3D TV

yamiiguy · Post by **yamiiguy** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:31 pm

Anybody planning on purchasing a 3D TV this year? I'm sorely tempted but until there's one about 27" and under £500 then no dice.

The_Iceflash · Post by **The_Iceflash** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:29 pm

No. Absolutely not.

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:55 pm

I cant afford one, and Ive only just got my first HD set about 2 years ago. and I have a feeling the technology could imrpove a lot in the comming year er so, so I dont think I want to be too early of an adopter for this. and I need to see the selection grow too. I mean, all i can see on the horizon is Beauty and the beast and Avatar. am I missing anything else? the toy stories will probably get released too, but that could be ways off.

ajmrowland · Post by **ajmrowland** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:12 pm

No. it'll completely fail this year.

Speaking of predictions, I must go check that site for updates.

IagoZazu · Post by **IagoZazu** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:03 pm

No. I still don't understand all the hype.

DarthPrime · Post by **DarthPrime** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:59 pm

ajmrowland wrote:No. it'll completely fail this year.

I'm thinking the same thing. Anyway I have no plans to buy one.

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:08 pm

I was albe to check out 3D TV not too long ago at the Sony store at the King of Prussia mall, near Philadelphia. It was pretty cool, yeah you have to wear the glasses. The guy couldn't tell me how much it was because it was a prototype hooked up to a modified PS3. The program they were playing was...Wheel of Fortune.

They could have picked something a bit more impressive but it was cool. I wouldn't want to watch all tv that way but the occaisional movie would look good. Or those first person shooter games. They'd be pretty intense in 3D.

DarthPrime · Post by **DarthPrime** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:35 pm

Saw the Samsung TVs in the local ads this week. Looks like they are between $2300 and $3000 depending on size. The stores were giving out 2 pairs of glasses and Monsters versus Aliens in Blu-ray 3D if you bought the Samsung player with the TV. The player was $350.

The price of the glasses are pretty high. From what I've seen they are $150 to $200 a pair.

Elladorine · Post by **Elladorine** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:50 pm

DarthPrime wrote:The price of the glasses are pretty high. From what I've seen they are $150 to $200 a pair.

Wow, are the glasses polarized like the ones they hand out in the theaters? I'm sure they would be a lot nicer and not flimsy but still . . . would the TV's be compatible with the theatrical ones? If so I could see a lot more people ripping those off.

slave2moonlight · Post by **slave2moonlight** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:00 pm

Well, we're not really ripping off those theater glasses since they charge us for them. I've hung on to all of mine in case they do end up usable on the 3D TV sets. If not, I'll just take them all to the movies one day and recycle them in the bin. Anyway, personally, I am planning on getting a new TV if/when I find a job after I move this summer, and it'll be my first HD, even though I've had a PS3 for quite a while now and have been buying blu-rays since I got it. I'll try to get the best HDTV I can find for picture quality (will probably be asking for recommendations), but I don't intend to make it a 3DTV purchase. I'll hold off on those till they are cheaper and well-established and all. I'm not THAT into the whole 3D craze. Maybe I'll be impressed by them at the Best Buy showroom, we'll see... I expect it'll be a few years before I get one though, if at all.

DarthPrime · Post by **DarthPrime** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:24 pm

enigmawing wrote:
DarthPrime wrote:The price of the glasses are pretty high. From what I've seen they are $150 to $200 a pair.
Wow, are the glasses polarized like the ones they hand out in the theaters? I'm sure they would be a lot nicer and not flimsy but still . . . would the TV's be compatible with the theatrical ones? If so I could see a lot more people ripping those off.

They are different. According to Best Buy's site there are 3 Samsung glasses out now. One is battery operated for $149. Then they have 2 rechargeable ones... The adult one is $199, and the child one is $179.

The Samsung starter kit (that stores are giving away free with the player/TV purchase) is $349. It contains 2 pair of the battery operated glasses, and Monsters vs. Aliens.

There is also a Panasonic pair (battery operated) for $149.

disneyboy20022 · Post by **disneyboy20022** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:33 pm

Hey.....I've been thinking about ordering a pair of these.

http://stores.ebay.com/TV-Eyes-3-D/How-it-Works.html

...the concept behind them sounds good....but are they any good....Im sure they work better for me than upchucking money for a 3D TV, 3d Blu ray Player and $200 per pair of 3D glasses...in fact if this really does work.....these are the things that should be on the store shelves...

somebody if they do really work....please channel Billy Mays to endorse this...

do they really work or are they a waste of $20?

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:53 pm

I cant imagine that working too well, but they dont really explain the science behind it enough for me to understand it. Unless someone/something convinces me otherwise, you cannot get a convincing 3d effect with video shot from one perspective.

at best you might get something like Nickelodeons' Noggle Goggles where certain colors jumped out at you. But looking at the glasses they don't look anything like those. they look like normal polarized glasses with holes in them.

milojthatch · Post by **milojthatch** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:43 am

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...

I finally saw my first 3D movie: "Alice in Wonderland." I HATED IT! Not the movie, I enjoyed it, but the 3D thing SUCKED! It took away from my enjoyment of the story and I just didn't have much of an enjoyable time as a result.

