2D and 3D TVs w/ similar specs. Which is better? Does being 3D capable reduce quality

[Leros]

I'm comparing the LG 55LS4500 and the LG 55LM4600.

Both are 55" 120Hz edge lit LED tvs. The main differences that I see:

55LS4500
- not 3D capable
- 2 HDMI
- $850 at Best Buy

55LM4600
- 3D capable
- 3 HDMI
- $900 at Best Buy or $800 at Wal-Mart

I have no interest in 3D content. I can save $50 and get an extra HDMI port by going with the 3D capable screen, but will it be lower quality for 2D content than the non-3D capable screen?

[Durvelle27]

got for the 3D tv. the image quality for 2D content would be about the same and you get the added bonus of 3D.

If your worried just make a trip down to best buy and look at both sets and compare for yourself the make the decision

[Gintaras]

Originally Posted by Leros

I'm comparing the LG 55LS4500 and the LG 55LM4600.

Both are 55" 120Hz edge lit LED tvs. The main differences that I see:

55LS4500
- not 3D capable
- 2 HDMI
- $850 at Best Buy

55LM4600
- 3D capable
- 3 HDMI
- $900 at Best Buy or $800 at Wal-Mart

I have no interest in 3D content. I can save $50 and get an extra HDMI port by going with the 3D capable screen, but will it be lower quality for 2D content than the non-3D capable screen?

Better worry about - is it edge-lit or back-lit LED, not 2D or 4D.....

[Leros]

Originally Posted by Gintaras

Better worry about - is it edge-lit or back-lit LED, not 2D or 4D.....

It seems like back-lit is too costly for my budget range (55" for <= $1k), so I'm not going to worry about it.

From the little reading I've done, it seems like one of the main drawbacks to edge lit LEDs is that it looks bad from an angle. The way my room is laid out, the tv will only be looked at from straight on.

[Aikouka]

One thing I noticed is that the 55LM4600 appears to use passive 3D. The type of glasses are a pretty good indicator or just seeing whether any are included. No cheap TV is going to include four pairs of active shutter 3D glasses.

Anyway, to my knowledge, passive 3D only provides half-resolution per eye. Although, I'm not sure if this has changed at any point. To note, this is only true for TVs as theaters do not have that "problem" with their passive 3D implementation.

EDIT:

This is really just for your knowledge. I doubt that you will really mind the "technically worse" 3D. Hell, you might enjoy the fact that the glasses are lighter than the active shutter variant!

[Durvelle27]

Originally Posted by Aikouka

One thing I noticed is that the 55LM4600 appears to use passive 3D. The type of glasses are a pretty good indicator or just seeing whether any are included. No cheap TV is going to include four pairs of active shutter 3D glasses.

Anyway, to my knowledge, passive 3D only provides half-resolution per eye. Although, I'm not sure if this has changed at any point. To note, this is only true for TVs as theaters do not have that "problem" with their passive 3D implementation.

EDIT:

This is really just for your knowledge. I doubt that you will really mind the "technically worse" 3D. Hell, you might enjoy the fact that the glasses are lighter than the active shutter variant!

I wouldn't say worse as i have both types of 3D active and passive

Active

- Harder On the eyes
- Makes images darker
- Heavy glasses
- have to always charger glasses as they don't last very long
- expensive glasses $100-$200
etc

Passive

- Light glasses
- easier on the eyes
- images are much brighter
- cheap glasses can even use glasses from the theater
- 3D depth isn't deep as active but still looks amazing


Both are great and i wouldn't consider either bad. some ppl may prefer passive and others active. like my mother hates the shutter glasses as she says it makes her head hurt but she loves passive. So i wouldn't say the worst 3D

[Leros]

Considering that I don't plan on watching any 3D content, it doesn't really bother me. The 3D is a nice bonus feature, but I'll probably never seriously use it so its wasn't worth paying extra for a good 3D experience.

[purbeast0]

Originally Posted by Leros

Considering that I don't plan on watching any 3D content, it doesn't really bother me. The 3D is a nice bonus feature, but I'll probably never seriously use it so its wasn't worth paying extra for a good 3D experience.

you say that, but you will check out 3d stuff just to see how it looks. happens to all of us!

[Leros]

Originally Posted by purbeast0

you say that, but you will check out 3d stuff just to see how it looks. happens to all of us!

Probably true, but I don't enjoy 3D in theaters, so I don't think I'll enjoy it at home either.

[lupi]

I've got 2 3d tvs, mainly because the top tier 2ds now have 3d as a standard feature.

[Pacfanweb]

Originally Posted by lupi

I've got 2 3d tvs, mainly because the top tier 2ds now have 3d as a standard feature.

This. The manufacturers are making their top-shelf sets 3D. So if you buy the 2D version, it won't look quite as good in 2D as the 3D set will in 2D.

[Aikouka]

Originally Posted by Durvelle27

I wouldn't say worse as i have both types of 3D active and passive

I really just meant worse as in reduced image quality, but chances are most people will not notice much if any difference.

My active shutter glasses actually press against the side of my head quite a bit. I was watching Finding Nemo 3D the other night, and after about an hour, I kept fiddling with the glasses to make them more comfortable. It doesn't help that DLP Link glasses are recommended as my Mitsubishi WD65C9 has DLP Link functionality built-in, but it cannot be turned off. DLP Link glasses aren't terribly common, and I tend to use these: http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-BG-ZD10...dp/B003Q96CCC/

Originally Posted by purbeast0

you say that, but you will check out 3d stuff just to see how it looks. happens to all of us!

My biggest problem with 3D is just that the content is too expensive. The difference in price between a 2D Blu-Ray and 3D Blu-Ray release is typically around $10, and it can become even higher when you include how 2D releases seem to go on sale much more often and for steeper discounts than the 3D brethren. I paid $22 for Finding Nemo 3D at Target, but I could have paid $12 for the 2D version.

[purbeast0]

Originally Posted by Aikouka

My biggest problem with 3D is just that the content is too expensive. The difference in price between a 2D Blu-Ray and 3D Blu-Ray release is typically around $10, and it can become even higher when you include how 2D releases seem to go on sale much more often and for steeper discounts than the 3D brethren. I paid $22 for Finding Nemo 3D at Target, but I could have paid $12 for the 2D version.

hasnt the 2d version of nemo been out for years?

[Durvelle27]

Originally Posted by Aikouka

I really just meant worse as in reduced image quality, but chances are most people will not notice much if any difference.

My active shutter glasses actually press against the side of my head quite a bit. I was watching Finding Nemo 3D the other night, and after about an hour, I kept fiddling with the glasses to make them more comfortable. It doesn't help that DLP Link glasses are recommended as my Mitsubishi WD65C9 has DLP Link functionality built-in, but it cannot be turned off. DLP Link glasses aren't terribly common, and I tend to use these: http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-BG-ZD10...dp/B003Q96CCC/



My biggest problem with 3D is just that the content is too expensive. The difference in price between a 2D Blu-Ray and 3D Blu-Ray release is typically around $10, and it can become even higher when you include how 2D releases seem to go on sale much more often and for steeper discounts than the 3D brethren. I paid $22 for Finding Nemo 3D at Target, but I could have paid $12 for the 2D version.

I use these Active 3D Glasses

http://www.ebay.com/itm/180922277636...84.m1438.l2649

[hawtdawg]

3D is not something you really pay extra for. It's basically a free benefit of better image processing. So if a set is 3D capable, that means that it's going to be a better TV than one that isn't. This is why the glasses are always sold separately, that's where the added expense comes from.