3DTVs

[Fierce_LiNk]

Herrroo!

 

The Eenoo and I are looking into the idea of buying a brand new television, as our current one is quite small. We have a TV unit in our flat and the maximum size tv that can fit in there is about 40inches. Anything above that, and it won't fit in the unit. (damn IKEA)

 

We've had a little look around and there's some good LED tvs in the region of £300-400. However, the problem is that if we wanted to get a TV with 3D capabilities, it would cost considerably more.

 

Here's the dilemma: We're not sure just how much of a damn we give about the whole 3D notion. We can't tell if it is something that is really "essential", since we rarely ever will watch a film in 3D. Part of me is thinking it might be useful to have it, futureproof and all that. But, it's a lot more money to pay on something that we might not even use.

 

So, advice, please. Is it worth having a 3DTV or are we better off going for an LED tv without it being 3D-ified?

[Cube]

You also have to consider that 3DTVs usually come with only 1 pair of glasses, with another pair costing something like £100 (if it's the kind that uses the cheaper glasses, it will be terrible).

 

I don't see watching TV in 3D catching on at all. And if you have guests round, you'll have to change to 2D anyway.

 

And even if you buy a 3DTV, it will be become outdated due to 4k TVs anyway.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

You also have to consider that 3DTVs usually come with only 1 pair of glasses, with another pair costing something like £100 (if it's the kind that uses the cheaper glasses, it will be terrible).

 

I don't see watching TV in 3D catching on at all. And if you have guests round, you'll have to change to 2D anyway.

 

And even if you buy a 3DTV, it will be become outdated due to 4k TVs anyway.

 

I have a 3D TV with the non-expensive type of glasses used in cinemas, and it's by no means terrible; I'd say it's really good, actually, and as an added bonus you can use the glasses from the cinema.

 

It's by no means an essential feature, though; 3D is astounding in some films where it genuinely adds to the experience, but not all 3D films benefit all that much from it unless you really enjoy the concept (like me), and 3D films are still a minority, though they're climbing in numbers. I haven't had any experience with 3D television (as opposed to films), so I can't comment on that.

 

Bottom line, I'd say it depends on how interested you are in the 3D experience. I'm a sucker for it, but I realise a lot of people couldn't care less, and unless you are really into the experience, you're probably better off saving the money.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Buuuump!

 

Going to need some help, people.

 

First of all, I'm going to give you the dimensions of my tv unit. It's one of these units that has shelves and compartments on the outside of it and then one cave-like compartment in the middle to fit your tv. The dimensions are:

 

Width: 104cm

Height: 69cm

Depth: 37cm.

 

- this is roughly the sort of design that I mean, but there's a back part to the unit.

 

We are looking at two televisions in particular, but that brings us to another problem. LED or Plasma? To my knowledge, LEDs are more energy efficient, but Plasmas produce better quality in picture and sound.

 

We have found two models.

 

Panasonic-TX-P42X60B-42-inch-Freeview-Plasma - Priced at £329

 

and

 

Samsung-UE42F5000AKXXU-42-inch-Widescreen-1080p - Priced at £428

 

So far, the Panasonic Plasma is winning.

 

Here's the final problem and potentially the deal breaker.

 

The dimensions for the Panasonic are:

 

Width: 100.7cm

Height: 65.7cm

Depth: 23.1cm

 

and

 

The dimensions for the Samsung LED are:

 

Width: 97.1cm

Height: 63.7cm

Depth: 23.5cm

 

All of these sizes are with the stands.

 

So, they're both tight fits, but the Panasonic is tighter. Ine reckons that it won't fit and we'll be pushing it, whereas I believe that it will fit and it won't be a problem at all.

 

Can anyone help?

[Cube]

One thing worth pointing out is that the Panasonic is not full HD while the Samsung one is.

 

Does your unit have a proper name? If it is available online it may state suitable TV sizes (for example, that one in the image is suitable for TVs up to 55").

 

Considering the size is slightly more than 42" TVs, I'd think they would advertise it as 'Up to 42"'. They generally make it tight for the largest size.

[S.C.G]

LED over Plasma any day...

 

Also I have the smaller version* of that Samsung LED TV and it's fantastic.

 

*well actually it's the model before that as mine isn't 3D but I've never really cared for it on a TV... not until they're all glasses-free anyway :P hmm this probably isn't too helpful...

[Cube]

LED over Plasma any day...

 

It depends how you look at it. If cost is a big factor, than Plasma will get you the better quality. LEDs are better but more expensive.

[Rummy]

I've always thought LED over plasma, but I can't recall why. Is it something to do with maintenance? Plasmas possibly needing a re-gassing over time? Plus like some LEDs are thinner than kate moss on crack.

[Fierce_LiNk]

One thing worth pointing out is that the Panasonic is not full HD while the Samsung one is.

 

Does your unit have a proper name? If it is available online it may state suitable TV sizes (for example, that one in the image is suitable for TVs up to 55").

 

Considering the size is slightly more than 42" TVs, I'd think they would advertise it as 'Up to 42"'. They generally make it tight for the largest size.

 

That's a good point. I have no idea what the unit is called since it was there before we moved in. I would ask the landlord, but I haven't seen him in well over a year...

 

Would you say 42" is fine in that? (given the dimensions) Am I pushing it? Trying to find a reasonably priced Plasma at 40" was difficult. They seem to come in much bigger sizes.

[Oxigen_Waste]

3D is useless. Be it in gaming or film, it's just a gimmick. It never improves anything. It can be nice, but it never makes anything better. Don't contribute to it's success, don't buy 3DTVs.

 

I (my father, anyway) have a 3DTV, btw. A 55" inch beast of a TV. Complete waste of money.

 

 

Glad to see you decided to skip the 3D, btw.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

3D is useless. Be it in gaming or film, it's just a gimmick. It never improves anything. It can be nice, but it never makes anything better. Don't contribute to it's success, don't buy 3DTVs.

 

I disagree. Action scenes in particular can become more immersive in 3D - a great example is the flight scenes from How To Train Your Dragon. But I give you that not all 3D films utilise it well.

[Fierce_LiNk]

3D is useless. Be it in gaming or film, it's just a gimmick. It never improves anything. It can be nice, but it never makes anything better. Don't contribute to it's success, don't buy 3DTVs.

 

I (my father, anyway) have a 3DTV, btw. A 55" inch beast of a TV. Complete waste of money.

 

 

Glad to see you decided to skip the 3D, btw.

 

I was thinking about getting a 3DTV originally, but mostly for future-proofing, I guess. At some point in the future, it may become great and it would then be worth it. But, the more I've thought about it, the more I've realised that I actively avoid 3D films, both in the cinema and at home. So, I'd be paying more for something I wouldn't really be using.

 

The best 3D film I've seen has still been Avatar. It's almost like an after-thought for most films.

[Eenuh]

I'm not a fan of 3D really. I have seen a handful of 3D films and it does not really add anything for me, plus wearing those glasses is a pain and they darken the screen. And 3D tends to give me a headache after a while as I have to concentrate really hard (stupid broken eyes).

 

Even on my 3DS I usually turn off the 3D heh.

 

 

As for LED or Plasma, we were looking at Plasma because it said you get motion trails/blurs on LED, especially during sports (which Jim watches) and gaming. And Plasma has deeper colours and apparently a better sound. So we were unsure about which one to go for because of these reasons.

[Oxigen_Waste]

I disagree. Action scenes in particular can become more immersive in 3D - a great example is the flight scenes from How To Train Your Dragon. But I give you that not all 3D films utilise it well.

 

I think it makes action scenes way LESS immersive. It's an alienating element, if you ask me.

Plus, "immersive" action and the type of blockbusters that use 3D don't really go hand in hand. Immersive action is something like Bourne Ultimatum.

Even in films where it's well implemented like HTTYD, Avatar or Hugo, I'd much rather it wouldn't be there as it ends up being more of a nuisance than a boon. It has no artistic value whatsoever, it's as pure a gimmick as they come. If it looked like reality, it could have it's uses, but as it stands, not only is it useless but it also makes things look even more different and allienating than they already do, and as such I see absolutely no value in it.

 

I'm just glad that it's a dying trend. For the third time, 3D has been shoved down our throats, and for the third time it has been rejected by the public. You'd figure the industry would take a hint, but the fact is, if there's an audiente to exploit, some asshole will do it. This is the kind of crap that I hate about capitalism.

 

=/

[Cube]

The Hobbit was a great example of how to do 3D. Not with stupid in-your-face gimmicks, but used mainly to add depth to the picture.

 

Anyway, in some cases buying a 3DTV isn't a terrible thing. Paying extra just for the 3D is silly, but if you're paying extra for the screen quality and it just happens to also have 3D, it can be a good thing.