I want your opinion on 3D TV...RIGHT NOW!

Did you look at an active shutter screen or a passive 3D technology screen.

 

anyways some movies were made into 3d as an afterthought so they don't look that good.

 

3D didn't take off in the 1950's, the 1980's and it won't take off this time. It's a gimmick, makes your eyes ache and who wants to wear stupid glasses to watch a film?

Stick with a 1080 HD and save your money.

 

A - Anything with more than one (1) STANDARD, is CRAP, why waste your money!
B - Until SMPTE sets a standard for 3D telecast, you will NOT see 3D on ABC CBS NBC!
C - Much like the AM Stereo debacle in the 70's, the FCC will let the market decide, lazy bastards, make a decision for once in your worthless existence! Why do you let the consumer, much less the Broadcaster WASTE loads of money on a system that's DOOMED, unless they are smart / lucky enough to be on the correct standard by chance in the first place!
D - Save your money! Just like HD was pushed off and off and off, you will not see a Broadcast 3D ANYTHING for at least 10 years. It will be a huge investment for Broadcasters just to be able to transmit 3D. Don't forget the consumers who were unlucky enough to pick a 3D TV because a specific movie was shot with that 3D standard. If the standard SMPTE chooses is a different standard than what your set decodes, whoops, you now have to buy ANOTHER 3D TV!
E - SAVE YOUR MONEY, Wait Grasshopper, it will happen, just not today, maybe by the end of the decade!

 

There is a more subtile issue. Movie makers don't film or create natural 3D. They film and create exaggerated 3D to make it attention getting. Same thing with explosions, violence, wreaks, or whatever is suppose to grab the audience's attention. If you get 3D, expect to have nearly everything distorted to jump into your lap instead of trying to show something natural.

 

In the beginning there was vinyl (analog) and the world was good, something called digital came along and the world started to crumble...
First there was digititus, the ears inability to understand the un-analog noise, it's only defense was to go into shaker mode, constant movement to try to "catch up", to the noise. Second, no second, as if digital wasn't bad enough, yesterday they stopped pressing CD's, now it's MP3 only, CD was bad enough, MP3 is, well, I hope you understand the problem...if not just sit back and relax, an attendant will be with you soon.

Then it happened to our eyes, digititus of the eyeball, which is connected to the brain ball, what's next, heart ball?

 

> macmaster
Look up what's behind "LED" vs. "LCD". I don't recommend paying extra for LED.

> OP
Get a 3D TV if you want the bragging rights... don't get it if you want a quality viewing experience. 3D is a nice gimmick, but it gets tiring and can't possibly be good for your eyes on the long term, though I'm still waiting for the verdicts of the scientists on this.
3D can wait until they figure out how to do it right, not just glorified cardboard cut-outs.

I can recommend to wait and see what google is up to regarding NET-TVs. Current "apps" for TVs are lacking, to say the least. This is the area where the next revolution will happen.

 

LED backlighting is OK. The thing to beware of is "Dynamic LED" backlighting. That's where big sectors (not individual pixels) of the LED backlighting is turned off. It allows the TV maker to claim a very large contrast ratio.... but to some viewers it looks like splotches turning on and off rapidly. That can be very distracting. If you can find a store that can demonstrate the dynamic feature alone, you can see first hand what I'm talking about.

 

Earlier this year I decided to upgrade my home theater, then consisting of a DVD player and non-HD projector with a pretty good sound system. My goal was to be Blu-Ray capable. One of the things I considered was a big-screen TV set as an alternative to a high-def projector, and among other things I looked at a 3-D set at Sears.

The 3-D was spectacular. It was a demo disc intended to show off 3-D, and as such was produced in full 3-D.

In order to fully appreciate what I might get with 3-D I went to the theater to see a 3-D movie that was made for 3-D. The effects, again. were impressive.

BUT (and note this, it's important!)

The trailers included both genuine 3-D movies and 2-D movies that had been converted to 3-D, and the latter were more or less as you described. Pirates of the Caribbean (a 2-D movie re-mastered for 3-D theaters) showed Captain Jack, looking like a flat 2-D character in the near foreground, another character, looking flat, in the middle ground, and all the rest of the scene, looking flat in the background. They had managed to lift the 2 principal characters off the plane of the screen, without giving them any depth. The overall effect was far worse than watching the original 2-D. The limited 3-D effect just made everything look flatter.

And the problem is that too few movies are actually made in 3-D. When they are, the quality can be spectacular. But the cameras are expensive, and with so few people having 3-D systems, the market is small, and producers see little benefit.

A good 3-D movie on a good 3-D set will be excellent. But there's little available to watch. And you are stuck using those glasses and getting eyestrain headaches.

My decision was to get a cheap Blu-Ray player and a good quality HD projector. I kept my sound system.

Recommendation: To really see what 3-D is like, you have to have good 3-D source material. I still decided it was not worth it, because of the glasses, and because there's so little to watch.

 

I would buy a nice 240 Hz refresh rate 50" something NON 3D set, and enjoy the hell out of it!
The money you would spend for 3D, you could easily jump up a size or two and have a much better viewing experience.
As far as LED LCD, we have invested heavily in Sony and LG sets for the Master Control and Break Studios. 65 inches plus. God they look good! With the LED LCD you will start to approach the black levels that a Plasma can reproduce. The only problem I see is fresh out of the box, the TV's need to be set up properly, Brightness, Contrast Color Level, Phase, as well as RGB Blacks, and RGB Whites. You would think that fresh out of the box they should be perfect, not so! We have a very nice screen analyzer that makes sure the screens are set to the correct levels, not what looks good to you at home. Believe it or not there are standards for setting up a HDTV. The big problem is that the equipment involved is rather pricey. I am fortunate to have the advantage of being able to borrow the analyzer and set my home HDTV's. It takes about 45 minutes per set to get it right!

 

Is it time for my medication yet? I think the last dose is starting to wear off....

And not to disturb your reality, but hearts were the first to be digitised...why suffer through real emotions when we have television?

 

Samsung 55" 1080. 240mhz 3D with active glasses has been great for us. The 3D HD channels on Direct TV are fun to watch and the Samsung is 1" thick with the 1/2" border. All screen and a great picture. Their new screens don't reflect lamps and light, very watchable. If your waiting for the 3D to reach out and touch you, you'll probably have a long wait. This setup does give the 3D effect when watching made for 3D broadcasts or 3D movies on the Samsung 3D player.

3D aside, this TV's picture is amazing. If you do buy 3D, go at least 240 refresh rate, 120 will have a less satisfying 3D picture and 2D when watching sports or action scenes.

 

i have been looking at flat screens lately as well. seems like most of them are 3d capable whether you want it or not. i'm considering a sony 55" led. 1/2" thick, two grand. i agree with grumpy on the 3d, although, muppet 3d at disneyworld is excellent!

 

Damn, you took the words right out of my mouth. The problem is all these Hollywood 3D movies are shot using 2D method. The cameras are not setup right. You can't just slap 2 cameras side by side and expect good 3D results. I watched Drive Angry in 3D and not even 5 minutes I had to turn that shit off. I was so pissed off that I didn't wanna watch the rest of it. I ended up watching the movie in 2D

a few weeks later. These cinematographers need to go back to school and relearn how to shoot movies in 3D. If you wanna see gorgeous 3D film look into IMAX 3D films that were originally released in 3D like Cirque du Soleil Journey of Man 3D. Hubble 3D is also a nice one. An excellent short 3D demo video is the Nürburgring 24 Hour Race Stereoscopic 3D Video in 1080p. It was available for download on nvidia site but they have since taken it down.

I'm pretty happy with all my 3D devices because I don't watch crappy Hollywood 3D movies on it. I only feed it IMAX films that were originally released in 3D. I wasn't impressed with my Thrill's 3D performance until I loaded up IMAX Hubble on my phone and OMFG. The IMAX count down intro was amazing. When I show my friends the clip, they actually reached the screen and try the grab the numbers. IMAX 3D films don't have that layered cardboard cutout look that Hollywood 3D films have. The only other feature film that was acceptable to watch in 3D was "The Child's Eye" Camera movement was minimal so you don't get headaches or dizziness. The actors don't look like cardboard cut outs either. 3DTV can be amazing to watch if you have the proper 3D source.

 

what is the screen?800*480 is ok for 3D

 

I haven't owned a TV since 1999, so I'm probably not the best person to ask.

But I did check out some while waiting at the mall for my MacBook Pro to be repaired (at no cost!) by Apple.

Gosh, TVs (do they still call them that?) have gotten so thin and large! And DVD players are so slim and small.

Then I checked out the 3D display. I don't know if it was active or passive, but it looked awful. The content seemed kind of lame, too. And I thought to myself, is any of this really necessary?

If I need to, I'll watch a movie on my laptop, or read a book in print, or put an album on the turntable. Lately have been getting into acoustic jazz from the 1920s, recorded before microphones became widely available.

That's where it's at for me.