# Who's planning on buying 3DTV?



## Rikinky

Ok the new 3DTV'S are coming out soon who is planning on buying one? and why? I'm planning on getting a new tv in the fall of this year and by then they willl be in full market. I don't know if i'm fully sold out yet can someone convince me why I should invest in one.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I plan on buying a TV that receives 3D signals and converts them back to 2D. I have no plans to wear dopey looking glasses on top of my already dopey looking glasses, just to watch TV.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

3D, no thanks!


----------



## Lee L

I am in the no thanks camp. Now, I'm not saying never, but I just don't see the value in sitting around with multiple sets of $100 plus glasses that the dog might chew up to see what will almost surely be gimmicky junk to say whooooo, 3D!

This is coming form someone who bought an HDTV this time of year in 2001 and my second one in early 2003. I was one of the first 200 people to get an HR10-250 on the AVS preorder, yada yada yada. So, I am not afraid of being an early adopter at all, but no one has shown me anything to make we thign 3D TV is anything but a fad.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

Now, if they can do this without glasses I’ll be interested in buying a new TV. Right now, 3D is just a gimmick.

On a side note, I read Titanic will be rereleased in 2012 in 3D. This I will see.


----------



## Herdfan

Not a chance! I don't even think they will make one in a 70" model, and if they did, it would cost way too much.


----------



## RobertE

With haveing to use glasses...NO
Without...Maybe.


----------



## Chris Blount

I already have one... well, sort of. My Samsung 61" DLP coupled with a 3D adapter should do the trick. The new PS3 firmware coming out this Summer is also rumuored to convert 3D to the older Samsung DLP sets. Only time will tell.


----------



## B Newt

I am going to wait for holographic tv to come out.


----------



## JM Anthony

Gonna pass on that one.


----------



## Casey21

Absolutely not!!! It belongs at the movies not home for many reasons. Are you listening DirecTv - quit talking about wasting bandwidth on this ridiculous idea and get some new HD channels already - that's what we really want!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Phil T

No! I just got my second HD set and still have 2 that are SD. 3D is the next Betamax.


----------



## tfederov

Add me to the list of those not wanting to wear glasses on glasses.


----------



## Cholly

No, No, a thousand times, *NO!* :barf:
To me, it's only beneficial on a big screen, like that in a theater. It might be ok on a 70 inch flat panel or with a front projector. I can't see any value on a 50 inch or smaller set.

Edit: See my post #91 in this thread. I'll go so far as to say that for 3D viewing of movies, etc., you should have a 42 inch or larger set. Further, if you're replacing an old TV, the new 3D receivers are worth checking into. However, be prepared for sticker shock. To watch 3D movies on a 3D TV, you need a 3D Blu-ray player and for each viewer, compatible (same brand) 3D shutter glasses. Jury is out on 3D games.


----------



## Steve

Phil T said:


> No! I just got my second HD set and still have 2 that are SD. 3D is the next Betamax.


Or for those old enough to remember, perhaps the next "Quadriphonic Surround Sound"?

3-D will be a reason to keep folks going to movie theaters, tho, IMHO.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Stuart Sweet said:


> I plan on buying a TV that receives 3D signals and converts them back to 2D. I have no plans to wear dopey looking glasses on top of my already dopey looking glasses, just to watch TV.


I'm with you. I just can't see paying a premium for something I would hardly ever use and that I have to have enough sets of goofy 3D glasses to see the once in blue moon 3D movie/event. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## fluffybear

Hutchinshouse said:


> 3D, no thanks!


I'm with you,No Thanks!


----------



## harsh

Steve said:


> Or for those old enough to remember, perhaps the next "Quadriphonic Surround Sound"?


I remember it well.

The reason that quad couldn't make it was that the physical media of the day didn't support it. Now that we have 9.2 sound systems, many listeners scream bloody murder if elements of their music don't emanate from at least five loudspeakers.

I submit that home IMAX would be a much better analog.


----------



## Rikinky

Im glad to see I am not alone in this theory of waste of Bandwith. If everyone remembers they tried this stuff in theatres in the 80's and it flopped then and what makes us think it's going to take off now? 2 reasons why I think this will absolutely fade out quick.
1- Technically we are still in a recession therefore most people are not going to fork out more $ for a new tv when maybe and that's a big (Maybe) half of the country has a HDTV in their home as it is. And the others that just went out and bought one. 
2- Who wants to wear those stupid glasses on their face everytime you watch a frikin show. First of all I already wear glasses and that idea SUCKS!
Secondly what if your on your way to a buddy's house to watch a football game or whatever and low and behold you forgot your glasses. Well I guess you will be stuck with just having to watch it in just plain ol HD. What a shame! COME ON how ridiculous In my opinion I think Satellite and Cable companys should invest in their and our money into something more logical like making channels that are broadcasted in HD availible to us the viewers. Just a thought!


----------



## ebaltz

I'm not sure I see much benefit in this technology, especially if glasses are required. I don't want to drop extra money on something I would use like once a month maybe. Maybe in 5 years when their isn't a price difference etc...and the technology has kind of been sorted out.


----------



## spartanstew

I already have 2.



Herdfan said:


> Not a chance! I don't even think they will make one in a 70" model, and if they did, it would cost way too much.


You can get a 73" Mits DLP right now for less than $1500 (and an 82" for around $2300).

Reading the comments in this thread, it sounds like everyone is against it because they don't want to sit around wearing 3D glasses all day. Either do I, but you don't have to.

I'm looking forward to it mainly for movies. I'm not going to watch The Office or Oprah in 3D, but I'm certainly going to look forward to putting the glasses on for a couple of hours to watch a movie or a sporting event.


----------



## dave1234

I plan on buying one once the standards settle out. Panasonics 3D demo at CES was jaw dropping. Glasses don't bother me a bit since I already wear glasses. In a couple of years you likely won't be able to buy a TV without 3D capability.
FWIW My HDTV is now 6 years old and aging. I'll be looking to buy a new one in the next couple of years. If I had a newer TV I wouldn't upgrade just for 3D .
Back when I bought my HDTV many people thought HD was just not needed....


----------



## RAD

I've got a Mits WD-73735 which is supposed to be able to get this new 3D when used with the 3DC-1000 adapter due this summer. I've seen it rumored the price will be $100 and then the glasses. If I can get this and a pair of glasses for under $300 I'll probably bite since I have a PS/3 and DirecTV HD DVR connected to that set. But if I had to buy a new set now just to get 3D I'd be taking a pass at this time.


----------



## Sackchamp56

I'm looking to buy a plasma. It will most likely be the Panasonic 3D one due to be release shortly. It will be fall though. So i will be researching reviews as per normal purchasing SOP. I am one who is looking forward to having 3d in the home. I love going to 3d movies. I have only 2 family members, my wife an I. Not worried about having glasses for my friends. I never watch tv when they are over.


----------



## Grentz

Not until one of the current ones craps out, which hopefully won't be for awhile. Just bought a Panny Plasma that I love a few months ago and have a 2yr or so old Samsung LCD that is fantastic.

I am happy in the TV area for awhile


----------



## mechman

I have a feeling that 3D will fade as quickly as it came around.


----------



## texasmoose

Too expensive..........And really the only true set out their is offered by Panny, and they're having "Black Level Issues Over Time" not going there. I'll stick with my LG for now. Of course, I was referencing PDPs, are there any LCD/LEDs offering the same 3D technology, surely there must be.


----------



## RAD

mechman said:


> I have a feeling that 3D will fade as quickly as it came around.


I have a feeling it will be staying around. Like just about everything electronic the price will continue to go down as time goes on, getting to the point that the manufactures will just put it in the sets as a standard feature.


----------



## Jim5506

I'm too cheap to pay the premuim to see 3-D in the theater, but we saw a 3-D short at Sea World in San Antonio using glasses with polarized lenses - not bad but the picture seemed a little dark, especially toward the edges.

It is not practical for home use but might be OK in the theater if they don't charge an arm and a leg for it just because they can.

We saw Avatar last week (2-D because 3-D was $3 more) and it was stunning visually if not flat plot wise. 

Maybe someday somebody will combine a good story well told and performed with good 3-D imagery.

But, not for the home - keep it in the theaters.


----------



## roadrunner1782

Hutchinshouse said:


> 3D, no thanks!


I'm with you on that, plus I have epilepsy and from what I have heard 3D isn't so kind to someone like me so I think I'll have to pass on the risk!


----------



## mechman

Jim5506 said:


> I'm too cheap to pay the premuim to see 3-D in the theater, but we saw a 3-D short at Sea World in San Antonio using glasses with polarized lenses - not bad but the picture seemed a little dark, especially toward the edges.
> 
> It is not practical for home use but might be OK in the theater if they don't charge an arm and a leg for it just because they can.
> 
> We saw Avatar last week (2-D because 3-D was $3 more) and it was stunning visually if not flat plot wise.
> 
> Maybe someday somebody will combine a good story well told and performed with good 3-D imagery.
> 
> But, not for the home - keep it in the theaters.


Exactly. And I'd bet manufacturers won't take long to figure this out. Then again, manufacturers cannot be counted on to take anyone's best interest to heart.


----------



## dpeters11

But hasn't 3D become popular then faded several times already? What makes this time different? Better quality 3d? I haven't seen many 3D movies from the past, when I saw Dial M for Murder I saw it in 2D. The only 3D TV I've seen was on a standard set, like when they did it with Chuck and Medium, which pretty much sucked.


----------



## Rich

dpeters11 said:


> But hasn't 3D become popular then faded several times already? What makes this time different? Better quality 3d? I haven't seen many 3D movies from the past, when I saw Dial M for Murder I saw it in 2D. The only 3D TV I've seen was on a standard set, like when they did it with Chuck and Medium, which pretty much sucked.


I saw 3D movies back in the '50s, and was uncomfortable with the glasses then. Then, then movies were just gimmicks to suck people into theaters. Mostly because TV was cutting down movie attendance drastically. Now we come full circle and in order to entice folks to buy more HD TVs, we get more gimmicky crap. And, naturally, some suckers will jump on it.

And D* is gonna go right along with this. Amazing. We can't get channels that should be shown in HD and now we're gonna get shortchanged again by more PPV channels and 3D. What happened to broadcasting in 1080p? Do we just forget about that?

Another thing I wonder about is how well a 3D TV will display the resolutions we have today.

Once again the carrot is extended and the Great American Herd bites on an old technology that nobody has cared about for over fifty years.

Rich


----------



## damondlt

You will Never see one of these in my house.

3D tvs are for people who have nothing better to do with there money.


----------



## RAD

damondlt said:


> You will Never see one of these in my house.
> 
> 3D tvs are for people who have nothing better to do with there money.


There must be a demand out there since currently there's not enough 3D capable movie screens out there to handle all the 3D films coming out this year. They said Avatar was still doing a good draw on 3D screens but had to be pulled to make room for Alice in Wonderland. If the price increase for 3D compatible hardware is reasonable I can see this taking off as long as the technology works well in the home environment. Since my Mits DLP is supposed to be able to use 3D with a $100 adapter+ glasses I'll probably give it a shot since my HR2X's and PS3's will get software upgrades to support 3D.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Nope, I just bought a new plasma HDTV last year, I'm not going to buy another new one.

Maybe we need to make this into a poll.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt

TheRatPatrol said:


> Nope, I just bought a new plasma HDTV last year, I'm not going to buy another new one.
> 
> Maybe we need to make this into a poll.


I agree, I bought mine in october, top-of-the-line LG LH90 series... and even with 3DTV, I don't regret it...


----------



## Rikinky

OK I just saw a 3D demo on a Samsung 46" 3dtv. They were playing "Monsters vs Aliens" and I have to say it was pretty cool. However the price tage wasn't.
46" Samsung LED 1080P 3DTV $2400
3D Glasses $100
3D Samsung BluRay Player $ 400

Total $2900 before taxes.

Is it worth it?


----------



## Sackchamp56

Rikinky said:


> OK I just saw a 3D demo on a Samsung 46" 3dtv. They were playing "Monsters vs Aliens" and I have to say it was pretty cool. However the price tage wasn't.
> 46" Samsung LED 1080P 3DTV $2400
> 3D Glasses $100
> 3D Samsung BluRay Player $ 400
> 
> Total $2900 before taxes.
> 
> Is it worth it?


It is in my case. But, I'm pretty sure I'm going with Panasonic. Not buying til fall though so i would like to see Sony's offering first.


----------



## olguy

Well, looks like I'm in the minority here. I ordered a Mits 82373 today. Should arrive around 4/6. And the very first day I hear the Mits 3D adapter is out I'm getting one and a 3D player. We saw a Samsung 50" 3D LED demo at Best Buy a couple of days ago. We ordered the 82" because watching 3D on a smaller TV box would be like watching a flea circus. :lol: This 82" cost less than the Sammy LED and I am more than happy with a DLP. In fact our 65" Tosh DLP is going upstairs to the game room.

