Should i wait for 3D TV?

[admin_exported]

I am going to be updating my whole system early in 2010 (Speakers/Receiver/TV) but after Sky announcing today that premier league football will be available in 3D before this season is out i am now thinking that maybe i should hold back on the TV for 6 months as i do not want to spend £1500 on either the samsung or philips award winning TV's only to find that in 6 months time i cant get 3D on there!

With Sky announcing the 3D stuff surely the big players Sony/Panasonic/LG/Samsung/Phillips have 3D ready to launch to the consumer market but does anyone have any idea of what sort of price we will be talking?

 

[professorhat]

My bet is expensive and not particularly brilliant. Will probably take a few years before they start getting it right (usually does with new technologies like this).

Of course I could be wrong - I'm not privy to any secret info!

 

[Clare Newsome]

We'll know more in the first week of January, Andy. The Consumer Electronics Show in the US (which we'll be reporting directly from) is the annual curtain-raiser for the year's new launches. It'll start off with a day of back-to-back press conferences from the likes of LG, Samsung, Panasonic and Sony, and i'd expect 3D TV to be a major topic, with all the new ranges being revealed.

We'll then chase the UK reps of those companies around for a few days and try and nail down the details of when they'll arrive here in UK, and at what price!

So, by the time you come to make your choice of set, you should be armed with a lot more info from us.

 

[Frank Harvey]

3D TV is supposed to immerse you in the film/programme etc. This cannot be done with a 40" or 50" screen - unless the majority of your field of vision is taken up by the screen, it's not going to be as convincing and impressive as it should be.

 

[Clare Newsome]

And then manufacturers say they have limited (if any) plans for projector implementation

It's an issue I hope to come back from CES with some convincing answers to/explanations for....

 

[Anonymous]

FrankHarveyHiFi:

3D TV is supposed to immerse you in the film/programme etc. This cannot be done with a 40" or 50" screen - unless the majority of your field of vision is taken up by the screen, it's not going to be as convincing and impressive as it should be.

I'm not too excited about 3D, but the issue you raise can be easily resolved by either:

1) sitting 1-2 ft away from the tv

; or

2) buying a competitively priced 103" screen from panasonic (at close to, or in excess of, £100,000)

.

I would have thought that the most logical solution for both price and screen size would be to incorporate this technology into projectors, given that presumably the technology there is already quite advanced as a result of its use in cinema.

 

[Andrew Everard]

But then again all the recent Panasonic demonstrations - and here I'm think particularly of those at CEATEC - have used 50in plasmas, with the company saying extending it to projectors is less of a priority.

 

[tvspecv]

they havent fully achieved hd yet so starting waiting for

3-d ...............................

 

[ElectroMan]

I've not seen any of the 3D televisions, but the LCD shutter-glasses system is capable of out of the screen, in your face effects.

Admittedly, I think it will be quite some time before we have full, holographic immersion!

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:But then again all the recent Panasonic demonstrations - and here I'm think particularly of those at CEATEC - have used 50in plasmas, with the company saying extending it to projectors is less of a priority.

I'm looking forward to seeing the 103" 3D set when Panasonic bring their tour to London in a weeks time. (out of interest, not because I'm jumping on the 3D bandwagon, if there is one - also going to try and watch avatar in 3D in a couple of weeks)

 

[bigboss]

I wouldn't want to be an early adopter of the 3D technology (the manufacturers haven't yet come to a consistent standard). Also, the first generation 3D TVs will require you to wear glasses

which isn't really practical.

I think the earliest ideal time to buy a 3D TV will be in 2013. Until then, just stick to established technology, i.e, 2D TVs.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Andrew Everard:But then again all the recent Panasonic demonstrations - and here I'm think particularly of those at CEATEC - have used 50in plasmas, with the company saying extending it to projectors is less of a priority.
Yeah, only because they know that plasmas are more popular. The stupid thing is, because of the necessary screen size, this is perfect for projectors.

