3D Tv's

[Claire]

Any one got a new 3D TV? Are they worth the extra money?

[Mr Darn]

My guess, just like DVD, flat screens, LCD, Plasma Recordable DVD's and every other piece of new technology, it'll take a while before its really worth it.

HD has been around for a while now, but its only just now that the standard is being adopted...

Personally, i'm gonna go with HD for now, and wait and see what happens with 3D.

If you've had HD for a while now, and like new toys, then its worth trying out for you.

[Claire]

I've had nothing new for 7 years, I've still got one of those huge tv's and its not even a flat screen one. It's had a purple spot on the screen for about a 1.5 years now but I wanted to wait till I moved from my flat to a house before I bought a new one so I could get the correct size, so anything will be an improvement. People have already told me to get LED rather than LCD as this is much better.

[Monsta®]

you need to wear special glasses every time you watch it! bit of a faff if you ask me i personally think they wont catch on. think you would be wise to invest in a 600mhz hd tv instead.

p.s there are no actual broadcast services as such and the dvds will cost you an arm and a leg!

[Mr Darn]

Don't be fooled, LED tv's are LCD tvs.

The correct difference between the two is the backlighting. Both have LCD displays.

What you have is 2 different LCD tv's to choose from in essence,

1. A Florescent lit LCD tv
2. A LED lit LCD tv

At the same time, LED technology is far out preforming florescent technology, especially in the black areas of the picture, so your friends are right, go for the LCD.

Some good reading, if your interested in the argument:

http://www.lcdtvbuyi...led-vs-lcd.html

Swaying back on-topic slightly, the Guardian agree's with my opinion somewhat:

http://www.guardian....logy-television

3D television's early adopters: To buy or not to buy?

The principal message is: don't hurry to buy one unless you delight in getting the first version of things

[Mr Darn]

Totally agree with monsta here, Keep the 3d for the Cinema for now

[offtopic]Blinking heck, thats got to be twice in 10 posts! [/offtopic]

[threegee]

Yes, I've had a play with a Samsung 55" one in the last couple of weeks. The 3D was very good on a football match blue-ray recording - the only material available for demo.

This was active shutter technology (the same as Sky is intending to introduce) and there were three sets of glasses available to play with, though I don't know how many you get in the basic price. The glasses were fine; almost as light as normal specs, but I found the plastic tube with the cable coming over the right ear a little awkward and restricting. There was a badly placed light overhead which caused a reflection off the rear surface of the lenses which I found annoying, but this wouldn't be a problem in a normal domestic setting. The 3D effect was strong on near shots but hardly noticeable on distant ones, though it did still lend a fair bit of realism to the viewing. With a football match I'm not sure I'd want all the switching of shots which normally goes on in a 2D TV transmission. Another thing to consider is that although the sets are 3D / 2D switchable, watching 3D mode is very hard on those without the glasses if you don't have enough to go around, or the TV doesn't support enough connections.

The price though at about £2500 was far too high, and even if they were cheaper there wouldn't be enough material to justify the spend. I did buy a new LG 50" flat screen a few days later, and I will be reviewing that here very soon, as I've now had over a week to play with it.

Mr Darn is spot on: LED is LCD! All that is changed is the backlight, so it's a tiny bit of a marketing con. LED backlights are a fair bit brighter though making viewing in brightly lit rooms far easier, but again I'm not sure that the huge difference in price between normal gas-discharge and LED is worth it. They'll surely come down in price if you wait a while. Meanwhile the best value, and by far the best picture, is to be had from... ah, but that's another post!

[Monsta®]

its like those vr goggles they never caught on! they need to invent a 3dtv you dont need glasses for then it might catch on!

[Mr Darn]

Hologramatic technology is already in development for everyday use Monsta! Should see it in our lifetimes.

[Andy Millne]

I would definately opt for LED backlighting. I have a regular back lit LCD set and it is very noticeable in dark scenes. Blacks are greys and the backlighting is uneven.

I wouldn't bother with a 600mhz TV as Monsta suggests. You'll quickly get bored of watching movies at that framerate. 24Hz at least I'd say

[threegee]

I would definately opt for LED backlighting. I have a regular back lit LCD set and it is very noticeable in dark scenes. Blacks are greys and the backlighting is uneven.

I don't see much improvement with the contrast ratio on LED TVs. That's likely because it's the same basic technology. BUT... I now have one with a 3,000,000:1 contrast ratio which didn't cost an arm and a leg!

I wouldn't bother with a 600mhz TV as Monsta suggests. You'll quickly get bored of watching movies at that framerate. 24Hz at least I'd say

I think you are taking the p here! I'm watching one of them there latest 600Hz thingies right now, but you'll just have to wait for the verdict!

Hologramatic technology

Holographic, surely Mr D.?

[Monsta®]

I would definately opt for LED backlighting. I have a regular back lit LCD set and it is very noticeable in dark scenes. Blacks are greys and the backlighting is uneven.

I wouldn't bother with a 600mhz TV as Monsta suggests. You'll quickly get bored of watching movies at that framerate. 24Hz at least I'd say

led has no backlight, its individual light cells!

24hz my big fat grey round screen telly is 50hz

my correction its 600hz not 600mhz!

like this one:

it stops the image blur or something!

[Andy Millne]

Your TV may be 50Hz but that is interlaced and displays alternating lines then rescans and fills in the blanks. 24/25 Hz or fps in progressive scan (display the fullframe at once) is what the movie studios aim at for a filmic look. That's a seperate issue though and what you suggested (yes I'm being pedantic) was to buy a 600 'milli' Hertz TV i.e. 0.6 frames per second.

I'm not convinced of the need for 600Hz as the human eye can't interpret that many frames in a second. Another sticker for the TV that's all it is for all but the very fastest scenes.

[Andy Millne]

my correction its 600hz not 600mhz!

it's actually 600Hz but that's really pushing it

it stops the image blur or something!

yeah that's the idea but I'm not convinced. 100 fps maybe but 600... Not so sure. I think it's megapixel syndrome kicking in.

[Brett]

Personally I think it is a bit of a gimmick. Get one if you and your family/mates all want to look like madness watching a film over the weekend. But then again I don't watch enough TV to justify it anyway. Buy an LCD and spend what you saved on a decent surround sound speaker system.

[threegee]

led has no backlight, its individual light cells!

Sorry Monsta that's just plain wrong! I've just seen a Samsung TV advert which now adds the word "backlighting" after the LED. A case of the marketing department being pulled up on their over-enthusiasm of spinning it as an entirely new technology?

Personally I think it is a bit of a gimmick. Get one if you and your family/mates all want to look like madness watching a film over the weekend. But then again I don't watch enough TV to justify it anyway. Buy an LCD and spend what you saved on a decent surround sound speaker system.

Yeah, the sound on nearly all sets is crap. If you don't have an audio system to pipe it into, then do what he says - the best use of the money.

However there's now much better than LCD and it's now cheaper too. A case of back to the future.... more soon.

I'm finding it very difficult to call the 600Hz thing without an A-B comparison. It does sort of work, but you can still see the occasional judder on poor quality material. I think it is going to be more effective on HD material - of which I've got little here. If it's in the price for free then go for it - especially if it's an over 40" screen. What Fourgee says is only partly true: if the different images subtend a largish angle the eye doesn't integrate them so easily and you get a sort of strobing - which I've described as image judder.

[Monsta®]

Sorry Monsta that's just plain wrong! I've just seen a Samsung TV advert which now adds the word "backlighting" after the LED. A case of the marketing department being pulled up on their over-enthusiasm of spinning it as an entirely new technology?

no its just i did not explain it properly!

heres a picture to explain!

see individual cells not a constant backlight!

[Monsta®]

600hz is a gimmick!

read here

but you can get one of these

100hz

[Andy Millne]

No matter what lighting technology is used it's still backlighting whichever way you spin it. Again just another case of the marketing department wanting to print more stickers. LED does result in more even backlighting though in my experience.

[Monsta®]

No matter what lighting technology is used it's still backlighting whichever way you spin it. Again just another case of the marketing department wanting to print more stickers. LED does result in more even backlighting though in my experience.

you must have bought a cheapo tv as the ones i was looking at in the shops where most definitly better than the usuall ones!

[Andy Millne]

I'm not saying that. I bought a cheap noname fluorescent backlit one a few years ago and the newer LED backlit ones ARE far superior like you say. But it's still backlighting like the older ones, just with a different light source that's all.

[Monsta®]

I'm not saying that. I bought a cheap noname fluorescent backlit one a few years ago and the newer LED backlit ones ARE far superior like you say. But it's still backlighting like the older ones, just with a different light source that's all.

not quite read this says it better than i can!

so the backlighting is lets say alot different!

[Andy Millne]

Sorry still don't understand what you are trying to say. One is lit with fluorescent lighting one with LEDs. Both are backlit but LED backlighting is more even. What's in dispute about that? My point is you said LED TVs weren't backlit but they are.

[Monsta®]

Sorry still don't understand what you are trying to say. One is lit with fluorescent lighting one with LEDs. Both are backlit but LED backlighting is more even. What's in dispute about that? My point is you said LED TVs weren't backlit but they are.

my point is fluorescent is constant led is not.

But it's still backlighting like the older ones, just with a different light source that's all.

so its not like older ones thats my point!

[Claire]

Thanks guys for all the advise (although I don't understand a lot of it). I may just get the TV I was looking at (a Samsung UE40B8000) and buy a speaker system to go with it rather then a 3D Tv. Cheers