Which 3D TV is better?

tezarin · 11-07-2012, 12:36 PM

Hi all,

I have been looking for a 3D TV and can't decide between the following two options:

1) Sony KDL46HX750: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+4...&skuId=4756681

2) Vizio: http://www.walmart.com/ip/VIZIO-47-C...470VX/15992333

Money is not an issue, I am just trying to find out which one of these TVs is better and why. I know Sony is active 3D and Vizio is passive therefore the glasses are cheaper if i go with Vizio. But that aside, which one do you guys recommend I should get?

Thanks in advance

tvine2000 · 11-07-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tezarin

Hi all,

I have been looking for a 3D TV and can't decide between the following two options:

1) Sony KDL46HX750: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+4...&skuId=4756681

2) Vizio: http://www.walmart.com/ip/VIZIO-47-C...470VX/15992333

Money is not an issue, I am just trying to find out which one of these TVs is better and why. I know Sony is active 3D and Vizio is passive therefore the glasses are cheaper if i go with Vizio. But that aside, which one do you guys recommend I should get?

Thanks in advance

I maybe wrong , but active is 1080p to each eye, passive does not

HiDefRev · 11-08-2012, 01:31 AM

You are correct. Passive 3D is only half resolution. If money is no object, why not go with the best 3D HDTV on the market - the Panasonic VT50 series. This plasma has been rated as not only the best 3D TV available, but also the best 2D TV. Not to say that it is the most expensive 3D TV, in fact it is NOT. You can spend a lot more and not have a display as good as a Panny plasma. Also with plasma, you don't have limited viewing angles ( the picture stays the same no matter where you sit or if you tilt you head even slightly ). And, there is no motion blur or lag time with plasmas, as is common with LCD/LED TVs. Also, Panasonic's plasmas ( the ST, GT and VT models ) have a great anti-glare coating. My 3D Panny is over 2 years old and I sit in a brightly lit room with windows facing east and west and have never had a problem with glare, nor with burn-in for that matter. IMHO, you can't do any better than a Panasonic plasma. .

jkkyler · 11-08-2012, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tezarin

Hi all,

I have been looking for a 3D TV and can't decide between the following two options:

1) Sony KDL46HX750: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+4...&skuId=4756681

2) Vizio: http://www.walmart.com/ip/VIZIO-47-C...470VX/15992333

Money is not an issue, I am just trying to find out which one of these TVs is better and why. I know Sony is active 3D and Vizio is passive therefore the glasses are cheaper if i go with Vizio. But that aside, which one do you guys recommend I should get?

Thanks in advance

Out of those 2 choices - hands down the Sony is the winner but as mentioned there are much better choices than either of those,

tezarin · 11-08-2012, 07:19 AM

Thanks all for your replies. That VT50 is so expensive, almost three times of the price of that Sony TV so it will be an issue :-)

Between the two options I have, which one is a better 2D TV? Honestly I mostly will be watching regular 2D TV.

Thanks

Dudemeister · 11-11-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiDefRev

You are correct. Passive 3D is only half resolution.

That is a very uninformed statement, perpetuating a myth about the "inferior resolution" specifications of passive 3D.

The following article written by a slightly more authoritative individual, Dr. Soneira, who is the president of DisplayMate, a company that designs display calibration, setup and tune-up, will shed more light on the subject of which 3D technology is better suited and for what type of programming.

NOTE: Apparently I can't post direct links yet, but if you do a google search for 3D TV Shootout and you can find it

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiDefRev

This plasma has been rated as not only the best 3D TV available, but also the best 2D TV

I get it that you're big Panasonic fan, I used to as well, and used to be a plasma fan too, but the reality is that the newer LCD's, using IPS technology, and LED backlights, have more or less caught up with plasma, and in many instances surpassed it.

As for the best plasma 2D TV, the Panny still doesn't come close to the Pioneer Kuro.

