3D vs $$

[noddin0ff]

After several years of quelling my baser instincts to go out and succumb to the smell of fresh electronics... I'm very close to a TV upgrade. Out will go the 200+ pound 32" Sony Wega. In will come a Samsung 50" Plasma. Wheee!

But. The non-3D PN50C550G1F is currently ~$850 whereas the 3D capable equivalent PN50C7000 is $1550-ish. That's a steep jump for 3D, isn't it? Plus you have to add the glasses and another few bucks for the 3D player over a non-3D one. I could by two non-3D sets.

Does anyone actually have a 3D set? I'd be sitting a good 12-13 feet back anyway. I'm thinking its not worth it. I do enjoy 3D in the theaters, my 7 year old daughter and I have a good time. I don't subscribe to any extended cable programming, I get the the very basic package, broadcast networks plus PBS etc. No ESPN, HBO... If over the air broadcast went 3D?

Anyway, just wondering if there's any compelling reason to pay more for 3D.

tnx

[TheHills44060]

I just made the same jump you did last friday. Dumped a 32" panasonic for a 65" panasonic plasma.

Wow, 700 bones is a very large jump for 3D sheeeesh. I am not interested in 3D at all so the decision was easy for me. I know your daughter enjoys it but i bet you could think of something much better to get her for $700 instead of going 3D.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

After several years of quelling my baser instincts to go out and succumb to the smell of fresh electronics... I'm very close to a TV upgrade. Out will go the 200+ pound 32" Sony Wega. In will come a Samsung 50" Plasma. Wheee!

But. The non-3D PN50C550G1F is currently ~$850 whereas the 3D capable equivalent PN50C7000 is $1550-ish. That's a steep jump for 3D, isn't it? Plus you have to add the glasses and another few bucks for the 3D player over a non-3D one. I could by two non-3D sets.

Does anyone actually have a 3D set? I'd be sitting a good 12-13 feet back anyway. I'm thinking its not worth it. I do enjoy 3D in the theaters, my 7 year old daughter and I have a good time. I don't subscribe to any extended cable programming, I get the the very basic package, broadcast networks plus PBS etc. No ESPN, HBO... If over the air broadcast went 3D?

Anyway, just wondering if there's any compelling reason to pay more for 3D.

tnx

Here is what I would do. I would wait till around Christmas time, and then I would think about buying a new set, whether 3D or not. I say this because there is a panel glut out there, and around Christmas the already discount bluray and televisions, so with sales lagging, they are going to be offering big BIG discounts this year to get product off the shelves.

The 3D thing...I am going to be totally honest here. I have four 3D sets right now, but only ten 3D movies to feed them. I am a think ahead kind of guy which is why I purchased 3D set in my most recent upgrade. If I was a right now thinker, 3D would not be on my radar because there is just not enough movies to justify the cost of the television. Plus, I think the premium cost on the television over the 2D models is just too high. I think all of the bundling is really hurting both 3D movies sales, and the sales of 3D sets, but from what I understand in talking to various counterparts around Hollywood is that will change in 2011.

Do I regret my purchases? No! 3D for me is a special event kind of thing, and boy do I enjoy it with my kids when they come by. Also each one of my 3D sets is an excellent 2D set as well, so I can enjoy my current Bluray collection on them. One great thing is that 2011 appears to be the year 3D will earnestly roll out. Bundling will ease up, and more titles will appear. I am even seeing it happen now.

I would recommend 3D set to anyone. But you must be a forward thinker IMO, or you just cannot justify the cost right now.

[pixelthis]

Forget 3D, still in the gimmick stage, not enough media to warrant a purchase.
BEST time to buy will be January, or maybe CHRISTMAS eve. BLACK FRI has some good prices, usually about three in stock, and the crowd is nasty, and the lines!
SHEESE.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Forget 3D, still in the gimmick stage, not enough media to warrant a purchase.
BEST time to buy will be January, or maybe CHRISTMAS eve. BLACK FRI has some good prices, usually about three in stock, and the crowd is nasty, and the lines!
SHEESE.:1:

I remember there was not enough Bluray movies to warrant an upgrade to Bluray. Things changed, just like things will change for 3D.

If I listened to your advice, I would have a poorly designed and set up system that could not even take advantage of the benefits of the DVD format let alone the Bluray format.

[pixelthis]

I remember there was not enough Bluray movies to warrant an upgrade to Bluray. Things changed, just like things will change for 3D.

If I listened to your advice, I would have a poorly designed and set up system that could not even take advantage of the benefits of the DVD format let alone the Bluray format.

You have that now, with your antique CRT setup, you didnt need my advice to screw up your
screwy system.
BLU was a totally different deal, it was in competition, so it was not a good buy until you could be sure it was going to be the champ, which I WAS SURE OF AFTER about a
year.
Also BLU was the next gen of storage for digital and computer media, getting it is a no
brainer (so you shouldn't have any trouble) while 3D is a revamped gimmick that has
never been ready for prime time, might never be.
THE TWO ARE like apples and PC'S, completely different deals, so of course you
think they are similar.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You have that now, with your antique CRT setup, you didnt need my advice to screw up your
screwy system.
BLU was a totally different deal, it was in competition, so it was not a good buy until you could be sure it was going to be the champ, which I WAS SURE OF AFTER about a
year.
Also BLU was the next gen of storage for digital and computer media, getting it is a no
brainer (so you shouldn't have any trouble) while 3D is a revamped gimmick that has
never been ready for prime time, might never be.
THE TWO ARE like apples and PC'S, completely different deals, so of course you
think they are similar.:1:

Funny pix, my CRT outperforms your vizio panel in every area accept ultimate light level. Since a properly calibrated set does not need the ultimate light levels your panel has, one could say it outperforms it in all areas.

Not everything new outperforms everything old. If you were more technically astute, you would know this.

Also, I saw your little ghetto system in your thread. It matches that little ghetto man at the end of your posts, so at least you are consistent.

[audio amateur]

Or... get Samsung's 1000$ 50" 3D Plasma. It fits my need very well

[noddin0ff]

Or... get Samsung's 1000$ 50" 3D Plasma. It fits my need very well

I assume you mean the PN50C680G5F ? That's the lowest Samsung 3D model currently offered that's still 1080p. I shouldn't discount it. The downside for wife approval is that its blue tinted. I don't care that it's thicker and don't care so much that it lacks the 'Samsung Apps" bells and whistles. However, in the States it's retailing around $1300 which is still a jump up from $850.


I haven't seen any non-animated, non-GC 3D yet. Saw 3D isn't my thing... I'm sure more content will be out soon. I'd feel better about considering 3D if there was any consensus that normal live shows benefit. Sports could be fun in 3D but...I could also imagine it being difficult to watch in 3D. I'm not sure I need more network logos and beer commercials flying at me.

I'm appreciating the comments!

[topspeed]

PopSci just did an article on the merit of 3D TV's and came to a few conclusion you may want to consider before you make the plunge:

1) Plasma is generally better at 3D than LCD. Not that there aren't great LCD 3D tv's (Sony ranked highest, don't remember model #), but it was considerably more expensive than their favorite (Panny).

2) You must remain vertical while watching. No lying down on the couch!

3) After 3+ hours, nausea is a very real concern.

4) The glasses are not universal between sets, they are expensive, and the weight can bother some viewers after awhile, especially younger ones.

5) Lack of media content.

I'm not a big proponent of 3D tv's, but I do understand Sir T's philosophy. If you're going to upgrade, it certainly doesn't hurt to go as high as your budget allows. Even if you're not into 3D viewing, there's always the chance you may be in the future as more content becomes available. I'd rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it.

Good luck in your decision.

[kevlarus]

2011 should be interesting with at least 2 companies looking at 3D without requirement of special glasses. I know Sony is one, don't remember whether the other company was Toshiba or not.

[pixelthis]

Funny pix, my CRT outperforms your vizio panel in every area accept ultimate light level. Since a properly calibrated set does not need the ultimate light levels your panel has, one could say it outperforms it in all areas.

Not everything new outperforms everything old. If you were more technically astute, you would know this.

Also, I saw your little ghetto system in your thread. It matches that little ghetto man at the end of your posts, so at least you are consistent.

Well, like your girlfriends its all relative.
I have more blood sweat and tears in my system than you. It takes more ingenuity
and planning, and sacrifice to build a system on a budget.
Mine has a 1,000 receiver, a sub costing same, another two grand or so of speakers,
and at least a grand in cables. Amy my Vizio will be around 20 years after your horse
and buggy crap has turned to dust. More modest than yours, but a lot would like to have it.
WHEN YOU START POSTING PICS, then you can talk.
I know your system cost more, but its what you do with what you have, not what you
can afford.
I HAVE SEEN SYSTEMS better than mine that were cheaper, and some high end systems I WOULDNT HAVE. You can't dis anybodies stuff until you show yours.:1:

[blackraven]

Skip the 3-D. I have not been impressed with 3-D TV. Save the money or use it to buy a better plasma.

[Mr Peabody]

It would seem bundling would be a good idea, you get everything you need to get started, a 3D movie, the glasses, the player and 3DTV. You have to eventually get that stuff any way.

Noddinoff, does the price of the Samsung 3D include a bundle?

Out of curiosity, how much is the Panasonic 65" plasma?

Pix, looks like your plasma prediction hasn't come true yet.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Bundling is NOT a good idea. If I buy a Samsung 3DTV, I am not privy to Avatar in 3D, Panasonic has that locked up. It also limits the amount of movies a 3Dtv owner can buy, which is a disincentive to purchase a set.

If you just put the movies up for sale so everyone can get them, it would sell more sets NOW, instead of next year when they actually do decide to open things up.


2) You must remain vertical while watching. No lying down on the couch!

This only applies to certain plasmas, but all LCD's. I now have a Samsung 3Dtv, and I found that I could lay completely down and still not experience any ghosting, or loss of the 3D effect.


3) After 3+ hours, nausea is a very real concern.

This is quite frankly just plain false. I watched 6 straight hours of 3D sport programming without experiencing a single negative effect. Many employee's in the post production department of Disney have 3D sets, and none of them have complain of nausea while viewing multiple movies. Avatar was nearly 3 hours long, and I saw it four times in 3D with different people. I never experienced nausea, and neither did the people I was with.

I am sure some people will experience nausea, but our surveys do not point to widespread nausea when viewing 3D, so it is a person to person issue, and not one every will have to worry about.


4) The glasses are not universal between sets, they are expensive, and the weight can bother some viewers after awhile, especially younger ones.

XpanD 3D glasses work on all 3D sets. I know, I own four pairs, and they work on the Panny, Sony and Samsung 3D sets. These are universal glasses designed to work with any shutter based 3D system.


5) Lack of media content.

They said this about the Bluray format one time as well. Things changed over time.

Pix, only you have girlfriends that are relatives.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Skip the 3-D. I have not been impressed with 3-D TV. Save the money or use it to buy a better plasma.


The 3D plasma sets are usually the better plasma's anyway. All of the current 3D sets sit at the top of the manufacturer product lines, and are usually the better 2D performers I have found in my experience.

I think you have to live with 3D to be impressed with it. A demo in the store is a terrible place to view 3D. The florescent light can interfer with the transmitters, and 3D should be viewed in complete darkness, not under the harsh lights of a store.

[Mr Peabody]

I didn't realize the movie titles were exclusive to one brand to where you couldn't buy it separate if you wish, that is a bad deal. The TV companies must be paying big for that.

[noddin0ff]

Mr P, Mr T,

I'm not following yous (the NJ plural) on 'bundling'. I thought that the 3D standard on Blu Ray disks was universal and not brand dependent? Sounds like your saying Avatar can only be viewed 3D on a Panasonic system? That wouldn't make sense.

The set prices I put up were from Amazon and not bundles. I've been browing BestBuy on line. If you click a bunch of stuff, now I get bundles.

Bundle #1 => $1699.97
Samsung 50" 3D (PN50C7000YF) has Samsung apps and stuff, thin
Samsung blu ray (BD-C5900) w/ internet etc..
Samsung Starter kit (SSG-P2100X) - 2 glasses and IMAX 3D Blu-ray Disc "features Mummies, Into the Deep and Galapagos"

Bundle #2 => $1299.98 -- no blu ray player
Samsung 50" 3D (PN50C680G5F) no apps, thicker
Samsung Starter kit (SSG-P2100X) - 2 glasses and IMAX 3D Blu-ray Disc "features Mummies, Into the Deep and Galapagos"

So, add a $200 player and you end up paying an extra $200 for the nicer 50" Plasma. Which in my case doesn't add much that's essential.

compare all the above to the $850 non-3D + ~$200 for blu ray = $1050

The gap narrows to close to $400. Hmmm...tempting. :-)

[E-Stat]

This is quite frankly just plain false. I watched 6 straight hours of 3D sport programming without experiencing a single negative effect. Many employee's in the post production department of Disney have 3D sets, and none of them have complain of nausea while viewing multiple movies.
I might agree, but for a different reason. First of all, I don't experience nausea watching 3D content. Nor do I experience nausea while scuba diving, flying an airplane, or jumping out of a perfectly good one. What I do find is that 3D imparts a level of realism that may well trigger motion sickness for an individual who is already predisposed to that sort of thing. Actually, I think that is good - the ability to to realistically convey that sense of space and movement of flight. My favorite scenes in Avatar are when Jake and Neytiri are flying their Ikran. As a sense junkie, watching that in IMAX 3D imparts that feeling of freedom one gets when flying in a small airplane or parasail. Gimme more!

Similarly, I don't experience visual fatigue watching in a completely darkened room. When viewing movies on the DLP, we turn out all the lights including those behind the screen in the adjacent kitchen. I am unable to make out the shape of the screen vs. the surrounding walls. If anything, I find peripheral light sources distracting.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Mr P, Mr T,

I'm not following yous (the NJ plural) on 'bundling'. I thought that the 3D standard on Blu Ray disks was universal and not brand dependent? Sounds like your saying Avatar can only be viewed 3D on a Panasonic system? That wouldn't make sense.

The set prices I put up were from Amazon and not bundles. I've been browing BestBuy on line. If you click a bunch of stuff, now I get bundles.

Bundle #1 => $1699.97
Samsung 50" 3D (PN50C7000YF) has Samsung apps and stuff, thin
Samsung blu ray (BD-C5900) w/ internet etc..
Samsung Starter kit (SSG-P2100X) - 2 glasses and IMAX 3D Blu-ray Disc "features Mummies, Into the Deep and Galapagos"

Bundle #2 => $1299.98 -- no blu ray player
Samsung 50" 3D (PN50C680G5F) no apps, thicker
Samsung Starter kit (SSG-P2100X) - 2 glasses and IMAX 3D Blu-ray Disc "features Mummies, Into the Deep and Galapagos"

So, add a $200 player and you end up paying an extra $200 for the nicer 50" Plasma. Which in my case doesn't add much that's essential.

compare all the above to the $850 non-3D + ~$200 for blu ray = $1050

The gap narrows to close to $400. Hmmm...tempting. :-)

Sleepy one you are missing the point of bundling. It has nothing to do with the 3D standards on BR disc, but has everything to do with exclusive 3D titles bundled with certain TV sets.

Avatar is a title that EVERY 3DTV set owner wants, but unless you own a Panasonic set, you will not have access to it because it is an exclusive title only offered to a Panasonic purchaser. If a person buys a 3DTV from Samsung, Avatar is not accessible to them until the exclusivity contract to Panasonic is lifted. Sony has done the same thing with their titles from their studio and their sets. Samsung has signed exclusivity deals with film studios as well. All of these exclusives(along with a sluggish economy) is slowing down sales of 3D set, because of the lack of titles available to the open market. IMAX 3D titles are not exclusive to anyone, and I have been buying many of these to fill in the lack of movie titles. Things are starting to ease up a bit, but the Avatar exclusivity goes on till next year, and that is a major bummer for those not interested in purchasing a Panasonic set.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I might agree, but for a different reason. First of all, I don't experience nausea watching 3D content. Nor do I experience nausea while scuba diving, flying an airplane, or jumping out of a perfectly good one. What I do find is that 3D imparts a level of realism that may well trigger motion sickness for an individual who is already predisposed to that sort of thing. Actually, I think that is good - the ability to to realistically convey that sense of space and movement of flight. My favorite scenes in Avatar are when Jake and Neytiri are flying their Ikran. As a sense junkie, watching that in IMAX 3D imparts that feeling of freedom one gets when flying in a small airplane or parasail. Gimme more!

I agree with you totally. The problem I see is that 3D is being blamed for issues that really have nothing to do with 3D specifically, but more to do with a persons reaction to hyper real situation such as roller coasters, flying, and height related situations. I call it a ultra sensitivity to hyper reality. I love 3D, but then like you I like parachuting out of planes(man do I love that, and that activity is not far from me), roller coasters, cruises and sailing and various other motion and hyper real activities.


Similarly, I don't experience visual fatigue watching in a completely darkened room. When viewing movies on the DLP, we turn out all the lights including those behind the screen in the adjacent kitchen. I am unable to make out the shape of the screen vs. the surrounding walls. If anything, I find peripheral light sources distracting.

rw

We also agree here. I think if you have a set that takes up a large portion of your field of view, then ambient lighting is just not necessary. However those folks with smaller sets really do need some type of bias lighting in the room, or the muscles in the eyes will get quite a workout adjusting to the different light levels coming from the set. I think folks have the brightness too high on their set in many cases, and that does not help either.

[noddin0ff]

ah...I guess since I haven't been looking for 3D titles that I hadn't noticed this little monopoly competition. I did notice that I wasn't seeing these popular titles on shelves. That's partially what made me wonder if 3D was just not catching on and that possibly the home experience just wasn't all it was promised to be. Wow. What were the studios thinking? Totally slows down adoption.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

ah...I guess since I haven't been looking for 3D titles that I hadn't noticed this little monopoly competition. I did notice that I wasn't seeing these popular titles on shelves. That's partially what made me wonder if 3D was just not catching on and that possibly the home experience just wasn't all it was promised to be. Wow. What were the studios thinking? Totally slows down adoption.

Adoption for 3D has been slow, but it has been steady which means the interest is out there, but it is not necessarily lining up with the marketing choices of the retailers and studios.

The first problem that I can see is that the manufactures did not work with the studios hard enough to get enough titles to support a logical roll out of this expansion of the Bluray format. They did a good job of rolling out the hardware and supporting accessories, but not the software. The second issue revolves around the lack of live action 3D releases relative to the amount of animation. Since 3D in the theater has largely revolved around animation, the lack of breadth of 3D titles is a problem. IMAX offers quite a few live action 3D, but not everyone is into documentaries. This is a problem. The last problem I see is a pricing issue not of the 3D set itself, but of the necessary accessories that go along with it. $150 dollar a piece eye glasses is just not going to cut it, and offering the 3D shutter transmitter as a separate priced piece of the 3D setup is another. Those that bundling these up within the purchase of the set have a decided advantage here. The last issue I see is the lack of 3D projectors - an area where 3D will be as effective at home as in the theater. When I first experienced projection 3D via the LG 3D projector, I was so impressed that I made a second full scale plunge into projection 3D via the Titan Reference 3D projector. As good as panel based 3D is, projection based 3D takes it to the next level.

It terms of "what were the studios thinking"? Well, most are taking advantage in the short term by getting guaranteed income rather than just letting the titles compete on the market at this point. The studios are looking for 3D as a future revenue booster, but with the lack of sets in the field, they don't see it as pushing movies sales at this point. As more sets get out there, the more income they can expect from 3D titles, and that will push them to create new titles, and convert more 2D titles to 3D when it is possible and visually effective.

Lastly, while I think the current 3D technology is quite good, I think manufacturers need to work harder on fast pixel refreshing technology, and that goes both for plasma and LCD. Mid level plasma's sets still have issues with phosphor lag, and that leads to ghosting. In saying that, some plasma's do a better job than others in that respect. The upper end plasma's are much better in this respect. LCD based 3D sets definitely need more work, as there is no point in having a faster panel refresh rate if the individual pixels still cannot mechanically twist and untwist fast enough to take advantage of it. At this point it takes a Sony XBRpro (a $40,000 professional LCD panel) with its ultra fast pixel response to achieve a ghost free performance from 3D. All of the manufacturers are working to improve their set performance, but they are not quite there yet though.

In saying all of that, it still would not stop me from getting a 3D set now. The 2D performance of these sets(I own at least) is outstanding, and a cut above most current high end 2D sets out there now. Knowing that my set performs well with already established 1080p 2D video is a big plus even if 3D is not quite established yet.

