how long before the price on these sinks below $1000 for a 40 inch or so??

and is it REALLY worth the money at all?

8/17/2010 5:54:34 PM

fuck no

8/17/2010 6:14:46 PM

see 2nd post

8/17/2010 6:53:28 PM

i would imagine sport broadcasts being pretty awesome in 3D, thats about it though

8/17/2010 7:01:59 PM

what about LED vs. regular LCD

8/17/2010 7:03:12 PM

3D TVs

8/17/2010 9:05:35 PM

more pr0n needs to do 3D, then it will be worth it

8/17/2010 9:35:11 PM

Quote :

"Never use an apostrophe to indicate a plural. The incorrect use of an apostrophe to form the plural is called the greengrocer's apostrophe, since grocers are often the worst (or at least the most visible) offenders. If you have more than one apple, then write apples, not apple's. If you cannot replace the word with "his," "her," "their" or "its" and if it isn't a contraction, then an apostrophe should not be used. People often forget the rules when a word ends in a vowel, such as the word "mango." Many people write "mango's" instead of "mangos" or "mangoes". An exception to this use is in the case of making a single letter plural. Therefore, Why are there so many i's in the word "indivisibility"? is correct. This is simply for clarity reasons, so the reader does not mistake it for the word "is." However, in modern usage, the preference is to avoid inserting an apostrophe and instead surround the single letter in quotation marks before pluralizing it: Why are there so many "I"s in the word "indivisibility"? Similarly, apostrophes can be used when talking about a word (e.g., this list contains a lot of do's and don't's) but quotation marks can make it clearer ("do"s and "don't"s). Making an exception for numbers and abbreviations is not current practice. MLA guidelines suggest that no apostrophe is needed following numbers (as when naming a decade). "I bought many CD's in the 1990's." Incorrect. "I bought many CDs in the 1990s." Correct."

8/17/2010 10:00:28 PM

Avoid this.

8/17/2010 10:48:24 PM

^^TV's 3-D

8/17/2010 11:30:48 PM

Quote :

"more pr0n needs to do 3D, then it will be worth it"

yea if you like dodgin money shots like neo in the matrix

Quote :

"what about LED vs. regular LCD"

depends on the set , most led tvs no only have led back lights which make them a little more efficient and a tiny bit better contrast but doesn't really do much. led tvs with local dimming are nice but still for the $ they still get pooped on by plasma

and as far as 3-d tvs being worth the $

Quote :

"fuck no"

8/17/2010 11:32:37 PM

Quote :

"yea if you like dodgin money shots like neo in the matrix"

ok i laughed pretty hard at that

8/18/2010 12:16:55 AM

Smell-O-Vision

8/18/2010 12:25:36 AM

Kinda off topic but did you hear some guy in Hong Kong is making the first 3d porn to be shown in Imax. A 60 foot dong coming out of the screen does not appeal to me at all.

8/18/2010 9:15:33 AM

Quote :

"Hong Kong"

Quote :

"60 foot dong"

I would expect it to be smaller than your expectations

8/21/2010 5:22:49 PM

Quote :

"what about LED vs. regular LCD"

Yes... I was about to buy an LCD when LED-LCD TV's came out. The difference is huge, and the $$$ margin isn't that big between the two IMO. It's worthwhile to pony up and drop the extra $$$ for LED technology, imo.

8/21/2010 8:46:51 PM

I just got the Samsung 7000 series 50" plasma, with the 3d starter kit for $1699.

Yes, it's absolutely worth it. Samsung televisions have 3D upconversion for 2D sources and it works 1000 times better than you would think. Love the television in 2D, and 3D was honestly absolutely worth the extra 3-400 price premium.

That said, most 3dtv sets are WAY overpriced. The Samsung LCD and LED LCD 3d tvs are all 60-100% more than their non-3d models, which is retarded. Same for Panasonic, LG and Sony.

It's not a gimmick, but it is being marked up a lot right now. The Samsung 50" plasma was almost $1000 cheaper than the 50" LED LCD 3dtv.

8/21/2010 10:00:16 PM

A LOT of people would disagree with ^^

the main difference between a traditional LCD and an LED-LCD is going to be size (depth) and energy use. There won't be much of a difference to the picture unless you get a full-array LCD, which are much more expensive than traditional LCDs and edge lit LED-LCDs. If the cost of an LED LCD is close to a trad. LCD, it's edge lit. Are there benefits, sure... but there really isn't much of a benefit to the picture itself.


