I want your opinion on 3D TV...RIGHT NOW!

Yeah sometimes its just opinions. Just like consumer reports, you gotta take it with a grain of salt. Kind of hard to find objective and knowledgable reviews of electronics.

I was limited by what size she who must be obeyed would allow. That's why I'm so thrilled to get a 46" screen in a smaller package than the current 40" screen. Something like a 20 to 25% increase in screen area.

 

This thread couldn't have popped up at a better time. I was just beginning to shop today and saw firsthand the Samsung 7000 series 3D. I'm with a few others as not being too impressed. Give it a few years, or never, to catch on. Since I am a photographer, the whole 3D thing doesn't peak my interest, so I am biased in that respect - and I'll say that right out. But, I am liking how the HD's have been improved in all other ways to deliver blu-ray 3D content though. Pushing the envelope is always good, and gets us more features for less money. Competition is GREAT!

I have found that retailers are not going to tell you of all the models a manufacturer makes. I had a salesman, and just some hours ago, tell me there is nothing in the Samsung line between the 4600 and the 7000. For 3D, I had to go to the 7000. OK. In fact, there are several. And more. I tested with... Me: "Do you also have the 8000?" Him: "There is nothing beyond the 7000." Hmmmmm. So do your homework.

The big deal with the 240 refresh is to add more somewhat blurry frames per second. Only makes a difference in (some) 3D content to swap frames to arrive at your goggles at different intervals for L and R eyes. There is nothing noticeable in viewing 2D content beyond 120Hz. Here's an article I dug up a couple days ago that explains that. That, and content is delivered in 30 or 24 frames per second anyway, and most at 1080i, not "p." There is even a push for TV's to play 1080 content at 24 frames native ("1080/24") for more of a film look, which is what the director might intend. Some blu-ray content will try to push 24 fps to a TV that can do that, and it will look more "film-like." That's the direct opposite of wanting 240 refresh.

Watch out for the "look how good this one looks over that one" comparison salesperson trick. I asked for the two remotes and dialed in the same picture settings, and the one that looked "a whole lot better" suddenly appeared exactly the same after placing both in the "neutral" picture settings. The first was set at "vibrant." Yikes, they still play those idiot games.

I'm looking at mostly Samsung myself, but all these things, at the middle tiers, look like fantastic deals, and we're not even at Black Friday yet. Keeping my eye on this thread to see where it goes.

Now, if anyone knows how I can record QAM channels natively on a non-TiVo DVR, please let me know real soon, because that's what's holding me back right now after I broke our last VCR last night.

 

I bought a Magnavox 500Gb HD recorder from Walmart. It will record HD content to the HD, but you cannot burn it to disk.
Magnavox Dvr Recorder - Walmart.com

We also have invested in the units here at the Network were I work. They worked out so well, I bought one for home. Nice off Air tuner, as well as cable tuner built in!

 

You need to use component video to get around the digital rights management. Perhaps you might be interested in this:

HD PVR Product Description

Tom

 

Tom, that would also be a good choice. I found it at Amazon for about $188.00.
It records component in, but if you have a HD Tuner, with Component out, you have a winner!
http://www.amazon.com/Hauppauge-1212-Definition-Personal-Recorder/dp/B0018LX0DY

 

These are not true HD recorders. They cannot record the HD digital stream instead just record/re-digitize the analog signal from the HD stream. The picture quality is reduced.

 

I am shocked! How about getting a new fangled 3D digital camera and viewing your own pics on your home TV?

For those interested in 3D I like web site AVSforum.com which is sort of like PriusChat for home theater equipment.

http://www.avsforum.com/

 

I briefly mentioned a DVR in my post above and now we're off the OP's subject of the thread. Thanks, all, for the advice. Anyway, my DVR worries are almost over as I am renting one from WoW cable for the next several months before they move to UltraTV all-home HD recording with their one-piece wireless modem/router/6-tuner DVR in Q1 or Q2 2012.

Back to HD TV's!

 

Correct, but the component analog output is very close to the full HD digital output.

It wouldn't work to use a digital recorder, since the digital signal contains DRM (digital rights management). DRM is there for a reason. If you want to beat it, you have to go analog. Eventually this may change, as people figure out how to beat the new DRM, but for now it can't be done. It's easy to break the code on DVDs, but the manufacturers learned from that mistake. The new system is much more robust.

Tom

 

My main TV right now is a 42" LCD (720P 60 hz) from a few years ago and I've never had a single problem with it. If it were to die for some reason I'd buy a similar TV in the $400 to $600 range.

