I'd take a look at the offerings from Samsung or LG. All manufacturers be they Japanese or Korean do seem to be bringing out new models very quickly and the only difference might be the software running in them. Just like cameras it can be possible to upgrade the firmware...or not. It can really come down to things other than the PQ, e.g. if you're going to use it to watch streaming services will a USB / Bluetooth keyboard work with it.

Bob.

I chose my current TV set for what I hoped was the best 2D performance, including low jitter while panning. I can't be sure that I made the best choice, but it is better than my old plasma TV was.

The new TV happened to have active 3D, which was a bonus. I also recently bought an LG PVR which can record or copy to external NTFS USB drives, and it happened to have a 3D BD reader in it as another bonus. I am now able to view 3D BDs, of which I now have 8, all travel documentaries. I have watched each of them once, so far.

It is nice to have the 3D feature in case you need it, but I would not have paid a large premium for it. Only you can make that judgement.

I've been a life-long 3D enthusiast and eagerly selected a 3D TV when I finally was able to purchase my first HD set about 3 years ago. My perception is that 3D is a limited-appeal technology that has severely underperformed in terms of consumer acceptance, and is dying a protracted death. One reason -- at least in my opinion -- is the relative paucity of interesting program material. There are a lot of titles for younger audiences put out by Disney and Pixar, and some of these are quite good, both from a technical and entertainment aspect. And there are quite a few action/adventure movies, notably 'superhero' blockbusters. Problem is, I don't care for either of these genres. I may see something on the big screen, even enjoy it to an extent, but not enough to watch it again at home via PPV or buy it on Blu-ray.

But enough about non-performance issues. Sounds like you're interested in how it actually looks on the home screen.

My set is a 47" LG, which uses the passive method, using the same type of glasses you wear in a Real-D presentation at the theater. When entering 3D mode on the set, there's a noticeable brightening of the screen image, which is designed to compensate for the tint of the glasses -- a nice touch. I won't comment on the more arcane technical aspects, such as the complaints that, because the broadcast is broken up into separate areas for the right and left eyes, that the resultant 3D image is not truly 3D. That's for far more critical viewers than I to debate and heap scorn upon.

I am quite pleased with the 3D performance of the set, but there is a difference from the experience in a theater that you should be aware of, and it relates directly to screen size. The 3D theater experience is far more immersive, due to the large screen in front of you. And the surround sound in the theater also plays at least a psychological part of the overall 'realism' of the presentation.

In my family room, I sit about 8' from the screen, which is far from immersive! A big part of 3D illusion pertains to the screen frame, or borders. If your focus is fixed on the center of the screen, a good 3D depth of field can be enjoyed, even to the extent that some of the scene may be perceived as coming out of the screen at you. Generally, this isn't as exaggerate and effect as may be experienced at a theater, but it is fairly pleasing. But when you're seated in front of a TV set in your home, it's very easy for your eyes to catch a glimpse of the screen's frame, and when that happens, your mind instantly substitutes reality for illusion. The 'in-front-of-you' illusion collapses. This generally doesn't happen on the 'big screen', because it's large enough that you have to pan your eyes to either side to bring the illusion-breaking screen boundary into view.

To put it another way, a smallish 3D television reminds me of an animated shadow box hanging on the wall. The illusion of depth starts at the plane of the screen and goes inward, because of the visible screen boarders. Sitting closer to the screen is helpful, as it more accurately simulates the theater experience in terms of screen size vs viewing distance. This helps mitigate the 3D-busting screen border episodes. Of course, it could also be argued that sitting closer makes it more likely that you'll notice encoding artifacts and/or screen resolution issues.

I would seriously think twice about buying a 42" 3D set, as you have discussed. The smaller the 3D set, the more it's going to look like a wall-mounted viewing port. If possible, visit a store with and look at the display models. Standing back from them in the store is where the 'box-on-the-wall' impression first took root in my mind. This may help you make up your mind in determining whether to proceed with your purchase, consider a larger screen, of forget the whole thing altogether.

My set also includes an on-the-fly 2D--->3D function that is actually quite impressive, although there are some very strange effects when watching things like the cable guide. It's primarily intended for normal TV and movie action, not screens filled with text.

I LIKE my set, and think the 3D is well-implemented. But my eyes are older and I'm far less critical and versed in what makes good video than most of the regular forum visitors and contributors here. It turns out that we very rarely watch in 3D, but it's more about program choice than desire: we simply don't find the selection of 3D material available to make it worthwhile to seek it out.

We did have the opportunity to see the recently-restored 3D version The Wizard of Oz, however. We all thought that it was magnificent. I've seen this so many times on TV since I was a kid that I wouldn't care if I never saw it again. But this was well worth the time and the cost of the Blu-ray, and I highly recommend it to anyone with a 3D set.

Thank you all for the informative feedback! I am going to look into this.

Thanks again,
VMP

> "Is a 3D TV worth buying?"

Since I haven't bought one... my answer would have to be no, it's not worth buying. I asked my kids if they wanted one and they said no. My son just went to see Guardians of the Galaxy the other night and opted not to see the 3D version. Heck, I can't even get my family to watch HD. They are always tuning to the lower SD channels instead of the upper HD ones, so I'd have to say that HD isn't even worth it in my house. :(

(as for me... I plan to go see Guardians of the Galaxy in 3D... maybe even iMAX 3D!) ;-)

Bottom line: What's the demand for 3D at your house? That will tell you if it's worth it or not because 3D is a personal choice... you either love it or hate it.

~jr

Just an update, I have bought the Sony 42 inch W829B 3D TV.

I am really impressed by the quality of the TV.
3D works great too. I will also be getting a 3D projector soon for large viewing.

On this site you can download nice HD & 3D footages to show off your TV.
http://www.demo-world.eu

The Imax 3D demo looks great which can also be viewed here:



Thanks again for your feedback.
VMP