Worth getting a TV that does the 3D thing or not?

i have a 3 year old Panny Plasma at present (TH-42PZ80BA), but due to my 6 year old it has some deep scratches in the screen front - along with one chip. Hes now that bit older and it can be replaced under insurance so looking for a new TV.

Insurance will give me £500 of vouchers for Currys/PC Worls - so its going to have to be from them, and anything above that price would be self funded.

Having spoken to Currys, they tell me the "like for like" current model would be the G30, and its currently on offer at £480 so fits the budget (presumably its a 2011 soon to be discontinued model) - but am wondering if its woth paying the extra for the GT30 that is a 3d TV.

I already have a Blue-Ray player that does 3d, though my surround processor would need upgrading too to pass the picture (Its a Denon 1909 - but I can get a 1912 that does the 3D thing for £270 ish).

Not really thinking 3d has much to offer - YET - but maybe its worth getting something compatible now?

As an aside - Ive alsways gone Plasma, and for picture quality i still would - BUT - power is expensive now - and geting worse, so maybe going LCD/LED is woth a consideration? Is there a decent (ie realistic puicture quality not BRIGHT/VIBRANT cartoon colours) set for a similar £500-£800 price? Preferable Panny or Sony.

I have an LG 3D tv which is excellent. Just don't expect "a lion in your lap" like the ads would have you believe.
Sky 3D is a bit of a let down: to much repetition and pay per view.
The so-called "Smart" tv features are a total waste of time.

I just bought a Panasonic TX-L37E30B for £570. It has an excellent write up for picture and Smart TV functions (which are superb, don't believe the imbecile above). BBC iPlayer, internet radio, TwitFace (if that's your thing) YouTube etc.

Though what I would say with LED back lit LCD televisions, is that they still cant cut it with dark subtle scenes unlike my sadly defunct Pioneer PDP 434. There is no finesse, you can't really see detail because it's blacked out and with it's polar opposite of bright scenes, they too seem to be tiny bit bleached.
I have tried numerous settings with contrast down to 45%, no NR and no factory presets such as "game mode" or "cinema". But I have to accept a compromise is in order.

Overall, LCD has come along way; no motion smearing, excellent picture noise, better tonal skin qualities and with Smart TV functions, a real home entertainment hub, especially if your TV/laptop has DLNA (easy linking your PC multimedia folders for large screen enjoyment without going anywhere near your computer)
but and it is rounded "but", still not as good as plasma for picture (I have 570 reasons to be annoyed with that).

Before I finish, you could go for a 3D panel, as they are better panels for 2D, but 3D is bollox in the home (and cinema) but that is a different subject altogether.
You could go down that route but you'll be wasting your money on technology you're not going to use.

Hope my ramble is ok. I'm off to bed now. Early start and all that

Totally agree - all those You Tube videos of historical broadcasts Anglia Television clips on a large screen - so much fun and oddly the sound quality seems better than when watching TV signals.

My Brother in law bought a Panasonic TX-P55VT30B. He got it for about £1500 because of some work connection.
We visited them last week and I have to admit, the picture was stunning. However, He and all but one (6 year old) of his family have stopped striving to watch 3D as they don't rate it. I'm not a lover of 3D but was willing to be convinced, even this TV couldn't do that.
My next TV will probably be 3D, simply because, I suspect, all high end's will be 3D when I come to change. However, unless the 3D effect improves vastly, I'll not be using that particular function...

Name calling? Really?
Smart TV= waiting ages for things to load, bookmarks which don't work, stuttering video, updates moving at glacial speeds, typing URLs etc. with a tv remote (always fun), useless games and every other feature asking for money. It has a long way to go.

The perfect description of Smart TV and a function I choose not to use because of the above.

Id only use smart TV for BBC iplayer as we use that at times to catch up.

As for the 3D thing - I kind of have the same feelings. Even in the cinema its a bit meh - and takes some concentrating to get the images. So much so that I missed a lot of the story line in the film I watched.

I guess Ill see how much they ins company settles on in vouchers, and what prices things are. Im guessing all the 2011 models will be on sale soon (if not already) as 2012 models filter in. While Im sure 2012 models are an improvement over 2011 - I dont normally subscribe to the theory a reduced 2011 model from £800 to £400 is only as good as a £400 2012 model.

Some 3D movies work better than others, leaving aside artistic merit (if any): Avatar, Hugo, Immortals, Up and Tangled are very impressive.

I wouldn't waste time on Smart TVs yet, especially since you can hook up your TV to a media box and turn it into a Smart TV when the Apps get better. 3D TV (especially Passive because the glasses are only about £10 instead of £100) is well worth having.

I bought a Finlux 3D TV recently (LED model) from their website, mainly due to budget constraints but when I got it the next day I was blown away by the amazing quality. I paid 499, but I can see they reduced it to 419 now:
http://www.finluxdirect.com/all-tvs/...icat,3,shop,3d
I strongly recommend it; it won't disappoint.