or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Which one is best 3D TV?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which one is best 3D TV?

post #1 of 93
Thread Starter 
Hi everyone,
I am a big fan of 3D movies, i used to go cinema every week for watching movies in amazing 3D.
It costs so much, now decided to buy a 3D TV. Can anyone tell me which TV is best and cheap as well. I am a student, so don't have enough pounds.
post #2 of 93
Lg dm2350.
post #3 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsungue46 View Post

Hi everyone,
I am a big fan of 3D movies, i used to go cinema every week for watching movies in amazing 3D.
It costs so much, now decided to buy a 3D TV. Can anyone tell me which TV is best and cheap as well. I am a student, so don't have enough pounds.

3D TV? Hmm. I have a Panasonic plasma and the 3D is great but its not the best. The best 3D I have seen so far is probably the (LG 55LM9600-- not out right now but I am going to get one from LG (cuz im cool like that) probably next week. I'm going to do a review on it and will post a vid so you can see.

Out of the 2011 models, 3D >> performance and price factored in, I would say the 47 LG LW6500. Thats only for 47" and under though for the passives for 2011 models. 55" and bigger I would definitely say the Panasonic VT50.

If you have loot get the LG OLED TV, which I'm sure will have the best 3D ever IMO.

If not: LG LM9600 (2012 model), Panasonic VT50 (2011 model), LG 47" LW6500 (2011 model).
post #4 of 93
Stay away from passive 3d. Look into Samsung tv's.
post #5 of 93
DLP based displays in my opinion are still the best home 3D and by a wide margine too.
post #6 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino the tv guy View Post

Stay away from passive 3d. Look into Samsung tv's.

+1

I've been very happy with the 3D and the 2D pictures on my new Samsung 3D HDTV.
post #7 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino the tv guy View Post

Stay away from passive 3d. Look into Samsung tv's.

What is wrong with passive? I have the LG 5600 & I am very satisfied. I have watched Samsung with the expensive active glasses & I prefer the LG.
post #8 of 93
Yeah, I have a passive Toshiba TV myself, and I haven't found anything wrong with this so far... In fact, the only time I'll be using an active pair of glasses is with an nVidia 3D Vision kit, and that'll be for PC and PS3 gaming, and possibly 3D Blu-ray as well.
post #9 of 93
I also have a Toshiba Passive 3D HDTV and the 3D is just incredible. I would NEVER go with Active. The advantages clearly lie with Passive. And more manufactures will be bringing out Passive sets as well. Don't listen to Gino The TV Guy. He needs to do his homework.
post #10 of 93
You are going to see people think passive is better and some think active is better. Do what I did and do the comparisons yourself. I went to Best Buy and looked at Samsung, Sony, Panasonic and LG 3d demos extensively. To my eyes the passive from LG was better. It also had the brighter picture along with it being cheaper.
post #11 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssgmun5000 View Post

You are going to see people think passive is better and some think active is better. Do what I did and do the comparisons yourself. I went to Best Buy and looked at Samsung, Sony, Panasonic and LG 3d demos extensively. To my eyes the passive from LG was better. It also had the brighter picture along with it being cheaper.

The Bestbuy display favors LG because the video displayed isn't 1080p. Therefore it diminishes the resolution difference between active and passive. Be sure to look at an active display that is showing 1080p then make your decision.

The BB display has four TV's mounted with two pair back to back with fixed glasses. That's the display showing a low definition video in the three active models. Therefore they have jaggies like the passive display.

They also have Samsung lite weight 3d active glasses that are RF and only $29.95.
post #12 of 93
Whichever one you buy, it will be the best. Pretty much all you will get here is "buy the one I did" and each has its merits, depending on an individual's tastes and needs. I prefer DLP for no ghosting, and a size that is perfect for 3D.

One can get them in sizes from 73"-92" with street prices around $1300-$4000, but I've seen 73" for under $1000 on sale, and under $700 on Black Friday. Dell has them on sale sometimes, starting under $1000 depending on model and features. I don't believe they are available in Britain, however.

And I love this ad, it says it all.

post #13 of 93
Mitsubishi forgot to mention some people, like me, see rainbows with DLP. Also theaters use 3 chip DLP so that is misleading. This is a student who wants cheap, that's the LG DM2350.
post #14 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Pretty much all you will get here is "buy the one I did"

Excellent point and oh so true.
post #15 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino the tv guy View Post

Stay away from passive 3d. Look into Samsung tv's.

I own a Samsung plasma and I say go with the LG, I also have a dual stack 3D projector setup so 3D is pretty important to me and the next TV i buy will be passive
post #16 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcguire525 View Post

I own a Samsung plasma and I say go with the LG, I also have a dual stack 3D projector setup so 3D is pretty important to me and the next TV i buy will be passive

It's funny, people who jump ship like this, it's almost always their second/lower end TV that they have a lower financial and emotional tie to.
post #17 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post


It's funny, people who jump ship like this, it's almost always their second/lower end TV that they have a lower financial and emotional tie to.