You also didn't mention any of the negative points about plasma (image retention (burn-in), set weight, generated heat, high power consumption, image washout in bright rooms, etc.

I do admit that the price vs. performance of a plasma TV is hard to beat, but if you're looking for something newer, if you're looking for a 3D technology that is not hampered by headache inducing flickering or ghosting, if you want a TV set that runs cool and economical, then plasma might not be for you.

tazz3 · 11-13-2012, 09:37 PM

If u dont want a vt 50 get a gt50.plamsa does 3d the best besides dpl tvs.

jkkyler · 11-13-2012, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudemeister

That is a very uninformed statement, perpetuating a myth about the "inferior resolution" specifications of passive 3D.

The following article written by a slightly more authoritative individual, Dr. Soneira, who is the president of DisplayMate, a company that designs display calibration, setup and tune-up, will shed more light on the subject of which 3D technology is better suited and for what type of programming.

NOTE: Apparently I can't post direct links yet, but if you do a google search for 3D TV Shootout and you can find it

I get it that you're big Panasonic fan, I used to as well, and used to be a plasma fan too, but the reality is that the newer LCD's, using IPS technology, and LED backlights, have more or less caught up with plasma, and in many instances surpassed it.

As for the best plasma 2D TV, the Panny still doesn't come close to the Pioneer Kuro.

You also didn't mention any of the negative points about plasma (image retention (burn-in), set weight, generated heat, high power consumption, image washout in bright rooms, etc.

I do admit that the price vs. performance of a plasma TV is hard to beat, but if you're looking for something newer, if you're looking for a 3D technology that is not hampered by headache inducing flickering or ghosting, if you want a TV set that runs cool and economical, then plasma might not be for you.

A fallacy - next time you are at a store look at the energystar annual electricity cost consumption (which uses the same amount of hours and electricity costs for all sets-) you will find that plasmas are about 10-12 higher per year in annual costs so maybe a buck , possibly two , more per month - do you really call that HIGH power consumption - also they may not weigh a few ounces or pounds but certainly not the behemoths they replaced - my set weighs less than 80lbs (which for a superior picture I will live with) while the tv it replaced while 14 in smaller weighed nearly 200lbs.
Half the vertical resolution is half the resolution regardless of how you spin it.

BTW - since Pioneers are no longer on the market and Kuro prices are high when they become available I doubt those were considered an option. I know HDrev realizes the Kuro's (plasma btw) are regarded as the holy grail sets

tazz3 · 11-14-2012, 04:52 PM

palsama dont get hot i dont have any burn in or ir on my st 30 50 panny 3d tv

Dudemeister · 11-14-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tazz3

palsama dont get hot i dont have any burn in or ir on my st 30 50 panny 3d tv

seriously ?

I have a friend that has a 60" Kuro, and when you get within a foot of it, you can feel the radiated heat from the screen. The back is worse. I helped him move that set to another room a while back and the bloody thing is "HEAVY", about 120-130lbs.

I'm quite aware that there are plenty of screens out there that don't have screen burn-in but that's mainly because they're used primarily to watch movies. My son as a 50" Panny that he uses to play games on, and even though the set is only about 6 months old, he already has some faint burn-in in areas that usually have stationary graphics like life bars, and status bars.

Don't get me wrong, I like the way plasma looks, but it's not for everyone, nor is the Panasonic the end all be all of plasma displays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkkyler

Half the vertical resolution is half the resolution regardless of how you spin it.

You should read the 3D TV shoot-out article, it explains why that statement is wrong, and goes on to prove it.

The short of it is that the stereoscopic effect based on horizontal parallax. Because the 3D camera lenses are only separated horizontally (about 65mm apart), the vertical information each lens captures is identical, which means that the combined left and right images contain the complete vertical information.

I for one used to be a big fan of DLP technology, but after my last Sammy set decided to develop a few stuck mirrors, I opted for a 60" LG LCD/LED unit with passive 3D.

jkkyler · 11-15-2012, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudemeister

seriously ?

I have a friend that has a 60" Kuro, and when you get within a foot of it, you can feel the radiated heat from the screen. The back is worse. I helped him move that set to another room a while back and the bloody thing is "HEAVY", about 120-130lbs.

I'm quite aware that there are plenty of screens out there that don't have screen burn-in but that's mainly because they're used primarily to watch movies. My son as a 50" Panny that he uses to play games on, and even though the set is only about 6 months old, he already has some faint burn-in in areas that usually have stationary graphics like life bars, and status bars.

Don't get me wrong, I like the way plasma looks, but it's not for everyone, nor is the Panasonic the end all be all of plasma displays.

You should read the 3D TV shoot-out article, it explains why that statement is wrong, and goes on to prove it.

The short of it is that the stereoscopic effect based on horizontal parallax. Because the 3D camera lenses are only separated horizontally (about 65mm apart), the vertical information each lens captures is identicalCAPTURED is correct but that resolution from each camera is then halved when DISPLAYED, which means that the combined left and right images contain the complete vertical informationIncorrect as I just mentioned when output for display half that info from each camera is lost- I agree that for a STATIC image the brain can successfully combine the the alternating visual stagger as the images are the same but when movement is introduced this changes.

I for one used to be a big fan of DLP technology, but after my last Sammy set decided to develop a few stuck mirrors, I opted for a 60" LG LCD/LED unit with passive 3D.

I work in optics and ophthalmology and have for 20 years and helped design some of the eye tracking HUD that you see in today's helicopters when I was at USAARL (US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratories) & that article makes assumptions that just aren't true - I understand that horizontal separation is how consumer based 3d works but with passive displays you are only showing every other vertical line ( the polarization has to separate the disparaging images somehow) and that halves the vertical resolution PER EYE (total sum vert resolution is intact)- no way around it.
This doesn't mean that passive 3d sucks and for many any loss of resoultion just isn't 'real world' noticable and they like many of the benefits that passive 3d provide over active shutter glasses.

As far as heat -modern plasmas tend to put out a lot less than the behemoths of old for some it is more noticable than others. Also 3d plasma tv's these days show very little crosstalk with an excellent image. I have looked at both and vastly prefer a full resolution 3d plasma screen vs the passive Vizio sets. Overall I prefer passive circular polarization with full resolution that you get in theaters (by using multiple projectors).

Quote:

From the passive camp Soneira tested an LG 47LW6500 and a Vizio E3D470VX, while from the active camp he chose a Samsung UN46D7000 and a Sony KDL-46HX729. All are LCDs, and all but the Vizio use LED backlights. He did not test any plasma TVs but writes that "they all use Active Shutter Glasses that are virtually identical to the LCD models, so our conclusions regarding their flicker, comfort, convenience, and cost apply to them as well. A very big ASSUMPTION that just doesn't hold true"

Also Burn-in and IR are DIFFERENT things - burn-in is permanent and harmful IR is temp and is not. Certain plasmas are better at avoidance than others and certain model years are better than others. Normal IR shouldn't be of concern but some is more persistent than others. If it is not noticable while content is displayed then I wouldn't worry about it - although many , myself included game on plasmas , burning in static HUD score counters etc is always a risk that you assume . The superior picture quality however, for many of us is justifies the minimal risk.

Razor05 · 11-15-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tezarin

Thanks all for your replies. That VT50 is so expensive, almost three times of the price of that Sony TV so it will be an issue :-)

Between the two options I have, which one is a better 2D TV? Honestly I mostly will be watching regular 2D TV.

Thanks

I thought money wasn't an issue?

The VT50 is probaby the best plasma out right now.

Razor05 · 11-15-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudemeister

That is a very uninformed statement, perpetuating a myth about the "inferior resolution" specifications of passive 3D.

