I'm being lazy about hitting all the TV forums I'm in the market for a 50-55 inch TV. What's the latest out there? I really don't see the value of 3D. The LED lit ones seem like a good idea. I do like the idea of built in WIFI to access Netflix. Anyone buy one recently?
Doesn't matter what you buy...next week the same thing will be cheaper, a new model will have more features at the same price....
CNet offers some reasonably good reviews and suggestions (as well as an explanation of the different types of LED backlights). Take a few minutes to look over these two links.
http://reviews.cnet.com/2795-6482_7-...a1.2;buyAdvice
http://reviews.cnet.com/best-led-tvs...nt;contentMain
I'm not much help as I'm still a believer in plasma as having better overall picture characteristics (as well as being a problem in sunny viewing rooms). But I may be in the minority as plasma is struggling in the mass market.
new sig pending
I agree with you. And, we are in the minority.Originally Posted by Jakester
Plasma looks a bit better IMO with Cinematic material, but LCD closed most of that image gap from 3-4 years ago. Plasma will also burn in if you want to game or stream from your PC, and they take way more power.
Asked how he’d like to be remembered were he hit by a bus tomorrow, Tracy doesn’t hesitate: “I’m a race-car driver. At the last second, I’d swerve and avoid the bus.”
Plasma burnin is, for all intents and purposes, a thing of the past (and in some cases an LCD marketing fallacy). While LCD has closed the gap, it's almost physically impossible for LCD to do plasma black levels. Yes, they are power hungry.
Not sure how far in the past, my bro-in-law has a 3 year old toshiba 42" plasma, with the Guitar Hero bars and circles permamently etched into it. You don't see them unless the screen is black.
Sharp Aquos LED LC52LE700U Uses 105 watts.
Don't underestimate the value of 3d. I believe it's going to be mainstream in about 3 years. Sony will be pushing it hard for multimedia future content, alot of PS3 software coming down the pipe is going 3d.
I don't know if it's worthwhile for you at this point to be an early adopter, but if the $ difference isn't much, I personally would pay some extra for the feature.
As long as you have to wear glasses, 3d will be niche.
"Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate."
2012 Indianapolis 500 Photo Gallery
2011 Indianapolis 500 photo gallery
I agree since the glasses are active and cost $100 to $200 a pair not to mention apparently some glasses only work with their specific manufacturer's sets. Kind of puts a damper on having a 3D SuperBowl party doesn't it?
true that. For me, I'd get it for gaming. I use an Optoma Front PJ right now, HD65. Rumour when I got it was it was supposed to be firmware upgradable to 3d, but looks like now they are forcing us to buy the HD66, which is exactly the same with the 3d feature. Bummer.
Also, I remember hearing a story on the radio not to long ago - most people in the industry hate 3D - camera operators in particular. It's more expensive, more complex, forces them to put more thought into the 3d effect (and by default less in telling the story) and limits how they can get a shot (ie, can't get into tight places that a single lens camera can).
Speaking of Superbowl in 3D - sports in 3d is particularly useless. Our binocular vision only gives us 3-dimensional viewing up to a very limited range. Beyond that our mind relies on things such as reference of scale of a known quantity (ie, the size of a person), perspective, etc. For a wide shot of a football game it would be unrealistic to see it in 3D, as a wide shot implies being far away (ie, in the stands), at such distance where we do not see 3D. We also use focus adjustment to ascertain three dimensions. Ie, looking at my computer monitor right now, the photos on my wall 8 feet distant are out of focus. If I focus on the pics on my wall, my monitor goes out of focus. You can't do that on 3D tv because you can't alter focus points. As someone said on a camera forum I frequent, 3D in media gives us more of a hyper-reality than a natural reality.
Likewise, 3 dimensional effects can be produced in a two-dimensional medium through use of selective focus. I'm sure we've all seen scenes in movies and tv where two people are separated by distance and the camera is focused on one and then suddenly focuses on the second, throwing the first person out of focus.
Interesting.HL:Toshiba developing 3-D televisions that don't require special glasses
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TOKYO -- Japanese electronics maker Toshiba Corp. said Tuesday it is developing technology for a 3-D television that won't require special glasses.
Company spokeswoman Yuko Sugahara confirmed such technology was in the works. But she declined to comment on a report in the Yomiuri newspaper that the Tokyo-based company plans to start selling the new TVs by the end of the year.
Mainstream 3-D TVs now on sale, such as those from rivals Panasonic Corp. and Sony Corp., require glasses. But there are already screens that don't require glasses, mainly intended for store displays. They require the viewer to stand in specific spots for the 3-D effect to emerge, and the image quality is much lower than that of screens using glasses.
Yomiuri said Mitsubishi's technology involves transmitting different images at various angles to create an illusion of dimension and depth, a principle used by current glasses-free monitors.
Electronics companies have been investing heavily in 3-D technology for televisions, betting that people will want a 3-D experience at home following the success of blockbuster movies like "Avatar," which was screened in 3-D.
Some gadgets like handheld game machines from Nintendo Co. can deliver 3-D images without special glasses.
"Many people don't like to wear glasses to watch TV for a long time, especially people who must wear 3-D glasses over regular glasses," said Sugahara.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks