By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What are your thoughts on 3D entertainment?

Lafiel on 16 March 2012
d21lewis said:

Anyway, I was able to secure a 42 inch Active 3D HDTV for about $650.  It's pretty sweet (480 hertz, with five HDMI ports, 4 USB 2.0 ports, internet which I don't even use, 3D--of course, Blue Tooth remote which works with my PS3, and a soundbar quality audio system).  Thing is, I didn't know there was such a thing as passive 3D until I already had the active.  Many sites have been doing comparisons and saying that passive 3D is the way to go.  Maybe that's the reason my active 3D set is but a third of the retail price.  Anybody have any personal experience with both?

Nope, your set was that cheap because it's a plasma (I can tell by the "480Hz" buzz number). Plasma's just not that popular anymore (among the normal consumers - video quality wise it's still prefered by some people), because it's still quite prone to burn in (although much better than before) and ofcourse it's power consumption is way higher than LCDs, especially those with LED backlight.

Passive 3D has the problem that it's resolution is halved (not 1080p per eye but 1920x540 per eye), which is pretty obvious if the set is big enough, so while I do prefer passive to active (shutter) glasses, I'm still wating for the quad-HD passive 3DTVs to buy one.



Around the Network
d21lewis on 16 March 2012
Lafiel said:
d21lewis said:

Anyway, I was able to secure a 42 inch Active 3D HDTV for about $650.  It's pretty sweet (480 hertz, with five HDMI ports, 4 USB 2.0 ports, internet which I don't even use, 3D--of course, Blue Tooth remote which works with my PS3, and a soundbar quality audio system).  Thing is, I didn't know there was such a thing as passive 3D until I already had the active.  Many sites have been doing comparisons and saying that passive 3D is the way to go.  Maybe that's the reason my active 3D set is but a third of the retail price.  Anybody have any personal experience with both?

Nope, your set was that cheap because it's a plasma (I can tell by the "480Hz" buzz number). Plasma's just not that popular anymore (among the normal consumers - video quality wise it's still prefered by some people), because it's still quite prone to burn in (although much better than before) and ofcourse it's power consumption is way higher than LCDs, especially those with LED backlight.

Passive 3D has the problem that it's resolution is halved (not 1080p per eye but 1920x540 per eye), which is pretty obvious if the set is big enough, so while I do prefer passive to active (shutter) glasses, I'm still wating for the quad-HD passive 3DTVs to buy one.

Nah.  It's an LED.  Here's the one I got 42 inch model, though:

It's a Vizio but it's awesome.  They say 240hertz but the box and the bottom of the TV say 480hertz, clearly.  Maybe they mean when you have the 3D up and running.  Still, it's a fraction of the retail cost and the image quality is superb.

*edit* actually, that's not the one I have.  I have the Vizio XVT3d424sv.  Same TV but newer and in 3D.



Lafiel on 16 March 2012
d21lewis said:

Nah.  It's an LED.  Here's the one I got 42 inch model, though:

 

It's a Vizio but it's awesome.  They say 240hertz but the box and the bottom of the TV say 480hertz, clearly.  Maybe they mean when you have the 3D up and running.  Still, it's a fraction of the retail cost and the image quality is superb.

*edit* actually, that's not the one I have.  I have the Vizio XVT3d424sv.  Same TV but newer and in 3D.

oh,ok I didn't know they started to use the backlight flickering for LCD-LEDs aswell - similar to what makes plasmas do the 480-800Hz

Well, if you are happy with the TV that's all that counts. I'm still quite content with my old and cheap 37" LG HDTV myself and just the missing 3D feature makes me think about getting a new one within the next 5 or so years.



dark_gh0st_b0y on 16 March 2012

i personally love it, especially without glasses : P



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

Gilgamesh on 16 March 2012
d21lewis said:
Was Killzone 3 in 3D? If so, I may re-purchase that game.


Indeed it is. Here's a list of all PS3 games in 3D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_PlayStation_3_games



Around the Network
disolitude on 16 March 2012

It was 'cool' in 2008...mainstream by 2010..it will be dead by next year.



oniyide on 16 March 2012

movie wise?? its all over the place some have crappy 3d, others were pretty damn good. Tron Legacy being the best i have seen.

3DS, i was hyped but when I started to actually play it, it was kinda meh. i probably dont like in depth 3d I much prefer the pop out like the movies. I have played a few 3Ds games and none of them blew me away.

3d on PS3 its just...ok



Silver-Tiger on 16 March 2012

As others already said, as long as you need glasses to see good 3D, it will always stay a niche market. Once we go glasses-less 3D will come and stay.



updated: 14.01.2012

playing right now: Xenoblade Chronicles

Hype-o-meter, from least to most hyped:  the Last Story, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Playstation ViTA

bet with Mordred11 that Rage will look better on Xbox 360.

disolitude on 16 March 2012
zero129 said:
disolitude said:
It was 'cool' in 2008...mainstream by 2010..it will be dead by next year.

But, but, but... I thought you loved 3D??.

loved is the correct word. 2 years ago it was cool and fresh...today i cant wait till it dies off so i dont have to pay a premium to watch movies that are only in 3d and have no business being in 3d.



Zlatan.R on 16 March 2012

I like the 3D it makes things more Interesting and I hope it's here to stay