3DTV - useful or useless?

mr_vino89 on 23/06/2013 - 11:49

Further to my previous post in this Forum, my family and I bought a new 50inch Sony 3DTV. It's absolutely fantastic to watch on!

Although it is a 3D Capable TV, it seems to be pretty much useless feature to have for watching normal Free-to-air TV Channels….

To watch other 3D content, it would mean that I'd need to fork out more money on a 3D blu-ray player and 3D Blu-ray discs… IMO, 3DTV for most part is a useless feature that I will barely ever use.

Generally speaking, 3D TV doesn't seem to be taken off very much yet retailers are always heavily promoting this feature on a TV.

Does anyone know an affordable option to watch 3D content on my TV or know of any channels that broadcast in 3D?

What is your thoughts on 3DTV?

Electrical & Electronics

Comments

  • scrimshaw on 23/06/2013 - 12:51
    +7

    The age-old question is: Is there enough 3D TV content to justify the cost of owning one?

    IMO 3dtv doesn't interest me, mostly because you have to wear a pair of glasses and strain your eyes to actually enjoy the content, and second there seems to be a limited selection of cheap or free 3D content to actually enjoy.

    The focus on tv tech this year seems to be instead on ultra high resolution (4k) displays. This I would subscribe to because it is a direct evolution from Standard def to high def and then to ultra-high definition. Similarly, since Intel is also pushing for 4k resolution support on the computer, I'd say 4k has a much higher chance of being 'adopted' than 3dTV.

    • sparkles on 23/06/2013 - 14:38
      +2

      The ultra HD are amazing, I stood in awe at HN for a good 5 minutes. But you would want it to be for $16K.

      • ItsMeAgro on 24/06/2013 - 11:25
        +24

        Yeah, you don't want a 4K for a couple of years yet. As with any such tech, the prices will follow a predictable pattern:

        1. Rich and stupid - 5k+
        2. Rich or Tech enthusiast - 2k+
        3. Everyone else - 1k+
        4. Ozbargainers - less than 1k
        • scrimshaw on 24/06/2013 - 11:58
          +12

          Yeah, you don't want a 4K for a couple of years yet.

          Maybe even 10 years… Australia is stone-age compared to USA. USA has 4k Netflix coming soon and Japan is gearing up for 4k broadcasting next year.

          A lot of Australian "HD" content isn't even full HD, it's actually just 720p most of the time. The day when Australia starts broadcasting 4k content will be the day we start getting high speed rail and FTTH. Bit of a pie in the sky.

          I don't think 4K tv will become mainstream in Australia anytime soon given the current state of affairs with the NBN.

        • neophytte on 25/06/2013 - 10:26
          -1

          Sorry to nitpick, but 720p is defined as HD - although it is the lowest version of HD you can get.

          But agree with your point that 4kTV won't be in Australia soon, unless they re-purpose the national broadband plan …

          Cheers

          Richard

        • LaTerrible on 25/06/2013 - 10:54

          There are already super cheap 4k TVs out there. Look up the Seiki 4k:

          http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det…

          I'm sure there are a lot of compromises somewhere, but man, I'd take a leap at it before I dropped the equivalent money on any other new TV.

        • scrimshaw on 25/06/2013 - 11:03

          That was actually much cheaper on Amazon a few days ago — $1080.

        • Infraction on 25/06/2013 - 17:02
          +4

          Digital broadcast is so backwards here at the moment, majority of the time the High Def channels are wasted playing old 4:3 reruns while the Standard/Low Def channels play the movies and other content that is shot in HD. Presumably the networks are using the principle that the higher quality / in demand content gets played on the 'most accessible' channel, which I guess must still be the low def ones. So in a way it is probably consumer uptake of HD technology that is holding us back, but the networks aren't helping by continuing to play low def crap on the high def channels.

        • tumsum on 25/06/2013 - 20:57

          i agree - more people take it on, more demand for better content. in this case, 3d content.

        • LaTerrible on 25/06/2013 - 23:43

          Yep, it has fluctuated in price a bunch since launch. Speaking of launches…

          http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/25/seiki-launches-39-inch-4k…

          2014 will be the year of cheap 4k TV's for sure.

        • Tgb on 26/06/2013 - 08:20
          +1

          He didn't say it wasn't HD, he said that it wasn't full HD, which is correct.

        • ItsMeAgro on 26/06/2013 - 12:27

          Broadcast shmordcast. I want movies and games in 4K.

        • infinite on 26/06/2013 - 15:40

          .

        • Georgio on 05/08/2013 - 21:56

          '720p is defined as HD' - but not full HD as he correctly states above..

  • ferguscan on 23/06/2013 - 13:12
    +9

    3D sucks. I hate watching it, either at home or in the cinema. My TV is 3D, but that didn't factor into my purchase decision. I would never pay extra for a TV with 3D functionality.

  • KBZ on 23/06/2013 - 13:19
    +4

    3D is absolutely shit IMO, I find that to 'enjoy' the 3D experience I need to not focus as much on the picture in order to be able to fully see the 3d effects and it strains your eyes terribly.

    Not enough content to justify for 3D whether it be on free or even paid tv for that matter.

    It's still is a gimmick IMO.

  • tds on 23/06/2013 - 14:22

    Have had Samsung 55" 3D smart tv for about six months now and have only used the 3D or the smart tv function a couple of times…. Have it connected to the ps3 and the 3D movies do look spectacular though. Only 3d tv I've seen is foxtel sports and it's ok, didn't know there were other 3D tv out there. Best to get a tv for the resolution and not the gimmicky stuff imo.

  • slknv on 23/06/2013 - 15:00

    Only thing I thought 3d was good for, was playing black ops 2 in 3d - apart from the headache I got after 30 minutes! Some content on youtube 3d. Nowadays at least you don't really pay a premium for 3d, it's just standard in mid to top end large screen models.

  • plmko on 23/06/2013 - 15:34

    You don't buy a TV for 3D, you buy a TV so it's 3D certified, guarantees it's at least 120hz certified.

    Also 3D gaming is the bees knees.

  • Moots on 23/06/2013 - 16:02

    When 3D first hit the cinema you could hardly get tickets to watch the normal version; they quickly changed this back to the original + the option of 3D. Personally have a 55" 3D LG, and a 27" Samsung 3D PC Monitor. Never ever used 3D on either as I dislike the overall image. My option though.

  • CyberMurning on 23/06/2013 - 16:43
    +2

    3d on tv is just some "ohh.. cool.. wow… great.. lets watch in 3d" thingie for first few months. after that, you use it less and less.
    if you insisted to get 3d, get passive at least the glasses are cheap. and try download 3d movies from internet, they are free :)

    if you can trade 3d with size, go for size. size is what you see everyday, 3d only occasionally.

    • sleepy120 on 23/06/2013 - 21:43
      +2

      internet search term "3d sbs" for content

  • Pratty on 23/06/2013 - 19:04
    +1

    Life of Pi 3D Blu Ray is incredible on my LG 50inch.

    Still, would I buy a TV just for 3D? No.

  • mr_vino89 on 23/06/2013 - 20:18

    Thanks everyone - so the general consensus here seems to suggest that 3D TV is a bit of gimmick and utterly useful most of the time lol.
    I do think there should be at least one dedicated free-to-air channel that offers TV shows and movies in 3D only for 3DTV owners - perhaps a petition for this? lol

  • hazzad on 24/06/2013 - 07:50
    +2

    This debate has been done to death. Seriously if you didn't want to use 3d then why did you bother buying a 3d tv, not that it really adds much cost to the actual screen. Other than the 3d test broadcasts for the olympics and state of origins there has not been mention of a 3d fta option. If you want to use 3d then either anty up for a 3d bd player, they arent very expensive, or get foxtel with the 3d package. Otherwise as someone stated you can obtain 3d sbs content online if you wish. Personally I love my 3d tv and it's one of the older ir glasses tv so I tend to have sync issues, plus i suffer from ghosting at times. 3d isn't going away guys so I don't get why the debate continues. It's a way for the studios to make more cash at the box office and there is obviously a demand or it would have faded away shortly after its return to the cinema. 4 years on and at least half of the movies being released are in 3d.

    I do agree though that UHD is the ducks nuts but at 15 k it's got a long way before its affordable. If UHD does survive and to be honest I don't know whether there will be much of a market unless they drop in price greatly. Getting people on full hd was a stretch as many people can't tell the difference, UHD will be an even bigger sell.

    • ESEMCE on 24/06/2013 - 09:39

      What are people with a spare $15k watching on their UHD sets?
      To my knowledge the only source of 4K material is from the movie studios and requires that you own a cinema and a DRM locked down server to run the material!

      • hazzad on 24/06/2013 - 10:06

        Sony ships a 4k media player with their top end UHD models with 10 movies and an ongoing library. Other than that content is scarce. Having Said that they are supposed to upscale quite well but I personally be to interested in that. DVD up scaling to 1080p was poor at best so I doubt we would see decent results from these sets. Don't think you need a cinema but certain.y a large room if you are wanting to go 80" and above. Though there are 55" + UHD models but I doubt you would really notice the benefit unless you glue your face to the screen.

      • T1OOO on 24/06/2013 - 12:17

        at this point in time not alot, but they will. Alot of movies are being shot with 4k cameras, and TV shows, one example is the last 2 seasons of House.

        It will take of in about 5-10 years though. Just like the transition from vhs, to dvd, and then bluray,.. pretty sure they will need to use hologram discs as storing a 4k movie in 3d at 60fps would take a few blurays!

        • hazzad on 24/06/2013 - 17:35

          Not true. With the new h.265 codec they should be able to get 4k onto bd, though it may also require an update to 100 gb discs. Will will know sometime thes year once the BDA meets to nut out new specs.

          Most if not all movies are already filmed in 4k now and simply down converted to 2k for home release to BD. One would suspect that 4k will simply be a successor to current 1080p tv's. Once the tech is afforable enough they will simply stop or greatly reduce production of 1080p panels and replace them with 4k panels.

        • Elijha on 25/06/2013 - 21:21

          in the same way the 720p panels sort of just faded away.

  • wukachuka on 24/06/2013 - 09:09
    +1

    I have about 150 3d games, and all of them are more fun to play in 3d…

    I also find 3d Bluray seems sharper than standard bluray (probably not a technical reality) , the separation between screen elements seems to make it much smoother and cleaner to my eyes.

    Each to their own i guess, but i love my 3d!

    • johnno07 on 26/06/2013 - 10:14
      +3

      How do you have 150 3D games?

  • ESEMCE on 24/06/2013 - 09:35

    Dunno if its still that case, but it was recommended to buy the 3D capable version of a TV for better 2D picture quality.
    The TV has to have a high refresh capability to generate the 2 different "views" (one for each eye). The logic then follows that the better circuitry required for 3D resulted in a better 2D picture quality.

    I read that advice on a number of sites 2 years ago when 3D TV was becoming a "thing".. it could well be the case that processing technology has progressed to the point that it's now irrelevant.

    • ItsMeAgro on 24/06/2013 - 11:28

      Yeah, but just look for 120hz or better capability, that's what they mean.

      • CyberMurning on 24/06/2013 - 20:53

        i got the 200mhz but cant really tell the difference?

  • angelkulit025 on 24/06/2013 - 11:37
    +3

    Some movies are really great in 3D specially the animated ones! I have a Panasonic passive 3d tv which I download 3d movies.

  • CHIEFMEGADETH on 24/06/2013 - 18:19

    Yeah i got LG 55inch 100hrz Passive 3d TV. which is supposed to be better then the powered ones from other companys, also has LG only feature called Dual Play. Allows split screen play for Xbox 360/PS3 to be full screen for both players watching the same tv, and that's awesome but only really used it a couple of times.
    But i hardly use the 3d at all, maybe sometimes i will watch the 3d docos that are free but thats it. got bunch of 3d movies/files and they where pretty crappy, most of the time i was like wheres the 3d. but movies only really show 3d here and their.
    Id say forget about 3d. LG had best picture in the store for price, well was a little more then the Samsung but for good reason. plus Dual play was a plus

  • congo on 24/06/2013 - 19:35

    3D is not worth it

  • Chris on 24/06/2013 - 20:02

    I've put my 3D glasses on once in the 2+ years I've had my 3DTV. Total gimmick for me.

  • punk on 24/06/2013 - 20:50

    if i were to get a decent tv, I wouldn't get one without 3d - these days, a decent large 'quality' television has 3d built in already. These days its like saying no to having HDMI - it's pretty much standard and now manufacturers are looking for the next big thing e.g ULTRA HD and curved displays.

    Is it useful? It won't put dinner on the table type of usefulness but I certainly get a kick out of good 3d content and some of it is amazing when done right - I don't have a problem wearing the glasses or eye strain as some have pointed out - its just another added 'experience' and these days its a lot cheaper to get a hold of.

    If were talking about ultra hd, if you can afford to fork out for one, go for it but just like 3d content, its few and far between and for some, 1080p is certainly enough.

  • louwin on 24/06/2013 - 23:55

    Don't complain about lack of content. Take ANY good movie and convert it to 3D.

    Conversion isn't fast but well worth it. The conversion takes 1 for 1 though. A 90 minute movie takes about 90 minutes to convert.

    I have a mate who converts at least a movie a week for the kids to watch and there are NO complaints. :)

  • fusion17 on 25/06/2013 - 00:18

    Ps4 has 4k movie playback. Not sure it can output this res for games. Probably isn't powerful enough.

    4k hdtv as a monitor would be sweet.

  • Ramrunner on 25/06/2013 - 07:51

    We watch a 3D movie almost once a week. No-brainer if you have young kids.

  • kasp on 25/06/2013 - 12:01

    I bought a Samsung 3d tv around a year ago and although I love the TV I have not used the 3d function once. I do prefer seeing movies in 2d though.

  • bpdoz on 25/06/2013 - 15:03
    +1

    This thread is really helpful for me to decide for NOT to buy a 3D TV.
    Thanks all.

  • gmatht on 26/06/2013 - 03:03

    I can also play 3D content from YouTube etc. on my 3D TV. Even if your computer cannot output 3D you should be able to output it as Left-Right split screen and get the TV to convert that to 3D. My old $500 OHKI 3DTV can do that, anyway.

  • johnno07 on 26/06/2013 - 10:19

    The only time I enjoy 3D is when a film has actually been shot in true 3D (i.e. with two separate cameras) - otherwise this faux-3D, post-production bullshit, is… well… bullshit. I actively avoid 3D movie sessions. I will never own a 3DTV unless it is for some reason a better deal when compared to all 2D TVs. I think the parallax 3D on my 3DS is interesting (and far superior to having to wear glasses) but it still makes watching content difficult - you can't just sit and look, you are constantly refocusing.

    • bgbrendan on 26/06/2013 - 12:42

      you can really notice the difference between proper 3d and post conversion stuff but alot of the newer stuff isnt too bad…
      but yeah my main incentive to buy a 3Dtv was that it cost $100 more than the same 2d model…no brainer for that price

      • johnno07 on 27/06/2013 - 11:39

        I would have saved myself the $100, honestly.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/06/2013 - 14:24

    it's hard to buy TV's >60inch these days WITHOUT 3D

  • Efendy on 26/06/2013 - 16:26

    I think 3D TVs are quite a gimmick and they won't give you enough immersion to enjoy it 100% because most affordable ones are limited to a maximum of 60". I am pretty sure what I am going to say is against the spirit of Ozbargain but I have a 100" dual projector passive 3D rig combined with a geobox demultiplexer and a bluray player and it's the best thing since sliced bread. I am using filters and glasses called omega 3D which you can use with white screen. It's similar to Dolby but there is no need for colour correction. It's very easy on the eyes, no ghosting etc. I highly recommend it but it's a little bit fiddly which requires some technical knowledge.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/06/2013 - 16:52
    +1

    I read recently that ESPN in the U.S. are suspending 3D broadcasts. Certainly sounds like the death knell for 3D sports broadcasts worldwide, and bar niche cable channels (which is the case now anyway), probably broadcast 3D generally.

  • THEMAN_AUS on 26/06/2013 - 18:44

    I have one and I love my 3Dtv. Its just great to watch a movie in 3D that you saw in the cinema and it works and its… pretty damn awesome.

  • joeydee on 24/07/2013 - 11:53

    keep in mind that 3dtv has higher spec which include faster refresh rate therefore it is ideal for action or sports fan. with higher refresh rate your screen doesnt produce cuts line or blur with smoother video

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join