[pixelthis]

Funny pix, my CRT outperforms your vizio panel in every area accept ultimate light level. Since a properly calibrated set does not need the ultimate light levels your panel has, one could say it outperforms it in all areas.

Not everything new outperforms everything old. If you were more technically astute, you would know this.

Also, I saw your little ghetto system in your thread. It matches that little ghetto man at the end of your posts, so at least you are consistent.

AND THIS post of yours is just as obnoxious as the rest of the drivel you spew out,
so you're pretty regular too.
IF a HT setup costing in excess of ten grand is "ghetto" then theres a lot of "ghetto boyz"
on this site. AS FOR YOUR "system" it starts out of the box behind and stays there.
If you really knew anything you would know that comparing a modern system to your
science project is same as comparing apples and oranges.
I saw the BURT RUTAN spaceship one recently, and the space shuttle blows its doors
off in every respect, but guess which one is the future, AND WHICH IS THE PAST.
Same for your antique. You can get a DLP that outperforms it at every level, you can get
a 60" (five foot) for less than 1500.
CRT is
DEAD
and so is its Bas**** child plasma, BTW.:1:

[Poultrygeist]

Anyone making a HDTV purchase should NOT wait till near Christmas. The near Christmas prices never beat Black Friday prices and this year is no exception.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Anyone making a HDTV purchase should NOT wait till near Christmas. The near Christmas prices never beat Black Friday prices and this year is no exception.

This year something different is happening that is not the norm. This year there is a huge panel glut, and you will get great deals not only on black Friday, but all the way through Christmas. Waiting till Christmas this year is not a bad thing.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

AND THIS post of yours is just as obnoxious as the rest of the drivel you spew out,
so you're pretty regular too.
IF a HT setup costing in excess of ten grand is "ghetto" then theres a lot of "ghetto boyz"
on this site.

Oh Pix.....its not the cost, it just that it is poorly set up and looks like hell. We all know you don't calibrate your set, and if you rely solely on Audessey(at least the Receiver's version of it) to set your sound, then its calibration on that mess may not be all that accurate either. Clean that crap up!




You can get a DLP that outperforms it at every level, you can get
a 60" (five foot) for less than 1500.
CRT is
DEAD
and so is its Bas**** child plasma, BTW.:1:

Sorry Pix, but once again you just don't know what you are talking about.

I know of no DLP that can natively display all resolutions from 480i to 1440p. None, they all have a fixed resolution. I know of no DLP that has a 150,000-1 contrast ration, None. I know of no DLP that has as accurate color rendition as my set. I know of no DLP set that is as reliable as my set(it has no moving parts, can't say that about a DLP). I do not have to deal with the rainbow effects of a color wheel.

When you peel pack your stupid rhetoric with facts, you walk away with mud on your face, which might not be a bad thing. At least we don't have to be exposed to a Meg Whitman look alike.

[Woochifer]

ah...I guess since I haven't been looking for 3D titles that I hadn't noticed this little monopoly competition. I did notice that I wasn't seeing these popular titles on shelves. That's partially what made me wonder if 3D was just not catching on and that possibly the home experience just wasn't all it was promised to be. Wow. What were the studios thinking? Totally slows down adoption.

It doesn't have anything to do with driving overall adoption, but with establishing market share for individual manufacturers. Among those consumers looking at 3D TVs, Avatar's obviously at or near the top of the list of 3D Blu-ray purchases. Right now, it's only available if you have a Panny. If you're choosing between Panasonic and another 3D TV, that might be enough to sway the purchase if other factors are close.

Right now, Samsung's running away with the 3D market because they've been incorporating 3D into their entry level TVs. From what I've seen, you can generally assume that the 3D feature adds about $300 to the MSRP of a TV (again, that's list price, not the street price).

Samsung 3D TVs are much cheaper because they've added the feature to their least expensive models. Panasonic, Sony, and others are more expensive because their 3D TVs only got added to the midlevel and higher end models.

One point that hasn't been brought up on this thread is the proliferation of 3D cable/satellite channels that have already come online or will come online early next year. ESPN 3D is already on the air, and Directv has two other 3D channels up and running. Early next year, at least two more 3D channels are coming online as well. This uptake in programming is actually much faster than what we saw with HDTV.

As T said, this is still a very early stage for 3D. Remember that HDTVs were first introduced in 1998, but Blu-ray wasn't introduced until 2006 and most cable/satellite channels didn't add HD feeds until 2007.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It doesn't have anything to do with driving overall adoption, but with establishing market share for individual manufacturers. Among those consumers looking at 3D TVs, Avatar's obviously at or near the top of the list of 3D Blu-ray purchases. Right now, it's only available if you have a Panny. If you're choosing between Panasonic and another 3D TV, that might be enough to sway the purchase if other factors are close.

The unfortunate side effect of trying to gain market share is that you end up choking off the entire market lining up exclusives. It might help an individual manufacturer or studio, but it hurts the marketplace as a whole.


Right now, Samsung's running away with the 3D market because they've been incorporating 3D into their entry level TVs. From what I've seen, you can generally assume that the 3D feature adds about $300 to the MSRP of a TV (again, that's list price, not the street price).

It does not hurt that their 3D panel performance is top notch. Their plasma panel is the only one out 3D set I own where you can watch 3D lying down. That means you can tilt back the theater chair and really relax.


Samsung 3D TVs are much cheaper because they've added the feature to their least expensive models. Panasonic, Sony, and others are more expensive because their 3D TVs only got added to the midlevel and higher end models.

I have to also give props to LG as well. They are the first on the block to offer a projector based on the polarizing method(as opposed to the shutter based method) like they use in the theaters. It requires a silver screen which ain't cheap, and the projector itself is not inexpensive either($14,000 bucks), but for those who want a high performance sensibly priced entry into the 3D projector market, here you are. It is much cheaper than the Titan Reference 3D projector(which is also a projector based on the polarizing method), and the glasses for it are dirt cheap. The bummer with this way is it requires two screens, one silver, and the other a conventional 2D screen.


One point that hasn't been brought up on this thread is the proliferation of 3D cable/satellite channels that have already come online or will come online early next year. ESPN 3D is already on the air, and Directv has two other 3D channels up and running. Early next year, at least two more 3D channels are coming online as well. This uptake in programming is actually much faster than what we saw with HDTV.

Excellent point!!


As T said, this is still a very early stage for 3D. Remember that HDTVs were first introduced in 1998, but Blu-ray wasn't introduced until 2006 and most cable/satellite channels didn't add HD feeds until 2007.

Another good point!

[audio amateur]

Or... get Samsung's 1000$ 50" 3D Plasma. It fits my need very well
It's the PN50C490, just came out. Resolution is 1366 by 768, 768p in other words. Unless your sitting under 9 feet from the screen, it's really not an issue.
If you have any more questions or want pictures let me know

[pixelthis]

Oh Pix.....its not the cost, it just that it is poorly set up and looks like hell. We all know you don't calibrate your set, and if you rely solely on Audessey(at least the Receiver's version of it) to set your sound, then its calibration on that mess may not be all that accurate either. Clean that crap up!





Sorry Pix, but once again you just don't know what you are talking about.

I know of no DLP that can natively display all resolutions from 480i to 1440p. None, they all have a fixed resolution. I know of no DLP that has a 150,000-1 contrast ration, None. I know of no DLP that has as accurate color rendition as my set. I know of no DLP set that is as reliable as my set(it has no moving parts, can't say that about a DLP). I do not have to deal with the rainbow effects of a color wheel.

When you peel pack your stupid rhetoric with facts, you walk away with mud on your face, which might not be a bad thing. At least we don't have to be exposed to a Meg Whitman look alike.

Your brain has no moving parts and look at how it works.
No DLP has 150,000 to one contrast, most are higher, LED lcd sets are boasting contrast
of 3,000,000 to one, don't know about the truth to that.
As for 1440p, that will really come in handy with a 1440p BLU RAY PLAYER.
You have a megabuck scaler that will scale to that? Good for you!
You keep wanting to compare your frankenstien project to real systems that
real people can not only afford, but can actually use.
Or maybe its just that having a "system" that a grad student in physics would take awhile to figure out gives you a smug sense of superiority.
THE REALITY is that you can walk into Walmart and buy gear that will acheive 95%
of what your "system" can do at a fraction of the price.
And the day you realize that your "system" is just a bunch of overengineered crap that
you wasted the family jewels on
and nothing special is the day you will hit the wall.
AND IT WON'T BE PRETTY.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your brain has no moving parts and look at how it works.
No DLP has 150,000 to one contrast, most are higher, LED lcd sets are boasting contrast
of 3,000,000 to one, don't know about the truth to that.:

B.S, there is no DLP that has a higher true contrast ration than 150,000:1...NONE.

You have just proven that lying is not just something you do in a bed.

Sorry, but there is no video measuring device on this planet that can measure 3,000,000:1, that is pure marketing BS.

[dwayne.aycock]

My Plasma TV says it is 3D ready and the blue ray player is also 3D ready after a firmware upgrade which Sony will send out sometime this month. With everything being 3D ready, what is the next step? I already have the glasses, but no movies as of yet.

[audio amateur]

My Plasma TV says it is 3D ready and the blue ray player is also 3D ready after a firmware upgrade which Sony will send out sometime this month. With everything being 3D ready, what is the next step? I already have the glasses, but no movies as of yet.
3D Blu rays?

My plasma does on-the-fly 2D to 3D conversion, but I haven't been able to check it out as I don't have the glasses yet.

[noddin0ff]

Thanks all for the comments. In the end, the family voted (...drumroll...) that we didn't care all that much about 3D. I think that if there was more of a visible move for the major networks to broadcast 3D, I might have thought a little more about 'future proofing'. We don't subscribe to anything more than the most minimal basic package on cable (networks + PBS etc.), basically stuff you can get with a good antenna. Although in our local area, getting it through cable gives us NH and CT stations that would be hard to pull out of the air.

We went for the 50" Samsung PN50C550, on sale at our local Ultimate Electronics for $799. And the BD-C5500 blu ray for $130 (internet capable, netflix...).