Can't wait to watch me some 3D sports and movies. And if Dish doesn't get 3D I just may have to go back to Direct.


----------



## Shades228

I won't say I will or won't. When I go to buy my next TV I will do what I always do. I will look at options, cost, technology, and then make an informed decision. So I can't say I would for sure because if I bought one tomorrow I wouldn't, but if it's in a few years and 3D has been standardized and a real feature then I would.


----------



## Sackchamp56

dpeters11 said:


> But hasn't 3D become popular then faded several times already? What makes this time different? Better quality 3d? I haven't seen many 3D movies from the past, when I saw Dial M for Murder I saw it in 2D. The only 3D TV I've seen was on a standard set, like when they did it with Chuck and Medium, which pretty much sucked.


Yep the old red and blue sucked horribly. This is waaaayyy better. I fully understand if its not your thing or whatever, but check out a demo at best buy just so you can see what it is they are talking about. Its pretty cool.

I probably wouldnt be interested in buying a whole new setup if I wasnt looking for a new tv anyway, but i have timing on my side this time. I'm pretty sure there a lot of people who just bought new tvs and wont be interested for a while, but i'm just as certain there are many people who will be buying new tvs this year too. I Think a lot of people will buy them once the see the demo if they are already shopping for one. Its not like all they do is play 3d anyway. You are still getting a sweet Panasonic plasma (or whatever) it just has that as an extra feature.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Ralph Kramden yes
Me no


----------



## ShawnL25

When I buy a new TV this Fall it will be 3D. Why not


----------



## Rich

Sackchamp56 said:


> It is in my case. But, I'm pretty sure I'm going with Panasonic. Not buying til fall though so i would like to see Sony's offering first.


Panasonic is coming out with new models very soon, the prices are dropping on the present models and now is a great time to get a Panny plasma. Just saw a 58" Panny plasma for $1499 today. 1080p. Can't beat a price like that.

Rich


----------



## photostudent

I tried one yesterday at **Greggs and liked it. My plasma is getting a bit long on the tooth so I do not see why my next set will not be 3D, even if just for the grandkids cartoons. I have read that cost will only be about 25% more than a 2D soon. Mostly a firmware upgrade anyway I suppose.


----------



## brant

hell to the nah. 

we still have tube tv's in our bedrooms; living room is the only flat screen and that is for watching movies. 

i could honestly go back to analog SD TV and be perfectly happy. I subscribed to HD programming from dish, but it just wasn't worth it to me. Only HD we get now is over antenna. 

Its all definitely cool technology, but my life is very much complete without it. and 3D live action movies make me nauseous.


----------



## mechman

olguy said:


> Well, looks like I'm in the minority here. I ordered a Mits 82373 today. Should arrive around 4/6. And the very first day I hear the Mits 3D adapter is out I'm getting one and a 3D player. We saw a Samsung 50" 3D LED demo at Best Buy a couple of days ago. We ordered the 82" because watching 3D on a smaller TV box would be like watching a flea circus. :lol: This 82" cost less than the Sammy LED and I am more than happy with a DLP. In fact our 65" Tosh DLP is going upstairs to the game room.
> 
> Can't wait to watch me some 3D sports and movies. And if Dish doesn't get 3D I just may have to go back to Direct.


Excellent choice olguy! I'd be interested to hear your opinions of the Mitsubishi in a new thread. :biggthump


----------



## wolverine1701

I'm still waiting on the smell-o-vision tv to come out lol!!


----------



## Thaedron

Meh... I will certainly consider it as we upgrade TVs to HD and/or replace existing sets. But certainly not anything I or anyone in the household is clamoring for.


----------



## Steve Robertson

Well my HD DLP of 4 years "HP" is crapping out so I am in the market I think will know after tech shows up tomorrow but think the light engine is going. I would not have thought of buying a 3D tv a few days ago but now I may have to rethink but I doubt I will like others have said glasses over glasses don't work and really not into spending another grand on glasses for friends.


----------



## Rich

wolverine1701 said:


> I'm still waiting on the smell-o-vision tv to come out lol!!


I think that was only planned for theaters, hopefully we'll never have that on TV. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve Robertson said:


> Well my HD DLP of 4 years "HP" is crapping out so I am in the market I think will know after tech shows up tomorrow but think the light engine is going. I would not have thought of buying a 3D tv a few days ago but now I may have to rethink but I doubt I will like others have said glasses over glasses don't work and really not into spending another grand on glasses for friends.


I too wear glasses and can't wear contacts. Wouldn't you think that they would have solved this problem before introducing 3D sets? I have gone to Imax theaters and seen movies in 3D and they used helmets that covered the whole head and were quite comfortable even with my glasses on. Those are the only 3D movies that I've ever watched comfortably. Glasses over glasses is not the answer and I'm not gonna watch TV with a helmet on. Gave some thought to prescription 3D glasses, but I can't even imagine how much they would cost. So...

Rich


----------



## Rich

Here's a *link* to an interesting article about 3D TV.

Rich


----------



## olguy

We watched a Samsung demo at BB last weekend. The glasses over glasses will not pose a problem for either of us. We have polarized sunglasses that fit over our glasses and have been wearing them for years. The Samsung glasses fit pretty much like our Solar Shades that we got at an optical shop.


----------



## Rich

olguy said:


> We watched a Samsung demo at BB last weekend. The glasses over glasses will not pose a problem for either of us. We have polarized sunglasses that fit over our glasses and have been wearing them for years. The Samsung glasses fit pretty much like our Solar Shades that we got at an optical shop.


Huh. I used to use them when we were out at sea and they didn't bother me. I'll have to stop in to a store and see what the the 3D glasses look like. Might change my mind.

Rich


----------



## fluffybear

When there is a warning on a commercial plugging a 3D set stating "Watching 3D may cause discomfort", I think I'll have to pass (at least for now)..


----------



## Rich

fluffybear said:


> When there is a warning on a commercial plugging a 3D set stating "Watching 3D may cause discomfort", I think I'll have to pass (at least for now)..


Suppose this is the kind of thing that could trigger an epileptic seizure or something akin to that? That would be pretty serious.

On a lighter note, suppose it caused flashbacks (c'mon, you old hippies remember what flashbacks are!)? :lol:

Rich


----------



## txtommy

Upraded all my tv's within the last year to HDTV. With luck I will not have to purchase another tv for several years. Unless they find a way to avoid wearing goofy glasses that you'd have to take off when you look around the room or take a kitchen/bathroom break, I'd not have any interest in 3D.


----------



## txtommy

rich584 said:


> .....On a lighter note, suppose it caused flashbacks (c'mon, you old hippies remember what flashbacks are!)?......


Well, maybe I might be interested.....


----------



## geoinacton

I think 3D really adds a lot to good movies. The only reason 3D didn't do much in the 1950s is that it was mostly used as a gimmick in B movies. Now that big budget movies like Avatar are in 3D, I expect the format will succeed this time. I plan to buy a 3D TV in a couple of years, when there's more to watch on it. 

It would be great to have 3D digital and video cameras to take and display my own pictures on a 3D set.


----------



## Rich

geoinacton said:


> I think 3D really adds a lot to good movies. The only reason 3D didn't do much in the 1950s is that it was mostly used as a gimmick in B movies. Now that big budget movies like Avatar are in 3D, I expect the format will succeed this time. I plan to buy a 3D TV in a couple of years, when there's more to watch on it.
> 
> It would be great to have 3D digital and video cameras to take and display my own pictures on a 3D set.


It would be really great if they figured out how to do away with the glasses. Think of how many people wear glasses. Big market there.

In over 50 years, nobody can figure out how to do 3D without glasses? Think of how many new innovations have come out since Guy Madison starred in that horrid western in 1953 that was the first 3D movie I ever saw. We can put a man on the moon, but nobody can solve the glasses problem?

Of course, if the Yes Network went to a full schedule of Yankees games in 3D, I guess I could suffer with the glasses. Hell, I'd get a prescription for the glasses.

Rich


----------



## Herdfan

spartanstew said:


> I already have 2.
> 
> You can get a 73" Mits DLP right now for less than $1500 (and an 82" for around $2300).


In 3D? [Homer Simpson donut voice] 82" Ummmm [/Homer Simpson donut voice]


----------



## fluffybear

rich584 said:


> Suppose this is the kind of thing that could trigger an epileptic seizure or something akin to that? That would be pretty serious.
> 
> On a lighter note, suppose it caused flashbacks (c'mon, you old hippies remember what flashbacks are!)? :lol:
> 
> Rich


You are probably right! another downside I see to 3D is you need to have 2 good eyes to enjoy it. For those of us whose either blind in one eye or whose sight is severely diminished in one, 3D is kind of pointless.

I did see an article recently that Samsung (I believe) was coming out later this year (to be released in Japan) with a 3D set which did not require glasses. Only catch is the screen (for now) will only be be 3 inches..


----------



## Rich

fluffybear said:


> You are probably right! another downside I see to 3D is you need to have 2 good eyes to enjoy it. For those of us whose either blind in one eye or whose sight is severely diminished in one, 3D is kind of pointless.


Never considered those folks. Good point.



> I did see an article recently that Samsung (I believe) was coming out later this year (to be released in Japan) with a 3D set which did not require glasses. Only catch is the screen (for now) will only be be 3 inches..


Hey, it's something, at least.

Rich


----------



## Justgrooven

The technology is moving very fast in the display and source arenas. I’m interested in a new display but I’m not sure the LED back lighting has matured much less 3D. I am not opposed to 3D but it’s too expensive to be an early adopter in my opinion. If the time comes when the manufactures consider 3D as a must feature on their best displays and it becomes a mature technology with solid software support than I’m in.


----------



## TBlazer07

Nope ... it's just a gimmick, like Smell-O-Vision and Feel-O-Rama. 

Besides, I have an astigmatism so it wouldn't work even if I did want it.

I also understand the glasses, in most cases, won't work properly if put over other glasses and that they will be making "prescription 3D glasses" for those with eyeglasses at $300+ a pop.


----------



## TBlazer07

rich584 said:


> Never considered those folks. Good point.
> 
> Hey, it's something, at least.
> 
> Rich


Just a common astigmatism will kill it as well.


----------



## Rich

fluffybear said:


> You are probably right! another downside I see to 3D is you need to have 2 good eyes to enjoy it. For those of us whose either blind in one eye or whose sight is severely diminished in one, 3D is kind of pointless.
> 
> I did see an article recently that Samsung (I believe) was coming out later this year (to be released in Japan) with a 3D set which did not require glasses. Only catch is the screen (for now) will only be be 3 inches..


I think that your situation is addressed in the warning list Samsung put out.

Rich


----------



## Rich

TBlazer07 said:


> Nope ... it's just a gimmick, like Smell-O-Vision and Feel-O-Rama.
> 
> Besides, I have an astigmatism so it wouldn't work even if I did want it.
> 
> I also understand the glasses, in most cases, won't work properly if put over other glasses and that they will be making "prescription 3D glasses" for those with eyeglasses at $300+ a pop.


Bet it comes out to more than $300. I pay more than that for my photo gray prescription glasses. And I have an astigmatism that the glasses correct. Damn near got killed shagging flies before the optometrist caught the astigmatism. Happened suddenly, one year I had no problem catching fly balls, the next season I was scared to death in the outfield and sought help. New glasses cured the astigmatism and I can catch fly balls again. You'd think that would work with prescription 3D glasses.

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464

I will move to 3D when NFL and MLB games are available. I'm looking forward to ESPN-3D's schedule.

I just bought a Mitsubishi 60" DLP, not because it's 3D capable, but because of the price/size ratio.

For me, it's about the content. Mainly sports (which is what drove this family to HD, BTW) is what I would upgrade for. I would not have bought a new TV if we did not need one.

So for me, another couple hundred coupled with D*'s 3D channels will make me go for it - when they have the NFL and/or MLB in 3D.


----------



## olguy

TBlazer07 said:


> Nope ... it's just a gimmick, like Smell-O-Vision and Feel-O-Rama.
> 
> Besides, I have an astigmatism so it wouldn't work even if I did want it.
> 
> I also understand the glasses, in most cases, won't work properly if put over other glasses and that they will be making "prescription 3D glasses" for those with eyeglasses at $300+ a pop.


If it's just a gimmick why is Panasonic increasing their production 30%?

While I don't have an astigmatism I do have implanted lenses after cataract removal and I didn't have any problems with the Samsung glasses over my prescription glasses for the demo. And if I do the price you mentioned is less than my normal glasses cost so I don't see a big deal there.

Oh, and the Samsung CYA health warnings? Debunked here. Lies, Errors and Myths About 3D. Plus Panasonic has no concerns after thousands of hours of testing.


----------



## Rich

olguy said:


> Oh, and the Samsung CYA health warnings? Debunked here. Lies, Errors and Myths About 3D. Plus Panasonic has no concerns after thousands of hours of testing.


