Curved 4K 3D TV

[ws4936]

So I have been tickled by the idea of a 3D TV ever since we upgraded our old 5.1HT, to a 3D 5.1HT. There's nothing really wrong with our TV at the moment...cept it's old.
The only thing that's making a choice hard is passive or active on the 3D.

From what i've read - both have advantages and disadvantages, and alot of what i've read try to make the option down to personal preference.
With the obvious of price difference on the glasses - what would be better?
Other than the title, the only other criteria is that 65" is the size i'm looking at. Are both active/passive equally easy to come by? The only TV's I've seen in costco i'm sure are active...but i like the idea of not taking out a mortgage to buy more glasses.
____________________
If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.

[Llama-Farmer]

I've always been disappointed and underwhelmed by 3D TVs I've seen.

It didn't stop me buying one though, in the hope that it wasn't the TV but was the content, and that as time went on, the quality and quantity would vastly increase (much like it did with HD around 10 years ago).

It never really happened, and so when the second of 3 HDMI inputs stopped working last year I replaced it with a 55" 4K (non-3D) Panasonic, saving £600 over the 3D version of the same tv.


If you must have a 3D tv then, well, go for it. But if not, you might save up to £750 on a 60" tv by opting for "just" an ultra-HD 2D instead.
____________________
Current Bike: 1999 Honda CB600 FX Hornet
Next Bike: I want a CBR-RR. And I want an F800 GS-A. And a VFR 800. Can I have all 3?
Dream Bikes: Honda VFR750R RC30, Honda NSR500, Ducati 996 R

[RhynoCZ]

Don't go for a cheap one, as those are very disappointing. You get crisp picture only in the center of the screen and as you move your eyes more and more to to the edges, the screen gets worse and worse.

I'd wait a year or two for the premium stuff to drop its prices.
____________________
'87 Honda XBR 500, '96 Kawasaki ZX7R P1, '90 Honda CB-1, '88 Kawasaki GPz550, MZ 150 ETZ
'95 Mercedes-Benz w202 C200 CGI, '98 Mercedes-Benz w210 E200 Kompressor

[grr666]

I just bought a nice new TV.
I decided against a set with 3D capapbility because I don't want to sit on my sofa wearing those daft glasses.
I went for 2D 4k capability instead, I didn't think the difference between that and HD would be as vivid as it was.
It's easily enough of an improvement to justify the spend. I also upgraded our netflix package to get the 4k content.
In particular the PS4 looks epic. The sound was a bit flat until I added a soundbar and subwoofer. My total spend for
both the telly and the soundbar setup was about 800 quid, both items were discounted. No issues with lack of clarity
around the edges of my screen? I bought Samsung because my last two TVs were samsung, one is a 32" LCD and about 10 YO
it still works and looks brand new, and my old lounge TV is a 5 YO 42" Plasma. Both are still set up in different places in
my house each connected to a PS3, and both still work great.
____________________
Currently enjoying products from Ford, Mazda and Yamaha
Ste wrote: Avatars are fine, it's signatures that need turning off.

[DrSnoosnoo]

I've got an argos (Bush) branded 3D Smart TV 42"

I love it. It's a good quality TV though the speakers are pants, like most thin TVs since there's no room for quality speakers/

The picture is good, I'm no techy but you can tell the difference from standard TV when you put a high quality Blu ray on.

The 3D is passive on mine. They're like shades and I love watching my Marvel films in 3D. Even some games on PS3 and 4 are 3D. Being Batman, flying through arkham in 3D is brill. Having a 2D-3D function is good too. Its really quite smart how it works.

Ultimately, it's a personal choice whether you want it. I doubt there'll ever by only 3D content, I just like having the ability to have pretty much a cinema night with the glasses etc watching Captain America punch some Nazis (hydra).
____________________
I'm Sam; Northern, Ginger, Lover
Did have: '95 ZZR600 '83 CG125 '97 ZZR1100 '15 Hypermotard 821 SP Do Have: '10 ZX10R

[Nexus Icon]

I don't get 3D on televisions, or cinema for that matter. I watched Iron Man 3 in 4K 3D and, while the picture was crisp, it really doesn't look like 3D. It looks more like 2D cardboard cutouts strategically placed at different depths on the TV.

I want 3D to mean that if I stand up and look down on the TV I see the top of the guy's head and if I walk left and right I see him from the side.

Surely the human brain is capable of realising 2D into 3D better than a 3D TV. It's not like you watched Twins back in the day and spent the whole film thinking Danny DeVito was stood further away than Schwarzenegger, was it?

tl:dr. Spend the money on a better 4K 2D TV.
____________________
Greetings from Shitsville!

[Nexus Icon]

I don't get 3D on televisions, or cinema for that matter. I watched Iron Man 3 in 4K 3D and, while the picture was crisp, it really doesn't look like 3D. It looks more like 2D cardboard cutouts strategically placed at different depths on the TV.

I want 3D to mean that if I stand up and look down on the TV I see the top of the guy's head and if I walk left and right I see him from the side.

Surely the human brain is capable of realising 2D into 3D better than a 3D TV. It's not like you watched Twins back in the day and spent the whole film thinking Danny DeVito was stood further away than Schwarzenegger, was it?

tl:dr. Spend the money on a better 4K 2D TV.
____________________
Greetings from Shitsville!

[CBFcarl]

I've just bought a 2d 4k LG telly, 55".
Since my Samsung got nicked, we have always had LG. 42" LCD for the living room (now going in the mancave) and a 32" LED 3D model for the bedroom, I think their quality is great without being overpriced. 3D seems to be a bit of a gimmick, but I do like watching films in 3D (the Disney and Pixar stuff looks brilliant) and football was great when Sky had the 3D channel (it is all on demand now).

We didn't go for 3D on the new TV due to the extra cost and the general lack of content for 3D. The picture quality is amazing, and I have gone for a 1 month free trial of Netflix to show off the 4k stuff.

Sky are going to start showing dedicated 4k channels in the summer (through Sky Q) so ordered that yesterday as well.
____________________
thx1138 wrote: Well if you had a car, I'd bet it would smell like urine had had drunken sex with vomit and made a poo baby.
Polarbear wrote: They are all old now. Probably had more abuse that a Rotherham schoolgirl.
Hellkat wrote: I want to know if Nigella smells of garlic, or just minge.

[chris-red]

I prefer passive 3d, with the active I could feel the thing moving it was like having an eye twich.
____________________
Well, you know what they say. If you want to save the world, you have to push a few old ladies down the stairs.
Skudd:- Perhaps she just thinks you are a window licker and is being nice just in case she becomes another Jill Dando.
WANTED:- Fujinon (Fuji) M42 (Screw on) lenses, let me know if you have anything.

[monkeybiker]

3d is a gimic. Avatar was good at cinima in 3d and tron legacy was O.k but most other 3d movies I have seen they are no better than if they were in 2d.

Just an excuse to charge you more.

[bEN_]

I still don't get 4K tv's ..

Even now there are barely any channels broadcasting in 1080 and some of the ones that do also broadcast in SD and want you to pay extra for 'muh pixels', obviously BBC could be considered an exception but who watches BBC these days? oh look, another cooking programme, oh wow, these people are having some kind of pottery making war thing, oh look whats on next, it's a baking programme.

Where is the 4K content?
____________________
2010 Ducati 848 Dark

Lamp Post Enthusiast

[anthony_r6]

[ws4936]

Thanks for the replies guys. It's definitely food for thought. In all honesty I don't watch that much tv - barely watch any programmes if at all - with the exception of the Super Bowl recently as I was away from home.
What I currently use my tv at the moment is mostly movies. It's a Samsung 720p 50htz 50" plasma (told you it was old!), but it's amazing what a good home theatre can enhance the entertainment pleasure.
When I want to watch a movie - I just want to view in the best possible experience, and it seems that 3D seems like its getting mixed reviews here. It's definitely giving me something to think about. I guess I'm just falling in love with the idea of watching a movie in 3D when I have mates round. I have an all singing all dancing all in one pc with touch screen bluray and 3d (active), so I am no stranger to having watched movies in 3D, and I guess the demo TVs that show the 3D content seem to resonate with me, but with it, as most have ou said, it comes at a price. So I won't take it off the table entirely (at least not for now), it just won't be a deciding factor.
While were on the topic of gimmicks....curved vs flat...is it worth it at 65"? I've never had one, so I can't compare. Thanks again for any input.
____________________
If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.

[Im-a-Ridah]

It's more like 2.5D than 3D.

[J.M.]

We bought a 3D TV when they were quite new on the market. Active. It works well, but the novelty wore off very quickly. The only thing I've ever used it for in recent years is that once in a while I would play a bit of GT6 in 3D. Wearing the glasses gets annoying too.

In my personal opinion, I wouldn't pay extra for 3D, because it's not something I've ever missed having (since moving out 4 years ago). I'd pick the dumbest TV that I could find with good screen quality. Then I would put any savings made towards a good amp and some full range stereo speakers.

I'd pick a dumb TV, if possible, because I find my installation of OSMC far nicer than any Smart TV software I've currently seen or read about. Anything that OSMC struggles with can more than likely be handled by a Chromecast/Fire TV stick.

Personally screen quality doesn't mean an awful lot to me. With my eye-sight, I don't really notice the difference in screen quality unless I'm quite close. So playing games I notice it, but for watching films on the sofa, I am quite content with 720/1080. Our current TV is about 8-10 years old, 720p. The only things I dislike are; (1) small number of HDMI inputs, (2) takes a while to turn on, and (3) the sound is severely lacking. However even my cheap (~£50) old computer speakers improve the sound quite a lot.
____________________
2004 R1 & 2018 XSR900

[dydey90]

4K is subjective to distance. I think I read somewhere that on a 55" screen there's no difference between 2k and 4k at six feet distance.
I have a 40" screen on my bedroom wall, about 12 feet from my face when I'm laying in bed and there is little to no difference between watching a film in 1080p and watching channel 4 in standard definition.

Edit: found this helpful chart
https://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg
____________________
This post is probably not serious and shouldn't be taken literally.
Past: CBR125,ER6f NINJA 650, ZZR600 Current: VFR750

[J.M.]

[bladerunner]

^^^^ this! I photo edit full frame DSLR stuff on the 43" LG 4k screen and im so close I can touch it.......at this distance it makes a huge difference to picture quality even tho the files I'm working on are about 12K res. makes my cheapo i7 PC into a mac level display for £400
____________________
Current bikes...cbr929, KDX200's, Rd125lc mk2, RGV250's