I decided to put the money I 'saved' into a AV receiver upgrade. I'm very happy with the Denon AVR-591 (a good review at audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/denon-avr-591-fl)). It doesn't have multi-channel analog inputs, so I did sacrifice the ability to play the 6 or so SACDs that I never listen to. But, it greatly simplifies and improves everything else. The onboard Audyssey MultEQ is pretty slick. It also overlays the on screen display so no input switching to get the receiver menu. Some nice touches. The downside...lack of various inputs. In an HDMI world, all is well. But only 1 optical (reserved for the TV audio for me) and 1 coax digital input and 3 analog stereo inputs.

Inaugural movie night was Avatar and the picture and experience were excellent. Not quite ready to tweak, but might not even bother with it.

again, thanks for the comments all.

[SlumpBuster]

Nice choice. I too recently finally got off the CRT train. I fretted over getting a 3D set and ended up in plain old 2D territory.

The glasses were a big deal for me and they just felt dodgy. I couldn't really verbalize it until we had a Toy Story 3 viewing party. 12 kids would have equaled like $2400 in glasses. Plus some of the more spazzy kids would not have taken to wearing them at all. What do you do when some sugared up 4 year old plants his bony ass right on a pair?

In regular 2D on BD it was a blast for all, that all could enjoy. Until they get the technology to fit the kind of glasses they hand out at Avatar, or Toy Story, or at the Disney World 3D movies, I just won't be interested.

EDIT: For $10/month you'll love Netflix streaming thru the Blu Ray. Even if their HD is limited to 720p. Still very acceptable for the price of one movie per month.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

In regular 2D on BD it was a blast for all, that all could enjoy. Until they get the technology to fit the kind of glasses they hand out at Avatar, or Toy Story, or at the Disney World 3D movies, I just won't be interested.
.

They have the technology right now, but it is hecka expensive, and I cannot see the price going down.

It is called passive polarization, and the LG 3D projector has that technology. The projector costs me $10g's, then I had to get a grey screen/white screen combo because 3D requires the grey screen, and 2D looks terrible on it. So add on another $3g's to that total. The 3D glasses only costs me $1.50, so that is where I saved money.

As far as passive polarized direct view panels, that is years off. The problem with the technology now is that only 1 or 2 people can view the panel because it can only be viewed optimally at a certain angle. When you move out of that angle, the 3D effect disappears.

[noddin0ff]

EDIT: For $10/month you'll love Netflix streaming thru the Blu Ray. Even if their HD is limited to 720p. Still very acceptable for the price of one movie per month.

True! I've been a long term Netflix subscriber and have been streaming to many devices already. To our laptops, to our home computer, to my iPod touch (yes. iPod touch! which is very cool), and to our AppleTV. Hopefully, Netflix will roll out 5.1 audio to some subset of these devices in the near future. I can certainly live with 720p, although not all features have that resolution yet, as far as I can tell. I love streaming.

[SlumpBuster]

They have the technology right now, but it is hecka expensive, and I cannot see the price going down.

It is called passive polarization, and the LG 3D projector has that technology. The projector costs me $10g's, then I had to get a grey screen/white screen combo because 3D requires the grey screen, and 2D looks terrible on it. So add on another $3g's to that total. The 3D glasses only costs me $1.50, so that is where I saved money.

As far as passive polarized direct view panels, that is years off. The problem with the technology now is that only 1 or 2 people can view the panel because it can only be viewed optimally at a certain angle. When you move out of that angle, the 3D effect disappears.


So is that what you have right now? How does it compare to Avatar or Toy Story 3 in theatrical presentation?

I'm dubious of 3D because it seems to further isolate the movie goer from the fellow viewer next to him. I'm sure you've read some of the numerous pieces written about how the movie going experience has shifted over the last several decades from a communal weekly experience to something we do in seclusion in our basement man-caves. Now it is even further exclusionary. "I'd love for you to come and watch a movie with us, but we don't have enough glasses."

When I was a kid, my best friend's dad was the first to get a VCR in the neighborhood (probably like 1982). He would host movie night double features with something for the kids followed something for the grownups. Usually 1950s or 60s classics. Now as an adult I know that is what happened with the advent of television; groups of people getting together to watch the new fangled contraption. You can't do that with the new 3D televisions. Although I applaud early adopters and will ride your coat tails all the way to an acceptable price point. :D

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So is that what you have right now? How does it compare to Avatar or Toy Story 3 in theatrical presentation?

It is the same technology. The system is based on Real3D technology, the same technology used in 3D theaters.


I'm dubious of 3D because it seems to further isolate the movie goer from the fellow viewer next to him. I'm sure you've read some of the numerous pieces written about how the movie going experience has shifted over the last several decades from a communal weekly experience to something we do in seclusion in our basement man-caves. Now it is even further exclusionary. "I'd love for you to come and watch a movie with us, but we don't have enough glasses."

I don't have that problem. If I wanted guests to enjoy 3D with me, we go to the house with the passive system. For my kids and I, the shutter based sets and projector does the job fine because we have three pairs of universal glasses that came with the projector itself. The great thing about these three pair of glasses is we can use them on all of the shutter based televisions as well. I don't feel isolated from them when I watch 3D movies, it as communal as 2D viewing is. I have said this many times, when you live with this technology, most of the apprehensive thinking you have about it goes right out the window.


When I was a kid, my best friend's dad was the first to get a VCR in the neighborhood (probably like 1982). He would host movie night double features with something for the kids followed something for the grownups. Usually 1950s or 60s classics. Now as an adult I know that is what happened with the advent of television; groups of people getting together to watch the new fangled contraption. You can't do that with the new 3D televisions. Although I applaud early adopters and will ride your coat tails all the way to an acceptable price point. :D

While I respect your opinion on this, as an owner of 4 3D sets, and two projectors, I cannot disagree with you more. You can do it(we do it whenever there is a new 3D release), and the 3D just adds the "wow" factor to the whole experience.

[pixelthis]

So is that what you have right now? How does it compare to Avatar or Toy Story 3 in theatrical presentation?

I'm dubious of 3D because it seems to further isolate the movie goer from the fellow viewer next to him. I'm sure you've read some of the numerous pieces written about how the movie going experience has shifted over the last several decades from a communal weekly experience to something we do in seclusion in our basement man-caves. Now it is even further exclusionary. "I'd love for you to come and watch a movie with us, but we don't have enough glasses."

When I was a kid, my best friend's dad was the first to get a VCR in the neighborhood (probably like 1982). He would host movie night double features with something for the kids followed something for the grownups. Usually 1950s or 60s classics. Now as an adult I know that is what happened with the advent of television; groups of people getting together to watch the new fangled contraption. You can't do that with the new 3D televisions. Although I applaud early adopters and will ride your coat tails all the way to an acceptable price point. :D

thats going to take awhile.
With prices collapsing, this is the only "gimmick" that they can make money.
My guy I buy stuff from has his new store open, with an excellent 3D DEMO,
BEST I have seen so far, with a 80" DLP RPTV, demo disc, the works..
Dont know about long term viewing, the few minutes I WATCHED IT was ok, pic was awfully dark, tho. This is in line with others I HAVE SEEN.:1:

[SlumpBuster]

While I respect your opinion on this, as an owner of 4 3D sets, and two projectors, I cannot disagree with you more. You can do it(we do it whenever there is a new 3D release), and the 3D just adds the "wow" factor to the whole experience.

I'm coming to your house to watch some movies. Just let me know the when and where and I will bring the popcorn!

[Mr Peabody]

Looks like a good set up. I'm going to be in the same boat as I was informed upon arrival from work my Sony tube TV is not functioning once again. I believe the warranty is out and I'm not paying to get that dog fixed. I guess it validates springing for a new flat screen. As it's the main set the kids use for video games etc. it will have to be an LCD.

[audio amateur]

I guess it validates springing for a new flat screen. As it's the main set the kids use for video games etc. it will have to be an LCD.
Don't let that stop you from buying a plasma. I decided to buy a plasma and most of what I do when using it is gaming. Ghosting is mostly an issue during break-in, probably the first couple hundred hours. It will fade as you use the set, and it's only a 'problem' if you leave static images. You just need to play something and it will quickly rid the ghosting. Besides there are plenty of built-in burn-in protection options.

[pixelthis]

Don't let that stop you from buying a plasma. I decided to buy a plasma and most of what I do when using it is gaming. Ghosting is mostly an issue during break-in, probably the first couple hundred hours. It will fade as you use the set, and it's only a 'problem' if you leave static images. You just need to play something and it will quickly rid the ghosting. Besides there are plenty of built-in burn-in protection options.


Dream on.
You will find out the hard way that gaming(and just about anything else) and plasma
DON'T MIX. Hope you like your current batch of games, because they will be with you for
AWHILE, burn in still being a serious problem with plasma.:1:

[noddin0ff]

Can't comment on game induced ghosting as we have no game systems. Though, I'd tend to think that aa has it right. There's no evidence of any ghosting on logos or other fixed images in my short viewing period.

[audio amateur]

Pixi is an avid Plasma hater:) The issues he points out are real but he exagerates them tenfold. In fact a couple years ago or so he predicted that Plasmas would be out of the game pretty quickly but they are still well in it today.

[noddin0ff]

Pixi is an avid Plasma hater:) The issues he points out are real but he exagerates them tenfold. In fact a couple years ago or so he predicted that Plasmas would be out of the game pretty quickly but they are still well in it today..

LOL. Yeah, I'm well aware of Pix's stances. Just tryin' to inject little doses of reason where I can.

[Luvin Da Blues]

.

LOL. Yeah, I'm well aware of Pix's stances. Just tryin' to inject little doses of reason where I can.

Good luck with that. :lol:

Pix, just bruising your orbs

[noddin0ff]

Good luck with that. :lol:

Pix, just bruising your orbs

BTW, Luvin. Had your 3-Disk blues comp on the other day. I was about to hunt up the thread and let you know I still enjoy it.

[Luvin Da Blues]

BTW, Luvin. Had your 3-Disk blues comp on the other day. I was about to hunt up the thread and let you know I still enjoy it.

WOW, I had completely forgotten about that comp. Glad your still enjoying it. :2:

I kinda miss that period when there was more sharing of tunes betwixt us members.

Bobby, you listening?

[pixelthis]

Pixi is an avid Plasma hater:) The issues he points out are real but he exagerates them tenfold. In fact a couple years ago or so he predicted that Plasmas would be out of the game pretty quickly but they are still well in it today.

Actually, they are fading fast.
Time to leave phosper based tech where it belongs,,,in the past.:1: