3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Hi all,

I've been asked by my dad to look for a new telly for him. He's
currently got a very nice 2009/10 Viera 32" with Freesat HD and
standard freeview. What he wants is essentially the same thing, but
with a bigger screen size - 42 or 47". I've got more or less the same
telly as him, but the 2011 version, so we'd ideally be looking at
another Viera set as we've been really happy with them.

Unfortunately, I have run into a couple of issues, which a-

1) That Freesat now seems to be an option on the top of the range sets
only, with Freeview HD being the default.
2) Those sets are almost entirely 3D in nature.

Obviously, we'd like to keep the cost down and being 76 he doesn't
give a hoot for 3D, so that feature is entirely superfluous for him. I
suspect that he's also going to want to keep Freesat instead of just
Freeview HD, as there are channels there that he likes that are not on
the Freeview platform.

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now give
a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?

Thanks!

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

"A.N.Other" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I've been asked by my dad to look for a new telly for him. He's
currently got a very nice 2009/10 Viera 32" with Freesat HD and
standard freeview. What he wants is essentially the same thing, but
with a bigger screen size - 42 or 47". I've got more or less the same
telly as him, but the 2011 version, so we'd ideally be looking at
another Viera set as we've been really happy with them.

Unfortunately, I have run into a couple of issues, which a-

1) That Freesat now seems to be an option on the top of the range sets
only, with Freeview HD being the default.
2) Those sets are almost entirely 3D in nature.

Obviously, we'd like to keep the cost down and being 76 he doesn't
give a hoot for 3D, so that feature is entirely superfluous for him. I
suspect that he's also going to want to keep Freesat instead of just
Freeview HD, as there are channels there that he likes that are not on
the Freeview platform.

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now give
a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?

Thanks!


Sounds like your talking Panasonic?
I have 37" Freesat from them think they did Freesat HD because it preceded
Freeview HD, so I can see Freeview HD now talking over from Freesat HD built
in.
Because of the refusal at first of Panasonic to do upgrades for these TV
sets with Freesat to get BBC I-player and refusal point blank to now add the
ITV player to my particular model I myself will avoid Panasonic in the
future.
Is your TV model bigger than 32"? If it is then in order to keep your
father happy with Freesat an easy solution would be to give him yours.
Regards
David

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Of course Panasonic now do sets with talking menus which some like as no
more squinting at things.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"David" wrote in message
...


"A.N.Other" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I've been asked by my dad to look for a new telly for him. He's
currently got a very nice 2009/10 Viera 32" with Freesat HD and
standard freeview. What he wants is essentially the same thing, but
with a bigger screen size - 42 or 47". I've got more or less the same
telly as him, but the 2011 version, so we'd ideally be looking at
another Viera set as we've been really happy with them.

Unfortunately, I have run into a couple of issues, which a-

1) That Freesat now seems to be an option on the top of the range sets
only, with Freeview HD being the default.
2) Those sets are almost entirely 3D in nature.

Obviously, we'd like to keep the cost down and being 76 he doesn't
give a hoot for 3D, so that feature is entirely superfluous for him. I
suspect that he's also going to want to keep Freesat instead of just
Freeview HD, as there are channels there that he likes that are not on
the Freeview platform.

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now give
a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?

Thanks!


Sounds like your talking Panasonic?
I have 37" Freesat from them think they did Freesat HD because it preceded
Freeview HD, so I can see Freeview HD now talking over from Freesat HD
built in.
Because of the refusal at first of Panasonic to do upgrades for these TV
sets with Freesat to get BBC I-player and refusal point blank to now add
the ITV player to my particular model I myself will avoid Panasonic in the
future.
Is your TV model bigger than 32"? If it is then in order to keep your
father happy with Freesat an easy solution would be to give him yours.
Regards
David

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

A.N.Other wrote:

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now give
a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?

Thanks!

I have a new 42-inch passive 3D TV with an LG LCD panel and I think it's
top-notch. Placed side-by-side with a 40-inch Samsung 2D LCD screen, it
doesn't have quite the same depth to the blacks, but I think that is
typical of the LG IPS screen technology as compared to Samsung's S-PVA
matrix, rather than the result of a compromise owing to the passive 3D
display. If there is a compromise, it's not something that I would
worry about as the picture is fantastic :-)

--
John L

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

In article , A. N. Other
writes
I've been asked by my dad to look for a new telly for him. He's
currently got a very nice 2009/10 Viera 32" with Freesat HD and
standard freeview. What he wants is essentially the same thing, but
with a bigger screen size - 42 or 47".

Should've gone to Specsavers?
--
Kennedy

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

On 01/09/2012 16:22, A.N.Other wrote:

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now give
a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?


If you want 2D picture quality, you will likely end up with a set
capable of 3D. That is what I found anyway when I bought my Samsung TV.
The 3D capability is just an add on, and is not a compromise.

If you end up with a Terrestrial TV, make sure that you get one capable
of Freeview HD with a DVB-T2 tuner.


--
Michael Chare

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:22:26 +0100, A.N.Other wrote:

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now give
a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?

From what I've been following on AV Forums and also learning from the links
posted there, the benefits of passive 3D far outweigh any perceived
disadvantages.
BUT it might be worth looking at some of the threads.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/lg-forum/
(the LM670 etc. are this year's models)

the these look good:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/lcd-l...xxpflxx07.html
the models over the 6000 series are active 3D

I was very interested in a LG 47" but the apparent problems put me off. The
Philips looks good but the 6007 still hasn't arrived here.

Also, it's getting late in the cycle (except for Philips!), so there's a
good chance of the LGs being cheaper within a few months.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

I can confirm what the others have said: there is no disadvantage at
all in getting a 3D-capable set. You can switch the 3D on or off, and
if it's off the screen works exactly like a standard 2D set.

HOWEVER, I think that is only true for TVs using ACTIVE 3D. They use a
screen which is exactly the same as that in a normal 2D TV and simply
flash the left/right pictures at high speed.

Passive 3D sets have polarising material on the front of the screen.
This shouldn't make any difference when viewing 2D, but I suppose it
just might. Obviously the eye is insensitive to light polarisation,
but nevertheless passive 3D screens have a slightly different
construction so it's something we should consider.

Does anyone here know what, if any, compromises are made when viewing
2D material on a passive 3D screen?

--
SteveT

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Michael Chare wrote:
On 01/09/2012 16:22, A.N.Other wrote:

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now
give a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?


If you want 2D picture quality, you will likely end up with a set
capable of 3D. That is what I found anyway when I bought my Samsung
TV. The 3D capability is just an add on, and is not a compromise.

If you end up with a Terrestrial TV, make sure that you get one
capable of Freeview HD with a DVB-T2 tuner.

Just as an aside, since DSO has been completed (as far as I'm aware), do
TVs that are sold in the UK still come with an analogue tuner?

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Norman Wells wrote:

since DSO has been completed (as far as I'm aware)

Not yet ... North East England and Northern Ireland still to go (this
month and next respectively).

do TVs that are sold in the UK still come with an analogue tuner?

Yes, and likely to for years to come.

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

since DSO has been completed (as far as I'm aware)

Not yet ... North East England and Northern Ireland still to go (this
month and next respectively).

do TVs that are sold in the UK still come with an analogue tuner?

Yes, and likely to for years to come.

I hope so, 'analogue' RF is useful for piping PVR and CCTV outputs to
secondary TV sets around the home.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 09:18:17 +0100, Steve Thackery
wrote:

I can confirm what the others have said: there is no disadvantage at
all in getting a 3D-capable set. You can switch the 3D on or off, and
if it's off the screen works exactly like a standard 2D set.

HOWEVER, I think that is only true for TVs using ACTIVE 3D. They use a
screen which is exactly the same as that in a normal 2D TV and simply
flash the left/right pictures at high speed.

Passive 3D sets have polarising material on the front of the screen.
This shouldn't make any difference when viewing 2D, but I suppose it
just might. Obviously the eye is insensitive to light polarisation,
but nevertheless passive 3D screens have a slightly different
construction so it's something we should consider.

What if you are wearing sunglasses with polarising lenses at the time?

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

In message , Mark Carver
writes
Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

since DSO has been completed (as far as I'm aware)
Not yet ... North East England and Northern Ireland still to go
(this month and next respectively).

do TVs that are sold in the UK still come with an analogue tuner?
Yes, and likely to for years to come.

I hope so, 'analogue' RF is useful for piping PVR and CCTV outputs to
secondary TV sets around the home.

Which is exactly why, if any new sets are made without an analogue RF
input, that fact should be made perfectly clear to any potential buyer.
--
Ian

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Steve Thackery wrote:

Passive 3D sets have polarising material on the front of the screen.
This shouldn't make any difference when viewing 2D, but I suppose it
just might. Obviously the eye is insensitive to light polarisation, but
nevertheless passive 3D screens have a slightly different construction
so it's something we should consider.

LCD panels are inherently polarized in any case. Try looking at a
conventional Samsung screen through Polaroid glasses and you'll see what
I mean. Rotating the lens, the image is almost completely extinguished
at a certain angle.

The effect is quite different with my LG passive 3D panel, which uses
circular polarization. The image stays bright at any angle of the
Polaroid lens.

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

since DSO has been completed (as far as I'm aware)

Not yet ... North East England and Northern Ireland still to go (this
month and next respectively).

do TVs that are sold in the UK still come with an analogue tuner?

Yes, and likely to for years to come.

I hope so, 'analogue' RF is useful for piping PVR and CCTV outputs to
secondary TV sets around the home.

If there's nothing coming in on RF, there's no need for an RF tuner.

What you're talking about is RF out, which I suggest is a specialist
hobby area that you should pay extra for. It's not necessary as a
standard, nor wanted by many.

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

"A.N.Other" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I've been asked by my dad to look for a new telly for him. He's
currently got a very nice 2009/10 Viera 32" with Freesat HD and
standard freeview. What he wants is essentially the same thing, but
with a bigger screen size - 42 or 47". I've got more or less the same
telly as him, but the 2011 version, so we'd ideally be looking at
another Viera set as we've been really happy with them.

Unfortunately, I have run into a couple of issues, which a-

1) That Freesat now seems to be an option on the top of the range sets
only, with Freeview HD being the default.
2) Those sets are almost entirely 3D in nature.

Obviously, we'd like to keep the cost down and being 76 he doesn't
give a hoot for 3D, so that feature is entirely superfluous for him. I
suspect that he's also going to want to keep Freesat instead of just
Freeview HD, as there are channels there that he likes that are not on
the Freeview platform.

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now give
a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?

You could try looking for a previous year's model.
The electrical retailers are still trying to shift loads of 720p 'HD Ready'
sets at low, low prices so there must be a massive stockpile of older
technology ouy there somewhere.
Don't know if Panasonic went to Freeview and Fresat HD before starting on
3D - if so there may be bargains to be had.
You don't say what your budget is but I suspect there may be decent sets out
there at £500+

Cheers

Dave R

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

John Legon wrote:

LCD panels are inherently polarized in any case. Try looking at a
conventional Samsung screen through Polaroid glasses and you'll see what
I mean. Rotating the lens, the image is almost completely extinguished
at a certain angle.

The effect is quite different with my LG passive 3D panel, which uses
circular polarization. The image stays bright at any angle of the
Polaroid lens.

All very interesting stuff, which I didn't know.

The question remains, though: does the "different" polarisation of a
passive 3D screen affect its 2D performance in any way?

It sounds like it doesn't, which is great for the OP. Gives him the
choice of either, and just switching the 3D off.

--
SteveT

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

since DSO has been completed (as far as I'm aware)

Not yet ... North East England and Northern Ireland still to go (this
month and next respectively).

do TVs that are sold in the UK still come with an analogue tuner?

Yes, and likely to for years to come.

I hope so, 'analogue' RF is useful for piping PVR and CCTV outputs to
secondary TV sets around the home.


Not to mention the hotels, universities, prisons, etc. Conversion to DVB
for in-house channels won't happen overnight.

Bill

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Scott wrote:

Passive 3D sets have polarising material on the front of the screen.
This shouldn't make any difference when viewing 2D, but I suppose it
just might. Obviously the eye is insensitive to light polarisation,
but nevertheless passive 3D screens have a slightly different
construction so it's something we should consider.

What if you are wearing sunglasses with polarising lenses at the time?
Only a daft lad would wear sunglasses in t'ouse.

Bill

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

since DSO has been completed (as far as I'm aware)

Not yet ... North East England and Northern Ireland still to go (this
month and next respectively).

do TVs that are sold in the UK still come with an analogue tuner?

Yes, and likely to for years to come.

I hope so, 'analogue' RF is useful for piping PVR and CCTV outputs to
secondary TV sets around the home.

If there's nothing coming in on RF, there's no need for an RF tuner.

What you're talking about is RF out, which I suggest is a specialist
hobby area that you should pay extra for. It's not necessary as a
standard, nor wanted by many.
You've got the wrong end of the coax there I think.

Bill

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Steve Thackery wrote:

The question remains, though: does the "different" polarisation of a
passive 3D screen affect its 2D performance in any way?

I think it is possible, based on my own comparisons, that the passive 3D
polarizing screen filter degrades the off-axis contrast ratio. But here
I'm comparing an LG 3D panel with a Samsung 2D panel and not with an LG
2D panel with the same IPS matrix, so the results may not be meaningful.
The difference could simply be due to the superior S-PVA matrix of the
Samsung screen.

Apparently, early passive panels have a defect known as the screen door
effect. I haven't seen this myself but will keep looking...

--
John L

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

In article , Martin
writes
On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 16:25:09 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Scott wrote:

Passive 3D sets have polarising material on the front of the screen.
This shouldn't make any difference when viewing 2D, but I suppose it
just might. Obviously the eye is insensitive to light polarisation,
but nevertheless passive 3D screens have a slightly different
construction so it's something we should consider.

What if you are wearing sunglasses with polarising lenses at the time?
Only a daft lad would wear sunglasses in t'ouse.

or a celeb

Bill is a renowned inclusive, and never divisive. ;-)
--
Kennedy

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

On Sep 2, 11:24*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
If there's nothing coming in on RF, there's no need for an RF tuner.

In my house analogue UHF TV (from the PVR, VCR and satellite Rx) is
fed to eight rooms via a distribution amplifier in the loft.
Therefore analogue reception capability is a requirement for all our
TVs, despite no 'over the air' transmissions here any longer.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Richard Russell wrote:
On Sep 2, 11:24 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
If there's nothing coming in on RF, there's no need for an RF tuner.

In my house analogue UHF TV (from the PVR, VCR and satellite Rx) is
fed to eight rooms via a distribution amplifier in the loft.
Therefore analogue reception capability is a requirement for all our
TVs, despite no 'over the air' transmissions here any longer.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
If I had to guess I'd say that about a quarter of UK homes have such an
arrangement.

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
In my house analogue UHF TV (from the PVR, VCR and satellite Rx) is
fed to eight rooms via a distribution amplifier in the loft.
[...]
If I had to guess I'd say that about a quarter of UK homes have such an
arrangement.

Really? The only multi-room domestic TV installations I've seen have
either one proper aerial feed to the main TV in the living room and
individual table top aerials for all the portable sets in the bedrooms, or
separate Sky feeds to all the rooms that have TV. I've never encountered
anyone who feeds a PVR or VCR to other rooms.

Rod.
--

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Bill Wright wrote:
In my house analogue UHF TV (from the PVR, VCR and satellite Rx) is
fed to eight rooms via a distribution amplifier in the loft.
[...]
If I had to guess I'd say that about a quarter of UK homes have such
an arrangement.

Really? The only multi-room domestic TV installations I've seen have
either one proper aerial feed to the main TV in the living room and
individual table top aerials for all the portable sets in the
bedrooms, or separate Sky feeds to all the rooms that have TV. I've
never encountered anyone who feeds a PVR or VCR to other rooms.

I agree that does seem a bit odd in a domestic environment. I have one
aerial feed into a 4-way distribution amplifier that then feeds 4
televisions around the house, 2 of which have an internal Freeview
decoder, the other 2 having an attached STB that then connect via Scart.
Isn't that the normal way?

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Bill Wright wrote:
In my house analogue UHF TV (from the PVR, VCR and satellite Rx) is
fed to eight rooms via a distribution amplifier in the loft.
[...]
If I had to guess I'd say that about a quarter of UK homes have such an
arrangement.

Really? The only multi-room domestic TV installations I've seen have
either one proper aerial feed to the main TV in the living room and
individual table top aerials for all the portable sets in the bedrooms, or
separate Sky feeds to all the rooms that have TV. I've never encountered
anyone who feeds a PVR or VCR to other rooms.

Rod.

I meant an analogue feed to each room, irrespective of the source. If
the sample is Sky subscribers only I'd say the figure is about 80%.

Bill

3D screen quality compared to 2D?
 

On 01/09/2012 16:53, David wrote:


"A.N.Other" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I've been asked by my dad to look for a new telly for him. He's
currently got a very nice 2009/10 Viera 32" with Freesat HD and
standard freeview. What he wants is essentially the same thing, but
with a bigger screen size - 42 or 47". I've got more or less the same
telly as him, but the 2011 version, so we'd ideally be looking at
another Viera set as we've been really happy with them.

Unfortunately, I have run into a couple of issues, which a-

1) That Freesat now seems to be an option on the top of the range sets
only, with Freeview HD being the default.
2) Those sets are almost entirely 3D in nature.

Obviously, we'd like to keep the cost down and being 76 he doesn't
give a hoot for 3D, so that feature is entirely superfluous for him. I
suspect that he's also going to want to keep Freesat instead of just
Freeview HD, as there are channels there that he likes that are not on
the Freeview platform.

What I would appreciate some guidance on is whether there is any
benefit to focussing on the more limited range of 2D sets or whether
to bite the bullet and just get a passive 3D set. Are the 3D sets
still the compromise solution that they used to be or do they now give
a picture as good as a traditional 2D panel?

Thanks!


Sounds like your talking Panasonic?
I have 37" Freesat from them think they did Freesat HD because it
preceded Freeview HD, so I can see Freeview HD now talking over from
Freesat HD built in.
Because of the refusal at first of Panasonic to do upgrades for these TV
sets with Freesat to get BBC I-player and refusal point blank to now add
the ITV player to my particular model I myself will avoid Panasonic in
the future.
Is your TV model bigger than 32"? If it is then in order to keep your
father happy with Freesat an easy solution would be to give him yours.
Regards
David


critcher said...................

Look at LG 42 and 47 inch models from last year, 650 and 550, good
picture on sd and brilliant on hd.Try currys and comet, or John Lewis.