OK, I stand corrected, I guess. Don't understand where all the NYC papers picked up on that, but the Daily News is usually very quick to correct things like this and I haven't seen any corrections yet. Been reading the Daily News all my life, (well, since I was three) and never heard of that website until today, so let me do some checking and I'll be back. I did know that Panasonic had issued no similar warnings and that struck me as a bit strange.

Rich


----------



## Movieman

I dont plan to buy any new tvs and when one of my HD tvs goes out i will buy another HD set. It was posted in another thread but until 3D is holographic I will pass. i will not wear glasses in my on house to watch tv.


----------



## Rich

olguy said:


> If it's just a gimmick why is Panasonic increasing their production 30%?
> 
> While I don't have an astigmatism I do have implanted lenses after cataract removal and I didn't have any problems with the Samsung glasses over my prescription glasses for the demo. And if I do the price you mentioned is less than my normal glasses cost so I don't see a big deal there.
> 
> Oh, and the Samsung CYA health warnings? Debunked here. Lies, Errors and Myths About 3D. Plus Panasonic has no concerns after thousands of hours of testing.


Just called Samsung and you're correct, they issued no such warnings.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Movieman said:


> I dont plan to buy any new tvs and when one of my HD tvs goes out i will buy another HD set. It was posted in another thread but until 3D is holographic I will pass. i will not wear glasses in my on house to watch tv.


My son went to see a 3D movie last weekend and brought home the glasses. I guess I could suffer thru a movie with them over my glasses, but not on a regular basis. My son also mentioned that the times he has gone to see 3D movies and worn his glasses rather than his contact lenses, he came out with terrific headaches.

The glasses he brought home are a far cry from the ones they used to issue for movies. If the lenses were the same color, you could use them for sunglasses and not feel that you looked odd. Heavy plastic rims. Nice.

But I'll pass on the 3D TVs. I agree with you about wearing the glasses over glasses.

Rich


----------



## jerrylove56

Only if I had to replace one of HD sets.


----------



## Rich

jerrylove56 said:


> Only if I had to replace one of HD sets.


Might have no choice it this takes off. I called Sony yesterday and they're coming out with their 3D TVs soon. I still have a hard time believing this isn't going to be gimmicky.

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464

It would be interesting to see thumbs up or down on 3D *from only those who have seen their favorite kind of show on a 3D TV* (not in a movie theater).

From what I've heard, it's a little different experience than what we've all seen at Disney or in movie theaters in the past. It's a little more subtle, and for some they say it enhances the picture.

When HDTV was in it's infancy a lot of people said it would never be mainstream or 'take off'. Then folks started actually seeing the product showing their favorite programs, and well, you know the rest of the story.

Same thing happened with color TV.

Could your opinion change once you see it? Could you get past the glasses if you thought the pain was worth the viewing experience?


----------



## Movieman

The other reason I would pass is that I would prefer all carriers get HD right first before continuing onto another technology. I think its great that we are getting closer to 3D technology. Innovation is fantastic but get me to all channels at 1080P before you start talking a new technology. We barely get 1080I on tv and they want to jump to 3D. I guess if your into sports sure but I think its just a hype for what is a consumer driven market. Since these manufacturers see the US as a consumer nation they know they dont have to give us the best of any one thing just keep selling us something that is new and we buy it and thats why 3D will sell even if its crap.


----------



## Athlon646464

Movieman said:


> The other reason I would pass is that I would prefer all carriers get HD right first before continuing onto another technology. I think its great that we are getting closer to 3D technology. Innovation is fantastic but get me to all channels at 1080P before you start talking a new technology. We barely get 1080I on tv and they want to jump to 3D. I guess if your into sports sure but I think its just a hype for what is a consumer driven market. Since these manufacturers see the US as a consumer nation they know they dont have to give us the best of any one thing just keep selling us something that is new and we buy it and thats why 3D will sell even if its crap.


You could say that HD would not have happened if they waited until they 'perfected' 480i and it's delivery.

One does not take from the other.


----------



## Rich

Athlon646464 said:


> It would be interesting to see thumbs up or down on 3D *from only those who have seen their favorite kind of show on a 3D TV* (not in a movie theater).


When you think about it, we've all been making assumptions based on no info at all.



> When HDTV was in it's infancy a lot of people said it would never be mainstream or 'take off'. Then folks started actually seeing the product showing their favorite programs, and well, you know the rest of the story.


Don't remember it that way. All I remember is that the Japanese were raving about it and I wanted it.



> Same thing happened with color TV.


Having suffered thru black and white (actually mostly shades of gray) TVs since 1948, I was thrilled when I got my first color set in the late '60s.



> Could your opinion change once you see it? Could you get past the glasses if you thought the pain was worth the viewing experience?


My opinion could change. But if wearing glasses over glasses caused me to have severe headaches it wouldn't be worth the pain. I've had impossible to diagnose headaches for about 40 years and have learned how to treat them, what not to eat, what not to drink, what OTC medications worked. Been X-Rayed, had Pet Scans, you name it, I've tried everything I could think of and still get them. I have it to the point where a couple Advil a day deals with the pain very well and have no intention of inducing more pain into my life deliberately. But if the Yes Network were to start broadcasting the Yankees in 3D...

Rich


----------



## Rich

Movieman said:


> The other reason I would pass is that I would prefer all carriers get HD right first before continuing onto another technology. I think its great that we are getting closer to 3D technology. Innovation is fantastic but get me to all channels at 1080P before you start talking a new technology. We barely get 1080I on tv and they want to jump to 3D. I guess if your into sports sure but I think its just a hype for what is a consumer driven market. Since these manufacturers see the US as a consumer nation they know they dont have to give us the best of any one thing just keep selling us something that is new and we buy it and thats why 3D will sell even if its crap.


Agreed, I'd still like to see 1080/60p or, better yet, 1080/24p broadcasts. And I don't care if it can't be done this minute, just give us some hope that it will be possible in the future.

Rich


----------



## xmetalx

I just got back from a Sony 3d experience store at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, and I've gotta say, its pretty cool. Granted, I would not watch it for a typical afternoon TV show, but maybe a UFC match or an NFL game in 3d would be pretty awesome to watch. I think its a fad that will slowly catch on, but its in its infancy, just like HD was 6 or 7 years ago..If the manufacturers can decide on an industry standard format, I think it will take off... but everyone making different and incompatible 3DTV's is really going to hinder the consumer acceptance and purchase of this format


----------



## FHSPSU67

Until today, I was extremely skeptical of the real-life utility of 3D. Today I saw a Panasonic 50-inch demo at BB and was extremely impressed. The glasses weren't anything like I expected them to be. They were very comfortable, natural in a strange way, either with or without my glasses (my vision's pretty good w/o glasses). If this were a poll I'd have voted a strong 'NO' until today, and a strong YES' today. Did I say I was impressed?