The following article written by a slightly more authoritative individual, Dr. Soneira, who is the president of DisplayMate, a company that designs display calibration, setup and tune-up, will shed more light on the subject of which 3D technology is better suited and for what type of programming.

NOTE: Apparently I can't post direct links yet, but if you do a google search for 3D TV Shootout and you can find it

I get it that you're big Panasonic fan, I used to as well, and used to be a plasma fan too, but the reality is that the newer LCD's, using IPS technology, and LED backlights, have more or less caught up with plasma, and in many instances surpassed it.

As for the best plasma 2D TV, the Panny still doesn't come close to the Pioneer Kuro.

You also didn't mention any of the negative points about plasma (image retention (burn-in), set weight, generated heat, high power consumption, image washout in bright rooms, etc.

I do admit that the price vs. performance of a plasma TV is hard to beat, but if you're looking for something newer, if you're looking for a 3D technology that is not hampered by headache inducing flickering or ghosting, if you want a TV set that runs cool and economical, then plasma might not be for you.

I haven't seen a LCD yet that comes close to a plasma, especially the new VT50 series. IMO the VT50 is coming close to the Kuro.

Dudemeister · 11-15-2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkkyler

I understand that horizontal separation is how consumer based 3d works but with passive displays you are only showing every other vertical line ( the polarization has to separate the disparaging images somehow) and that halves the vertical resolution PER EYE (total sum vert resolution is intact)- no way around it.

And therein lies the whole point of this. You're not looking at the image with ONE EYE, but with both, therefore the COMBINED image seen by BOTH eyes, gives you the whole resolution.

Conversely, the active shutter glasses, while giving you a complete image to EACH eye, do so only half the time, which means that at NO time do yousee the 3D image with BOTH eyes. It's kinda like blinking you eyes alternately really fast. But the system does it so fast, that YOUR BRAIN combines the images together in a 3D image.

My problem is that I can "see" that flicker. Well, not really "see" it, but after watching a 3D movie for about a half hour or so, my eyes start bothering me to the point of getting a headache if I keep going. I literally can't watch a whole movie with active shutter glasses.

In a way it's reminiscent of watching 1080i interlaced TV, only it's dimmer, and oh yeah, my favorite is when you turn your head and sometimes loose the IR sync, you feel like a pirate with a patch on one eye.

With polarized glasses I sometimes forget I'm wearing them until the wife mentions it.

jkkyler · 11-15-2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudemeister

And therein lies the whole point of this. You're not looking at the image with ONE EYE, but with both, therefore the COMBINED image seen by BOTH eyes, gives you the whole resolution.

Conversely, the active shutter glasses, while giving you a complete image to EACH eye, do so only half the time, which means that at NO time do yousee the 3D image with BOTH eyes. It's kinda like blinking you eyes alternately really fast. But the system does it so fast, that YOUR BRAIN combines the images together in a 3D image.

My problem is that I can "see" that flicker. Well, not really "see" it, but after watching a 3D movie for about a half hour or so, my eyes start bothering me to the point of getting a headache if I keep going. I literally can't watch a whole movie with active shutter glasses.

In a way it's reminiscent of watching 1080i interlaced TV, only it's dimmer, and oh yeah, my favorite is when you turn your head and sometimes loose the IR sync, you feel like a pirate with a patch on one eye.

With polarized glasses I sometimes forget I'm wearing them until the wife mentions it.

Nothing wrong with passive 3d and I understand why some people prefer due to the glasses but facts are facts and the vert resolution is halved whether you think you can perceive it or not) but thanks for the optics lesson - I'll try and put it to good use.

11-07-2012, 12:36 PM	#1
tezarin How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 16	Which 3D TV is better? Hi all, I have been looking for a 3D TV and can't decide between the following two options: 1) Sony KDL46HX750: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+4...&skuId=4756681 2) Vizio: http://www.walmart.com/ip/VIZIO-47-C...470VX/15992333 Money is not an issue, I am just trying to find out which one of these TVs is better and why. I know Sony is active 3D and Vizio is passive therefore the glasses are cheaper if i go with Vizio. But that aside, which one do you guys recommend I should get? Thanks in advance

11-08-2012, 01:31 AM	#3
HiDefRev The Universe is HiDef. Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: State of Relativity, USA Posts: 2,443	3d tv You are correct. Passive 3D is only half resolution. If money is no object, why not go with the best 3D HDTV on the market - the *Panasonic VT50* series. This plasma has been rated as not only the best 3D TV available, but also the best 2D TV. Not to say that it is the most expensive 3D TV, in fact it is NOT. You can spend a lot more and not have a display as good as a *Panny* plasma. Also with plasma, you don't have limited viewing angles ( the picture stays the same no matter where you sit or if you tilt you head even slightly ). And, there is no motion blur or lag time with plasmas, as is common with LCD/LED TVs. Also, *Panasonic's* plasmas ( the ST, GT and VT models ) have a great anti-glare coating. My *3D Panny* is over 2 years old and I sit in a brightly lit room with windows facing east and west and have never had a problem with glare, nor with burn-in for that matter. IMHO, you can't do any better than a *Panasonic* plasma. . __________________ Living Room Panasonic TC-P58VT25 3D Plasma HDTV, Panasonic DMP-BDT350 3D Blu-ray player, Sony PS3 Slim 160 Gig 3D enabled, Charter Cable HD DVR 3D enabled, Onkyo TX-SR608 7.2 3D AV Receiver, Yamaha NS-777 Front Tower Speakers, Yamaha NS-6490 Front Height and Surround Speakers, Cadence C-17 Center Speaker, Acoustic Audio HD-SUB15 Subwoofer, RCA ANT806, Monoprice Cables Master Bedroom Panasonic PT-50LCZ70 1080p HDTV, Sony PS3 80 Gig, Charter HD DVR, Onkyo HT-S6100 7.1 AV System Last edited by HiDefRev; 11-08-2012 at 01:37 AM.

Similar Threads to Which 3D TV is better?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
6 big reasons why 3D TV doesn't suck and will catch on...	unotis	High Definition Media	42	04-18-2012 05:38 PM
Why 3D TV Went From CES Darling to Consumer Reject	GizmoDVD	High Definition Media	53	01-16-2012 06:35 PM
10 reasons why 3D TV sucks, and why it will never catch on…	Super XP	High Definition Media	93	02-19-2011 12:23 PM
Samsung Vs. Panasonic Plasma 3D, which is better	Indpowr	3DTV & Hardware Discussion	97	01-23-2011 01:15 PM
Top CE Exec: 3D TV Is Overhyped	dsskid	High Definition News & Informative Articles	9	12-23-2010 01:02 PM
3D TV Owners - Happy??	sschantz	3DTV & Hardware Discussion	6	12-08-2010 07:21 AM
CR's 3D TV shoot-out: Samsung’s LCD vs. Panasonic’s plasma	Lee Stewart	Flat-Panel TVs	16	04-03-2010 09:26 AM
3d tv and the emperors new clothes	rickbbb	3DTV & Hardware Discussion	20	01-30-2010 08:02 PM

11-08-2012, 07:19 AM	#5
tezarin How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 16	Thanks all for your replies. That VT50 is so expensive, almost three times of the price of that Sony TV so it will be an issue :-) Between the two options I have, which one is a better 2D TV? Honestly I mostly will be watching regular 2D TV. Thanks

11-13-2012, 09:37 PM	#7
tazz3 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 137	If u dont want a vt 50 get a gt50.plamsa does 3d the best besides dpl tvs.

11-14-2012, 04:52 PM	#9
tazz3 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 137	palsama dont get hot i dont have any burn in or ir on my st 30 50 panny 3d tv