3D TV-Irritating stuff.

[vinayaga]

In my opinion, 3d is still not a mature technology, the time to invest in a 3D tv would be a year or two from now. So now Im wanting to buy a NON-3d LED tv with a size of 55" or 65".

But guess what, there is not a single 55" or 65" LED model in any shop without 3d :-(

 

[just4kix]

Even if there was a non-3D TV in 55"-65" bracket, you would be looking to upgrade in 2-3 years time, presumably when a "reliable/mature/steady" 3D technology arrives. Basically the point is that you will be looking to upgrade. So that should not stop you from investing in a model of your choice now.

As regards whether 3D is mature or not is a point of 'discussion'. Whatever be the technology, scientists have not yet managed to create a proper 3D equipment that does not require glasses. While claims by Toshiba, Samsung, et al, of the glassless 3D show some promise but I am not convinced. To me real 3D is like seeing "holographic images that look solid".

 

[Indian11]

In my opinion, 3d is still not a mature technology, the time to invest in a 3D tv would be a year or two from now. So now Im wanting to buy a NON-3d LED tv with a size of 55" or 65".

But guess what, there is not a single 55" or 65" LED model in any shop without 3d :-(

I don't know what's making you to stay away from 3D TV. The market of 3d is increasing at a good rate in India and we can really expect the market to expand more in a couple of years.
As per your TV size is concerned, If you aren't able to get any in the specified size,better search for plasmas so get a 3D TV..

 

[Indian11]

No passive sets can do full hd 3d. Lg is just bluffing.

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

Well, i think you need to elaborate this thing a bit as some of users do claim that LG is capable of handling full hd..

 

[just4kix]

Please refer [post=401383]my previous post[/post]

 

[god2007]

In my opinion, there is no need to stay away from 3D. There are a lot of 3D stuff available in the net for download. May be most of them illegal. one or two 3D channels also are available. The issue of wearing glass is only a temporary problem. The flickering, cross talk, headache etc are highly personal issues and also depend on the quality of 3D. Good quality 3Ds can be watched without any problem by most.

So put away the phobia against 3D and enjoy it yourself, while you can. Cost wise, active shutter technology is the cheapest. At 45-50K, you can buy samasung / panasonic plasmas, which are a great buy with good pic quality and good 3D. If you have more money to splurge, go for passive technology LG LEDs, costing more than 70K ( for 42 inch).

True, glassless 3D technology are already here. But, they are exorbitantly priced.($8750 for a 49inch as per the site: Brightest glasses-free 46-inch display arrives | 3D News from 3D Focus ). Do we need to wait and spent so much just for 3D?

So my advice is, unless there is any thing make you unable to enjoy 3D, problems with eye sight, already experienced headache or even lack of money, do try to buy next large TV with 3D, whenever possible. I do agree that there is no need to spent a lot of money just for 3D.

 

[Vijay_s]

3D TV may be commercial failure when it comes to mass user base unless glass less 3D technology available at affordable prices. In families female side of the family watch TV in between their household work. Imagine wearing glasses in such situations.

 

[just4kix]

3D TV may be commercial failure when it comes to mass user base unless glass less 3D technology available at affordable prices. In families female side of the family watch TV in between their household work. Imagine wearing glasses in such situations.

Such viewing is restricted to soaps and rom-com TV and not movies. That is 2D. 3D TV broadcast is still some distance away.

 

[Indian11]

In my opinion, there is no need to stay away from 3D. There are a lot of 3D stuff available in the net for download. May be most of them illegal. one or two 3D channels also are available. The issue of wearing glass is only a temporary problem. The flickering, cross talk, headache etc are highly personal issues and also depend on the quality of 3D. Good quality 3Ds can be watched without any problem by most.

So put away the phobia against 3D and enjoy it yourself, while you can. Cost wise, active shutter technology is the cheapest. At 45-50K, you can buy samasung / panasonic plasmas, which are a great buy with good pic quality and good 3D. If you have more money to splurge, go for passive technology LG LEDs, costing more than 70K ( for 42 inch).

True, glassless 3D technology are already here. But, they are exorbitantly priced.($8750 for a 49inch as per the site: Brightest glasses-free 46-inch display arrives | 3D News from 3D Focus ). Do we need to wait and spent so much just for 3D?

So my advice is, unless there is any thing make you unable to enjoy 3D, problems with eye sight, already experienced headache or even lack of money, do try to buy next large TV with 3D, whenever possible. I do agree that there is no need to spent a lot of money just for 3D.

I too adore the plasmas from panasonic but there is one thing which keeps me away from it and that's the active tech used by them in their 3d sets.
I favour the passive 3D as they deliver better picture quality and also the glasses are much light weighted than as compared to active ones.

 

[gappa]

this all story goes in mess without content..

I also not in mood to get 3d because of changing tech and absence of content.

I prefared chepest plasma from pana and very happy.

 

[max_demon]

3D is future? I don't think so.. In my opinion 4k TV's are way to go..

I am using NX720 and hardly I had watched any 3d content on it.. except the demos

 

[naman]

There is a lot of wrong or half information about passive 3D and thus misconceptions.

