[fastest finger]

Originally Posted by battlezone

I agree, however it is the 1st generation of this type. Like everything it will get better as technology moves on.

The new glasses-free tech developed by Phillips/Dolby is said to be superb, much better than the Toshiba effort.

[Robert__law]

Originally Posted by iangrad

A point worth noting is that on most makers range is that if you want at least a medium spec TV the 3D or at least 3D capable by buying glasses is now pretty much a standard feature in 42" sizes and upward . Just like teletext and stereo sound became standard all the years ago and "smart" is rapidly becoming standard as well . Interestingly even on really low cost TV's 3D is standard , there was a Cello 42" for just £329 in a local supermarket -- someone looking at it said it was so cheap because it was last years LG's screen ? is that true ?

Cello TV's are actuly assembled in the UK and do use LG panels , I am not sure if these are older models or LG quality control rejects , However I bought a 32inch Cello 3D TV for only £289 from Makro and I am very happy with it. The 3D works excellently and also dues 2D to 3D conversion which works but is no where as good as proper 3D. My only complaint with it is it surfers from LCD light leak if you have a pure black screen , this is a problem with LCD TVs but if its a normal colour picture you don't notice this
also the remote is a bit un responsive , this set uses a LCD not LED lit this is why its cheaper I certainly cant complain for the price I paid

[Chris Simon]

Originally Posted by derek500

LG Cinema 3D with passive glasses is the way to go. I don't have blu-ray and all my 3D viewing whether films, sport, documentaries, entertainment has been via Sky 3D.

The 3D quality is superb.

I've just seen my first-ever full-length 3D movie in the cinema (Prometheus!) and I have to say that I can't imagine trying to watch a movie with flickering, active-shutter glasses. Even a couple of minutes in the store gave me eyestrain. Anyway, I now have a pair of RealD passive glasses, yay!

[jacksonpive]

Originally Posted by drw1963

Apparently, there's 3D TV's available without the need for glasses.

Need proof? here it is:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ice-7-000.html

The only problem is you need £7000 to get it.

Rip-off Britain strikes again.

£7000?? that's almost like that OLED TV that was recently announced. If it costs that much for a glass-free 3D, then I'd rather get the OLED TV. Was it LG that had the OLED for £8000? or was it Samsung?

[njp]

Originally Posted by fastest finger

The new glasses-free tech developed by Phillips/Dolby is said to be superb, much better than the Toshiba effort.

Said by whom? There aren't any products yet!

[fastest finger]

Originally Posted by njp

Said by whom? There aren't any products yet!

Said by people that have experienced it at trade events, such as NAB 2012 in Las Vegas. Still prototypes at the moment, but very impressive.

[zool8846]

Originally Posted by longliving

I've been looking into the differences between passive and active 3D and it seems active always wins but i'm torn on what to do. I've seen 3D in the cinemas and liked what i seen, then I've seen store setups and OK i've maybe only watched for a minute or so but it's never blown me away. Can the cinema experience really be replicated at home?

For instance if I went and bought a 3D blu ray right now, would there be a big difference between watching on a passive 3D set as opposed to an active one? Which one is gonna give me the best 3D experience? Or....is the 3D experience likely to improve in future or will the technology stay where it is at currently? The films I'm looking at are Disney ones. I suppose I've just noticed people around me buying 3D TVs, I never thought I'd be one to even consider a 3DTV until now and it's kinda making me wish I had bought those films in 3D because then I would still have had a bluray copy to watch currently. Do you think 3D can be a good thing? Are Disney 3D movies on the bluray format worth the investment and do you think that if this is something I am likely to enjoy and invest in, is it worth my while getting rid of some of the blurays and just getting the 3D copies as cheap as I can so that I still have the bluray to enjoy currently? I'm not sure what to do.

Well, I've just bought a new TV but opted for non 3D. I was quite impressed by many 3D TVs I tried in stores, but what I had to consider was 1) How many good films are on Blu Ray in 3D? 2) Do I want to subscribe to Sky TV for 3D channels? 3) What is the longterm affect of 3D TV on my eyesight?

3D TV may be a good idea for some, but for me it just wasn't worth it!

[jacksonpive]

You don't need to subscribe to Sky TV for 3D channels. Most TVs have 3D conversion nowadays. Although it's probably not as good as watching the actual 3D channels but it's still pretty good. And your eyes will be fine unless you watch it straight for like 6 hours everyday.

[mikeinsthelens]

I've just bought an LG cinema 3D TV. Only set up last night but i'm very impressed up to now.

I've just ordered the Sky 3D so will see how I enjoy the movies and sport in "proper" 3D.

The TV itself was good value (IMO) and included 7 pairs of 3D glasses.

[lbear]

Originally Posted by iangrad

A point worth noting is that on most makers range is that if you want at least a medium spec TV the 3D or at least 3D capable by buying glasses is now pretty much a standard feature in 42" sizes and upward . Just like teletext and stereo sound became standard all the years ago and "smart" is rapidly becoming standard as well . Interestingly even on really low cost TV's 3D is standard , there was a Cello 42" for just £329 in a local supermarket -- someone looking at it said it was so cheap because it was last years LG's screen ? is that true ?

From what I have found out over the past couple of days, the Cello has an LG passive screen but is assembled in the UK. It also appears to have been produced with slightly differently styled cases as an OEM for virtually everybody selling an own brand 3D LED 42in set. That includes Sainsburys (Celcus), Argos (Bush), Littlewoods and their numerous catalogues (Murphy), Currys (Logik) and most likely Tesco (Technika)

[cnbcwatcher]

Personally I don't think so. I saw a demo of 3D once in Currys and I wasn't too impressed. I also wasn't keen on the idea of sitting there watching TV wearing silly glasses. I know someone who bought a 3D TV recently and he can't watch it as he gets headaches from it.

[terryfc81]

My friend, active technology is great, but it needs a lot of work. One of the advantages of watching 3D TV at home is that you can watch it more comfortably but unfortunately, active 3D does not give you that advantage. You have to be within the 90” viewing angle to get the full 3D effect. I’m not sure about other passive 3D TVs, but the LG allows you to watch at up to 170”. Oh and this is what bugs me the most about active 3D. You can't lay down when you watch because the glasses will go black if you tilt it. I always lay down beside my girlfriend while I watch movies and I can't do that with active..

[Richard_Wright]

Active and passive 3D TVs deliver 3D content in different ways. Active 3D uses shutter technique and passive 3D uses polarized glasses to project 3D images. I prefer passive tho, because I don't know about others but I tend to get headaches from active glasses.
I heard they're trying to develop glasses-free 3D TVs now but so far, all the TVs that tried it failed. It may take some time until glasses-free 3D TVs become mainstream.

[Zombi]

We got the LG 3D a few days ago and so far have loved it. Granted, our "Transition telly" in between our last one breaking and this one was our daughter's pink portable. When you go from that to a 46" beast, it's easy to be impressed!

I'm loving the Netflix app.

[treefr0g]

If it was an extra £1,000 I'd say no but I'm glad I paid the extra £100 - £200 for 3D.

[fastest finger]

Originally Posted by terryfc81

My friend, active technology is great, but it needs a lot of work. One of the advantages of watching 3D TV at home is that you can watch it more comfortably but unfortunately, active 3D does not give you that advantage. You have to be within the 90” viewing angle to get the full 3D effect. I’m not sure about other passive 3D TVs, but the LG allows you to watch at up to 170”. Oh and this is what bugs me the most about active 3D. You can't lay down when you watch because the glasses will go black if you tilt it. I always lay down beside my girlfriend while I watch movies and I can't do that with active..

Wrong on both counts from my experience.

90 degree viewing angle? No. The horizontal viewing angle on and Active TV is very wide. Wider than is actually practical to use, so never a problem. And, actually, in terms of vertical viewing angles, much MUCH better than Passive.

Also, the glasses do not go black if you tilt your head. If you tilt your head so far that you are effectively upside down, then the 3D image becomes "inverted" as the left and right images are sent to the wrong eyes (although this can be counteracted in the settings menu). But goes black?? Never happens with me, no matter how much I try.

[XxBlaKOuTZxX]

I never had problems while laying down (reclining) while watching 3D content either. Besides for those that have their 3D screens mounted on a bracket, can't they be tilted down for better viewing ?.

[njp]

He seems a bit confused. Glasses going dark could be a problem for systems relying on polarised light coming from the screen. And that's what happens in passive, not active, systems.

[schilltastic41]

3D TVs or TVs in general is not a necessity, but however it is a very cool luxury to have. 3D televisions were very expensive when it first came out, now it is becoming more and more affordable. Major brands such as LG and Samsung are developing better 3D Technology and 3D has become very enjoyable to watch. However, I would have to say LG is on the upper-hand over Samsung with 3D because they use Passive 3D which is the same technology they use in movie theaters.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by schilltastic41

However, I would have to say LG is on the upper-hand over Samsung with 3D because they use Passive 3D which is the same technology they use in movie theaters.

Bit of a bizarre comment? - movie theatres use passive systems because the glasses are cheap - even though it's an inferior system. Active systems are also incompatible with film projectors for that matter.

[Deacon1972]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Bit of a bizarre comment? - movie theatres use passive systems because the glasses are cheap - even though it's an inferior system. Active systems are also incompatible with film projectors for that matter.

Some cinemas do use active glasses...........

They use a synchronization signal emitter between projector and glasses.

Don't know who pays for the glasses....

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

Some cinemas do use active glasses...........

Do they? - I didn't know of any, I would have thought the cost makes it pretty non-viable.

[Deacon1972]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Do they? - I didn't know of any, I would have thought the cost makes it pretty non-viable.

There are 5000 cinemas that use the Active system (Expand 3D), mostly in Europe but there are some cinemas down south that use the same system.

In fact there's one in North Yorkshire.......

http://www.palacemalton.info/

[njp]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Do they? - I didn't know of any, I would have thought the cost makes it pretty non-viable.

I've seen active systems used at places like Futuroscope. It's obviously more expensive - you have to make sure you get the glasses back, you presumably have to clean them between uses, and they are prone to a variety of failure modes, not least of which is running out of power. Passive glasses are cheap enough to give away and pretty much immune to failure, which makes them much more appealing for cinema use.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

In fact there's one in North Yorkshire.......

http://www.palacemalton.info/

Interesting:

"We do not charge extra for the tickets for 3D but do require a fee for maintaining the glasses. They are very expensive to replace and we have had some some curious breakages. We are a small cinema and this has been a huge investment for us - so please look after them."