Happened to pop in to electrical retailer today and came upon a 42 inch 3D TV and though I where glasses and had to put the 3D glasses on top of my own I was quite impressed. Admittedly I was standing within 3 feet of the screen but it was quite scary. They were running a loop showing the 3D effects people seeming to throw things at you, trains rushing towards me that sort of thing. But what about content I assume apart from the odd film there is very little, but I maybe wrong as I have never looked into it. About 3 months ago I bought a new TV a 32 inch and am very pleased. But for what I paid then I now see I can get a smart TV or few a few quid more perhaps a £D TV. But is there any point in a 3D TV if content is limted?
I cannot remember the last time I bought a DVD let alone a blue-ray. I suspect never would be the answer. I have never really liked a film enough to keep a copy of it.
How often are people throwing things directly at you during normal viewing? If the answer is not very often, leave it.
A great deal of the 3D films around these days are filmed in 2D and converted to 3D after the fact, and the difference between these films and films which were natively filmed in 3D is remarkable (as in, conversions are generally fairly poor and native films can be truly impressive) I've got a 3D TV and a BD player capable of 3D and the overwhelming majority of the time I'm watching films in 2D. Only when I know a film was filmed in 3D will I even entertain the idea of watching it in 3D. Games are playable in 3D as well, which is quite good for a demo, but I didn't find it feasible for everyday playing (on PS3). Perhaps the current-gen consoles have the grunt required to display it more consistently, smoothly and at better fidelity though? Sky 3D broadcasts are fairly limited and inconsistent as well. Some are excellent (the documentaries, mostly), whereas some have clearly had some shoddy conversion. IMO 3D in it's current guise is a bit of a waste of time, however any mid-range TV upwards will have 3D capabilitiy. If you're buying a new TV anyway, then you lose nothing by having 3D, but I wouldn't compromise any other aspect for the sake of it. I woulnd't buy a new TV just for 3D though. There may be a minor resurgence in popularity when 4K starts to become the norm, but until then there's just too much of a compromise in fidelity when viewing content in 3D either from the glasses or halving of resolution unless you're on a very small screen, however viewing 3D on a small screen negates much of the effect anyway.
I really hate active 3d (and I'm not a massive fan of passive 3D) so personally I wouldn't pay extra for it, that said if you get a good deal, and it includes the glasses (as these can be expensive to buy individually) you need to make sure you have a compatible blu-ray (and AV amp if you have one). If you enjoy 3d then I'd say go for it, there's a good range of 3D blu-ray content. but other than the initial "novelty" value I think you'll find it pretty disappointing as it's just not the cinema experience on a 42" TV
Very informative. Thank you. I think your advice is spot on. As you say first time I had viewed a 3D TV and I suspect I was taken by the novelty. Thanks also.
I own a 3D tv and the 3D feature is rarely used. Maybe when some more ps4 games come out, it could be worth giving a try, but 3D blu-rays are very pricy, and you can't exactly round up friends to watch a 3D movie unless you have enough pairs of glasses, which are also pricy. I still feel 3D isn't very practical, especially if you wear glasses. People may be blowing smoke, but people have said 3D tv's have better picture, but I've never bothered looking into it to see if it was credible or not.
This makes no sense at all. Perhaps one could make a generalisation that in all likelihood the PQ of a 3D TV will be better than a non-3D TV simply because manufacturers tend to have 3D by default on all mid/high end TVs and leave it off of low end TVs, but the TV being able to display 3D content has no bearing at all on it's proficiency in 2D content.
If you wear glasses normally, get a set with passive 3D. You can get 3D clip-ons to use with your regular specs @ the forest or the bay. (They work at the cinema too)
I just wrapped up a week at the National Association of Broadcasters convention, and the notable thing about 3D this year was its absence. One or two years ago 3D was everywhere. From acquisition to production to delivery, just about every company was touting its 3D capabilities. 3D was the reality of the future. This year I could probably count the number of actual 3D implementations on one hand (and that's using two fingers for each company - one for left eye and one for right). It's not that 3D has become a de facto standard so it's no longer a selling point; instead, 3D was largely missing from the show floor. For example, one company sells gimbal camera mounts for helicopters. They offer a dual camera mount for 3D video, but I noted that their floor model had a single camera face plate installed. This was sitting next to the actual single camera model. It's not scientific, but in my opinion it's an indication that the consumer market didn't adopt 3D as much as the broadcast industry had hoped, so nobody is really doing anything with it anymore. Yes, GoPro had some 3D content playing, but their cameras are so cheap that its easy to buy a dozen of them and try 3D just because. Instead, everything this year was 4K and beyond. Just as with 3D, from acquisition through distribution just about every company was focused on a 4K workflow. Predictably, NHK (Japan) was promoting 8K ahead of everyone else. But then, they've been promoting 8K for about 5 years now, so it was no surprise. Would I buy a 3D TV? No, but that's just my opinion and I know that some people love watching movies in 3D. A lot of consumer TVs are 3D capable just because it's another relatively easy box to tick on the marketing brochure. What I saw this week leads me to believe that actual 3D content isn't going to be flooding the market any time soon. When my TV no longer works and I'm the market for something new, I will instead look for 4K and 8K capabilities along with color accuracy.
