seem twice the quality - was a tad sharper maybe - am I missing something?

Cheers

There are two types of 3D,passive and active,the cheaper option,which sky use is passive,this uses polarized glasses which usually come with the sets,LG give you 7 pairs.
The superior active 3D uses active shutter glasses,this is also the only system that is "Full hd",currently the best sets on offer are the new flagship panasonic plasma models which at long last have equalled/bettered the performance of the legendary Pioneer "Kuro" sets.

 

[Stevie A]

I would hold off until the glasses free technology kicks in.

Toshiba have released another new "Glasses free" 3D system,which takes away the need for the glasses,however,imho the performance is not as good and the field of vision for the 3D effect has a limited viewing arc for best results.

 

[halvis]

IMHO, I think it only really works well in the cinema because the screen is so large and fills most (if not all) of your field of vision. To emulate this in your living room, you have to sit about 3 feet from the thing as the screens are obviously much smaller.

It's natural to want to bring it into the home, but I can't help feeling its a bit of a faddy kinda thing, but each to their own.

 

[neilm]

We have a Samsung LED with 3d. I did not purchase it for the 3d capability, but am very impressed with it. I wouldn't use it all the time but for the occasional film would highly recommend it

Of course technology will get better and cheaper but doesn't it always?

 

[Arfa]

Got myself a nice top end, huge Sony Bravia (55" HX923), which came with a couple of pairs of shutter glasses. Have only used 3D with a couple of PS3 games; Wipeout and Motorstorm. I thought it worked very well indeed. Our lounge is only around 4m square, so the 55" fills it nicely to give a good sense of immersion. Actually found Wipeout a lot easier to play, the 3D gave a much better sense of the track coming up.
Still haven't got any 3D films yet. Party due to their cost and partly for the below.

Now for the downsides:
After half hour, my eyes were so bloody tired and strained, I had to have cup of tea and stare at things miles away.
I wear prescription glasses, shoving 3D specs on top, was clunky and pain in ass.
We just got 2 pairs of specs with the telly, so when mates are round for film, 3D is out, until I buy more. But at £45-50 each, that could be a while.
My wife can't stand 3D, she often get motion sick just watching 2D when there's lots of fast camera movement - she had to walk of of Black Swan in 2D. She's ain't got a hope in hell of watching a 3d film all the way through...

BTW the LED model is more, because it uses LED light tech to drive the back light. Its better as it can give more focused lighting, rather than non-LED screens that back light huge sections of the panel to get the desired brightness, but making nearby blacks look grey. Its all about giving greatest dynamic contrast between the brightest whites and blackest blacks in close proximity. Look for film titles, white text on black, many screens give a big grey patch all around the text. There a many variations of the tech that give differing quality and compromises at differing costs, but that's the general gist of it.

 

[nickl]

There are two types of 3D,passive and active,the cheaper option,which sky use is passive,this uses polarized glasses which usually come with the sets,LG give you 7 pairs.
The superior active 3D uses active shutter glasses,this is also the only system that is "Full hd",currently the best sets on offer are the new flagship panasonic plasma models which at long last have equalled/bettered the performance of the legendary Pioneer "Kuro" sets.

Sky broadcast 3D and it's independant of the active or passicve technology. They are partners with LG who are just about the only passivce screen makers and these are the ones found in pubs, as unsurprisingly handing out expensive active glasses to random pub goers was deemed a bit risky.

Passive isn't technically HD, though you'd be hard pressed to notice that. I was most impressed by the effect of passive 3D on a smallish screen as I was quite prepared to be underwhelmed.

Sky did a series of tests on people watching active and passive sets, just out of interest, and the results strongly favoured passive from the point of view of ease of viewing/fewer headaches. That was a year ago so things may now be different.

Am sorely tempted, but my Pioneer isn't going to retire any time soon so can't really justify it.

 

[Cheese]

Am thinking seriously about this one in John Lewis £1200 Samsung plasma 3D 51".