I'm not inclined to jump on the 3d stuff myself. I think it's a gimmick in 98% of the stuff that uses 3-d. I can only think of a handful of stuff that I thought it actually added to the movie. And I don't particularly like watching things in 3D.

but most importantly; if you like stuff in 3D, I'd think about how often you'd use the 3D feature? If you think you would use it regularly, maybe it's something to consider. If you'll use it 3 times a year, I think i'd spend my money on other features.



^ so are you watching everything in 3D? what sort of programming?

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2010 10:07:47 PM

I'm not wearing retarded glasses just to watch TV.

8/21/2010 11:36:49 PM

This seems like a pointless gimmick to me.

Until this sort of tech is widespread, you're going to be an early adopter with very little you can do with your fancy new TV.

I'd prefer a 2d picture anyway. What a pain in the ass it would be to put on those glasses any time you wanted to watch TV.

8/22/2010 12:14:43 AM

Quote :

"the main difference between a traditional LCD and an LED-LCD is going to be size (depth) and energy use. There won't be much of a difference to the picture unless you get a full-array LCD, which are much more expensive than traditional LCDs and edge lit LED-LCDs. If the cost of an LED LCD is close to a trad. LCD, it's edge lit. Are there benefits, sure... but there really isn't much of a benefit to the picture itself."

Yes, I did get an edge lit LED-LCD. The contrast ratio is noticable from an LED versus Trad. There was only 1 time that I noticed a "bleed" affect where an LED partially lit up something that should have been black, but I'm not disappointed for the premium price.

8/22/2010 12:24:42 AM

Edge lit led LCDs look like garbage compared to full array local dimming led sets, which both look like nothing special compared to a good traditional set. Like ^^^ said, pretty much the only positive for them is the thin dimensions.

As for myself, I use the 3d glasses for video games (just bought a 360 yesterday), and I use it for tv: top gear, racing, football and soccer.

The glasses are actually pretty comfortable, ad I could give a shit what I look like in my own home.

8/23/2010 11:33:44 AM

My LED looks a lot better than LCD. And it's also "3-D capable"...I just have to buy a $50 "3-D transmitter" and those expensive-ass glasses. Don't think I'll be doing that anytime soon...although I do enjoy a 3-D movie, I'm not paying an extra $300 to watch it.

I'll check out a sports game in them in the next few years when I go to Best Buy...and if it's ridiculous, I'll open the wallet. But if not, I'm fine watching 2-D on an amazing picture.

8/23/2010 12:34:22 PM

^^

the point isn't how you look, it's that you have to take one additional step just to watch TV or play a game. I realize It's novel to you now, and you want to justify your purchase, so I understand your position.

also, what if you have people over? how many pairs of $250 glasses are you going to buy?

I've seen a few of the 3d movies in Imax, and while it's neat, it's just a gimmick. until we get to the point of holographic 3d, I just don't see the draw.

8/23/2010 12:39:21 PM

This may be a silly question, but I haven't followed this tech much.

Is there a standard for the 3-d glasses? For example, can you have a 3-d tv from maker X, buy off-branded glasses and they will work with the transmitter in the TV?

I assume the transmitter does nothing more than tell the glasses which side to shutter. Just wondering if that transmission is in any standard format or not?

8/23/2010 12:41:22 PM

I want to see one in action before I buy... Noen, invite me over

8/23/2010 1:17:50 PM

you in Seattle?

8/23/2010 1:26:49 PM

Good old Raleigh...


Buy me a plane ticket then invite me over

8/23/2010 1:31:11 PM

^^^^^
Given that I watch a grand total of 5-7 hours of television a week, and avg 4-5 hours of video games, I'm perfectly okay with the 10 seconds it takes to push the 3d button on the remote and put on the glasses. And out of that time, maybe 1/3 of it is content worthy of turning on the glasses.

When we have people over, it's not to watch television, so I'm not worried about it. But to answer your question, a two pack of glasses can be gotten now for ~130 bucks, which is still retarded expensive, but not nearly the MSRP price.

I am *really* looking forward to the upcoming Football season though. Sporting events and video games are by far the best content to "up convert".

^^^^
No standard. Every manufacturer has their own glasses and their own transmitters. I do imagine that by the end of the year there will be some "generic" glasses out on the market. They are incredibly simple devices. The only signal sent is the initial synchronization handshake from TV to glasses AFAIK. After that you're right, it's just the glasses shuttering in step with the tv set.

8/23/2010 11:01:40 PM

i didn't realize these things actually shuttered. i just figured it was some sort of polarized lens.

8/23/2010 11:10:02 PM

Ive never looked through a pair, but I assume its a LCD without the backing or something similar, and cycles black and clear at a pretty high rate.

I used the word shutter, which makes you think mechanical, but I didn't mean it that way.

[Edited on August 24, 2010 at 6:20 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2010 6:19:23 AM

^^ The polarized lenses wouldn't work on a TV unless there was some way to change the polarization of the TV screen with every alternating frame.

8/24/2010 10:24:54 AM

So I went into Sears and sat at their Sony 3D station, put on the glasses, and nerded it up for about 5 minutes.

My analysis:

Pros:
Cool concept
Really vivid 3D imagery, especially sports

Cons:
Price is absolutely retarded
You have to wear glasses
Glasses are entirely too big and too expensive
Non 3D TV sucked terribly
There is no way I could watch more than 15 minutes of this without it starting to make me dizzy.


Conclusion: Figure out a way to get rid of the glasses and drop the damn price point. Also, don't charge people for the glasses. If you want 3D to sell, you better include the damn glasses for free.

IMO, this is a neat idea with piss poor execution.

I think I'll pass and wait for the OLED TVs.



[Edited on August 24, 2010 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2010 3:19:43 PM

do they not include at least 1 pair? I assumed it was kind of like a game console, include one controller (glasses in this case) and make the user buy however many more they want.

8/24/2010 4:06:00 PM

Sony doesn't include shit. They charge you like 180 PER set of glasses and their 3DTVs are 70-100% more than their non-3d sets. You know, typical Sony. Also their glasses are double the weight of Samsung or Panasonics 3d glasses. not nearly as comfy.

Samsung you get two pairs of glasses and the 3d blu-ray player for free with the television. I got my 50" 7000 series plasma with glasses and blu-ray player for $1699.

8/24/2010 4:09:50 PM

^Meh, I got a 46" Sony LED, Home Theater System, and Blu-Ray player for $1399...and no interest for 3 years. You can always get deals.

8/24/2010 4:48:34 PM

^What does that have to do with anything? I just said the REGULAR Sony stuff is 1/2 the price of their 3DTVs.

8/24/2010 9:30:44 PM

You were just making a comment about how Sony doesn't include anything and how they are so expensive by countering with with the "great deal" you got on your Samsung.

8/25/2010 9:24:09 AM

his has 3-d up-conversion. i'm assuming your's does not. So the question is whether or not his 3D tv with 2 pairs of glasses for $1699 is a deal compared to a Sony 3D tv with 2 pairs of glasses.

Plus, there's really nothing special about edge-lit LED LCDs.

8/25/2010 10:13:01 AM

BUT I GOT THE FREE HOME THEATER SYSTEM

8/25/2010 3:53:03 PM

and what was that home theater system worth (retail and to the store/manufacturer)?

I do get what you're saying.. they DO actually have deals. But you got a cheap home theater system and a TV that isn't as good as a less expensive plasma.

the problem is that when you buy something like a 3D tv, you expect to be able to use it without shelling out a few hundred more just for you and a friend to be able use the feature that is it's selling feature. The fact that they don't include a single pair of glasses is ridiculous.

[Edited on August 25, 2010 at 4:22 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2010 4:15:13 PM

Quote :

"TV that isn't as good as a less expensive plasma."

I've got a nice Panasonic plasma tv in my bedroom, and my new Sony completely blows it away. Not even close.

I think my Home Theater system was listed at like $300 or $400. I can't remember. All I know is that I saved $800 with all the list prices. I probably could have saved money with any package that I would have bought, or maybe gotten something similar if I had used different brands/products...but that was still the best deal at the time that allowed me the no interest for three years so I didn't have to drop another $1,500 in addition to all the other money I was dropping when I bought my first house this past month.

And I agree that the 3-D stuff is too expensive, and they should definitely throw in at least one pair of glasses. I'm thinking that I either will never want to do the 3-D upgrade, or by the time I want to do it, that they'll have some deals or the prices will have dropped significantly.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2010 10:19:36 AM

Quote :

"55" Sony KDL-55HX800 3D LED Backlit LCD 1080p 240Hz HDTV + BDV-E570 3D Blu-Ray Home Theater + 3D Sync Transmitter + 2 Pairs 3D Glasses $2299 US Appliance has 55" Sony KDL-55HX800 Bravia 3D Edge LED Backlit LCD 1080p 240Hz HDTV + Sony BDV-E570 5.1 Ch. 1000W 3D Blu-Ray Disc Home Theater System + Sony TMRBR100 3D Sync Transmitter + 2x Sony 3D Glasses for $2299 when you follow the instructions below. Shipping is free. Thanks iconian 1. Add 55" Sony KDL-55HX800 to cart 2. Add Sony BDV-E570 cart 3. Add Sony TMRBR100 to cart 4. Add 2x Sony 3D Glasses to cart 5. Proceed to checkout 6. Enter full contact info (name, address, phone number, zip). 7. Total should be $2299 with free shipping Alternatively, you can add 46" Sony KDL-46HX800 3D Edge LED Backlit LCD 1080p 240Hz HDTV along with the other components for $1899 with free shipping. Google Products Price Comparison * Next lowest prices for the items purchased separately: o $2470 for the KDL-55HX800 HDTV o $357 for BDV-E570 o $50 for TMRBR100 o $148 for a pair of TDG-BR100 Specs * Resolution: 1920x1080 * Refresh Rate: 240Hz * Tuners: Clear QAM / ATSC / NTSC * Inputs: o 4x HDMI o 4x Analog Audio Input o 2x Component o 2x Composite o 1x Audio Out o 1x Digital Audio Output o 1x VGA o 1x RF o 1x Ethernet o 1x USB "

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2205066

8/30/2010 11:27:35 AM

This thread title makes me cringe every time I see it. But this deserves to be a part of this discussion:

Video: Toshiba Showcases Glasses-Free 3D Display
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/09/09/video-toshiba-showcases-glasses-free-3d-display/

Toshiba To Sell Glasses-Free 3D REGZA TV In December (In Japan)
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/10/04/toshiba-to-sell-glasses-free-3d-regza-tv-in-december-in-japan/

Granted, the TV looks like crap, but look at the technology moving forward without silly glasses!

Next stop: HoloTVs
Final stop: Holodecks

10/4/2010 6:47:57 AM

Still seems too early to adopt this technology. My wife and I have the possibility of roughly $2000 in the future toward buying a TV (that's the scenario, it's odd but don't question why) and I was thinking of a 3-D tv, but a large LED or plasma seems more worth it. After buying a 3-D tv you still have to buy glasses, a 3-D blue ray player, pay extra for premium channels (ESPN 3-D, etc) and you still don't have enough 3-D content to justify the cost.

Why can't you use 3-D glasses from the movie theater instead of buying the home glasses that cost $Texas??

10/6/2010 3:59:55 AM

^I got my 50" Plasma 3D Samsung for $1699 with two pairs of glasses and 3d blu-ray player. $400 more total than the non-3d model of the same size and specs. Which is about what the glasses+ blu-ray player cost separately.

So no, it's not all that much more money (unless you buy a Sony).

ESPN3D is, at least for comcast, included in ANY digital service. You just have to call and request for them to turn the channel on (took less than 5 minutes total).

The reason you can't use RealD glasses at home is because they use a custom projection system that costs $texas to allow those polarized glasses to work. To use polarized passive glasses at home you would need a dual projector setup. It's not really possible with LCD/LED/Plasma.

I'm still using 3D a couple of days a week. The ESPN3D college game every saturday, and a couple hours of tv/xbox with the 3D upconversion turned on. Still worth it for me.

10/6/2010 4:11:14 AM

my brother got a 3D tv over the summer. it was a samsung, and i want to say it was 63", but i can't remember exactly. we watched the world cup on it. it was pretty amazing. the regular programming was also excellent, so as a regular tv it does the job. the glasses weren't that much of a problem, i think you'd get used to them.

eventually the programming will catch up. i can see this being pretty sweet for almost any sporting event.

10/10/2010 1:05:04 PM