 

[Anonymous]

FrankHarveyHiFi:

Andrew Everard:But then again all the recent Panasonic demonstrations - and here I'm think particularly of those at CEATEC - have used 50in plasmas, with the company saying extending it to projectors is less of a priority.
Yeah, only because they know that plasmas are more popular. The stupid thing is, because of the necessary screen size, this is perfect for projectors.

I agree, but I assume that the market for projectors is considerably smaller than that for tvs. If Panasonic want to sell 3D to the majority of consumers, which obviously they do, then the best way for them to do that is to present it on a medium that most consumers will buy.

They should do both though.

 

[Andrew Everard]

FrankHarveyHiFi:The stupid thing is, because of the necessary screen size, this is perfect for projectors.

As I explained in my blog from its 3D seminar in Japan, Panasonic thinks not...

 

[Anonymous]

I would have thought some of the more specialised projector manufacturers would be interested in 3D. Surely it's only ever going to be a niche product in the long term. I can't imagine everyone in 5-10 years sat around watching Coronation Street in 3D. Haven't 16:9 sets been on the market 15-16 years, yet many programmes which are made in 16:9 are still shown 4:3 on some of the Sky channels. Even ITV and Channel 5 seem to shown movies later on in 4:3.

 

[Andrew Everard]

NSYGrinner:I would have thought some of the more specialised projector manufacturers would be interested in 3D.

Indeed, as outlined here...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:

NSYGrinner:I would have thought some of the more specialised projector manufacturers would be interested in 3D.

Indeed, as outlined here...

Oh dear, sounds like 3D is here to stay after all.

I wonder whether studios such as sony pictures will produce 3D films in large numbers to the detriment of other content to push their new tv format.

 

[Andrew Everard]

hmtb:I wonder whether studios such as sony pictures will produce 3D films in large numbers to the detriment of other content to push their new tv format.

As if, surely not, perish the thought, etc...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:

hmtb:I wonder whether studios such as sony pictures will produce 3D films in large numbers to the detriment of other content to push their new tv format.

As if, surely not, perish the thought, etc...

I should have ommitted "studios such as." I have no doubt that studios in general will produce more 3D films just whether Sony Pictures will produce a higher proportion of these given Sony's commitment to 3D tvs. ie using their ownership of a film studio to affect sales in their tv division.

Re-reading my original post it looks like I'm suggesting that more 3D films will be made as a result of the new technology which is kind of obvious (as is the above, relating to Sony).

 

[Anonymous]

I can't see any 3D sets reaching the UK shores in the next 6 months?? The sets must come with the googles.

Of course 3D sets have been launched in the Far East a year ago.So they do exist.

If Sky is right then why buy big ticket item 2D TV now. The sets ought to be 2D and 3D compatible. Prepare for another scrappage scheme???

 

[Anonymous]

Manufacturers can't make perfect LCD, Plasma (sorry guys) TVs yet so what are 3D sets going to be like when they come out? I suspect people will get headaches, as reported in the press with Avatar, and it will be ( as in the cinema) a passing phase for many years to come. Do we need to buy a 3D set and a normal set ? I am sure to get the 3D to work there will be compromises.

How many years has it taken PCs to work properly? Well they still don't without problems now and again. I am still searching for a 55inch LCD set that is affordable, works in all different variations of movie scene darkness ,and doesnt go dim if you move a few inches one way or another. Plasmas use too much electrickery and aren't bright enough in daylight. I suspect that even when we get OLED TVs they will have a new problem not yet thought of.

Why are TV reviewers giving sets 5 stars when none of them are good enough yet?

Mr Annoyed

 

[Frank Harvey]

Andrew Everard:As I explained in my blog from its 3D seminar in Japan, Panasonic thinks not...

Projectors? Maybe not...
What about projector systems? Or indeed glassless 3D? Will that be the next stage? Here we got lost in some discussion of rear-projection TVs, before getting back on track with home cinema projectors. These kind of got dismissed due to problems with focus, screen quality and viewing angles, with the statement that "plasma is self-illuminating, and a reality.

"Projection is fine for cinema, but home projector quality is reduced, so not suitable."I was going to call them a name, but then again, I don't care much for 3D 'live' movies, so not too worried.

 

[PIPPI]

Plasmas use too much electrickery and aren't bright enough in daylight. My Panasonic TX-P50G10 with NEO panel goes bright enough in daylight. Go and check a runin one for yourself.

 

[bigboss]

barrywi:

Manufacturers can't make perfect LCD, Plasma (sorry guys) TVs yet so what are 3D sets going to be like when they come out? I suspect people will get headaches, as reported in the press with Avatar, and it will be ( as in the cinema) a passing phase for many years to come. Do we need to buy a 3D set and a normal set ? I am sure to get the 3D to work there will be compromises.

How many years has it taken PCs to work properly? Well they still don't without problems now and again. I am still searching for a 55inch LCD set that is affordable, works in all different variations of movie scene darkness ,and doesnt go dim if you move a few inches one way or another. Plasmas use too much electrickery and aren't bright enough in daylight. I suspect that even when we get OLED TVs they will have a new problem not yet thought of.

Why are TV reviewers giving sets 5 stars when none of them are good enough yet?

Mr Annoyed

Actually, your observations are rather baseless. A lot of the TVs out there are superb. What do you want out of a TV for the reviewers to give 5 stars???

Regarding LCDs, most of the newer generation LCDs have a very wide viewing angle and the blacks are getting better.

With regards to plasmas.....too much electricity???? It translates to something like £10 per year more than LCDs....is that too much??? Although not as bright as LCDs, but the brightness is still very good in daylight (obviously I'm talking about the good quality plasma sets, not the budget range).

Why will manufacturers strive to make the perfect LCD / plasma?? Pioneer was closest to making the perfect plasma, & look what happened......it had to stop making TVs. In today's world, where 128kbps MP3 songs are most sought for & people are not really bothered about quality (how many people buy SACDs, for example?), why will the manufacturers spend billions on Research when consumers are not willing to pay more than £1000 for a 50-inch TV?

A case in the point: Canon makes 3 lenses in the 50mm range: f/1.0, f/1.4 & f/1.8. The f/1.0 is the fastest lens anyone can possibly make, & is, in all respects, a perfect lens. How much did that cost? $2700. And how much does the f/1.8 lens cost? A mere $75. It's still an excellent lens.

Now, who in their right mind would spend money on the perfect lens which costs 36 times more than a standard lens which is only a bit slower? Canon stopped making the 50mm f/1.0 lens few years ago (surprise surprise).

 

[Anonymous]

My post was mainly about 3D but I still stick with my comments on LCD TVs.

I bought a Samsung 7000 (same as 7020) 55inch led backlit (well actually sidelit ) after seeing the set in Dixons on display and reading reviews.. I did some research but made the mistake of ordering the TV in haste for my birthday. Initially I liked the sharpness and brightness on well lit HD programmes, but found I was constantly adjusting the TV to get a good setting for all types of material. My wife and I sat down to watch a Blu Ray movie with lots of dark scenes and I was shocked by the back light variation over the whole of the screen . There were 5 cloudy areas in the corners and the centre and even my wife said it was bad ( she is no expert but she said it was worse than our stop gap Tevion 47 inch LCD which is 3 years old) and that it should go back. I spent the whole of the next day trying more variations on settings but it was always a major compromise. This was particularly galling as I bought it to improve detail in the blacks amongst other reasons. The set cost me £2000 with internet searching and retailed at about £2500 so I decided it had to go, especially after finding many more owners of this and other LCD sets, some even more expensive, having similar problems. It also had a very narrow watching angle and the picture quality varied a lot if I moved my head a foot or less from side to side.Some people were happy with this set so something is wrong with quality control if the sets can vary this much at this price.Luckily Dixons were excellent despite reports on this forum , and took the set back without a problem, picked it up on a Sunday and put the money back in my credit card account within two days of it leaving.

I am now on a mission to find a decent 55inch TV at under £2500 and the more I read on forums the more depressed I get about finding one , even including plasmas at double the price, they all seem to have weaknesses.