Is getting a non 3D TV a mistake?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TWG1572

Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
579
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
I've officially recieved clearance from my wife to purchase a new tv. Woo Hoo! I'm looking in the 60-65 inch range, probably LCD technology because it will be living in a somewhat bright room. It's one of those newer McMansion style living rooms with a wall of windows, but they are facing north so direct sunlight will be rare. Current TV is a 40" Sony Bravia LCD that's about 4 years old.

I've been procceding along with the perception that 3D is kinda gimmicky, and I don't really need it. But I also am noticing that pretty much every new TV is 3D. I don't want to be like the guys that bought a Beta VCR, or like my BIL who dropped decent coin on a HD DVR only to learn that BluRay was the standard.

Any thoughts? I'd prefer this TV stay relevant for another five years, so don't want to miss out on a technology I'll need. But I have no idea how mature the 3D technology is anyway. I dont really have a huge desire to be an early adopter, but I will beat myself up if I buy something that's doomed to be obsolete in the short term.
 
Personally, I think 3D IS gimmicky (as does Christopher Nolan) and I refuse to EVER buy one. Besides, watching movies in 3D makes me nauseated anyway.

My suggestion is stick with what YOU enjoy...if you like 3D movies, then go for it. If not, stick with LCD, LED or Plasma (totally different topic).
 
I'm with you, 3D is a gimmick that will probably be gone in 5 years. OR it will blossom when a truly glasses-free technology that works well is perfected, in which case any TV you buy today would definitely be obsolete when that happens. But that's just a guess.
 
I've got a 42'' 3D Smart LCD. No you don't need it, I don't see 3D being the next big thing like BluRay was. Don't get me wrong the 3D movies are truly awesome to watch, some movies I dare say look better than in the theaters in 3D. If 3D channels start getting offered I can tell you I won't be a buyer. I don't see a need for 3D channels, it's a cool feature for movies but other than that it is simply not needed. I'd rather not wear glasses to watch my shows for hours on end.

When glassless 3D technology emerges I think 3D will truly take off! Until that day though, I wouldn't spend the extra on 3D unless you genuinely want 3D.
 
I think its a gimmick as well. I personally tried one in a store and could see the flicker of the transitions big time. It was like looking at an old CRT monitor @60Hz. They would always flicker until I set them to 70Hz.
 
Originally Posted By: alaskanseminole
Personally, I think 3D IS gimmicky (as does Christopher Nolan) and I refuse to EVER buy one. Besides, watching movies in 3D makes me nauseated anyway.

My suggestion is stick with what YOU enjoy...if you like 3D movies, then go for it. If not, stick with LCD, LED or Plasma (totally different topic).


+1 I get headaches watching 3D anyways so I wouldnt bother but it seems a little gimicky to me
 
God no..
I have a 3D TV and not only do I have no intention of ever using it, but I wouldn't care if it didn't have the ability at all. It just so happens this model was everything else I wanted.

You have to invest in other things to take advantage of 3D anyway. Forget it.
 
our 3-year old 60" has it and it was used once by her son....we've never used it and I'm not sure I could figure out how to activate it in the menu. We only have it because the tv came with it....purely a gimmick to us.
 
My wife likes it. If you have kids they may get a kick out of it. Personally I don't really feel one way or the other. I have it because it came on my TV, not because I sought it out.
 
Does not the higher refresh rate required for 3D and denser pixel packaging give you a better HD screen than non-3d displays when watching non 3d brodcasts and movies? IDk because I still have my 18 year old data grade $1000- panasonic superflat 32" CRT which is fine for me.
 
No, it is a feature you are paying for that you will likely never use. It is far from perfected and you need goofy glasses to even use it. A waste of moolah!
 
3D TV is a side-show, HDTV the way it is right now, is where it's going to stay at for a long while. The next big thing is 4K, which is still a ways away.

I suggest not buying a 3D TV unless you **really** want to watch 3D programming. Otherwise, you're just wasting your money as market saturation of 3D content is at a minimum.
 
I just bought a TV and specifically chose a dumb one without 3D. Why pay hundreds extra for a "smart" TV when you can pick up a $60 Roku box that has more capability? Plus - you can easily replace the standalone box as technology evolves. I am sure some great service will come along 3 years down the line that an expensive smart TV won't support.
 
I'm in the same boat, and I guess in the minority. I want a 60~65 in tv with passive 3d so I can buy 7 dollar glasses for my kids and their friends. Even though I will probably seldom use it I think it will be awesome for video games and at least a movie or two a year. And the price is minimal on active TV's (all they need to add hardware wise is an emitter) and I don't really know for passive, but based on final prices not much more either.

Why do people not want this? Because is costs more? It really doesn't cost more.
 
shoot, I remember when the only television show in color in our area was The Flintstones and maybe one or two commercials....next it was remote control and the servo motors actually rotated the knobs, were slow, and noisey.

When we lived in Germany, I remember watching Mr. Ed in dubbed-German and it seems most of the commercials featured a Felix-the-Cat charactor showing the product.

Nowadays, I only watch the Science, Discovery, Military, or Nat Geographic channels. I watched a show called Duck Dynasty the other night and my only comment is.....wow!
 
The thing a lot of people seem to be missing is that virtually all of the mid to high-end TVs (LCD or plasma) are 3D, whether you want it or not. So by saying "don't get a 3D TV" you're also saying "only get a base model" - it it'll be lacking features you may want, won't have the higher-end picture quality features, anti-glare coatings, calibration controls, etc. That is, the 3D TVs tend to be better 2D TVs as well.

So, figure out your size need and price range and get the best TV you can afford. It might be 3D but don't let that stop you.

jeff
 
I don't think it's a mistake. My new Panasonic is the lower end of their Smart TV's and also has 3D. While I really enjoy being able to watch NetFlix, Youtube, etc directly on the TV I still have not watched any 3D because quite honestly there's so little of it available.

When 3D came out everyone thought it was going to be the next best thing, but it's pretty much been a flop. On the other hand getting a 1080P HDTV and buying a blu ray player and watching movies in 1080P was and is more important to me than 3D.

Also if you go the 3D route you can't just use the cheap 3D glasses. Whether it's Panasonic, Sony, Vizio or whoever they all recommend investing in much more expensive glasses that actually need to be charged. Again spending even more money when there is very little quality content to watch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
65" TV buying considerations and a few options..
2
Replies
20
Views
9K
Ranger1
N
  • Locked
TV selection help
Replies
16
Views
5K
greenjp
Back
Top Bottom