My husband and I are looking at new TVs this weekend and are thinking about getting a new 3D HDTV. My main question is, is the new 3D better than the old 3D which required red and blue glasses? Does it actually look better? Any help is appreciated.
The "new" 3D you see in HDTVs today is actually two generations past the old red/blue glasses technology. The interim generation used passive technology, such as polarization. It was substantially better than the red/blue glasses approach, since it retained color accuracy (whereas with the red/blue glasses you basically lost color). This new technology is active: Two distinct streams of video are presented, one for each eye. The glasses have synchronized, electrically-activated shutters, so that they essentially open and shut each lens very rapidly, switching back and forth between the two eyes, 120 times a second (more than twice as fast as the average human can detect it).
It looks fantastic.
However... it isn't perfect. It may not be successful. It may not be the last iteration of this technology - there may be improvements that come down the line a year or two from now. That will practically always be the case - that something better could come along next year.
The way I looked at it is that we wanted to purchase a new television - just like where you are. We, however, were not thinking about getting a 3D-compatible HDTV. However, the best models this year all happen to be 3D-compatible as well. You can get an almost-best HDTV that doesn't support 3D, if you wish, and save a couple of hundred dollars, but the way we figured it, if this just happens to be the 3D technology that finally takes hold, for an extra couple of hundred dollars, it was worth our buying the set that happened to be "better for 2D anyway" that also happened to be 3D-compatible as well.
I appreciate the help! So glad to hear some feedback on the new 3D technology. We were really put off on a few DVD movies we bought last year that included the red/blue glasses but I can't remember the names of them right now, but the picture looked horrible.
We're going to go shopping tonight at a few stores but have taken a glance at a few online places that sell HDTVs. It does look like there's a range from $200-400 in extra costs for 3D fpr the specific TVs we're looking at. Think it works out to 10% additional cost. Hopefully we'll be able to demo the new 3D tonight as well before we make a decision.
Please keep us posted on your research into 3DTV and if you buy, we would all like to know what TV set you chose, why you chose it and any personal reviews you could share with us would be most welcome. This technology is very new and your input will be greatly appreciated by many readers here.
3-D is a fad and is waste of money. Bad enough TVs are expensive but then the glasses are $150 a pair and most TV don't come with even ONE pair. Have kids? Well you know how kids treat stuff. Expect to be replacing glasses often. Very little 3-D content to begin with. All that content will just great in HD without the 3-D. Trust me you'll get sick of wearing those stupid glasses very quickly. No way I would spend extra money one a 3-D TV. Hopefully this is one fad that dies sooner than later.
Remember that there were a lot of compromises early-on with HD: Poor viewing angles, for example. As it is, wearing the glasses isn't a significant concern for many people. Over time, as is the case with most such things, the receptiveness of wearing glasses will likely increase, rather than decrease, until there is no need to wear them at all.