So the idea of wasting tons of money I could put to better use some where else to replicate this experience is about the biggest joke I could ever think of!

Elladorine · Post by **Elladorine** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:20 am

DarthPrime wrote:
enigmawing wrote: Wow, are the glasses polarized like the ones they hand out in the theaters? I'm sure they would be a lot nicer and not flimsy but still . . . would the TV's be compatible with the theatrical ones? If so I could see a lot more people ripping those off.
They are different. According to Best Buy's site there are 3 Samsung glasses out now. One is battery operated for $149. Then they have 2 rechargeable ones... The adult one is $199, and the child one is $179.

The Samsung starter kit (that stores are giving away free with the player/TV purchase) is $349. It contains 2 pair of the battery operated glasses, and Monsters vs. Aliens.

There is also a Panasonic pair (battery operated) for $149.

Wow, interesting . . .

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:47 pm

milojthatch wrote:Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...

I finally saw my first 3D movie: "Alice in Wonderland." I HATED IT! Not the movie, I enjoyed it, but the 3D thing SUCKED! It took away from my enjoyment of the story and I just didn't have much of an enjoyable time as a result.

So the idea of wasting tons of money I could put to better use some where else to replicate this experience is about the biggest joke I could ever think of!

Whoah whoah, hold on. Please dont judge 3d based on that horrible example of 3d, that was Not shot in 3d, they merely layered in 3d CGI, the live action stuff was mostly flat. don't be fooled into thinking this is an accurate representation of the tech. use something like Avatar or UP etc that were made from the ground up with it in mind. not haphazardly slapped on.

Im not sure what the next example of good 3D will be, but I think its Toy Story 3. I could be wrong though. I would say dreamwork's How to Train Your Dragon, but from what Ive heard based on their past 3d movies they over use the effect.

Chances are if Toy Story 3 doesnt change your mind at all, it isnt for you. but do yourself a favor and give it a real chance.

milojthatch · Post by **milojthatch** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:13 am

Kyle wrote:
milojthatch wrote:Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...

I finally saw my first 3D movie: "Alice in Wonderland." I HATED IT! Not the movie, I enjoyed it, but the 3D thing SUCKED! It took away from my enjoyment of the story and I just didn't have much of an enjoyable time as a result.

So the idea of wasting tons of money I could put to better use some where else to replicate this experience is about the biggest joke I could ever think of!
Whoah whoah, hold on. Please dont judge 3d based on that horrible example of 3d, that was Not shot in 3d, they merely layered in 3d CGI, the live action stuff was mostly flat. don't be fooled into thinking this is an accurate representation of the tech. use something like Avatar or UP etc that were made from the ground up with it in mind. not haphazardly slapped on.

Im not sure what the next example of good 3D will be, but I think its Toy Story 3. I could be wrong though. I would say dreamwork's How to Train Your Dragon, but from what Ive heard based on their past 3d movies they over use the effect.

Chances are if Toy Story 3 doesnt change your mind at all, it isnt for you. but do yourself a favor and give it a real chance.

Actually it was the idea of things coming at me that I don't like. I was fully aware that "Alice" was not originally 3D and was rather flat for what it could have been. Even that much ticked me off. I personally feel having crap flay at me takes away from my enjoyment of the story. That's why such tech is better left at amusement park attractions where the story isn't that important.

DarthPrime · Post by **DarthPrime** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:42 am

I haven't seen Alice in 3D, but one of my friends said it was "distracting", and liked the 2D version a lot better.

Duckburger · Post by **Duckburger** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:30 am

While I don't completely dismiss the idea of having to watch a movie in 3D in cinemas, I honestly can't bare the the really bad head-aches I get from those glasses, let alone the dizzyness and sick feeling in my stomach. Not worth it. And movies not shot in 3D, I would certainly never watch in 3D, upgrade or no upgrade.

As for these new tv's, I've heard somewhere (I believe it was blu-ray.com) that they completely sold out the first batch. I honestly hope this doesn't become the new trend, 3D televisions just seem to push it a little bit too far. So, no I will definitely not buy a 3D television, player, etc. - and no matter what people say I still believe 3D is a gimmick. It just doesn't enhance my enjoyment of a movie.

Ugh... I blame Spy Kids.

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:01 pm

milojthatch wrote:Actually it was the idea of things coming at me that I don't like. I was fully aware that "Alice" was not originally 3D and was rather flat for what it could have been. Even that much ticked me off. I personally feel having crap flay at me takes away from my enjoyment of the story. That's why such tech is better left at amusement park attractions where the story isn't that important.

Thats kinda what Im getting at actually; proper 3d movies dont come out at you at all. Instead the background pushes away. the forground stays more or less where the screen is. like a window.

I agree that the type of the 3d your talking about is a strain on the eyes and should be left at the theme parks. Ice age for example, that thing gaveme head aches because they tried to make the movie happen right in front of your face. I avoid that whenever possible.

UP, the Toy Stories, Avatar did not do it this way.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

3D TV

3D TV