|
||||||||
LG passive 3D TV |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
LG passive 3D TV
I was tempted and gave in. It arrives on Thursday. Free Blu-Ray player too.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 26
|
Quote:
I was tempted and gave in. It arrives on Thursday. Free Blu-Ray player too.
![]() Which model are you having? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
Quote:
Well done, lots of good reviews on the web for the latest LG passive 3D tellys.
Which model are you having? Being as specs wearer, the extra weight of the battery glasses was really noticeable, plus they cost a fortune; LG give you seven pairs for free. I may now also have found a use for my collection of old Polaroid 3D specs which I've been saving (until now for no apparent reason).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Well it isn't, to get passive working, the resolution is far lower in 3d mode. All the way down to 540p SD. Sync shutter glasses allow hdtv with bluray to reach full 1080p 3d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
|
Quote:
Well it isn't, to get passive working, the resolution is far lower in 3d mode. All the way down to 540p SD. Sync shutter glasses allow hdtv with bluray to reach full 1080p 3d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
It is, but there is theory that you eye merges the two images to effectively look like HD. I have not seen it for myself yes but the reviews do give the TV really good ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
I'm sure you're right but it looked ok to me and I've no intention of forking out for Blu-Ray discs, free player notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 26
|
The 2011 passive LG 3D tellys - which the OP is getting - are said to be a big improvement over last year's models.
Several reviewers think the tiny loss in quality will be barely noticeable by a lot of people, and is more than made up for by the added convenience of the easier-to-wear glasses. This is, after all, about immersing yourself in the action, which you can't do if the bridge of your nose is irritating or a low battery light is flashing. The LG is also said to be very good at 2D. I think 3D is here to stay this time, but for most 3D TV owners it will be 'event TV' - a major sports fixture or blockbuster movie - rather than watching the news or a soap. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
|
Quote:
No, the eyes merge 2 images into 3d. Not HD!! You don't double your visual resolution by looking at something with 2 eyes at all! Else 1080p bluray 3d could claim to be double HD!! The only thing reviewers are going on is convenience and price probably, and perhaps broadcast which is lower resolution/bitrate to begin with. For real 3d bluray HD this method is inferior currently. Until they have affordable 4k displays, no way there is going to be real passive 3d that is full resolution, and that will take many years.
At the end of the day, technology and reviews are only a guide. The only thing that matters is what you personally can see. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
Your brain is receiving the full HD picture, half to each eye. All I can suggest is go to a store and try it out for yourself. If you are not happy with it then fine.
At the end of the day, technology and reviews are only a guide. The only thing that matters is what you personally can see. Each eye receives only X resolution of image, the only thing your brain does with that is to extrapolate depth information from the difference between the eyes, if anything you lose resolution doing this matching, let alone the loss through the glasses. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
|
Quote:
Sorry no, that isn't how the visual system works, it is 540p, and if your idea of how the visual system worked were right then 1080p tv's could claim double 1080p resolution when playing back 1080p 3d material. This is clearly not something that happens, no 3d vendor is claiming doubling of resolution because of 3d.
Each eye receives only X resolution of image, the only thing your brain does with that is to extrapolate depth information from the difference between the eyes, if anything you lose resolution doing this matching, let alone the loss through the glasses. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
go along and view it, if your not happy with it then don't buy it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
The LG is up and running with just a few muffled curses. Having politely declined Curry's £60 installation charge I set it up myself (a bit like Captain Nemo wrestling the squid) and it looks pretty good.
It'll take a while to get the picture just right given the fiddly menu system but the bit of Sky 3D I've watched looked pretty damn good. I think it's a bit sneaky of Sky to promote a load of 3D material but to be a bit coy about how much of it is pay-per-view. I now have more 3D glasses than I have shirts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,296
|
Quote:
I now have more 3D glasses than I have shirts.
![]() ![]() Interested to hear how the Wimbledon finals look in 3D compared to 2D. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
Quote:
Is that because it cost the shirt off your back to afford the TV
![]() Interested to hear how the Wimbledon finals look in 3D compared to 2D. Incidentally, using the Internet on this tv is a massive PITA. Typing with the tv remote or onscreen keyboard reminds me of Sky Open. That aside, it works and YouTube looks just as crap on the tv as it does on a laptop. ![]() If the range of material on Sky 3D improves I may never leave the house again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Caledonia
Posts: 5,687
|
3D Blurays, particularly animations, are even more impressive. I can't wait until Toy Story 3 3D comes out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 4,686
|
Quote:
Your brain is receiving the full HD picture, half to each eye.
watching two left + right 1920x540 images doesn't make a single 1920x1080 image. It makes a 1920x540 3D image. It is the same resolution image from two slightly different angles, not two halves of a higher resolution image. Moreover, when watching broadcast 3D, such as Sky 3D, the resolution on the passive display is just 960x540, as broadcast 3D uses a side-by-side method with 2x 960x1080 images. Each 960x1080 images is then both stretched and squashed to 1920x540 by the passive display. That all said though, most viewers will still be sufficiently wowed by 3D image to not notice any loss of resolution. But if you compared the 3D bluray of Avatar at full 1920x1080 resolution for each eye on an active display, against the Sky 3D broadcast on a passive display at effectively 960x540, you should see a visible difference in detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
The 3D picture is definitely not HD but I wasn't expecting it to be.
It's perfectly acceptable nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
Quote:
3D Blurays, particularly animations, are even more impressive. I can't wait until Toy Story 3 3D comes out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Caledonia
Posts: 5,687
|
Quote:
Toy Story 1 & 2 or on Sky 3D in the next few days so I'll definitely give them a look. 3 was so depressing that I don't really want to see it again.
A snippet of it was on the 3D demo disc I saw in store when we were choosing our 3D TV. The colours were much more vibrant and the 3D effect seemed better defined than in the cinema. Most people I've spoken to (without hardware to sell) are convinced that 3D will take off, I'm not so sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
Quote:
It didn't depress us at all. It was the first 3D film we saw in the cinema and we laughed out loud at several scenes.
A snippet of it was on the 3D demo disc I saw in store when we were choosing our 3D TV. The colours were much more vibrant and the 3D effect seemed better defined than in the cinema. Most people I've spoken to (without hardware to sell) are convinced that 3D will take off, I'm not so sure. TV could go either way: some things will never lend themselves to 3D and the range of material on Sky 3D needs to widen rapidly, at the moment it has a shop demo feel to it. There are lots of classic 50s 3D movies which Sky already show in 2D so, assuming the 3D version is usable, why aren't they screening them? |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 4,686
|
Quote:
There are lots of classic 50s 3D movies which Sky already show in 2D so, assuming the 3D version is usable, why aren't they screening them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
Quote:
Because the studio still has to produce a master suitable for broadcast, and so far there seems to have been little interest in doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,651
|
Rugby League in 3D takes a bit of getting used to: the camera angles are very different from the normal HD broadcast (as are the commentators for some reason) and seem closer to what one would see from the touchline.
The heads of the roving cameramen and assorted flunkies bobbing about at the bottom edge of the screen are a bit distracting but not overly so. Toy Story and The Reef are excellent 3D but Disney animation and fish documentaries aren't going to keep people interested forever. More varied material please (and less PPV). |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
Given that movie companies are always droning on about how much money they're losing, it seems like a wasted opportunity.
Old 3d films tend to be obscure, thus probably a big risk, so unless the company is flush, they aren't going to sink money into such money losers so eagerly. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:00.