Yes they look awfully cool, to the point that for a time I considered buying one even though I am a lifelong TV hater and still refuse to have a set at home. Phew.

 

[Mongeddavid]

When it comes to current 3D bigger is better I would go down the projector route if at all possible as even a 50 inch screen wont give the same feeling as the cinema 3D. I tried out a 3D pc monitor for gaming and with a few exceptions i found it rather disappointing.

 

[Dick Bowman]

I've only looked at 3D TVs briefly - initially impressive (in that "gosh that's new" way) but then I get reminded of those old children's toy theatres, there seem to be multiple flat layers rather than continuous depth.

 

[Dinovector]

We have a Samsung LED with 3d. I did not purchase it for the 3d capability, but am very impressed with it. I wouldn't use it all the time but for the occasional film would highly recommend it

I think that's all we would want to use it for and possibly the odd program/event of interest. Do you have any problem with headaches or eye strain? How far away do you sit from it?

I appreciate the cinema experience will always be superior but I was so impressed ant the amount of involvement the 3D gave, OK it was the first time we had seen 3D but after 10 minutes the novelty had gone and we just got into the film (which I struggle with in 2D), kind of like the difference between an old transistor radio and a decent modern hifi. The bonus of all this is that I can get to watch the F1 again

 

[Dinovector]

I've only looked at 3D TVs briefly - initially impressive (in that "gosh that's new" way) but then I get reminded of those old children's toy theatres, there seem to be multiple flat layers rather than continuous depth.

I think the cinema was a bit like that too in hindsight (3d ) but I just forgot about it very quickly

 

[Mike Reed]

Like those of my (schoolboy) peers, I watched most of the first 3D films, both monochrome and colour, that came out in the fifties. From the 'Three Stooges' to 'Bhowani Junction', plus many I've forgotten, we enjoyed the rather primitive 3D through those free red and green cardboard glasses.

3D films then disappeared; I wonder why. My guess is that it was an expensive gimmick; a fad, that faded out naturally, as fads do.

Have recently bought a Sony (non 3D) HD TV, having been underwhelmed at John Lewis by their 3D dem., I'll sit on my hands for a few years. As a spectacle wearer, I doubt I could cope for very long with today's glasses, anyway. Besides, Avatar was most enjoyable in 2D !

 

[Stevie A]

IMHO, I think it only really works well in the cinema because the screen is so large and fills most (if not all) of your field of vision. To emulate this in your living room, you have to sit about 3 feet from the thing as the screens are obviously much smaller.

It's natural to want to bring it into the home, but I can't help feeling its a bit of a faddy kinda thing, but each to their own.

I'd have to disagree,many decent home cinema systems,easily outperform most if not all cinema systems,i would also argue that at times picture quality can look better in the home also due to the smaller screen,the last film i saw at the cinema was no match for what i can reproduce in my living room.

 

[Stevie A]

Sky broadcast 3D and it's independant of the active or passicve technology. They are partners with LG who are just about the only passivce screen makers and these are the ones found in pubs, as unsurprisingly handing out expensive active glasses to random pub goers was deemed a bit risky.

Passive isn't technically HD, though you'd be hard pressed to notice that. I was most impressed by the effect of passive 3D on a smallish screen as I was quite prepared to be underwhelmed.

Sky did a series of tests on people watching active and passive sets, just out of interest, and the results strongly favoured passive from the point of view of ease of viewing/fewer headaches. That was a year ago so things may now be different.

Am sorely tempted, but my Pioneer isn't going to retire any time soon so can't really justify it.

Neither would i retire the pioneer,however,the latest Pana's are now better,and the 3D doe'nt have as much effect on eye strain/fatigue with the latest panel/technology,the passive systems certainly has merits,one being price,but especially on BD the active system wins out on performance every times

 

[Stevie A]

I've only looked at 3D TVs briefly - initially impressive (in that "gosh that's new" way) but then I get reminded of those old children's toy theatres, there seem to be multiple flat layers rather than continuous depth.

You can get that with some sets/films,especially the lcd/led models which have a narrower field of view than pdp sets.