Buying a new TV. Will I regret my purchase if I don't buy a 3D TV?

[austin316]

For the sets/size (55"~60") I'm looking at, adding 3D to my TV is about $400 more. Is it worth the price? I'll use my TV for some movies, but mostly sports and Xbox 360. (and eventually PS4 or the new Xbox).

I'm leaning towards not getting 3D, but don't want to be left out if everyone says that's the only way to watch a movie or sports in the future. Or if say the new game systems are going to have all games support 3D.

 

[ImpulsE69]

No, you won't...however if there's a minimal price differnce (like $50-150), then go ahead and get 3D if you're worried.

 

[Eug]

No. If you're not a big fan of 3D now then don't worry about. I personnally hate 3D, but will admit it's very difficult to find a top tier TV to buy without 3D. However, if you're in the midrange there are lots of good non-3D TVs available.

 

[purbeast0]

it's hard to find a quality new tv that doesn't have 3d now a days. it's definitely gimmicky and i have it on my tv and projector, but really the only things i like watching in 3d are animated movies. regular movies are just okay in 3d, some better than others, depending how they were filmed.

 

[Midwayman]

I'd just watch out and see if the next-gen consoles will be coming out with much 3d gaming content. Movies I could pass. Gaming would be too much to pass on.

 

[Aikouka]

In my experience, the biggest problem with 3D is the price premium that's typically attached with it. It's partly because 3D is common in all the high-end TVs, but even in the middle-range TVs, it's cheaper to buy a standard TV. You can probably find some really good deals on a 3D TV if you'd like to get one, but keep in mind that your entire setup will need to be 3D compliant. If you have an older receiver, 3D will not work with some devices as they require the 3D flag set in HDMI's EDID info. Although, cable should theoretically work as it's just using top-bottom.

One thing that I find interesting is that I can use my passive TV to turn split-screen games into full-screen (LG calls this Dual Play). Although, I tried it with Sonic All-Star Racing Transformed, and while it worked, there was definitely cross-talk. That might be an issue with my cheaper TV that doesn't actually advertise the feature (it works with any passive TV though) or that the game needs to really tailor the output to work properly. To my knowledge, the only game compatible with LG's Dual Play is Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.

 

[Eug]

The problem with 3D is several fold:

1) It gives me a massive headache.
2) It looks fake.
3) It gives me a massive headache.
4) It's dim.
5) It gives me a massive headache.
6) I can see the the interlacing.
7) It gives me a massive headache.
8) I wear glasses, so adding 3D glasses means I have to wear two pairs of glasses.
9) It gives me a massive headache.
10) It's expensive.
11) It gives me a massive headache.

Also, did I mention it gives me a massive headache.

 

[JackBurton]

I would get it, especially if you are looking forward to getting a PS4. A 3D TV not only gives you the option to watch 3D movies and play games in 3D, it will also give you the ability to play to head-to-head games locally without doing split screen. Basically each player (2 player game) will have a full screen view of the game. Definitely a nice option (I hate split screen).

Remember, you're buying this TV for years to come. I wouldn't cripple it right out of the gate.

 

[Aikouka]

8) I wear glasses, so adding 3D glasses means I have to wear two pairs of glasses.

That's one nice advantage of passive glasses, as you can wear these sexy things. Not only will you have 3D without an extra pair of glasses, but you'll also attract all the fine women!

To note, I linked to the individual product, which is really overpriced. It's far cheaper to buy the six-pair pack, which has two of those. Although, I haven't compared the individual one and the six-pair pack to see if they are the exact same.

I would get it, especially if you are looking forward to getting a PS4. A 3D TV not only gives you the option to watch 3D movies and play games in 3D, it will also give you the ability to play to head-to-head games locally without doing split screen. Basically each player (2 player game) will have a full screen view of the game. Definitely a nice option (I hate split screen).

Remember, you're buying this TV for years to come. I wouldn't cripple it right out of the gate.

I haven't seen any active 3D TVs that offer it outside of Sony's tiny TV. Are they common at all? I'm assuming that just like passive TVs, it would require another pair of glasses that was all off or all on rather than swapping eyes. It is possible to try it without any special glasses by simply turning top-bottom 3D mode on and closing an eye to block out the other player. Hmm... I'm actually tempted to try that tonight.

Also, keep in mind that Sony stated that they aren't that focused on 3D anymore.

