Having seen an LG 47LD920 TV television with passive glasses and the new Samsung UE46C8000 with active shutter glasses, my conclusion is the following: I’ll pass this first generation of 3D TVs until manufacturers sort out some issues. And in short these are the following:
- for the LG 47LD920 TV (I believe it was) using polarized passive glasses the resolution just isn’t there; it’s just like watching standard definition in 3D. Also, the demo they played juddered quite a lot. It proved difficult to follow. I don’t know if this is the case with 3D Blu-Ray sources as well, but this is what I saw.
- for the Samsung UE46C8000, the active shutter glasses gave me a headache in less than 5 minutes ; the first question I asked the dealer was if the glasses were properly charged. Apparently they were. So, what you get is a lot of flicker. The image looked crispier in terms of resolution than that of the LG, but good luck with wearing those glasses continuously for 2-3 hours.
I am not going to judge how they performed in 2D since I can bet the picture controls were set to maximum, as they all are in showrooms. I am sure they are pretty good TV’s, both had deep blacks and they managed to expose a lot of details, too. But that’s not the point.
I guess this time around I won’t be an “early adopter”. I’ve been before buying a Samsung LED backlit TV called LE40A786 which used a full-array LED backlighting system , which I’ve replaced in less than a month with a Sony 40Z4500, which upscales better, reveals details better, has better motion and superb colour. Apparently that Samsung with, 2 mil to 1 contrast ratio, was supposed to be a killer. Guess what? No compatibility with the PS3 (I would get frequent drop-outs in spite of replacing cables and inputs), poor SD upscaling, a pain to calibrate (3 nights in a row looking for set-ups on the Net), poor black insight and a soft image. This happens when you buy the first generation of something. So, no 3D TV for me yet. Thanks for reading.
- for the LG 47LD920 TV (I believe it was) using polarized passive glasses the resolution just isn’t there; it’s just like watching standard definition in 3D. Also, the demo they played juddered quite a lot. It proved difficult to follow. I don’t know if this is the case with 3D Blu-Ray sources as well, but this is what I saw.
- for the Samsung UE46C8000, the active shutter glasses gave me a headache in less than 5 minutes ; the first question I asked the dealer was if the glasses were properly charged. Apparently they were. So, what you get is a lot of flicker. The image looked crispier in terms of resolution than that of the LG, but good luck with wearing those glasses continuously for 2-3 hours.
I am not going to judge how they performed in 2D since I can bet the picture controls were set to maximum, as they all are in showrooms. I am sure they are pretty good TV’s, both had deep blacks and they managed to expose a lot of details, too. But that’s not the point.
I guess this time around I won’t be an “early adopter”. I’ve been before buying a Samsung LED backlit TV called LE40A786 which used a full-array LED backlighting system , which I’ve replaced in less than a month with a Sony 40Z4500, which upscales better, reveals details better, has better motion and superb colour. Apparently that Samsung with, 2 mil to 1 contrast ratio, was supposed to be a killer. Guess what? No compatibility with the PS3 (I would get frequent drop-outs in spite of replacing cables and inputs), poor SD upscaling, a pain to calibrate (3 nights in a row looking for set-ups on the Net), poor black insight and a soft image. This happens when you buy the first generation of something. So, no 3D TV for me yet. Thanks for reading.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram