Looking for opinions on 3D HDTV's & monitors

[Asai]

Like the title says.

Anyone have any experience with them or opinions? The only experience I've had is with a plasma and it was pretty bad, got burnt in and looked just plain weird sometimes.

Looking to upgrade to something above 42", preferably 3D and LED backlit, with mouting holes, and will be somewhere around 800 bucks.

Same thing with monitors, I see some nice deals on 3D monitors every now and then but then a month later have bad reviews or the price skyrockets. Something in the 400 dollar range would be alright.

I noticed with the 3D TV's, they take a huge leap in price if they have "smart TV" technology (built in wifi/bluetooth/internet connectivity, shit like that) which I don't need or care for. It's usually a ridiculous leap too, like 40% of the price sometimes.

[Takiwaki]

LG series, passive 3d is the way to go.

the 7600 or 8600, also its gonna be pretty hard to find a premium tv that does 3d without the smart atm.

But honestly if you are going for a tv for 3d def would advise against active

[Surealistic]

passive sucks ass, cuts resolution in half, plasma active or nothing

[Takiwaki]

passive sucks ass, cuts resolution in half, plasma active or nothing

Thanks for the informative reply. Op should be happy.

To shed some light on the topic, since you gave such a great breakdown.

most recent sets that use passive with a high refresh rate 240+ show no degradation in quality. Also OP If you have not used an active shutter tv I would suggest trying it out.

Me personally I have both and use a panny plasma active in my bedroom to which I cannot use for more than 20 min before dry eyes and headaches in 3d. The LG which quality is superb the LM8600 series I use in my living room. I can watch a full length movie with much better 3d, no overlap and ghosting.

Its a matter of preference, I went with comfort

[Intervention]

As a person that has to deal with looking at 3D TVs and monitors all day, I work in stereo conversion, I lean toward the passive route. Bigger the better as well, stereo scales with the size, you will get a lot more depth from a bigger screen. So, in turn I would not recommend 3D monitors due to size, unless you need it for work.

Only good reason to get an active TV is for the viewing angles. You can basically sit anywhere and see the 3D, which is a deficit of passive screens. Proprietary glasses aren't cheap to replace, which is the biggest reason to not get Active.

+1 for LG as well, I have a few coworkers that have a passive from them and they seem to like them.

[Surealistic]

as you so eloquently put, thx for the informative post

passive, as you failed to mention, drops resolution down to 720p, and the larger the screen, the worse the picture will look

yes, it is to each his own, but technically speaking, active plasma is the best way to go, i have no issues whatsoever with dry eye or ghosting (when calibrated correctly)

and since plasma works natively at 600hz, you will be getting 300hz per eye, trumping even the best NATIVE led or lcd tv which caps at 240hz, yes you will see led's and lcd's claiming all the way uop to 960hz, but they are all using computer trickery to mimmick that, not giving true 960hz, thereby looking like crap, with lots of artifacts

but im sure you will tell me how im wrong lol

[Takiwaki]

as you so eloquently put, thx for the informative post

passive, as you failed to mention, drops resolution down to 720p, and the larger the screen, the worse the picture will look

This is bullshit simply put. At the moment I use a 55 inch LG passive tv and no it does not degrade the quality, due to the refresh rate, if you understand how it works in the latest models you will not see the difference, I also have at 600 hz Panasonic plasma, also comparing hz between plasma and lcd is stupid since its two different technologies, I am speaking from experience, from owning both.
No not everyone experiences fatigue yes but most people do.
Also on I did not fail to mention anything since you already said it cut the resolution in half.. have you even seen one in action? Also its only the vertical resolution that gets cut..

Like I said its a matter of preference on what you are looking for. I just stated why I went with passive over active shutter. Since I have both I just though I would say I am more happy with the passive. If you want technical prowess go ahead with active shutter shutter if your eyes can take it. Its not about right or wrong stupid argument is stupid.

Plasma vs lcd is a totally different conversation..

for the OP its your choice, if you want to go the active route go with Pany or sammy, if you gonna go passive, LG for high end but right now vizio is doing great things for the budget minded.

[Takiwaki]

here is a good article,which explains why LG do claim that its full 1080p 3d you see on their sets, also much detail about all 3d tech.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/edit...-vs-passive-3d

[Asai]

Thanks for the replies, all are appreciated. LG sounds like the best way to go. Are they natively more geared towards nvidia? I know some are designed for certain brand of graphics card/3D tech being used.

[Intervention]

Thanks for the replies, all are appreciated. LG sounds like the best way to go. Are they natively more geared towards nvidia? I know some are designed for certain brand of graphics card/3D tech being used.

From what I gathered by going through different setups for work, it should be straight forward. We currently use nvidias with our passive monitors, this is of course for Vfx work but I can imagine for gaming it won't be much different. I can imagine it will be more computer settings based than anything else.