HolidayBuyer's Guide

TVs & Home Theaters forum

General discussion

Wait to buy a 3D TV?

by MarsGurl / June 22, 2010 11:22 PM PDT

I am due for a TV upgrade and was consiidering buying a 3D TV but don't know if its worth doing right now. My concern is that within a year or so the TV's will be a lot better than now. Also, with Nintendo using 3D technology that does not require glasses, will companies follow suit with TV's? It would be a shame to buy a TV that requires glasses then a few months later one without those things comes out! What do you guys think?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Wait to buy a 3D TV?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Wait to buy a 3D TV?
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.
Collapse -
3D without glasses?
by ahtoi / June 23, 2010 1:27 AM PDT
In reply to: Wait to buy a 3D TV?

I'll believe it when I see it! I think the technology has been here for a long time. It's an economic issue. Wait..if you like, but it should be whether you like what you see now or not; and not because Nintendo says they have something better in the future.

Collapse -
You need to understand how 3-D TVs work
by Dan Filice / June 23, 2010 3:43 AM PDT
In reply to: Wait to buy a 3D TV?

The TVs that do 3-D are 240Hz and they have the capability of dual scanning so it will separately scan twice at 120Hz, and the 3-D glasses you wear sync with the separate scanning for each eye. To my eyes, I do not like what I see in TVs that are 240Hz so 3-D won't be a draw for me. It's up to what you like. I'm sure 3-D TVs may change in the future for how they separate the scanning, but for now this is how it's done.

Collapse -
3D is where HDTV was 8 years ago.
by jcrobso / June 23, 2010 7:30 AM PDT
In reply to: Wait to buy a 3D TV?

HDTV was there were many problems to be worked out, the cost was high.
One thing not talked up is the COST of the glasses, they are BIG$$$$$ at this time different companies use different system.
I took the plunge into HDTV when my 14 year old 32" died, if you can wait a little longer for the dust to settle on 3D and see who has the "best" system. Just 3 years ago we had DVD wars going on!

Collapse -
Expensive new equipment really necessary?
by jeremy_coruja / June 24, 2010 5:34 AM PDT
In reply to: Wait to buy a 3D TV?

I saw Avatar in 3D twice at the cinema and was mighty impressed. But I wasn't wearing $300 electronic switching glasses, nor watching on a new-technology screen (that I'm aware of). No, I was wearing cheap (10c a pair?) polarised glasses and watching an image that just had each eye image displayed at the same time. There was no hi-tech syncing and switching going on. And it looked great! Why can't this work on our existing HD TV's?

Is this new 3D technology - with it's ultra-expensive glasses, and requirement to ditch all our current HD equipment and buy new HDTV's AND players - just a cynical ploy by the industry as a whole to milk $1000's more dollars out of consumers? Or are there fundamental technical reasons why what we've all experienced at the cinema can't work at home with our current equipment + cheap pair of glasses and new media? Or is this hi-tech + expensive new technology the industry has decided on way better? I'd be interested to know.

Collapse -
What do you think it costs the cinemas?
by samkh / June 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT
Collapse -
Because polarization requires two projectors with each lens
by minimalist / June 24, 2010 9:50 AM PDT

polarized in a different direction. The theaters suck up the heavy costs in the projection equipment, so the glasses can be cheap and disposable.

That system won;t work with Plasmas and LCD panels. Supposedly the active shutter glasses that pulse the left and right eyes on and off at 60 Hz each are superior to this technology/

But at 300 plus dollars for 2 glasses I'm still not interested. Avatar isn;t worth a new TV when I just got one a year ago and then I still have to shell out for glasses.

Collapse -
I agree...too much money
by Dan Filice / June 24, 2010 10:50 AM PDT

Yes, Avatar was fun to watch in a theater, but to dump my current HD stuff just to get 3-D isn't worth it for me either. I'll go watch 3-D in theaters, and maybe it will make them enough money to stay in business.

As far as the seemingly cheap glasses I wore to see Avatar, yes they were cheap, but I swear my glasses had a larger battery nodule on it to make the shuttering work. But I suppose these glasses are way different than what can be used with 3-D TVs for the home.

Collapse -
My next TV is going to have killer black levels.
by minimalist / June 24, 2010 11:19 AM PDT

If it has 3d then great but PQ and size comes first. 3d ranks somewhere down by "deep color" and gimmicks like "Bravia Connect".... its just another badge that gets lined up at the bottom of the packaging that you'll likely never use or care about.

If you take away the 3D Avatar was passable but certainly nothing I have to own. And studios are already starting to artificially make films 3d after the fact with computer trickery (which is not as good as filming with 3d cameras to begin with). Its not a good sign of things to come if you ask me. Maybe 3d sports will save the technology from being a flash in the pan but I have my doubts even about that.

Collapse -
3D TV can use polarized glasses
by gbiernacki / June 27, 2010 11:43 AM PDT

I was surprised to see a 3D TV flat panel display recently at the JVC stand at CEDIA EXPO 2010 that worked with cheap polarized glasses of the kind used in theaters. Guess this means that polarizing technology can be made to work with flat panel digital displays.

Collapse -
3D on Sony bravia
by Incognito60 / June 29, 2010 12:23 PM PDT

I have a 50 inch Sony Bravia SXRD LCD Rear projection TV and when my grand kids come to stay the first thing they do is grab Spy Kids 3D DVD from my stand and the cheap red/blue cellophane glasses and the silence for the next hour and a half is golden.
Also have Shrek Two in 3D and both DVD's look excellent in 3D on the LCD TV. Why can they not just stay with the two camera technology and transmit this via standard TV transmission protocols as they are now.
Sports events etc only need to be filmed with the two camera option and you have 3D TV beamed straight from the event. All this new 144hz three color option 3D is only to commit the home user into spending money they don't have on some company's monopoly i.e Dolby.

Collapse -
3D-TV Damages eyesight in Children and Adults
by janemarriott / June 27, 2010 12:09 PM PDT
In reply to: Wait to buy a 3D TV?
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

The Samsung RF23M8090SG

One of the best French door fridges we've tested

A good-looking fridge with useful features like an auto-filling water pitcher and a temperature-adjustable "FlexZone" drawer. It was a near-flawless performer in our cooling tests.