Comments on: 3D TV – Still Here – Still Trying

By: Beverly Asselin

Beverly Asselin — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:40:25 +0000

My husband and I bought a 3D Panasonic t.v. and 3D Blu-ray player. I love the movies in 3D. The downside to this is the glasses. They are too expensive. We did get a deal when buying the t.v. and player though…two pair of glasses and Avatar in 3D with a Panasonic $400 discount through Amazon.com totally $1181 for all. I went to E-Bay and bought two more pair of glasses @ $95 each. I don’t know about all satellite systems but DirecTv has some 3D shows. We are hoping there are more 3D movies and sports shows to come. Otherwise it makes a great ordinary television and blu-ray player. I do not feel we are out too much money for the 3D aspect of it.

By: David Hutt

David Hutt — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:41:19 +0000

I have not bought blueray nor do I intend to. I do intend to buy 3d about the same time as I buy blueray, sometime after hell freezes over.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:36:13 +0000

I don’t think I will ever be a fan of 3D TV. I guess it has a lot to do with never being able to just sit and watch any program from first to last. Too many I wants and a dog too.

By: Muttwerx

Muttwerx — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:47:47 +0000

Since buying a 50″ Panasonic plasma TV 3 years ago I have foolishly embraced the whole HD concept.
Yup you guessed it I went out and bought A Panasonic HD Video camera that not only records in 1080p but also in 5.1 surround sound (it looks like the same model that is pictured above only without the stereoscopic lenses mounted on the front).
Then I realized I am going to need some good software to edit the video. Oh yeah! before I do that I should upgrade my graphics card and Ram, obviously the file sizes are going to be huge so I need more hard drive space and then I’m going to need a Blu-ray burner so that I can burn files larger than 8 gigs. The list does not stop there unfortunately!
Am I ready for another shift in technology? Sort of, I think! but not 3D as it stands today, for one, I can’t afford it, other reasons are lack of good content and ease of use ie; glasses!
By this time next year most of the hardware That I purchased will probably cost half as much, but, that is the price for trying to stay current, I, like most people have only so much money to spare on these frivolities and I have come to realize a little too late that jumping on the bandwagon usually ends up costing you a hefty fare! LOL.

By: Eric Grunewald

Eric Grunewald — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:20:19 +0000

I’d almost rather see them use a helmet which included 3D image, surround sound, and everything else. Probably cool for gamers in FPS episodes, but for TV…that wast wasteland of drivel? Sure, it can be done, but it isn’t worth the cost or hassle. And does the 3D effect really add that much to the experience? Artists have painted pictures in 2D for centuries, and there isn’t any lessening of the experience. Totally unnecessary & unwanted.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:37:59 +0000

Lets see now, first I have to buy a 3D tv and then I need to get special glasses and then I also need a 3D receiver, right? I think real progress would to receive 3D on our present TV’s. But of course that won’t happen as the excs would not get there big bonuses at years end. I remember 3D movies and just how long did they last and zapppppp, they were gone.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:33:54 +0000

The quality was OK when the glasses worked. The worst thing about the whole experience is that the glasses are powered and use a “open and close” shutter effect to create the 3d look. When i first sat down and started watching, the glasses weren’t working. i had to shut them off then turn them back on to get them working. after that it mostly worked fine. occasionally, there would be a second where the shutters would stop working, but they would kick back on.

The 3d effect was good on video that was made in 3d in the first place. they could actually make things come flying at you and truly make things appear as if they were outside the TV.

video that was converted to 3d was not as good. we watched a clip of Avatar and I wasn’t really impressed. i felt like benefits of the 3d did not outweigh the need to wear the glasses.

If you ever get a chance to try a 3D TV, I would recommend taking a look. Some of the effects can be great. it’s just that the cost and the inconvenience of glasses ruins it.

By: Ralph Marshall

Ralph Marshall — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:23:11 +0000

I’ll bet money that 3d tv will be a big flop. People are sick of having to buy a new tv every year just to keep up with the engineers AND I’m not about to have to wear glasses to watch tv. Any takers?

By: William Shackelford

William Shackelford — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:59:17 +0000

Glasses less 3D tv is under development and coming. I will wait until then to give judgement.

By: Cherie Fruge

Cherie Fruge — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:45:50 +0000

I have no intention of buying it either. Having access to the latest technology is not neccessarily a good thing…