No. 3D isn't worth it. Neither is smart features, because TV's user experience are always horrible, they are hardware manufacturers, not software designers. But then, I'm buying top image quality on latest TV, 3D and smart features will come with it. Can't really opt out of those gimmicks . All I want is a display with DVB-T2 and S2 tuners, plus a few HDMI ports, with not so aggressive upscaling sharpening.(Samsung, I'm looking at you!)
All I want is a TV with more than one tuner. What is the point of having an on-screen interactive guide and the ability to hook up a cheap USB drive for recording, when you cannot watch a channel and record another at the same time?!? How much does it cost to add another tuner when you've already added those two other functions anyway?
I'll chime in with my opinions on this. First, there is a lot of content for 3D, including streaming services, so no worries there. Also, if you like the type of 3D where crap flies out at you constantly, then 3D was made for you. Some people have said that they hate the 'post production' 3D more than they hate what is filmed in camera. I won't go right out and disagree, but I think there's some perspective that can be added to this opinion that might make you more open minded. First 3D TVs do something to our eyes and brains that we've never, as a species, faced in nature before. 3D TVs ask you to focus on a fixed distance, while changing where your eyes converge (either in front of or behind the TV). Forever before this we have always focused our eyes at the same distance they were converging (for obvious reasons). This produces a headache for a lot of people, makes some people sick, and some people just can't see 3D content on a 3D TV. Their eyes can't do the trick where they focus at one distance and converge at another. Now, to reduce the headaches, sickness, etc., a good director would always make whatever it is they want you to look at be in that sweet spot where you can focus and converge your eyes at the same distance, that is, the distance from your eyes to the screen. But think of all the things that a director already has to do. They have to think about aperture size, focus, depth of field, exposure, shot framing, dolly rigs, crane shots, steadycam operators . . . oh yeah, and a bunch of actors. This is already an extremely hard job to do well. Now, by requiring that they use two cameras you are now asking them to do all of the above for two cameras. But more than that, you are now adding in the new requirement that the cameras actually point in slightly so that the two lenses converge at the point the director most wants you to be looking, and that this be dynamic so that people/objects can move closer and farther from the camera without leaving the sweet spot. Now, what if we instead just shoot the movie and let a bunch of talented digital artists (who are already adjusting/adding to 90% of the shots anyway) go and add the 3D in post? You gain a ton of control over all aspects of the 3D, including (most importantly) that the most important parts of the shot remain in the sweet spot where the focal distance and convergence are the same. Many directors that have tried two camera rigs have said that often times one of the camera's shots ended up being unusable, or that the 3D generated was unusable, so they ended up going post production 3D anyway. I'm not saying that there aren't great 3D films shot on two cameras, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions about post-production 3D being inferior either. Now, to the question of a 3D TV. If you liked it, get it. Usually the best TVs (in terms of other specs) have 3D built in anyway. The hardware to make a TV 3D capable is essentially free (as long as the refresh rate was already high enough).
When I bought my last TV, 3D was an expensive added option, so I didn't bother. I don't feel like I've missed out, and if I was to go out and buy a new TV today I'd be looking for picture quality over everything else - 3D would be there or not, and I wouldn't be bothered. Most of the time it doesn't cost any extra money these days, it's just there on the specs for pretty everything over about £500, which also goes hand in hand with Smart TVs and other such things. Basically, buy the best quality set in your budget. If it happens to be 3D compatible, so be it. My next TV will be 4K, once the prices are less bonkers.
Well my lady and I bought a new TV back in November when our trusty old Sharp 50" started acting up. We bought a Toshiba 40" with 3D, but only because I picked it up in the Amazon Warehouse for £320. It was usually a £750 set so 3D was a bonus more than something I wanted. And I've been seriously disappointed with it ! The last forray I had into 3D was my LG passive 24" monitor I paid £160 for. I loved that thing ! it was made even more awesome by the fact I hacked the drivers and managed to get Nvidia 3dvision working. So imagine my excitement when I had this TV lined up and bought some active glasses... Then it all went wrong The 3d conversion is crap. That's no news though, my LG was rubbish when converting things to 3d too. So I figured I would use my PC and 3dvision, but Nvidia have totally derped it. First of all I couldn't use the TV as a fully fledged 3d monitor and then found out that Nvidia make you buy a program if it's a TV you're using and not a monitor. I tried a demo, only to find it was locked at 23 FPS. After three days of tinkering I gave up and the glasses are now just sat gathering dust. Gutted tbh, as I absolutely loved gaming in 3d (Dirt 3, L4D2 were just astonishing) but Nvidia have completely ruined it for my TV
Hmm. The monitor I was using was passive. You could see lines down the screen at certain angles where it splits the image. I know LG did a 27" one (monitor) and I'm pretty sure they (LG) also make passive sets dude.
There's a high chance you can use the EDID override if you get a passive set mate. It worked perfectly on my monitor. LMK which you decide on if you do and I can upload the hacks you need to run 3Dvision (which is where it's at IMO)
