3D Television

[systemcat]

I'm expecting an insurance settlement soon, and plan to buy things on it that would normally never be in my reach. Just pass the highest idem on my list is buying a 3D television. So to make the best informed decision on what to buy, I've been researching these TVs to a high extent to even what consumers are saying about the technology in general.

It seems 50/50 on the people liking 3D content. I consider my self on the plus side of enjoying it, loving my 3DS and 3D films in theater. It seems I'm not alone in my thoughts, of enjoying this. But on the flip side there is a vocal mass opposing 3D television. Claiming it's not worth the effort in film, older films should not be converted, it gives headaches, it's a gimmick, bah de bah de bah ...

Yes, I agree with the nay sayers of it's a gimmick, and it can cause headaches. It's a gimmick, but it my opinion a very cool gimmick. As for headaches, looking at statistics it's only 5 to 10 percent of the population that has that problem.

What is your take on 3D televisions?

[slj84]

My parents just bought one.  Their tv went bad and they wanted a smart tv, the 3d was just in the tv they wanted. 

It is neat, but nothing I would go way out of my way to get personally.  But I'm not a big tv watcher.  But I say if it's something that you would use a lot go for it!

They got a 65 inch samsung smart 3d tv.  The picture I. The tv is awsome.  I like the smart tv part because it connects right up to Netflix, which has a small selection of 3d movies.

[kaoskat]

I haven't really looked at a 3D TV, but I strongly dislike the 3D effect on my 3DS because if I move at all it blurs out and that bugs me. I can't imagine that being fun while watching TV. So I may not be the best one to ask.

[systemcat]

I haven't really looked at a 3D TV, but I strongly dislike the 3D effect on my 3DS because if I move at all it blurs out and that bugs me. I can't imagine that being fun while watching TV. So I may not be the best one to ask.

What happens with a 3DS is actually unique. Only one television is out there to my knowledge with that technology, and it has a compliant against it for having such a limited viewing field.

For the 3D being an issue with my 3DS. It's really not except for one game I have for the system. I dare any one to play Generator Rex level 1 in 3D, I don't think it can be done.

[Neon Sparkle]

I have a 3d Television that I got about a year ago during Black Friday. It is really cool as long as you're watching proper 3D content, of which there is quite a bit available but I currently only have a few titles.

If you enjoy theatrical 3D films than you're basically just bringing the same experience into you're home on a smaller screen. Make sure though to get a passive 3D set though, which is the kind that uses the standard plastic glasses like they have in the cinema and not the other kind which requires expensive glasses that you have to charge and get a massive headache from afterwards.

[OLumeVaSti]

I am not sure if I like it or not. It's cool but, I think it would bug me after awhile.

[sweetlittlejenny]

We have a 3D tv. We got it only because we had issues with another tv we bought and they didn't have an exact replacement so we got a deal on a 3D one.

We don't use the 3D function too often but it is cool. It takes some time to get used to watching I think. Avatar in 3D was pretty cool to watch. I probably wouldn't have let my husband spring for the 3D if that was the only reason he was buying it. We don't use it enough to justify the extra cost really.

I make sure to try and buy all my new movies with a 3D version as well.

[Beldarna]

We have a 3D tv. It just followed with the specs my boyfriend wanted. We rarely use it tho. 3D looks good in theatres and we have a documentary of sealife in 3D that is very cool, but I get so dizzy I can't watch more than ten minutes at a time. I think our couch is too close to the TV for the 3D to work properly for me.

A good thing with the 3D when playing multiplayer games is you take the glasses and put two right glass in one pair and two left glass in the other pair and then put on dual screen and you only see your part on the entire tv. It's pretty awesome!

[hathorcat]

Have it, never use it. Only got it because I am one of those "much have all gadgets" kind of people. And I believe we are about to upgrade our downstairs living room television but we are not looking for one which is 3D capable. So yes, I am going backwards in time when it comes to this technology.

Main problem...I get grumpy over the glasses. The TV only came with 2 pairs which means only 2 people can watch a 3D movie at one time. Additional glasses cost £50 per set. They constantly need charged and will only last the length of one movie. Also you cannot do anything else when you are watching; I like to have my tablet/phone/laptop about sometimes I even like to flick through a book or a magazine [sorry I am one of those people who cannot just sit and stare at the TV for 3 hours as much as I would like to]. And when you have the 3D glasses on you can do nothing else. In addition, in the UK at least, 3D required upgrading my television service which to be frank is too much in £££ for too little content.

I love love love 3D in the cinema on the big screen where I can properly enjoy it and get the full experience and perhaps if I had a movie theatre room in the house it would be a perfect fit. But I dont and for me at least, I just dont feel I have ever got the value.

[melodys_angel]

Not worth it.

The technology needs to advance more for me to even consider it.  No glasses, no headaches, and no heavy prices .  Think of how the DVD players were when they were new and VCRs were still king.  The same thing will happen.

