-
CES Hands On - Samsung HW-Q990F review
Best tv for 2d (read no 3d)
- Thread starter sebrouen
- Start date
bigboss
Moderator
bigboss
Moderator
This has just been released; the price should fall to your budget soon:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/panasonic-tx-l42e6b_TV_review
Any reason you're averse to 3D? You can get a 3D TV for your budget.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/panasonic-tx-l42e6b_TV_review
Any reason you're averse to 3D? You can get a 3D TV for your budget.
bigboss said:
Right, just by the best 2D TV for your budget. If it's a 3D TV too, nobody will force you to use this feature.
I just don't want to buy a TV which requires you to wear glasses. Yes and I am aware no one is forcing me to she'll extra on 3 pairs of glasses to watch limited content. oh and my three year old toddler wouldn't be too happy looking at something that doesn't look 'right' What companies should be concentrating on is display very good SD TV seeing as this still comprises about 80% of TV scheduling. But that's a topic for another day or month.
sebrouen said:
Sebrouen, I think your anger is misplaced. You don't like 3D. We get that. We're arguing that 3D is incidental to the discussion.
A large proportion of televisions now come with 3D functionality as standard. If you start from a position of thinking "I refuse to buy a TV that includes 3D as a feature," you greatly limit your options.
If you audition a television, decide it suits your budget, has a 2D picture you love, and also offers 3D viewing, you shouldn't rule it out on the basis that it can also display 3D content. You're not saving money by eschewing 3D, because most large screen televisions are now 3D-capable.
Let me give you another example by way of comparison. My television is a so-called "smart TV," though I don't surf the net on my television because it's much slower than my laptop and the internet platforms supported are scaled-down versions. I think "smart" features are a gimmick and I've zero interest in them, but that's not why I bought my television. I buy home video hardware because I want the best possible picture. I simply ignore the smart features because nobody is forcing me to use them. They're there. I know they're there. But I see no value in raging about their inclusion, as I'm focused on the picture the TV produces.
As I say, choose a TV within budget that has the 2D picture you like best. Ignore the other features if they're included. In saying "I'll never buy a TV with 3D functionality," you're overcomplicating your decision.
What's more, the inclusion of 3D often has knock on benefits in terms of 2D performance (faster refresh rates, for instance). The best 3D TVs are usually the best 2D TVs, as well.
bigboss
Moderator
sebrouen said:
Don't buy 3D glasses, & don't watch any 3D content. Simples.
Are you under the impression that a 3D TV attempts to show all content in 3D, forcing you to wear glasses?
2D is exactly the same as any other TV, & you dont need glasses.
My understanding is that the OP understands that you can watch a 3D TV in 2D, without glasses, but out of vehement 3D hatred, refuses to have a 3D-capable TV in his home.
I'm happy to corrected on this.
I'm happy to corrected on this.
bigboss
Moderator
strapped for cash said:
Just wanted to make sure.
I agree with you that even 2D content benefits because of 3D capability of the TV.
Point taken strapped for cash. I guess I am complicating matters. But am I right in thinking that 3D is usually found in a brands more expensive models?
slght misunderstanding big boss. I was thinking from a practical point of view if we chose to sit down as a family to watch sky 3D for example we would need three pairs of glasses and the little un wouldn't be able to watch for obvious reasons. But my original issue was advice in seeking out a 2D only TV such as the Panasonic recommended earlier.
bigboss
Moderator
The problem is that pure 2D TVs are vanishing, and ones that are being sold are low spec. You'll get better 2D TVs in your budget if you don't mind 3D functionality (although it'll end up as a feature you won't use). Just keep the clause that 3D is not important to you.
bigboss
Moderator
This is older the 2012 model of the TV I linked earlier (discounted as it's an outgoing model):
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/panasonic/viera-txl42e5b/pana-txl42e5b
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/panasonic/viera-txl42e5b/pana-txl42e5b
bigboss
Moderator
If you don't restrict yourself to pure 2D TVs, this is the best TV you can buy for your budget:
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/panasonic/viera-txp42st50b/pana-txp42st50b
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/panasonic/viera-txp42st50b/pana-txp42st50b
bigboss
Moderator
Another good option:
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/samsung/ue40es6300/sams-ue40es6300
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/samsung/ue40es6300/sams-ue40es6300
Cheers for those posts big boss I guess now it's time to do some leg work to see your recommendations in the flesh!
Cheers for those posts big boss I guess now it's time to do some leg work to see your recommendations in the flesh!
bigboss said:strapped for cash said:
Just wanted to make sure.
I agree with you that even 2D content benefits because of 3D capability of the TV.
Admittedly I wasn't 100 percent sure myself.
One more thing to add as a 2012 Panasonic plasma owner -- Sebrouen should familiarise himself with some of the problems experienced with 2012 Panasonic plasma televisions (including the ST50 you recommend). That way he can make an informed decision before purchase.
See these threads for information:
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/tvs-and-projectors/plasma-image-retention-opinions-required
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/tvs-and-projectors/panasonic-tx-p50gt50-plasma-tv-vertical-banding
Alantiggger
Well-known member
Here's a thing to keep in mind... 3D movies can be brilliant to watch. I have quite a few now and most are really great to watch, gimmicky sure but great nontheless.
I wouldn't buy a Panasonic TV any more given that each of the models in the past few years suffer bad things with their picture, I'd be looking at say a Samsung which I now own though my last TV was a Panasonic and a great Panasonic TV at that the PX70 which was an HD ready TV but brilliant picture was to be had with it with all input.
The way forward is 1080p though and more and more channels are being made availible now than before.
3D as such I recon has not began to be as big as it will eventually become given that the majority of households won't or can't yet afford the decent types of 3D TV's which are best to own.... but prices are falling.
I wouldn't buy a Panasonic TV any more given that each of the models in the past few years suffer bad things with their picture, I'd be looking at say a Samsung which I now own though my last TV was a Panasonic and a great Panasonic TV at that the PX70 which was an HD ready TV but brilliant picture was to be had with it with all input.
The way forward is 1080p though and more and more channels are being made availible now than before.
3D as such I recon has not began to be as big as it will eventually become given that the majority of households won't or can't yet afford the decent types of 3D TV's which are best to own.... but prices are falling.
bigboss said:
Just bought the 42" E6B one today.
Have set up out of the box, then headed off to watch/listen to Eels at Brixton Academy tonight. I loved them, Mrs C tolerated.
Just shows that marriage is all about compromise
Will have a good play with the tv tomorrow.
All the sockets point backwards, so not good if you want to fit on the wall, but at least they don't point sideways close to the edge, so that the cables come out of the side of the set.
The Panasonic 42" E6B is excellent.
All set up now in the Cobalt tv room (used to be my guitar and amp music room, but teenagers have taken over the world). Still, I can lock the door.
Excellent picture straight out of the box, though I've reduced the contrast from 100% on the default setting to closer to 75%.
Great picture, especially in HD, and the SD isn't bad.Not tiring and more natural than the smaller Samsung LED it has replaced.
Sound quality is as expected - thin.
Lucky I've got it connected to an older KEF egg 5.1 system via a non-HDMI Pioneer receiver (D-2011) or the sound would be completely out of proportion to the image.
Family happy.
All set up now in the Cobalt tv room (used to be my guitar and amp music room, but teenagers have taken over the world). Still, I can lock the door.
Excellent picture straight out of the box, though I've reduced the contrast from 100% on the default setting to closer to 75%.
Great picture, especially in HD, and the SD isn't bad.Not tiring and more natural than the smaller Samsung LED it has replaced.
Sound quality is as expected - thin.
Lucky I've got it connected to an older KEF egg 5.1 system via a non-HDMI Pioneer receiver (D-2011) or the sound would be completely out of proportion to the image.
Family happy.
Maybe the OP was thinking 3D tv's impacted the quality of the 2D picture or where significantly more money so paying a price for something not wanted.
or am I a bit late with that :roll:
or am I a bit late with that :roll:
Paul.
Well-known member
Nick_Shepherd said:
A passive 3D TV could (debatably) affect image quality as there are filters over the front of the panel which supposedly reduce brightness. Whether this happens noticeably in practice is another question. Active TVs have no filters, all the work is done by the processor/glasses so in theory will have no effect on 2D performance.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram