3D TV, Currently worth it or just a tech demo?

I'm considering a new TV and for the models I'm looking at it's $100 and 3D is apparently the only difference. I haven't followed 3D development at all, I've yet to see a 3D movie, I have no idea what kind of support there is for 3D console gaming. So, should I seriously consider the 3D upsell? I don't mind the $100 if it's something I'd use more than as a quick tech demo, but I don't want to just light a cigar with a Benjamin.

I got a 3D TV, and while it doesn't get a lot of 3D use, I am glad I have the option. I have FiOS for TV, so they do have some 3D movies on-demand, at least through HBO. I suspect the other premium channels have some 3D movies, too, and I know I can Pay-Per-View 3D movies, but the price is too high for me to do ($8.99).

For consoles, both the 360 and the PS3 have some 3D support, but more so on the PS3 side. Epic's Unreal Engine supports 3D on the 360, but at a lower resolution or framerate - I have played many rounds of Gears of War 3 in 3D. Assassin's Creed Revelations supports 3D, and I feel it works better in that game than in Gears due to the fact that you have to adjust your aim a bit in 3D shooters, but you don't need to do that in AC:R. The PS3 has more games that support 3D as far as I know. I have Shadow of the Colossus from the PS Store and it runs in 3D beautifully. Super Star Dust and God of War (at least one of them) support it - even in demo form, and it adds a really nice added immersion.

One thing to keep in mind is the 3D glasses. I have a Panasonic plasma, and it uses "Active" glasses - they need batteries and they have to essentially polarize at a rate that matches the TV. I was able to find some universal glasses that work fine with the TV for under 50 bucks a pair, but the branded ones look like they run 100 bucks or so. If the TV you are looking at uses "Passive" glasses, you are probably better off, because needing batteries sucks.

I feel like the general interest in 3D is fading, so it might wind up being a dead-end technology, but it can be pretty nicely immersive.

Even if you're not planning on using the 3d features, last I looked, the sets that support 3d tend to be the manufacturer's higher-end panels. So even without turning it on, the set itself is likely to be a bit better than non-3d sets.

As for the effect itself, there are a few movies that have used it well, but most haven't, so it's kind of a wash. I have heard excellent things about it in the context of gaming though.

There are some games that look pretty amazing. And a few select movies on blu-ray that look great.

But about 90% of 3D content is either bad or just boring.

There are some games that look pretty amazing. And a few select movies on blu-ray that look great.

But about 90% of 3D content is either bad or just boring.


I have a Samsung 46D6000 we got recently. I've watched quiet a few 3d movies and in my opinion it's a minor feature. It's nice having depth but it's not really important. The 3d quality mainly depend on the 3D content creator and currently there aren't many movies that are worth watching in 3d.

In my opinion when buying a TV and any other type of entertainment system you should look at the set of features and which features you must have and which you can live without. A 3d tv is nice to have but it's not critical.

Today the manufacturers limit their TVs' feature sets to sell them at lower price. If you pay more you get more features. The 3D feature seem pretty low on the list. 3D with active glasses is very cheap to implement (all software and a sync signal for glasses). When I got my TV there were about 2 models without 3d and about 8+ with 3d. I got the most basic 3D TV available and it omitted features were not that important.

My co-worker recently got a 46E6200 which is better than my model for about the same price. I have no regrets because we are enjoying our TV and that's the important thing.

Thanks all. I put in my order the other day. I decided to go non-3D and decided on the non-slim EH6000 series. It's still LED, but full array rather than edge lit. I'm not wall mounting so this is a better design for me that should provide better backlighting. I definitely wanted a 55" for my main floor living room and by going with the "stripped-down" line I was able to get a 65" for my basement family room instead of a 60" that I would have had to go with had I gone with the 6500 3D series. After comparing sizes at Amazon Showroom a 65" definitely seemed substantially larger than a 60". I figure that the extra size is going to much more impact than the content-limited 3D feature plus it leaves some money to order another sub.

Thin_J wrote:

There are some games that look pretty amazing. And a few select movies on blu-ray that look great.

But about 90% of 3D content is either bad or just boring.

I find that perfect combination to be pretty rare. In most cases either the 3D is poorly implemented or completely forgettable, or the 3D is actually wonderful but you have to suffer through a crappy movie to enjoy it.

My problem with 3D is the window effect, which makes me feel like I'm looking at miniatures of everything. I have this problem whenever I can see the borders of the screen. Watching 3D film in the theater is ok but not great, so I can only imagine it's magnitudes worse on a TV.

Arise, thread!

I'll just put this here: https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/shambli...

My 'bold prediction is that VR goes the same way by 2018.

VR might have more legs than 3D; it's a more interesting tech, especially in gaming. It seems to add something that you can't really get otherwise.

But isn't that exactly the argument being made for 3D about 5 years ago? An enhanced and more immersive viewing/playing experience?

And there are a lot of similarities between where we were with 3D in 2011 and where we are with VR now. Different versions of the tech? Check! Lots of manufacturers piling in? Check! Precious little premium content? Check!

For me content is key. At the moment we have lots of VR experiences, but few actual built-from-the-ground-up-for-VR games. Five years ago we had lots of movies converted to 3D, but only a handful of built-for-from-the-ground-up-for-3D-movies/tv shows.

I'm actually saving up a few shekels to pick up a discounted PSVR when the inevitable announcement comes, so that I can keep it as a curio.

Probably not the right thread for this, but to answer your initial question, the argument VR isn't anything close to the same argument made for 3D. 3D was enhancing an existing experience (note that 3D is still kind of popular in theatres) whereas VR is a completely different kind of experience. With 3D you still are sitting on your couch watching a display. It just adds depth. With VR you are completely immersed in the experience and at times might even forget that you are in VR (wait until the first time you try to use a virtual table to lean against). It is interactive.

Right now it is definitely niche, but that is due to the technology being expensive, the hardware is bulky and relatively low resolution. I don't get motion sickness and some games make me feel dizzy. But as time goes on, the displays resolutions will get better. The headsets will get smaller and lighter and the low end hardware will be able to drive it. They are adding eye tracking, more ways of detecting real world objects in VR. It is only going to get more popular.

VR isn't going anywhere. Has way to many use cases outside of gaming. It might end up being more AR than VR but it's going to stick this time around. It might fade for gaming but expand into other uses

You may be right about this being the wrong thread, so I may copy my comments to the general VR thread too.

But to you main point. I'm not clear how VR isn't simply enhancing an existing experience; the experience that is interactive entertainment. Take PSVR:

- In the non-VR experience, players sit on their couches whilst waving their Move controllers around.
- In VR experience, players sit on their couches whilst waving their Move controllers around... but with the screen really close to their faces.

I'm not being flippant. But often the argument about new technologies revolves around 'this time things are different', and often they turn out not to be.

But we will see...