 

[Number1]

I recently bought a 60" TV and did not consider getting the 3D version at the time.
After having seen a decent 3D TV at the store I now regret my decision. It does has this wow factor.
It might not be something you will use often but for those special occasions it's well worth it.
Bottom line, get 3D if you can afford it. It takes nothing away from the 2D experience and it's there if you want it.

And don't forget that the peripherals like your receiver, BD players and HDMI cables also have to be 3D compatible.

 

[purbeast0]

i will say that i have an active 3d tv, and i have seen a passive 3d tv, and the passive 3d is terrible compared to active.

 

[homebrew2ny]

Although I do not use it hardly as much as I should/could, the very first time I fired up PS3's Uncharted 3 in 3D (active via Samsung 3D) I knew it was well worth it and then some. I'll probably only use it a handful of times a year, but each time I do, everyone involved is blown away and I know I made a good choice getting it.

EDIT: And although I read about some with head ache issues, I never came across anyone in person yet with this seemingly rare infliction.

 

[Aikouka]

i will say that i have an active 3d tv, and i have seen a passive 3d tv, and the passive 3d is terrible compared to active.

As someone that owns both types of 3D TVs, I have to question your assertion here because I have no qualms with passive 3D at all. I'm betting that you saw it with a poor setup, which is why you think it's "terrible." Let me guess... you watched it off the vertical axis and saw issues with cross-talk? Sat way too close and saw slight interpolation?

I sit about 8-9 feet from my passive TV and about 12 feet from my active TV with my head looking straight on at the correct vertical placement, and they both look fine. However, I'm sick and tired of dealing with the very uncomfortable active 3D glasses, which is why I'm switching to all passive 3D. As a user of glasses, being able to use clip-ons is freakin' awesome.

EDIT:

Also, keep in mind that most issues with passive 3D only exist in the panel-based implementations. Consumer-grade passive projectors already exist and suffer none of the downsides of passive LCDs. Their only downfall is the price tag, but hell... if you want a big screen, it's actually cheaper.

 

[Railgun]

I don't know if the current generation of sets still follow this, but some 3D displays use better panels than the non-3D variant. It's also suggested that they use better processors which should improve the 2D image.

That said, when you lock into a particular type and brand, then you can dig in to see if there are any differences.

 

[purbeast0]

As someone that owns both types of 3D TVs, I have to question your assertion here because I have no qualms with passive 3D at all. I'm betting that you saw it with a poor setup, which is why you think it's "terrible." Let me guess... you watched it off the vertical axis and saw issues with cross-talk? Sat way too close and saw slight interpolation?

I sit about 8-9 feet from my passive TV and about 12 feet from my active TV with my head looking straight on at the correct vertical placement, and they both look fine. However, I'm sick and tired of dealing with the very uncomfortable active 3D glasses, which is why I'm switching to all passive 3D. As a user of glasses, being able to use clip-ons is freakin' awesome.

EDIT:

Also, keep in mind that most issues with passive 3D only exist in the panel-based implementations. Consumer-grade passive projectors already exist and suffer none of the downsides of passive LCDs. Their only downfall is the price tag, but hell... if you want a big screen, it's actually cheaper.

i was sitting normal viewing distance. it was a 65" screen with passive that i was watching, sitting probably 10-11 feet away. it just looked washed out and the 3d effect was not nearly as apparent as the 3d on my active tv.

granted, it is some lg tv that the guy paid like $1500 for so maybe it is a lower end tv i'm not sure. i paid more than that for my 60" st50.

but from my personal experience, as i mentioned it was and wasn't fact, passive looked terrible compared to passive. it just did not have the 3d pop out effect that compared to my tv.

stop getting your panties in a bunch

 

[Aikouka]

i was sitting normal viewing distance. it was a 65" screen with passive that i was watching, sitting probably 10-11 feet away. it just looked washed out and the 3d effect was not nearly as apparent as the 3d on my active tv.

granted, it is some lg tv that the guy paid like $1500 for so maybe it is a lower end tv i'm not sure. i paid more than that for my 60" st50.

Okay, I was trying to make sure you didn't see it at your local Best Buy and immediately write it off. Since you said it's 65" and it's a LG, then it's most likely the 65LM6200 as that's LG's only 3D-capable 65" LCD from 2012. Well, at least according to Amazon's breakdown that they show on any LG LCD product page. Was there a lot of ambient light? When I read a bit about Vizio's TVs, I read that some of LG's patterned retarders (the layer that creates the passive 3D effect) has a glassy look, which will cause a lot of reflection. Apparently, even Vizio's upcoming M-series will have a glossy one on everything below the 70" model.

but from my personal experience, as i mentioned it was and wasn't fact, passive looked terrible compared to passive. it just did not have the 3d pop out effect that compared to my tv.

stop getting your panties in a bunch

He might have adjusted the 3D distance setting or your TV might have a higher 3D distance. Personally, I've noticed more pop-out from my LG 47LM4700 (passive) vs. Mitsubishi WD65C9 (active), but I've never been the type to really notice a lot of 3D effects anyway.

Honestly, I just get a bit tired of seeing "hur hur passive sux" whenever I see anything about a passive 3D TV because they never give a reason for it. I think it's amusing to see people talk about it only being half the resolution when that only affects full-frame 3D transmission methods (i.e. frame packing). So, if you turn on ESPN 3D, which is top-bottom, you're already getting 1920x540 per eye anyway. I could see the glossy issue with the screen being a problem as my screen is really reflective.

 

[dagamer34]

Thing is, any high end TV will have 3D built into it, so there are other features you are missing anyway.

Also, a 3D TV, even if you never used 3D, will have better 2D processing than a 2D TV.

 

[Midwayman]

Also, keep in mind that Sony stated that they aren't that focused on 3D anymore.

True, but if MS makes a push for 3d games, The sony ports will support it as well. Even if its only a few games its a worthwhile feature to have considering its not much additional cost now and how often people tend to buy TVs.

 

[purbeast0]

i personally can't stand 3d gaming right now because it ads too much input delay. i've tried a few games and i think it is just a limitation of the tech right now. tried it on both my st50 and projector, both of which are virtually lagless in 2d.

 

[Matt1970]

The problem with 3D is several fold:

1) It gives me a massive headache.
2) It looks fake.
3) It gives me a massive headache.
4) It's dim.
5) It gives me a massive headache.
6) I can see the the interlacing.
7) It gives me a massive headache.
8) I wear glasses, so adding 3D glasses means I have to wear two pairs of glasses.
9) It gives me a massive headache.
10) It's expensive.
11) It gives me a massive headache.

Also, did I mention it gives me a massive headache.

Thiis. Plus it gives me a massive headache

 

[Aikouka]

i personally can't stand 3d gaming right now because it ads too much input delay. i've tried a few games and i think it is just a limitation of the tech right now. tried it on both my st50 and projector, both of which are virtually lagless in 2d.

Honestly, I've never really noticed any sort of delay, but I don't play that many console 3D games. My go-to-game for 3D gaming is actually Super Stardust HD on my PS3... mostly because I don't need a disc for it. Is the delay significant?

What about with PC gaming? Does the PC's use of alternate frame sequencing help it at all? I've only ever played Trine 2 and Sonic Generations on my PC in 3D, and they seemed fine.

Thing is, any high end TV will have 3D built into it, so there are other features you are missing anyway.

Also, a 3D TV, even if you never used 3D, will have better 2D processing than a 2D TV.

Don't people -- well, gamers -- usually want to avoid any extra processing on an image prior to it being displayed?

 

[HeXen]

Trine 2 is seriously the only game that i found impressive in 3D. Overally i say no, not until they can completely rid of ghosting 100% from edge to edge.
Definitely never for active glasses, damn those things are uncomfortable, especially if you actually wear glasses, putting those on over glasses is torture, without them it's still no fun.

For me, 3D was kinda a gimmick as after i used it for some movies and games, after a while i just stopped using them completely, like i feel it's not worth the bother to even get the glasses on. Shame too cause at first i really liked 3D, then it was ho hum, later it was just meh, now i'm like pffff

 

[boomhower]

Nope, tech is still way to young.

 

[Durvelle27]

i will say that i have an active 3d tv, and i have seen a passive 3d tv, and the passive 3d is terrible compared to active.

i have to to disagree passive doesn't look bad at all just doesn't give the kind of deep effects like Active does

 

[poofyhairguy]

I have two large (50 and 65 inches) 3D TVs and I only use the 3D to show off to people when they come over. Seriously. And I have a LOT of 3D content. 24p 3D just sucks. The Hobbit HFR at 48p showed us all what 3D should have been from the start.

With that said, when I got my 65inch one recently I didn't care about 3D as a feature for the aforementioned reason but it seemed like all the quality TVs that size had 3D.