DJ_Longfellow

I tend to agree on it. I was just curious since I hope to upgrade in the near future, do I want to spend the additional premium now or just screw 3D forever.

Now, if I could just sell my 60" Sony I would be all set to go TV shopping again.

Sdallnct

Took daughter to see the Midnight showing of Toy Story in 3D last night (this morning). Meh, well done. Probably excellent. Much more subtle then previous 3D I have seen. But still, no real interest in going that direction at home.

darkside

Agree. I'm already getting over it in theaters. If I'm not willing to pay 3 extra bucks to watch it there, I'm definitely not willing to pay $100 a person for glasses and the cost of new equipment at home.

DJ_Longfellow

Well, I was in Best Buy tonight to pick up some gifts, and I checked out the 3D of Monsters vs Aliens. I'll say it seemed pretty cool. I'll have to evaluate my situation if I ever sell my current TV to see if I want the option of possibly ever having 3D on my new TV. As of right now, I don't think it is worth it....especially since there is no much on home to utilize it.

Also, I'm afraid of the long term impact on my eyes....I've heard it was bad for you. I would not let my daughter watch a whole movie in 3D at this point. She put the glasses on for like 10 seconds at Best Buy....

havuk

i'm in the market for a new set and have noticed the lower end non 3d sets cost as much, so why not get the 3d ?

Deftones

according to what i've read about people who have played the 3DS, you have to be looking at it completely straight on. any sort of angle screws up the effect. how can you have a tv like that? not everyone can sit directly in the middle of the tv.

DJ_Longfellow

Another question: I was looking at the Samsung sets and I noticed that the PLASMA are much cheaper than the LED-LCD. Based on picture quality, is there any major differences? I know I have to compare in-store, but those settings are sometimes deceiving.

Spiky

Plasmas have a great pic, and are generally a better value because of this. They may even have an outright better pic, regardless of price.

The LED-LCDs are ususally better than the fluorescent-LCDs. But that isn't so much inherently due to the LED, but just that they put the best processing in the LED models. One thing I'm not sure of is the edge-lit variety compared to backlit models. It seems they have a few different ways of doing this. It probably varies from one model to another which way is best. The speed of LED means they could have some great contrast and black-level specs if they put enough into it.

JimRochester

We have a family of four but only 3 can fit on the couch.

JeffTheAlpaca

No

if you are smart you will wait when the prices go down and there is more 3D dvds available plus when they introduce 3D without wearing glasses then you will have to start all over again.

pmreed

If you buy a 3D HDTV today, it will require glasses, and you'll pretty much wear it out before true autostereoscopic sets come out. That'll be quite a few years down the road. The technology being tested now isn't suitable for the home environment. It's going to take a breakthrough in the imaging field. At 64, I'm not convinced I'll see it in my lifetime.

Spiky

Or maybe....some.

Franchot

When projection tvs and lcds first came on the market, you had to sit squarely in front of them to get the optimal effect. Off-angle viewing improved as the technologies improved. My point with the Nintendo 3DS is that a technology exists now where you can watch 3-D without special glasses. Of course, that technology has to be refined so that it can be duplicated on larger screens and also allow off-angle viewing. How much time is that going to take? I don't know, but if the content for watching 3-D WITH glasses remains very small, then what does it matter what the time frame is?

I remember when quadraphonic record albums came out in the 70s and you needed four speakers to enjoy them. They never caught on. Why not? You only needed to add two more speakers to your stereo set-up. And, of course, quadraphonic records which were very rare... It took thirty years for home surround sound to catch fire with customers. Looking at 3-D TVs and the need for special glasses seems the same to me. All you need is to enjoy it is a pair of special glasses, but I hear a lot of people already bitching that they don't want to wear glasses to watch a TV. (The home theater geeks don't seem to mind so much ) And, of course, the movies that employ this technology is still very, very small.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a truckload of 3-D content coming down the pike. Like another poster stated, you can buy a 3-D set today and enjoy it, but be aware that it will probably be outdated and superseded by newer technologies in the coming years.

I watched the Panasonic demo at Best Buy and I wanted to pull out my wallet and buy a set, but without sufficient 3-D content, what's the point?

Sony claims it is going to add the 3-D effect to older films.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/link/s...-blu-ray-13879

I want to see what that looks like before I start plunking down any money.

DJ_Longfellow

I'm sure more 3D movies will come to the home market....that is why I am tempted with the Samsung bundle deals that have been going around. Buy the TV, Blu-Ray player and get the 3D Kit for free. I'm sure Sony will probably market something with the Meatballs movie.

I figure I could sell the BD Player, since I already have a PS3....would help offset the cost...still assuming I sell my current TV

DJ_Longfellow

One more question: Anyone ever downgrade the TV size and was disappointed? I currently have a 60" TV and I was looking to move to a 50" or 55" flatscreen. I was wondering if 50" would seem too small or would I just adjust over time.

pmreed

I've always moved up. 17"->26"->31"->54"->65". My next will probably be a 72". In your case, viewing distance is key. Get a little closer to a smaller set and the apparent image will stay the same. I don't think a drop from 60" to 55" is extreme, to 50" maybe.

DJ_Longfellow

Yeah, my concern is going from 60" to 50". Although, I think since I will be going smaller I will be able to move my TV closer.

Franchot

If you're sitting closer then it may work out, but try not to downsize. If you bought is what you have, then I'm sure you'll adjust over time , just don't get caught up in buyer's remorse mode.

Spiky

Yeah, when I put in mine, it seemed like all I could fit in my room. But once everything was set, I realized that I could have gone with 106 instead of 90". Now, I think about it. Hopefully dementia won't take over.

DJ_Longfellow

90" is too big for my room....especially when 60" is too big

Spiky

Well, it is about 1/16" thick.

DJ_Longfellow

Ok, any suggestions on a TV now. I am closer to selling my 60" to a family member.

I cannot get a projector as I do not have the ability to run wires in the ceiling and it is a room with windows.

I was looking at the 50" Samsung Plasma PNC7000, but I hear it has a buzzing issue. Curious if the 8000 series has that issue. The TV does NOT have to be 3D, but I am willing to pay a little extra for it at this point just to have it, and if I can get the free glasses and the blu-ray player bundle that most places are offering.

I was also looking at the LED version, the UN55C7000/8000 series

Any other suggestions?