Page 1 of To 3D or not to 3D? that is the question

Our 40" Sony Bravia LCD has sadly been condemned by the John Lewis technician but is fortunately covered by their 5 year warranty. The TV needs a new screen which are no longer available so JL are giving us £530 to go and get a new one. 
The question now is do I just replace like for like and spend the £530 on virtually the same thing (with a new 5 year warranty) or spend £200 extra and upgrade to a 3D TV (not sure if the glasses are included though) with a free Blu-Ray (to sell as I already have one).
Opinions anyone? I want to stick with a Sony as most of my kit already is Sony and I make use of the Bravia sync a lot.

3d http://www.johnlewis.com/231589058/Product.aspx

Not 3D http://www.johnlewis.com/231269814/Product.aspx

Cheers

Speaking as someone who owns a 40" 3D set (Samsung TV with active-shutter based glasses)...I`d say it`s not worth the additional expense.

Was looking at a few sets in Tesco the other day, 43" Samsung PS43D490 with BD player and 3D was £550, 51" was £699.

They also had an LG there and I couldn`t see the effect, remember I have posted before about my lack of vision on 3D televisions and cinemas...and found out why!

I bent down a little to be at similar height to the screen, sorta head in the middle level and the effect was absolutely stunning.
This is the "Cinema 3D" LG are punting, just uses glasses with no add on transmitter thing but the effect was great.
Had a freind and her grandson with me, he`s about 6 and was trying to touch the stuff coming out the screen at him :D

Jimbo : oÞ

"There`s that word again... is there a problem with the Earth`s gravitational pull in the future?"

opposite to miles.

we`ve got a 42" passive LG set which we love.

i`ve built up a reasonable sized collection of 3D blu rays now
and it`s nice to know i`ve got the option of watching them in
either 3D or 2D

:) 

Ste
My Flickr Photostream

I`m looking to get a new tv.

I`d kind of been assuming I wouldn`t go 3D, but I think I really need to go test them out.

Think the fact that I have seen 40" LCD`s for not far past the £300 mark, means I will be more likely to "get it past the missus" though 

www.last.fm/user/1mills

Depends whether you have any real interest in 3D. I don`t as I find it gimmicky, so if it were me I would invest in a better TV with the money available. I know you prefer Sony, but there is better kit around for less. For that sort of money you could pick up a decent sized plasma with minimal bells and whistles. All you really need is decent scaling/deinterlacing, motion reproduction (24p etc) and colours/black levels. All of the other stuff like frame interpolation is unnecessary and generally makes things look worse.







My Blu-ray Screenshot Site

Quote:
Chris Gould says...
For that sort of money you could pick up a decent sized plasma with minimal bells and whistlesThose Samsungs I mentioned are plasmas and 3D capable, albeit that transmitter type 3D and both well cheaper than Phony.
Quote:
Chris Gould says...
I know you prefer Sony, but there is better kit around for less.:D If I had a penny for every time I`ve said similar to someone I`d be in the costa-del something and loaded beyond belief!

Jimbo : oÞ

"There`s that word again... is there a problem with the Earth`s gravitational pull in the future?"

I think if it were passive 3D (like Ste`s) I may have a different point of view.
But as I`ve mentioned before on other threads, the active shutter glasses give me a headache after a bit of use. Having said that, I managed 30mins of Immortals wearing them and enjoyed it.

I still think that unless you`re viewing on a 100+ inch screen (or sitting 12 inches from it) the 3D effect is somewhat ruined by the peripheral view.

Another vote for an LG 42" passive 3D set here.  Mine came with seven pairs of glasses.   We have seven 3D movies so far - Tintin, Hugo, Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Three Musketeers, Monsters vs Aliens, Puss In Boots and Spy Kids 4.  Some movies give better results than others.  The movies converted in post production tend to be disappointing, but the movies shot in 3D like Pirates and Hugo, or made in 3D from the ground up like Tintin, Musketeers and Monsters are a hell of an experience.

Doing the research on going 3D, I found that although you lose vertical resolution with passive 3D, most people get a better 3D experience with passive glasses than with active.  Active glasses tend to suffer from strobing, especially noticeable in your peripheral vision.

I think the trick is to get the biggest screen comfortable for viewing in your room - too small and the 3D effect is disappointing, too big and you`re overwhelmed by the image.  We have a 42" screen with a maximum viewing distance of 10` and an average viewing distance of 5`-6`.  I`d say if you sit further than 10` from the screen you need something a bit larger.

J Mark Oates

---

Hear All, See All, Say Nowt.
Eat All, Sup All, Pay Nowt.
And If Tha` Ever Does Owt For Nowt,
Do It For Tha` Sen.

sprockethole.myreviewer.com

I thought people only really bought 3DTV to watch porn

Which, I imagine, could be quite unsettling!

Seriously, how`s your sound system and is it worth chucking money at that instead?

Or a smart tv?

[Google have marked freeimagehosting.net as a hoster of malware, therefore this link has been removed]