Wouldn't bother at the moment if you are happy with your current tv regarding 2d. Most 3d sets have certain issues. However, the biggest issue is the quality of the 3d content available. Most films aren't true 3d. What I mean by this is that the movie was shot using 3d cameras. Avatar is a rare example of a true 3d movie and by all accounts looks great in 3d. Most movies have the 3d applied post-production and in most instances looks pretty naff.
When "to 3D"
- Thread starter londonbairn
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- Ayr, Scotland
I have Sky and will be able to watch the footy in 3D and any other content they have. Glad to know Avatar is 3D, what a great movie that was! I'm a big Sci-fi fan.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- Ayr, Scotland
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Once passive goes full HD then it's game over for active.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 363
- Location
- Kent, Canterbury
I personally think 3d is not that great, just a thing that will fade away with time. And god those headaches are so annoying.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
Judging by the quality of 3D we have in movies right now, this will just fade away. It is totally shocking how bad it really is. I went to Disney Land years ago and they had a real 3D place, you actually thought the snakes were inches from your head it was amazing. But this crock we call 3D today is shocking it really is. I even went to a 4D cinema at Drayton Park, christ that was shocking as well.
I want to know what those things do that they don't replicate at the cinema or at home. I went to a 3D demonstration once, must have been 10 years ago now (Been to all the ones at Disney and the like also), things were flying out of the screen to mere inches from your face, it was ******* incredible. I've not seen anything at the cinema or on a home set that comes even close to replicating this since. Can the technology do it but it's the way it's filmed/created that's the limitation? Or do they do something different at Disney?
With all the fuss it's been causing I genuinely thought we had arrived at getting that experience in my front room, but it's nothing like
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 11,429
- Location
- Crowmarsh
3D is one big gimick if you ask me. Sure it's a spectacle for once in a while viewing on the big cinema screen. But would I want to watch it in my home with those silly glasses? Errr, nope! I'll stick with my non 3D Sony X4500 thanks!
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- Ayr, Scotland
Did you read post #20 and have you actually viewed that tv. Having seen it I cant understand all the negative comments on here. As for the glasses I wear glasses and had to fit the 3D glasses on top and I didn't find them uncomfortable at all, the LG passive glasses are very lightweight. This LG42LW550T 3D LED\LCD tv is an excellent buy, even without 3D.
These are the three tv's I am considering priced from £585-£899 oldest model to newest, 42" is the size I want as my lounge is quite narrow and I will be about 6-8feet away.
Last edited:
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-en...9396-3d-tv-can-give-you-seizures-says-samsung
This recently happened to a family friends 7 year old daughter, who never had any symptoms but had her first seizure 5 minutes into watching Avatar 3D on the family's 2 hour old active 3D TV. Her neurologist has categorically stated that the TV was the sole and root cause of her seizures. Her dad now blames himself continually that the supposed family present has now ruined his daughter's life. Be warned.
Mushii
PS she had previously been to the cinema and watched 3D at the cinema several times, with no detrimental effects.
This recently happened to a family friends 7 year old daughter, who never had any symptoms but had her first seizure 5 minutes into watching Avatar 3D on the family's 2 hour old active 3D TV. Her neurologist has categorically stated that the TV was the sole and root cause of her seizures. Her dad now blames himself continually that the supposed family present has now ruined his daughter's life. Be warned.
Mushii
PS she had previously been to the cinema and watched 3D at the cinema several times, with no detrimental effects.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
What is the point of that story? One person out of god knows how many. Always someone in the world will have a problem with something that 97% of people that wont.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
In fairness, have you seen the out-of-box contrast settings, on most TVs?
That would give anyone problems
That would give anyone problems
I didn't realise passive didnt have proper HD resolution, why is this? Not having tried many 3D sets I found the active glasses to be rather annoying as you could see the flickering all round the TV, which put me off what was actually on the screen.
What about 3D home projectors? Any good? I assume they are passive?
Quite frankly because it is ****. Gimmicky 3D needs to stay in the theme parks and for films like final destination, the sort of film that doesn't take itself seriously. For proper blockbusters 3D should be subtle and immerse you in the film rather than being the main talking point of the film (rather like colour). That is why films like Avatars and Tron were so much better than a lot of the other 3D films that have come out, there was little gimmicky rubbish in them. IMO anyway...
Personally I much prefer passive for the lack of flickering, lack of headaches, cheaper cost of glasses, lighter weight of glasses. The reduction in resolution is not very noticeable in my opinion.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
The image is split in to 2, one half per eye.. However the resolution is not 1080 for each half (1080 total), so in effect, you have half the resolution.
It's not so noticeable(because of the added depth perception) but with upcoming sets looking to go full HD, then it goes without saying that it's still early days if you want to future proof yourself.
Then you have the non-standard design, and communication system for active glasses (which is being addressed), and the "flicker" you describe, not to mention the cost per pair, then active really is up against passive when it comes to audience-acception IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't get a 3d tv or tv at all last xmas as i just didn't know where 3d was going, looks like I may be in the same boat this year
I have now been using my u2711 monitor as a tv which is quite small.
I'll either give it a miss this year... Again... Or just go 2d but knowing indecisive me I may wait it out till late 2012.
Hate 3d lack of direction, and don't want to miss out or cut my nose to spite my face
Ahhhhh
I have now been using my u2711 monitor as a tv which is quite small.
I'll either give it a miss this year... Again... Or just go 2d but knowing indecisive me I may wait it out till late 2012.
Hate 3d lack of direction, and don't want to miss out or cut my nose to spite my face
Ahhhhh