Buy 3D or normal?? Recomendations and help please

paddyrg

Aaaaand another problem with 3D is that most of the stuff out there in 3D is 'spectacle' stuff as opposed to great stories, well told. 3D can be shot cheaply, but cheap means inexperienced people get to shoot in 3D, and make dogs dinners. The whole style of coverage is necessarily different from 2D. Sky cover football with 20 2D cameras and lots of fast cutting, but 3D is just 5 cameras with very slow cutting. Fast cut/poorly managed 3D will make you very sick very quickly, and the bulk of 3D stuff is poorly made - meaning unless you watch the same (very expensive) films over and over...

Enterprise_1701C

If you look at the new Samsung plasmas with the added inch to screen size, they are actually 3D upscalers meaning you can watch 2D content in 3D. We have a Samsung PS43D490 which is a 3D upscaler, but have only had it for a short while. As we actually bought it because it was cheaper than the 2D equivalent at the time we have not yet tried out the 3D as we don't actually have any glasses for it yet!

Would say thought that it is a very good picture, even being only HD Ready (720p), and the motion is very smooth as it is a plasma. We watched a 100Hz LED in a shop and it was all jumpy with the titles moving up on the screen, next to a plasma it was awful!

NMSE12

Thank you all for your replies! Went to Currys/PC world and had a proper look a them all... after going to an IMAX cinema home 3D is just disapointing and seems as sky only have one 3D channel etc we have decided to wait a little longer before spending on 3D! We're deciding between 2 TV's a Sony and Panasonic both Plasma, LED for the bedroom as thinner for wall mounting. (PS3 drove me to wanting a TV in our bedroom lol!) Thanks again for all your help. Hopefully 3D will get better in the future!

Esqui

I always find the 3DTVs make 2D stuff look better (when watching in 2D). Might just be me, though.

asbokid

sabz3008 wrote: »

Don't bother with a 3D TV yet...I purchased two during Xmas, and I regret it..

Two 3D TVs for Christmas?! Royal stocking-fillers!

NMSE12

Well went back to PC world and Sonycentre today! Hubbie decided on a 3D but waiting a few months for the price to come down.... he thinks by Xmas the £1500 TV will be £999??

spenderdave

By the way an 'LED' set is just a normal LCD set with the backlight using an array of LED's rather than the usual fluorescent tube backlights. They may produce a brighter picture, but any energy saving will be marginal at best and it is really just a marketing ploy.

As for 3D, stay well clear of it, that is also just a gimmick - and for people like me with a weak eye muscle it would be a total waste of money as I would never see the 3D effect.

paddyrg

spenderdave wrote: »

By the way an 'LED' set is just a normal LCD set with the backlight using an array of LED's rather than the usual fluorescent tube backlights. They may produce a brighter picture, but any energy saving will be marginal at best and it is really just a marketing ploy.

The power savings are marginal as you say, what the LED's do is to get turned down/off in dark parts of the image, meaning less light shines through the LCD, so you get a better contrast ratio. Blacks are blacker.

thescouselander

I was walking past Best Buy today and after seeing this thread I though I'd have another look at the 3D TVs - guess what, not one of the 3D TVs in the entire shop was working (and its a pretty big shop with loads of TVs). Pretty rubbish really.

sb2_2

3D TV's are a gimmick at the moment as they are in the early stages of development. There isnt much content available at the moment and the 3D glasses are around £100 each!

Unless you have more money than you can spend then I suggest not getting a 3D TV.

Look into OLED TV's to see if this will be a suitable 'upgrade'.