----------



## dpeters11

FHSPSU67 said:


> Until today, I was extremely skeptical of the real-life utility of 3D. Today I saw a Panasonic 50-inch demo at BB and was extremely impressed. The glasses weren't anything like I expected them to be. They were very comfortable, natural in a strange way, either with or without my glasses (my vision's pretty good w/o glasses). If this were a poll I'd have voted a stong 'NO' until today, and a strong YES' today. Did I say I was impressed?


It's kind of funny. I was at BB today and saw their demo (not sure it was the same demo), and I was very unimpressed. Maybe it needed a Geek Squad calibration.

Though the interesting part is now my TV is the last to not support 3D. My DirecTV receiver will do it, my PS3 will do it soon, and I bought a new AV receiver today that supports 3D. But as for 3D itself, I'm still in the no camp.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I have to agree that my local Best Buy's demo was extremely underimpressive. First of all I found the 3D to be far more distracting than anything else. It was more like multiplane animation than true 3D. Some stuff was foreground, some was mid, some was background. Nothing seemed like it went from background to foreground. 

As for the glasses themselves, of course they were uncomfortable to me. Foregone conclusion. But more to the point, they were a good demonstration of what happens when you beat on 3D glasses for an extended period. Only one pair functioned and the rest were permanently destroyed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stuart Sweet said:


> I have to agree that my local Best Buy's demo was extremely underimpressive. First of all I found the 3D to be far more distracting than anything else. It was more like multiplane animation than true 3D. Some stuff was foreground, some was mid, some was background. Nothing seemed like it went from background to foreground.
> 
> As for the glasses themselves, of course they were uncomfortable to me. Foregone conclusion. But more to the point, they were a good demonstration of what happens when you beat on 3D glasses for an extended period. Only one pair functioned and the rest were permanently destroyed.


I'd have to agree that my local BB also was not up to par with their 3D HDTV demo either - not to mention it took 3 people to find the 3D glasses that they hide away. In this store, it was a Samsung demo setup.

I enjoyed the Panasonic demo at CES this year much better - the content and fit of the glasses (yes Stuart, they fit nicely over my regular ones) was superior to the BB setup.

For now - buying a 3D HDTV is a future item on the radar - no immediate urgency to be an early adopter for that.


----------



## spamstew

Negative Ghostrider..


----------



## FHSPSU67

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'd have to agree that my local BB also was not up to par with their 3D HDTV demo either - not to mention it took 3 people to find the 3D glasses that they hide away. In this store, it was a Samsung demo setup.
> 
> I enjoyed the Panasonic demo at CES this year much better - the content and fit of the glasses (yes Stuart, they fit nicely over my regular ones) was superior to the BB setup.
> 
> For now - buying a 3D HDTV is a future item on the radar - no immediate urgency to be an early adopter for that.


They couldn't get the Samsung demo working where I went, either. As to my earlier post, my sister, wife, and brother-in-law were truly impressed with the Panny, though. I'll be going up to my local BB (Altoona) and see if they can do any better with the Sammy demo. I can't wait for a football game in 3d that I can watch.


----------



## Cholly

I'm in Dallas, visiting my younger son. His 65" Mits RPTV had bitten the dust, so we went to a few BB stores to research a replacement 55 inch LCD. In the Magnolia studio, they had a 50 inch Panny 3D Plasma, and on a wall just outside Magnolia, was a Samsung UN55C8000 - a second generation edge lit 3D LED LCD. After much consideration, looking at 55 inch LED TV's from various manufacturers, he decided to make the plunge and ordered the Samsung, along with a Samsung 6900 3D Blu-ray player with free starter kit (2 pairs of battery glasses plus Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D) and a new bench on which to mount the TV. The TV was delivered on the 31st and we set it up temporarily on a coffee table until we could assemble the bench. The DVD player and starter kit were out of stock and were supposed to come in today, so we'll take a triip to the store to pick one up.
We went to Fry's and picked up an assortment of HDMI cables for his TiVo, PS/3 and the 6900. Interestingly, HDMI 1.4 cables are supposed to be required for 3D content. All Fry's had in stock were Monster cables that required some type of update for 3D.
However, we found a Vizio flat HDMI cable that claims to be 3D capable and bought it. It remains to be seen as to whether it will work.
We built the bench yesterday and mounted all the equipment. We discovered that his Pioneer VSX-1016TV-K receiver does not handle audio on HDMI. You have to use an optical cable with it for audio. Our solution was to connect everything to the HDMI inputs on the TV (there are 4) and run optical audio out from the TV to the Pioneer. 
So far, we are very pleased with the TV. The PQ is absolutely great in 2D. The only negative so far is the fact that the screen is glossy and susceptible to reflections.
We plan on watching Avatar tonight. If we get the 6900 today, we'll use it. Otherwise, we'll use the PS/3.
Regarding the PS/3 and 3D. The summer firmware update will accommodate 3D games only. A further update that will handle movies is due for winter.
I'll post further impressions, along with a picture of his setup, after I return home this weekend.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

OK, went to BestBuy at lunch today. Got to see Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D on a real nice 50+ inch TV. The 3D effect looked great! HOWEVER, the picture wasn’t as sharp as my HDTV. Also, the picture wasn’t as bright as my HDTV. It was like watching TV with sunglasses on. For video games and sporting events, 3D would rock. For movies, not so much. After seeing 3D in action, my opinion remains the same. I’m in no rush to buy anything 3D. As far as I’m concerned, 3D is the next SACD. Time will tell……

Count me in when 3D TV does not require sunglasses. Until then, my wallet is not leaving the garage.


----------



## Cholly

My guess is that you saw it on a UN55C7000 or UN55C8000 if it was a Samsung, since that movie is included in their current bundle promotion. As to the picture quality: seeing the movie in a store isn't always going to give you the best viewing experience. The Samsung Store mode allows you to tinker with colors, but after a half hour, resets the TV to their default.

I'd promised to post a picture of my son's UN55C8000 installation, so here it is: The stand is an Init model NT-MG302. Under the TV are his HT components: on the top shelf are his PS/3, Paradigm CC-290 center speaker and external drive for his TiVo HD (behind the clock). On the bottom are Pioneer 1816-VSX receiver, Samsung BD-C6900 3D Blu-ray player on top of his TiVo HD DVR and his XBox 360 with external drive. The front speakers are Paradigm Monitor 9's, surrounds are Paradigm ADP-190's and subwoofer is a Paradigm DSP3200. Ethernet connections for the TV, PS/3 and Blu-ray player are via a Netgear Home Theater Powerline adapter kit. Video from the Blu-ray player and PS/3 goes via HDMI to the TV. XBox output to the TV is via component. Since the 1816 doesn't provide audio from HDMI inputs, the optical digital audio from the TV is fed to an optical input on the receiver for the present. He may in time make use of the 7 channel outputs on the Blu-ray player and connect them to the 7 channel inputs of the receiver. XBox audio is just stereo at present.


----------



## MysteryMan

I never purchase first generation electronics. Time has shown it's better to wait for the improvements (early LCD's weren't 1080p, had slower refresh rates and had one or two HDMI ports). Am not thrilled with the glasses that go with 3D and their price tag. And who knows? Maybe there will be a breakthrough with halographic TV!


----------



## HarryD

My first 'gut' reaction was there was no way I would ever buy a 3D set.... then I saw the setup they had at my local BB... I was very impressed... I would like to watch a world cup game in 3D...


----------



## Rich

HarryD said:


> My first 'gut' reaction was there was no way I would ever buy a 3D set.... then I saw the setup they had at my local BB... I was very impressed... I would like to watch a world cup game in 3D...


And then what?

Rich


----------



## ghontz1

I purchased 50 in. LG plasma last summer so i am not interested and won't care one way or another when i do need to replace tv. I don't think 3d will be anything to me since i have real bad vision in left eye.I am more than happy with my 1080p. I am one of those who held out on hd dvd until they settled on what format they were going to use.


----------



## Rich

ghontz1 said:


> I purchased 50 in. LG plasma last summer so i am not interested and won't care one way or another when i do need to replace tv. I don't think 3d will be anything to me since i have real bad vision in left eye.I am more than happy with my 1080p. I am one of those who held out on hd dvd until they settled on what format they were going to use.


I just can't imagine wearing glasses over my glasses. I do enjoy new tech toys, but without available content and with outrageously high prices (visit sony.com and go to 3D TVs and you'll see what I mean) I have no real interest in this. Hell, I never thought I'd have TVs as good as my Panny plasmas. I'm happy with what I've got.

Rich


----------



## gfrang

I am not rely knocking 3D it's just not for me,i like the way tv now looks now like looking out the window.


----------



## Tom Robertson

damondlt said:


> You will Never see one of these in my house.
> 
> 3D tvs are for people who have nothing better to do with there money.


Me! Pick me! Pick me! I'd love to be in the category of "someone with nothing better to do with their money." 

At this point, I know I _will_ buy 3D--someday. And that someday is a ways out as near as I can estimate.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Rockaway1836

Well, I was going to hold out until the 72 inch Vizio made it's debut. But me being me, got the first kid on the block bug again. So I went out the other day and picked up a Samsung UN55C7000. I got the deal with the starter kit and the BD player, also picked up an extra pair of glasses.

So far I'm pretty impressed. The World Cup looks damn good and the BD movie (Monsters Vs Aliens) is most impressive. Much better seen at home than at BB.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Tom Robertson said:


> Me! Pick me! Pick me! I'd love to be in the category of "someone with nothing better to do with their money."
> 
> At this point, I know I _will_ buy 3D--someday. And that someday is a ways out as near as I can estimate.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I know I will too. It's inevitable. Sooner a later it will be a feature on every TV. :grin:

Mike


----------



## Rich

MicroBeta said:


> I know I will too. It's inevitable. Sooner a later it will be a feature on every TV. :grin:
> 
> Mike


What I find disturbing is that many retail stores are selling packages of "3D BD players and 2D TVs" (they don't word it that way). I was in a 6th Ave store the other day and pointed it out to my salesman and he said, "It is amazing what people will buy". I've seen these packages in several of our local chain stores. Ruthless retailers.

Rich


----------



## chevyguy559

Anyone wake up and have one sitting in the living room for Father's Day? :lol::lol:

I didn't  But if my living room DLP gives out, I may replace it with a 3D one....but I'm not gonna go out and buy one right away


----------



## Chris Blount

Already got 3D and ready to go.

I have the Samsung DLP HL61A750. Yesterday I picked up the Panasonic DMT-BDT-350 3D Blu-Ray player which outputs in Checkerboard format. Already had the proper glasses and emitter from previously buying the Tri-Def starter kit.

The Panasonic player came with a demo disc. Honestly, it looks pretty much as good as the store demos I have seen which contain the "Full 3D" systems. There are a few issues with artifacts in deep red colors but other than that, its crystal clear.

Will do for now until this TV bites the dust or the 3D projectors come out which is what I'm really after.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Chris Blount said:


> ...
> 
> Will do for now until this TV bites the dust or the 3D projectors come out which is what I'm really after.


Amen to 3D projectors!


----------



## Michael H..

Movieman said:


> The other reason I would pass is that I would prefer all carriers get HD right first before continuing onto another technology. I think its great that we are getting closer to 3D technology. Innovation is fantastic but get me to all channels at 1080P before you start talking a new technology. We barely get 1080I on tv and they want to jump to 3D. I guess if your into sports sure but I think its just a hype for what is a consumer driven market. Since these manufacturers see the US as a consumer nation they know they dont have to give us the best of any one thing just keep selling us something that is new and we buy it and thats why 3D will sell even if its crap.





Athlon646464 said:


> You could say that HD would not have happened if they waited until they 'perfected' 480i and it's delivery.
> 
> One does not take from the other.


I'm going to have to side with Movieman on this one.

3D release, before 2D is "more" settled, should prompt 3D buyers to research very carefully, so they clearly understand the differences / nuances, before deciding to buy.
After all this time, there is still confusion regarding 1080p/24 (2D) formats.
There seems to be a significant percentage of buyers who had no idea (and may still not) whether their set(s) accepted *AND* displayed 1080p/24, but were surprised and upset when they found out they didn't. 
After all, they've had it hooked up to a blu-ray, and it has always worked fine.
The general public has revised that a "True HD" set must have this capability (my opinion).
They've also incorrectly concluded that a 120Hz set assures that it is "fully" 1080p/24, under the assumption that a 60Hz 3:2 is resolved with a 120Hz set, which will display 120Hz 5:5.
Half of the 120Hz sets being sold are simply displaying the same 60Hz 3:2 signals, at 2x via 120Hz 3:2:3:2, which does reduce, but not eliminate judder, because the 3:2 generation processor is still inserting/interpolating frames.

If these buyers now hold 2D to this standard, why do they seem to readily accept reverting to 60Hz standards on 3D.
There are an abundance of 60Hz 2D sets, including all those with less than 32" screens, that buyers accept, and are *priced accordingly*.
But the 3D sets are upper-end, and buyers have expectations, that they may / may not be aware are not being met.

Whether it be sequential line or checkerboard, there is *NO* "True HD" *3D* set available today... *NADA!*
To my knowledge, and what contributes to the confusion, is that all of those are "True HD" *2D*.
Example: A number of those are 240Hz sets.
In 2D "sans correction" mode, they display 10:10, or at least 5:5:5:5, alternating null frames, but repeat each 24fps frame 10x (or 5 min).
But those same 240Hz sets, in 3D mode, having to split the bandwith between L-R, only display each 120Hz side at 60Hz, alternating null frames, re-introducing judder, and diminishing rez and light intensity, resulting in a 3D picture comparable to a very low-end 2D HD set.

I personally believe that this is at least unethical, if not criminal, because marketing as a "240Hz", the intent is to imply that these display a 120Hz "True HD" 3D signal to each side.

Also, this is sort of a milestone date (actually tomorrow 06/22), wrt to blu-ray media.
*All* the available blu-ray releases to this point are also *NOT* "True HD" 3D.
Everything to this point has been anaglyphic, i.e., not to the 3D side-by-side blu-ray format, but to "stereophonic" (akin to red/green) glasses format.
Tomorrow's release of "Cloudy With a Chance" will be the first "True 3D" format blu-ray release... but keep in mind, there is nothing out there that will "properly" process it.

A lot of buyers have given "future-proofing" as a reason for opting for today's 3D technology. 
Don't want to pop anyone's balloon, but keep these points in mind if you decide to buy 3D today.


----------



## Cholly

For the present, I don't see a big rush by TV broadcast networks into 3D. Granted, ESPN has begun broadcasting in 3D, and I assume it has to be compatible with the alternating L-R technology requiring the viewer to wear active shutter lenses. I'm confused as to how this can be accomplished with the current TV transmission standard of 60 fps.
Obviously, the current Samsung and Panasonic 240 hz 3D TV's, combined with the same brand 3D Blu-ray players, can give a pleasant 3D viewing experience. I'm led to believe that they have some sort of judder compensation built in. My own 3D TV viewing experience is limited to "Monsters vs. Aliens" on my son's Samsung 55 inch LED 3D TV and the Panasonic 3D demo loop as seen in Best Buy's Magnolia salons. Both looked quite good to me.

Edit: Here's a link to Home Theater Magazine's review of the Samsung 8000 series of 3D LED TV's. It has a good explanation of how 3D 240 Hz is implemented by Samsung. http://www.hometheatermag.com/3d-flat-panels/samsung_un46c8000_lcd_3d_hdtv/


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Absolutely not.

I have 2 perfectly good, ISF-calibrated HDTVs. That's more than enough $$$ for a TV set for about 10 years, thank you.


----------



## Athlon646464

Michael Hilley said:


> I'm going to have to side with Movieman on this one.
> 
> 3D release, before 2D is "more" settled, should prompt 3D buyers to research very carefully, so they clearly understand the differences / nuances, before deciding to buy.
> After all this time, there is still confusion regarding 1080p/24 (2D) formats.
> There seems to be a significant percentage of buyers who had no idea (and may still not) whether their set(s) accepted *AND* displayed 1080p/24, but were surprised and upset when they found out they didn't.
> After all, they've had it hooked up to a blu-ray, and it has always worked fine.
> The general public has revised that a "True HD" set must have this capability (my opinion).
> They've also incorrectly concluded that a 120Hz set assures that it is "fully" 1080p/24, under the assumption that a 60Hz 3:2 is resolved with a 120Hz set, which will display 120Hz 5:5.
> Half of the 120Hz sets being sold are simply displaying the same 60Hz 3:2 signals, at 2x via 120Hz 3:2:3:2, which does reduce, but not eliminate judder, because the 3:2 generation processor is still inserting/interpolating frames.
> 
> If these buyers now hold 2D to this standard, why do they seem to readily accept reverting to 60Hz standards on 3D.
> There are an abundance of 60Hz 2D sets, including all those with less than 32" screens, that buyers accept, and are *priced accordingly*.
> But the 3D sets are upper-end, and buyers have expectations, that they may / may not be aware are not being met.
> 
> Whether it be sequential line or checkerboard, there is *NO* "True HD" *3D* set available today... *NADA!*
> To my knowledge, and what contributes to the confusion, is that all of those are "True HD" *2D*.
> Example: A number of those are 240Hz sets.
> In 2D "sans correction" mode, they display 10:10, or at least 5:5:5:5, alternating null frames, but repeat each 24fps frame 10x (or 5 min).
> But those same 240Hz sets, in 3D mode, having to split the bandwith between L-R, only display each 120Hz side at 60Hz, alternating null frames, re-introducing judder, and diminishing rez and light intensity, resulting in a 3D picture comparable to a very low-end 2D HD set.
> 
> I personally believe that this is at least unethical, if not criminal, because marketing as a "240Hz", the intent is to imply that these display a 120Hz "True HD" 3D signal to each side.
> 
> Also, this is sort of a milestone date (actually tomorrow 06/22), wrt to blu-ray media.
> *All* the available blu-ray releases to this point are also *NOT* "True HD" 3D.
> Everything to this point has been anaglyphic, i.e., not to the 3D side-by-side blu-ray format, but to "stereophonic" (akin to red/green) glasses format.
> Tomorrow's release of "Cloudy With a Chance" will be the first "True 3D" format blu-ray release... but keep in mind, there is nothing out there that will "properly" process it.
> 
> A lot of buyers have given "future-proofing" as a reason for opting for today's 3D technology.
> Don't want to pop anyone's balloon, but keep these points in mind if you decide to buy 3D today.


Are you saying (using your logic) that I should not have bought my first HD TV back in 2001?


----------



## Cholly

HDTV Magazine has an article stating that the Sony 3D TV's are unwatchable due to ghosting problems with their shutter glasses and recommends looking to Samsung or Panasonic for a 3D TV.
more: http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/06/hdtv-expert-sony-3d-tv-unwatchable.php


----------

