AVS Forum banner
516 views 2 replies 3 participants last post by  Otto Pylot 
#1 ·
So I read different things on the internet and hear things from sales people. But my direct question is, how much better is getting a 3d TV for images when you just watch 2d movies and shows? From what I am told, the processing for 3d takes more and even if you have a 3d without using it, but only viewing 2d shows, the experience should be much better. Can some of you please comment on what you found to be true? If true, the price point for 3d is higher than 2d, albeit even just a small amount compared to the overall picture. But nevertheless, if one viewing 2d only, is it warranted?


Thanks much for any and all input you can provide.
 
#2 ·
Short answer: No, it's irrelevant.


Pretty much all upper-tier and most mid-tier sets have 3D. So your premise is true only in the sense that you'd probably be comparing one to a lower-tier non 3D TV.


The exceptions are getting hard to find, it seems to me. Sharp still offers a mid-tier non-3D set, the 650U, for instance.


I bought a 65" LG 65LW6500 passive 3D set about a year and a half ago. Then a Sharp 70" 640U (the 650's predecessor), a month ago. The Sharp has a noticeably better native contrast ratio (2,200:1 vs 1,600:1) than the LG, and without going into further detail, overall a better picture, IMO.


I confess I got the (non-3D) Sharp mainly for the matte screen, since the LG is a real mirror, and has been relegated to the living room. Since Sharp 3D TVs are active 3D only, I passed on the step-up models, due to my dislike of active.


Please pardon the long-winded response.



Good luck whatever you get.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top