We don't even go to see '3D' in theatres too much.  Its just a hype to try to get more money out of people, when the 3D parts are few and far inbetween, and usually land me with a headache.

[Sora]

Not worth it.

The technology needs to advance more for me to even consider it.  No glasses, no headaches, and no heavy prices .  Think of how the DVD players were when they were new and VCRs were still king.  The same thing will happen.

We don't even go to see '3D' in theatres too much.  Its just a hype to try to get more money out of people, when the 3D parts are few and far inbetween, and usually land me with a headache.

This, so much.

I'm one of the few people who doesn't get headaches from 3D (as in, I've played Mario non-stop for 3 hours will the 3D tilt up full with no side effects on the 3DS) but I just can't see what's so amazing about it, personally.

[Neon Sparkle]

Have it, never use it. Only got it because I am one of those "much have all gadgets" kind of people. And I believe we are about to upgrade our downstairs living room television but we are not looking for one which is 3D capable. So yes, I am going backwards in time when it comes to this technology.

Main problem...I get grumpy over the glasses. The TV only came with 2 pairs which means only 2 people can watch a 3D movie at one time. Additional glasses cost £50 per set. They constantly need charged and will only last the length of one movie. Also you cannot do anything else when you are watching; I like to have my tablet/phone/laptop about sometimes I even like to flick through a book or a magazine [sorry I am one of those people who cannot just sit and stare at the TV for 3 hours as much as I would like to]. And when you have the 3D glasses on you can do nothing else. In addition, in the UK at least, 3D required upgrading my television service which to be frank is too much in £££ for too little content.

I love love love 3D in the cinema on the big screen where I can properly enjoy it and get the full experience and perhaps if I had a movie theatre room in the house it would be a perfect fit. But I dont and for me at least, I just dont feel I have ever got the value.

It sounds like Your television uses Active 3D, which is the kind that uses expensive glasses and requires charging. The headaches you are experiencing probably stem from the nature of how those type of 3D glasses work, which is that you basically have shutters rapidly blocking your eyes at an extremely rapid rate, and thus your eyes become horribly strained. This is the kind of set my uncle has and I am personally not a fan of this type of 3D despite the supposedly sharper image you are supposed to get from it.

A Passive 3D set is what I would recommend to anyone who is considering purchasing a 3D television. It is so much easier on the eyes and is basically the same technology that is used in most theaters for theatrical 3D films. Passive 3D glasses are cheap, and you can even keep the ones they give out in theaters to add to your collection of home 3D glasses.

Here is an article explaining more about the 2 3D home formats, It is always important for anyone to know of the 2 different technologies before looking for a set: http://gcn.com/Articles/2013/03/06/Differences-active-passive-3D.aspx?Page=1

[hathorcat]

I dont get headaches So dont worry. I just cant be bothered with the glasses I am too much of a footer when it comes to sitting in front of a television for extended periods to really get the advantage of them.

[systemcat]

It's not easy weighing the pros & cons to both these types. At first I was being truly open minded. Then after a few reviews (mind you all old ones made back in '10) I decided I wanted a active shutter type for quality and for that some could convert over 2D content. Then I discovered talking with a Bestbuy employee over the phone, only one company & model did it. And that every new 4K on the market was being built for Passive and not Active. Passive which in old reviews is said not to have the same look of depth. That's old news right? About Passive not being as strong in home theater? I mean it's what is used in theaters and is used in all very good quality HDs.

[Neon Sparkle]

I dont get headaches So dont worry. I just cant be bothered with the glasses I am too much of a footer when it comes to sitting in front of a television for extended periods to really get the advantage of them.

Yeah, I can understand that, lol. I have a hard enough time staying in front of the TV normally without a 3D movie on. I usually only use it the first time I get a new movie in 3D, otherwise my grandfather tends to want to watch it more than I do. I get easily distracted unless i'm watching something with a friend over or something.

Post Merge: March 03, 2014, 04:32:01 PM

It's not easy weighing the pros & cons to both these types. At first I was being truly open minded. Then after a few reviews (mind you all old ones made back in '10) I decided I wanted a active shutter type for quality and for that some could convert over 2D content. Then I discovered talking with a Bestbuy employee over the phone, only one company & model did it. And that every new 4K on the market was being built for Passive and not Active. Passive which in old reviews is said not to have the same look of depth. That's old news right? About Passive not being as strong in home theater? I mean it's what is used in theaters and is used in all very good quality HDs.

I'm completely satisfied with the quality of passive to be honest, and I don't notice any loss of depth over theatrical 3D at all. Based on the things I've heard about Active, I'm happy I went with Passive.

Also, keep in mind that no automated device will be able to produce converted 3D of anywhere near the same quality as professional 3D produced content, as that all has to be done by hand to produce a truly realistic 3D experience.