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!

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.