Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Are 3D TVs worth buying?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-05-2012, 14:49
longliving
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 307

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.
longliving is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-05-2012, 14:52
grps3
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,735
id advise against

i always get a sore head while watching 3D content
i regret spending so much on a 3d tv when i never use 3d anymore

id hold off until they find away to display 3d without having to wear glasses that obviously put strain on your eyes
grps3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2012, 15:43
longliving
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 307
It's the stories I like, it's films I can watch time and time again and I've never seen them in 3D. I've read reviews and they all rave about it. So for me it's not so much about buying into the 3D concept and I'm gonna get Sky's 3D channel and buy every 3D film there is. For me it's not only future proofing.........if the format is gonna stay where it is at currently for some time, kind of like how the CD and DVD format have never progressed, they give a certain audio and video quality and stick to that. If 3D right now, is gonna be at that same place in 5 years from now, then maybe I am better buying those films in 3D right now because Disney can always put them back in the vault.

Having said that, as you said they could bring a 3D tv out which doesn't require glasses that affect your eyes.I was fine in the cinema but I'm not sure if what I experience in the cinema can be replicated at home or not. If someone was to say yes 100% then I'd definately think about it. And also if there is a chance the 3D format can be improved or changed around, maybe if Disney do stick them in their vault for 5 years or so, by the time they bring them back out maybe there will be an increase in PQ, I don't know. For me it's about enjoying certain films and when necassary, over the coming years, should I come across more 3D films that I really like, then I can enjoy that experience at home. But if you look at the formats right now, the CD, the DVD, even the bluray, they've never really progressed.....well I suppose the CD went to Super Audio CD but that never really took off did it.


I don't see me investing right now, partly because I don't know enough about it. From what I can gather, every TV is different. Some films apparantly appear 'softer' in 3D than their 2D counterparts. Do you think the technology is going to get better?
longliving is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2012, 16:23
call100
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,447
They are worth buying purely because they do have a very good picture quality in 2D.
As for 3D itself, They have yet to make a good film in 3D and I suspect that it will remain that way for some time. Even if they do I don't think 3D actually adds anything to a programme or a film..
The glasses free 3D is not far away, but, until then, I don't think it'll be the must have thing for the majority....Certainly not for me..
call100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2012, 18:42
mikey86uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 5,378
3D is great for some programmes/films

although i wish i went down the passive route and not the active.

That being said, i hardly use the 3D feature though!
mikey86uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2012, 18:51
Rich_L
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,317
Had mine for a month, used 3D twice in that time.

Didn't buy the telly for its 3D ability.
Rich_L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2012, 20:11
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 6,382
I saw a guy come out of Sainsburys the other day with some massive random brand 3D tv. It just amazed me that someone would go to the expense of buying 3D yet not actually bother getting a decent make.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2012, 22:02
flashgordon1952
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: brentwood essex
Posts: 3,634

id advise against

i always get a sore head while watching 3D content
i regret spending so much on a 3d tv when i never use 3d anymore

id hold off until they find away to display 3d without having to wear glasses that obviously put strain on your eyes
In my view there should be a clear warning what 3D tv can do to ones eyes if watched for too long periods and also against driveing a car after long exposure to watch 3D tv with those glasses they supply with them.
The future of tv is certainly not with 3D it will just become a fad and thats that! A short term "fad".
What will the future be?
Well its already here the flexi screen TV and will be avaliable at a shop near yu for under a £1000 in about 5 years time floowed by hologram tv in about 20 years tv...
flashgordon1952 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2012, 22:29
mac2708
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,007
In my view there should be a clear warning what 3D tv can do to ones eyes if watched for too long periods and also against driveing a car after long exposure to watch 3D tv with those glasses they supply with them.
Like these?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ics-giant.html

and from Samsung
http://www.samsung.com/au/tv/notice.html
mac2708 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2012, 22:49
DeelyBopper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,292
I am considering one too. Not that I watch much 3d stuff but I saw one that did some jiggery pokery and apparently could convert normal 2d stuff to some sort of 3d. I can't remember the make now but it was only on a small telly. 26 inch I think it was. But was thinking about this for the bedroom porn.
DeelyBopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 08:06
XxBlaKOuTZxX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
Yes it's worth getting a 3D capable TV. Most 3D TV can do 2D to 3D but it's usually rubbish to watch, nothing like proper 3D content. How good 3D is depends on the content being viewed.
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 08:27
derek500
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,734
Both of those are about active shutter sets, where the glasses rapidly switch between your left and right eye.

You don't get the same problems with passive, where you're watching 100% of the time with both eyes, so none of the related problems.

Korean-based technology firm LG said its shift to passive glasses for its 3D-enabled flat-panel TVs “dramatically improved” its sales last year, due mainly to the comfort level the new glasses brought to viewers’ experience.

Unlike active-shutter 3D glasses that use an automated “flickering” technology to render the three-dimensional image, passive glasses are polarized in such a way that it mimics the flicker needed to create a 3D image without causing headaches or dizziness on the user’s part.

LG said the active glasses it used on the first iteration of its 3D TVs launched in 2010 made viewers uncomfortable and queasy enough to hold of on investing in specialized TVs, thereby prompting the change to the passive ones.
http://www.interaksyon.com/infotech/...assive-glasses
derek500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 09:22
ironjade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8,324
id advise against

i always get a sore head while watching 3D content
i regret spending so much on a 3d tv when i never use 3d anymore

id hold off until they find away to display 3d without having to wear glasses that obviously put strain on your eyes
Buy two TVs and cross your eyes.
ironjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 10:45
derek500
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,734
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?
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.
derek500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 11:19
XxBlaKOuTZxX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
I too watch most of my 3D content on SKY 3D but it's also worth getting a 3D BD player as there are some excellent 3D movies available to buy. The first film I ever watched in 3D was "Avatar" and i found the visuals stunning. I tend to watch a lot of animated films with my kids i.e Tangled 3D and the like and enjoy doing so. I'm starting to build up my 3D BD collection.

For those with Xbox360 and/or PS3. Gaming in 3D can be fun and tends to add to the gaming experience and of course the PS3 can be used to view 3D BD's
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 11:28
derek500
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 17,734
I too watch most of my 3D content on SKY 3D but it's also worth getting a 3D BD player as there are some excellent 3D movies available to buy. The first film I ever watched in 3D was "Avatar" and i found the visuals stunning. I tend to watch a lot of animated films with my kids i.e Tangled 3D and the like and enjoy doing so. I'm starting to build up my 3D BD collection.
But they all come to Sky 3D in time, first as PPV which I don't do, or free, the same day they're on Sky Movies Premiere.

I've never been a great one for watching things multiple times and I learnt my lesson the hard way, having a cupboard full of DVDs I paid good money for, but rarely watched more than once.

I wish I could turn the clock back.
derek500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 11:29
call100
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,447
I too watch most of my 3D content on SKY 3D but it's also worth getting a 3D BD player as there are some excellent 3D movies available to buy. The first film I ever watched in 3D was "Avatar" and i found the visuals stunning. I tend to watch a lot of animated films with my kids i.e Tangled 3D and the like and enjoy doing so. I'm starting to build up my 3D BD collection.

For those with Xbox360 and/or PS3. Gaming in 3D can be fun and tends to add to the gaming experience and of course the PS3 can be used to view 3D BD's
I know it's subjective, but, even so, that's stretching it a bit...
call100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 11:35
iangrad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 768
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 ?
iangrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2012, 11:54
XxBlaKOuTZxX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh / Scotland
Posts: 2,773
I know it's subjective, but, even so, that's stretching it a bit...
fair enough
XxBlaKOuTZxX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2012, 15:39
dpanico1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4
i've had a 3d tv now for around 6 months and love it. I prefer to use the 3d mode when watching a film but sometimes i do watch regular channel in 3d. I have great personal reviews here - http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-3d-tv2
dpanico1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-05-2012, 22:12
dpanico1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4
if it's a cheaper tv you are looking for which still gives you that excellent 3d effect, i have a great page of info here http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-3d-tv2
dpanico1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 02:35
jacksonpive
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 18
Whether 3D is worth it or not is all on you. You seem to be very interested in 3D, which means even if you didn't love any 3D TVs at stores, you will eventually love it at home. As for the passive vs active dilemma, I personally don't see much difference in quality itself. People say active has better quality but nah it's not much different. But for me, passive gives me a way better 3D experience because active is way too uncomfortable. if you're really serious about 3D experience at home, try the LG's 3D cinema TV like derek mentioned up there. you might see something different
jacksonpive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 03:35
drw1963
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 362
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.
drw1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 04:14
Iqbal_M
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,588
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.
That TV has not got good reviews though:-
http://www.trustedreviews.com/toshib...d-tv_TV_review
Iqbal_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 06:56
battlezone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oxford (formally Newcastle)
Posts: 1,796
But they all come to Sky 3D in time, first as PPV which I don't do, or free, the same day they're on Sky Movies Premiere.

I've never been a great one for watching things multiple times and I learnt my lesson the hard way, having a cupboard full of DVDs I paid good money for, but rarely watched more than once.

I wish I could turn the clock back.
Yes, same here. We have 500+ DVD's collecting dust from years ago.

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



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:16.