Jump ship? Please expand? Also price and quality aren't always synonymous. Just like people who pay upwards of $50-$100 for an HDMI cable. I am using the $2 special from Frys, and I can GUARANTEE you my picture and sound are identical to the pic and sound generated by a $99 Monster brand cable
post #18 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gino the tv guy View Post

Stay away from passive 3d. Look into Samsung tv's.

While your loyalty to Samsung is great, dont be surprised by years end when Samsung goes passive too.

If you truly enjoy and know anything about 3d displays, then you know, the first mistake the tv manufacturers made regarding 3d was not to go with inexpensive passive technology from the beginning. Powered 3d may be responsible for the slow adoption rate of 3d technology.

However, without a lot of research, I probably would have agreed with you three weeks ago.
post #19 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

While your loyalty to Samsung is great, dont be surprised by years end when Samsung goes passive too.

If you truly enjoy and know anything about 3d displays, then you know, the first mistake the tv manufacturers made regarding 3d was not to go with inexpensive passive technology from the beginning. Powered 3d may be responsible for the slow adoption rate of 3d technology.

However, without a lot of research, I probably would have agreed with you three weeks ago.

Do you work for LG?
post #20 of 93
No, he's just new to 3D. Bought a passive set a week or so ago, and like I said is rooting for the home team.

Doesn't realize some of us have had 3D sets for 3-4 years and have done our homework long before he started shopping.
post #21 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

[snip]...If you truly enjoy and know anything about 3d displays, then you know, the first mistake the tv manufacturers made regarding 3d was not to go with inexpensive passive technology from the beginning...

I don't know, $1000 street for a 47" Vizio E3D470VX (Wonka's TV) doesn't seem so inexpensive when one can pick up a 73" DLP for about the same money. (my ex wife recently got a 73" for under $1000)

A 73" TV has over two times (2.41) the viewing area of a 47" TV, so a 47" should cost about $400 to be even comparable in price, let alone less expensive. One could buy a lot of active glasses for the $600 difference, instead of spending it on passive technology.

A 55" LG passive is going for around $2000 on amazon. Twice the price for a little over half (56%) of the viewing area. One could get an 82" DLP for less than that price. 82" of 3D heaven!

Not all people want a large screen TV, however, so it's perfectly okay to buy a smaller TV if that's what one wants, but don't say it's inexpensive technology.
post #22 of 93
My daughter asked me to help her find a new TV so I came to the Forum.
The first thing I noticed is I did not find a topic on LED TV's. LCD's were there but then I wandered down to 3D section.

I see when surfing on places like Cnet TV's mentioned like Samsung 2D...3D.

I don't want to direct her to technology that won't catch on in the future (I remember 60 years ago Motorola had phonovision) but want her to have a good big screen TV.

Please help
post #23 of 93
An LED is an LCD TV just using LED as a backlight system instead of flourecent tubes. The LEDs discussed in the Display section under the LCD category.
post #24 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by generallee View Post

My daughter asked me to help her find a new TV so I came to the Forum.
The first thing I noticed is I did not find a topic on LED TV's. LCD's were there but then I wandered down to 3D section.

I see when surfing on places like Cnet TV's mentioned like Samsung 2D...3D.

I don't want to direct her to technology that won't catch on in the future (I remember 60 years ago Motorola had phonovision) but want her to have a good big screen TV.

Please help

The TVs are still good even if 3D died today. They work with both 2D and 3D, not just the latter.
post #25 of 93
This is in response to multiple posts since my last post. And no I don't work for LG I actually bought a cheap ass vizio. And i didnt pay anywhere near retail for it. I didnt need a tv so only way I was able to get my 3d tv was to be a smart shopper and get it relatively inexpensive as I am not wealthy but enjoy ALL NEW technology. I would have went with either technology that I could have afforded. Problem is now, unless your buying a high end Samsung no one is giving powered glasses away. And yes if money is no object to you, by all means get a Sony or a Samsung. I have a Samsung plasma that I purchased in 05 and it still looks amazing and I wilk put its image quality at 720p plasma up against even new televisions, so if you have the money, by all means get a Samsung 3d tv. My point is and even if I had unlimited income, I would still consider going with passive technology after viewing both. For one if I would have bought the Panasonic plasma which was comparable in price to the Vizio I purchased, i would have apparently had a problem even getting glasses for it. I used to be a manager at a movie theater and the day I got my 3d tv, my friend who is still a GM for Cinemark theaters came over to check it out, and we both agreed this cheap ass vizio had as good if not better 3d picture then what is being projected on the screens at his theater. I am not saying NOT TO BUY powered, I just truly believe that is the technology that can go to the masses is going to be a passive technology. The nicest thing about the situation is he gave me 10 pairs of Real D 3d glasses that work on the tv. That would have ran me somewhere between $300 and $1300 if I would have went with a Samsung. That is between $300 and $1300 i could use to add another 3d tv to another room or even on 3d blu rays. So yeah buy the Samsung if money isnt an issue or it makes your ego feel better, but if you want value start looking at the Vizios and the LG 3d sets. In regards to DLP. I do not want to have to buy a new bulb if it breaks at an inopportune time, but yes that tv is basically using the same tech as theaters use to get a giant picture and it does have great value on giant screens. But if I wanted that type of technology on a giant screen, I would probably go with a 2k projector and a silver screen.
post #26 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

