General discussion

future HDTV options

Will there ever be an HDTV released that is not 3D but has a top notch 2D picture?

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: future HDTV options
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: future HDTV options
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Umm

Most 3D tv's are not the best. Just because they cost a lot does not make them have better PQ then a none 3D tv. 3D really messes up the contrast & colors of the tv because you have to wear those dumb sun glasses. Also just because it is a 3D tv does not mean you have to use the 3D capabilities of the tv.


The best none 3D tv is the Panasonic G20/25, the best tv period is the Panasonic V20/25.

- Collapse -
Panny

Yep, I agree about the Panny's. The OP needs to go see the TVs in person to determine if he likes the natural picture provided by a Plasma or the Jumbotron overly bright picture of an LED. Also, why do 3D when none of the different versions are compatible with each other?

- Collapse -
What an ABSURD answer!

The idea that 3D HDTVs are inferior to regular HDTVs is ignorant poppycock. "3D really messes up the contrast & colors of the tv because you have to wear those dumb sun glasses."

You do NOT have to wear the glasses to watch 2D content on a 3D TV, nor do the glasses mess up either the contrast or the colors in 3D. They do not work like the polarized glasses you use in the movie theater (which do affect the contrast and color) but are far more sophisticated, blinking between opaque and clear in synchronization with the frames shown on the TV screen. Indeed, because the "blinking" (so fast that it is not noticeable at all) tends to dim the ambient light in the room that gets through to your eyes, making the picture appear even more vivid in comparison.

There will certainly continue to be improvements to 2D TVs, particularly as regards framing rates for LCD sets. It is now quite common to see 240 fps framing rates, and the first 480 fps sets are already (plasma is at 600 fps but the picture is not capable of the same level of brightness as you can get on an LCD set). This improves the smoothness of the motion.

The first OLED sets are now hitting the market, albeit in small screens and at extreme expense for the time being. The screen sizes will increase and the prices will drop rapidly, however, and these may be the "final say" in digital television receivers. Instead of filtering a backlight like LCD screens they actually emit the light directly, permitting a virtually infinite contrast ratio with brightness levels even beyond those LCD TVs are capable of (and WAY beyond plasmas), on a screen that is flexible and hardly any thicker than a piece of paper that may allow them to be rolled up like a projector screen. I want one of THOSE!

Now, Toshiba has just demonstrated a 3D TV that does not require glasses. Early reviews indicate that the 3D effect is surprisingly effective but the system is quite complex.

I watched a plasma 3DTV in a Best Buy for about an hour. It was quite amazing, with the 3D effect far beyond -- LIGHT YEARS beyond -- anything I have seen in a 3D movie theater, even Avatar. But I still have my doubts that 3D is "here to stay," so to speak, particularly if those dorky (and very expensive) glasses are needed. But 3D HDTVs are actually SUPERIOR to most other HTDVs on 2D content because their framing rate is necessarily the highest.

- Collapse -
"Superior Picture" is all subjective

I agree about the Panny Plasma having a stunning 3-D picture. We have a couple at work and the 2-D images looks just as good as their other non 3-D Plasma sets. But, Plasma does not do the same type of screen refresh as LED or LCDs do because Plasmas are not a fixed pixel. The Panasonic 600Hz Sub-Field Drive is not the same as an LCD's 240Hz. LEDs and LCDs that are 3-D use 240Hz refresh rate, and to my eyes that gives regular 2-D a horrible Soap Opera effect. So to my feeble eyes, it's relative to how one perceives "Superior Picture".

- Collapse -
Opposite Experience

Intersting. My experience, and that of a lot of my friends, is just the opposite of yours. To me, LCD sets make all movies look like video. Only plasma screens retain the "film-like" quality of DVD and BD movies. With plasma prices so low, unless you are putting your TV in a very bright room, I cannot see any reason why anyone would choose LCD over plasma.

- Collapse -
Misread?

On re-reading Dan's comment, I realize I may have misinterpreted what he said. I think we are actually in agreement with each other; what he calls the LCD "soap opera" effect, I call the "video" effect, where movies on LCD do not have the film-like quality we expect. Many new 2-D LCD sets are coming out with 240Hz refresh rates, too, not just 3-D sets. But I see that "video" effect on 120Hz LCDs as well.

"givemeaname"'s second comment is all over the place, wandering from one topic to another. Whether 3-D is a gimmick or not remains to be seen. I saw a demo of the Panasonic 3-D plasma system at a local H H Gregg store, and I must say I was imopressed. But I'm not sure people are going to take to those tethered glasses in a home environment.

As for OLED, all new technologies were very expensive at first. Plasma, LCD, and DLP sets were all astronomically priced when they first came out. So the high price on OLED means nothing. What will count is if the vendors can make their prodution cheaper, and make OLED work on larger screen sizes. Only time will tell, though I suspect the research may be slowed due to the effect of the economy on TV purchases, especially at the high end.

- Collapse -
????

Re-read it again...
I NEVER SAID you need the dumb glasses to watch 2D on a 3D TV!!!!!

There are some tv companies are working on polarized glasses for 3D, I think toshiba is working on polarized glasses 3D tv.

LCD with hight refresh rate just look like soap operas... Fake. And you can not compare plasma refresh rate to LCD, it is different tech.

How is selling OLED's????? No one, in the US, Sony canned their little over priced 11" OLED tv.


3D is just a gimmick.

CNET Forums

Forum Info