The common argument is active 3D is full HD whereas passive 3D is half HD. This is technically correct statement because in passive 3D the picture is shown as polarized with half the pixels at zero angle and other half at 90 polarized. The passive 3D polarized glasses show 1920x540 to one eye and 1920x540 to other eye. Thus this is half HD and technical truth.

The reality is quite different.

In passive 3D, the FHD picture would be seen as half HD; then it is at DVD quality. Would any HD enthusiast accept passive 3D? Would this be acceptable to anyone for that matter?

In active 3D the 1920x1080 picture is shown to each eye alternately in rapid succession. Thus the brain is receiving FHD picture.

In passive 3D, the 1920x540 picture is shown to each eye simultaneously. The brain receives half HD picture from each eye at the same instance and combines it and thus diagnoses a FHD picture.

In both cases, the brain still receives 1920x1080 pixels.

If you looked at passive 3D pic with glasses and close one eye then you will get half-HD but not otherwise.

Just4kix, I would like to just go into detail about what you have explained. It is about the final visual output because passive 3D works in a way that human eyes naturally perceive real time 3D objects. Your eyes are combining two 1920x540 visuals to give full 1080P HD picture. Confusion cleared?! End of discussion.

 

[cooldude8888]

3D is future? I don't think so.. In my opinion 4k TV's are way to go..

LOL Nothing can be more farther to the truth than this.

a] 4k is not the future.

b] OLED is the future.

c] 4k transmission requires enormous bandwidth and major channels and studios are not inclined to back it.

d] 4k benefits are only apparent in >65'' TV's and that too when you are sitting at the minimum allowed viewing distance.

e] 4k TV's are exorbitantly priced [ LG and Sony have already come out with their TV's and no takers for them so far].

f] 4k is an attempt by certain TV companies to generate interest in consumers till OLED is here.

g] 3d may never become mainstream but it will always be around and will pick-up decently once glassless 3d TV's becomes a norm. Right now glasses and the lack of enough content is a hindrance, but yeah it will never become mainstream.

 

[madhur45]

Trust me when I say this, both the new generation active 3D and passive 3D TV's are good and gives you two distinct technology choices. The most irritating stuff about a TV in itself is your spouse constantly nagging you for going out shopping while you want to chill on the couch and watch a footy match on Sunday :C

 

[just4kix]

Trust me when I say this, both the new generation active 3D and passive 3D TV's are good and gives you two distinct technology choices. The most irritating stuff about a TV in itself is your spouse constantly nagging you for going out shopping while you want to chill on the couch and watch a footy match on Sunday :C

hyeah: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[AtheK]

After recently acquiring the LG 55LM7600, i can safely say it was a brilliant decision to go with a 3D Tv, it is like how you have HD and SD channel you will always prefer HD channels. Same way if you have 2D and 3D content you will always prefer 3D content. Watching few of the movies have been a visual delight and feels just like theatres.

3D has been implemented really well in Games too, for a person like me who is an Avid gamer, playing my fav god of war series never felt so much better.

True you can't watch it for length of time together, but then a usual flick lasts 2 hour, with one op corn break it pretty much works out. With games i have to break after every 60 or 90 mins.

As everyone said above, try out a passive 3D TV and i am sure your perception will change.

 

[Indian11]

After recently acquiring the LG 55LM7600, i can safely say it was a brilliant decision to go with a 3D Tv, it is like how you have HD and SD channel you will always prefer HD channels. Same way if you have 2D and 3D content you will always prefer 3D content. Watching few of the movies have been a visual delight and feels just like theatres.

3D has been implemented really well in Games too, for a person like me who is an Avid gamer, playing my fav god of war series never felt so much better.

True you can't watch it for length of time together, but then a usual flick lasts 2 hour, with one op corn break it pretty much works out. With games i have to break after every 60 or 90 mins.

As everyone said above, try out a passive 3D TV and i am sure your perception will change.

What's your take on the contrast and color ratio for the LG 3D TV's?
Are the LM series worth their price?

 

[just4kix]

Without commenting on contrast, PQ, colours, etc. about LG LM series, I would say that they are slightly overpriced as compared to their closest competitor, viz., Samsung. This rather negates the low cost of 3D glasses.

 

[AtheK]

It's a matter of personal preference i guess. Yes i definetly think LM series is worth the price. Sony HX750 was selling for 1.5 lacs and i got mine for 1.62 lacs, the 12k extra is worth the price for the gorgeous looking TV, easy to eye 3D(It was a very very imp factor for me to buy the TV), Dual play was an absolute must for me after seeing it in action, and HX750 was too bare bone with expensive glasses.

 

[just4kix]

It's a matter of personal preference i guess. Yes i definetly think LM series is worth the price. Sony HX750 was selling for 1.5 lacs and i got mine for 1.62 lacs, the 12k extra is worth the price for the gorgeous looking TV, easy to eye 3D(It was a very very imp factor for me to buy the TV), Dual play was an absolute must for me after seeing it in action, and HX750 was too bare bone with expensive glasses.

Yes. Definitely. One must buy what one likes.