This is in response to multiple posts since my last post. And no I don't work for LG I actually bought a cheap ass vizio. And i didnt pay anywhere near retail for it. I didnt need a tv so only way I was able to get my 3d tv was to be a smart shopper and get it relatively inexpensive as I am not wealthy but enjoy ALL NEW technology. I would have went with either technology that I could have afforded. Problem is now, unless your buying a high end Samsung no one is giving powered glasses away. And yes if money is no object to you, by all means get a Sony or a Samsung. I have a Samsung plasma that I purchased in 05 and it still looks amazing and I wilk put its image quality at 720p plasma up against even new televisions, so if you have the money, by all means get a Samsung 3d tv. My point is and even if I had unlimited income, I would still consider going with passive technology after viewing both. For one if I would have bought the Panasonic plasma which was comparable in price to the Vizio I purchased, i would have apparently had a problem even getting glasses for it. I used to be a manager at a movie theater and the day I got my 3d tv, my friend who is still a GM for Cinemark theaters came over to check it out, and we both agreed this cheap ass vizio had as good if not better 3d picture then what is being projected on the screens at his theater. I am not saying NOT TO BUY powered, I just truly believe that is the technology that can go to the masses is going to be a passive technology. The nicest thing about the situation is he gave me 10 pairs of Real D 3d glasses that work on the tv. That would have ran me somewhere between $300 and $1300 if I would have went with a Samsung. That is between $300 and $1300 i could use to add another 3d tv to another room or even on 3d blu rays. So yeah buy the Samsung if money isnt an issue or it makes your ego feel better, but if you want value start looking at the Vizios and the LG 3d sets. In regards to DLP. I do not want to have to buy a new bulb if it breaks at an inopportune time, but yes that tv is basically using the same tech as theaters use to get a giant picture and it does have great value on giant screens. But if I was wanted that type of technology I would probably go with a 2k projector and a silver screen.

You would have gone for the $300. Why even mention the highest possible price you can pay. you can probably buy a $1000 display for $3000 somewhere but no one with any brains would do it. There are great deals in plasma displays out there with plenty of value.
post #27 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

It's funny, people who jump ship like this, it's almost always their second/lower end TV that they have a lower financial and emotional tie to.

Jump ship really? Samsung signed on with RealD to do passive TV's so I may get that when it comes out. I'm a college student and the Samsung 50 3D plasma is the only TV in my house besides the projectors so please tell me how I have a lower financial tie to it.
post #28 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcguire525 View Post

Jump ship really? Samsung signed on with RealD to do passive TV's so I may get that when it comes out. I'm a college student and the Samsung 50 3D plasma is the only TV in my house besides the projectors so please tell me how I have a lower financial tie to it.

Aren't the projectors more expensive than the Samsung? Let's not get irate.
I was just trying to make the point that most people arguing about 3d display tech are really defending, sometimes blindly, the display they spent their money on. They will not accept a negative comment on it. So I was just saying that you are probably more apt to switch technology because you're not as heavily invested in your Samsung as you are about your projectors. I guess it wasn't a great point and your situation isn't a good example of my point. You just seem like you were trying to refute the point that people will defend what they purchased no matter what. Others have said that's true. It's kind of obvious and it goes both ways. If you have active you'll defend it. If you have passive you'll defend it.
post #29 of 93
I do love the old school DLP's, and I've grown quite fond of passives as well. If anyone combines the two with the best of both worlds, I'll be a loyal customer indeed.
post #30 of 93
We have done so many 3D screenings now... Lots and lots of different people.

All I can say? Most on here must be way way picky compared to just about anybody you meet or know that you would invite to a movie screening in your theater.

There are no active -vs- passive debates, no this or that PQ issues, no complaints about the glasses, no head aches reported, no "I just can't see the 3D effect", ect..ect..ect.....

Just pure 3D enjoyment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Which one is best 3D TV?