advertisement


3D TV

I bought a 3D TV/BluRay package......watched half of one movie in 3D and it just gave me a headache.
Have not used the 3D function since.....
 
Responding to query from earlier in the morning.

I don't get any issues from wearing the glasses. With the active glasses if you look at a light source (window or light bulb), you do notice a flicker. This could be an issue for some I guess.
 
I tried the active glasses 3D system for a few minutes on my aunt and uncle's new 46 inch Samsung TV.

Pros:
- It does work: images do look 3D, although the effect is quite subtle in most scenes.

Cons:
- As a spectacle wearer, it was annoying to have to wear two pairs of glasses.
- The 3D picture was much dimmer than the 2D picture for the same scene. It seemed less well-defined.
- I think I would have got eye strain if I'd had to view the 3D mode for a long time.

Overall, I preferred the 2D picture from the set. In my opinion, if 3D is to not just be a gimmick (again - I remember the 3D movie craze in the 80s, and of course it wasn't the first), it still needs to improve.

Caveat: I have bought a good non-3D set last year (a Panasonic plasma), so maybe my opinion was sub-consciously influenced by not wanting to think I bought the wrong thing!

Even if I am wrong, and 3D becomes established, it just means that eventually it will be a standard feature, so it won't be something you need to worry about when buying a new TV - you will get it on any decent set anyway.

Kind regards

- Garry
 
My friend and I both had this dilema about 3 months ago.

I went the way of a Panasonic 2D Plasma set and he took the plunge with a Samsung D8000 which came with a couple of pairs of 3D specs.

Upshot is he's seen 1 more 3D blu-ray on his set than I have, the glasses give him a headache.
 
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.

I was referring to the size of the screen rather than quality of image though, which cannot be realistically replicated in a normal living room. With 3D TV's, its like you are looking into a small window of 3D and around that 3D window is just your sitting room or whatever room you are in (which isn't the 3D film). In a cinema, the screen takes up the entire wall you are facing so you are completely immersed.
 
Don't forget that plasma TVs cost quite a bit more to run (than LCD/LED). I was surprised by the consumption of my Sony LCD, after moving from CRT; thought it was going to be more economical.
 
I certainly don't consider active 3D to be automatically 'better' than passive 3D, whether it is considered to be technically so or not. Any prospective buyer should audition and consider their options very carefully. There are huge variables in the performance of TV sets and ALL of them, whether Plasma or LCD (including LED, which is not always done too well either), have their foibles. A lot depends on how your eyes / brain work, what you watch, the distance you sit at and the room lighting levels.
 
Don't forget that plasma TVs cost quite a bit more to run (than LCD/LED). I was surprised by the consumption of my Sony LCD, after moving from CRT; thought it was going to be more economical.

It's true that plasma TVs take more juice, but how significant is it in the great scheme of things?

For example, I took two current 42 inch TVs from the Panasonic range, one plasma and one LCD and looked at the manufacturer's quoted average power consumption figures.

Plasma:
Model: TX-P42GT50B
Average power consumption: 137W

LCD:
Model: TX-L42DT50
Average power consumption: 56W

That's probably around 1p difference per hour at current electricity prices.

If there's nothing otherwise to choose between them, then of course you choose the one that's cheaper to run. However, if you prefer the picture of the plasmas, as I do, is that cost difference really sufficient to sway you?

Kind regards

- Garry
 
Distinctly unimpressed with the various 3-D options I've tried so far. HD on plasma is still my favourite viewing. I suspect it will be a while before the necessary quality without glasses is available. Novelty is OK for a while but a prolonged period with the glasses began to irritate.
 
Plasma:
Model: TX-P42GT50B
Average power consumption: 137W

LCD:
Model: TX-L42DT50
Average power consumption: 56W

- Garry

Thank you for that. Looking at the manual again, I was reading the ANNUAL consumption of 155 kWh (why annual, for Heaven's sake) as the running consumption of 155W. What a nice surprise !

I do agree with you, anyway. As I keep most of my audio kit powered up 24/7 I could hardly do otherwise.:)
 
This is beginning to look like a no-no for 3D TV in its present form, then.

I've got just over 4 years left on my guaranty; 3D may well have developed along different design and user comfort parameters and taken off by 2016.

Or it could be dead in the water.:)
 
I've got a bit of an aversion to LCD TVs, we've had 2 42" go after just over a year, got a Samsung 50" plasma now and fingers crossed has been working fine for 2 1/2 years. I can hardly moan about the electric consumption when we run 3 large fish tanks!
 
Also bear in mind, modern LCD's are getting more efficient on electric. Our old 32" Sony Bravia from about 6 years ago used around 30W more than our current 55" Sony Bravia from last year... 145W compared to 113W.
 
This is beginning to look like a no-no for 3D TV in its present form, then.

I've got just over 4 years left on my guaranty; 3D may well have developed along different design and user comfort parameters and taken off by 2016.
Or it could be dead in the water.:)

I agree with that assessment of 3D TV. But I also know people who are really enthusiastic about it.

Just like with any new audio kit, the best thing is to try it yourself, ideally for more than a few minutes, in somewhere similar to you home environment.

Unlike hifi though, RRPs and top end dealer prices for TVs are vastly overpriced, so it pays to shop around. A shop with decent demo facilities maybe can't compete pricewise - maybe a friend or relative with a 3D TV would give a better demo without any feeling of obligation to buy.
 
It's true that plasma TVs take more juice, but how significant is it in the great scheme of things?

For example, I took two current 42 inch TVs from the Panasonic range, one plasma and one LCD and looked at the manufacturer's quoted average power consumption figures.

Plasma:
Model: TX-P42GT50B
Average power consumption: 137W

LCD:
Model: TX-L42DT50
Average power consumption: 56W

That's probably around 1p difference per hour at current electricity prices.

If there's nothing otherwise to choose between them, then of course you choose the one that's cheaper to run. However, if you prefer the picture of the plasmas, as I do, is that cost difference really sufficient to sway you?

Kind regards

- Garry

What is also not readily known is that PDP screens have an advantage,in that when there are dark/black areas on the screen then the pixels are switched off,this does not happen on lcd,therefore the overall consumption over a given time is roughly the same,probably as little as 10p a day on average,and certainly worth the extra imho!!!!!
 
I've got a bit of an aversion to LCD TVs, we've had 2 42" go after just over a year, got a Samsung 50" plasma now and fingers crossed has been working fine for 2 1/2 years. I can hardly moan about the electric consumption when we run 3 large fish tanks!

Its fair to say that all modern tv's have no where near the shelf life of old CRT sets,my first Pana pdp lasted 26 months,thankfully the replacement has lasted longer than that,but it pays to get a "Free" 5 yr g/tee if possible for peace of mind.
 
I agree with that assessment of 3D TV. But I also know people who are really enthusiastic about it.

Just like with any new audio kit, the best thing is to try it yourself, ideally for more than a few minutes, in somewhere similar to you home environment.

Unlike hifi though, RRPs and top end dealer prices for TVs are vastly overpriced, so it pays to shop around. A shop with decent demo facilities maybe can't compete pricewise - maybe a friend or relative with a 3D TV would give a better demo without any feeling of obligation to buy.

The problem is most decent sets now have 3d built in them whether you want it or not,Last years G30 Panasonics wher one of the few "Flagship" 2D models,although the new 50 series give even better results on 2D through having better panels/processors than models previous.
It's suprising that probably half the people with modern "HD" sets,don't actually watch HD,indeed most folk who have thes sets have got rid of perfectly servicable CRT sets,which ironically were far superior when viewing SD!!!!!
 


advertisement


Back
Top