Right now that gets me an upgrade to 46" LCD with 120hz 1080P. Oh and the LED backlight would mean it's energy star rated drawing one half the power of my old 42" (think 150W vs 300W)

Bigger screen, less power, better resolution, better refresh. Plenty of upside to the newer TV but I'll keep my old 42" for a long time to come.

In the same vein I can go from my 42" LCD at 300W to a 55" LCD at 150W and still gain the 120hz 1080P. But that's as big as I'd consider and currently the 55" costs about twice what a 42/46" costs so while it also has tons of benefits vs my old 42" I'll stay with the cheaper option.

I won't go for 3D ever, the only way I'd do 3D is if they could make a Star Trek quality holodeck and you notice even in Star Wars the hologram's were fuzzy/blurry. I won't hold my breath for 3D to ever take over and become the normal standard TV.

 

As an example of what can go wrong in our networked world, we have a Sony PS3 through which we watch Netflix streaming. Today Sony took down the Playstation Network for maintenance. No big deal since I seldom use the Playstation Network. Imagine my surprise when Netflix wouldn't play because we weren't logged into the Playstation Network.

This happened awhile back when the Playstation Network was hacked. It was offline for a couple of weeks, but it didn't matter to me since I don't use it much. Netflix kicked out an error, but I found that on the third try it would give up and let me stream. Not anymore. One of the recent PS3 updates has locked down Netflix. Now a Sony Playstation Network problem becomes an automatic Netflix problem. I don't like it.

Tom

 

i agree. i had the same problem with the blue ray player. you want one with google? youtube? netflix? wifi? hulu? it gets mind boggling after a while. but then, i get boggled easily.

 

Shopped again today for things, including the HDTV, and am even more convinced that 3D is not ready for prime time (anyone on here that's ever been to the newer, larger Abt Electronics headquarters? OMG!!).

So everything is going OK in the narrowing it down department (Sony, Samsung are front runners with LG in third). But I've run into a tad bit of resistance in size... so does anyone know of some overwhelming convincing phrases to help convince Mrs. DavidA that a 32" HDTV is not the right choice to be viewed in a living room from 7 to 11 feet away? I'm in the 40-47" camp myself.

 

You don't want to be more than 1.5 times the diagonal length of the screen away for optimal viewing.

7ft is 7 * (12 / 1.5) is 56". 11ft is 88in.

35 would look ridiculous. I sit about 10ft away from the 55in screen and it is a good size but if it was another 10"-20" larger diagonally it would be perfect.

 

Thanks! That does help. I have seen all the web-based calculators for distance to screen size, and most all of them would agree with what you posted. The range of answers is puzzling, since 42" 16:9 yields answers from 4 feet to 17 feet, depending on which wacko calculator one uses. So armed with unreal web crap, she could prove to me that she is right, and I could also prove that we should get a 70" screen - using the other wacko calculators. I want to make a cardboard mockup of the screen and bezel and prop it up there.

The other problem is that she wants to use the 1988 4:3 aspect enclosed TV cabinet for the old other 26" set that also holds the stereo system components. The opening is 29.5" wide. I can understand not wanting to part with a $600 piece of furniture, since I bought a $700 cabinet for the other 26" tube set, currently residing in the bedroom.

I think her plan is to get a 32" for now (yuck), and then next year move it into the bedroom, replacing the 26" 4:3 set (and it will fit into the 33" opening in that enclosed cabinet), and then getting a bigger and better HDTV for the living room. If that's the case, then I might be on board and a compromise might be made. And I'm old enough to know that a compromise is a good thing in a marriage.

And in all practicality, the flat screen I watch 90% of the time, and get ready for this, is a 15" Coby 720p set that is adjacent to my computer monitor.

 

see if this helps:

LCD, LED, Plasma HDTV Buying Guide - CNET Reviews - CNET Reviews

I had the same problem 4 years ago. The hd screens are proportionately longer, and lower in height (16:9 instead of the old 4:3 ratio). You need to have an hd diagonal size at least 25% larger than old CRT tv sizes, to get you to the same height screen. And you definitely need that height because a lot of stuff still gets broadcast in the old 4:3 format, and some movies get broadcast in their original cinemascope proportions, which is even longer and skinnier, so has to be shrunk to fit the screen and avoid distorting the figures, which can make it pretty small. Of course for most sports, the bigger the better.

I have a 32 hd in a spare bedroom and a 40 hd in the living room. Its like the difference between an old portable and and old family room console. The 32 is definitely too small for a main TV. The main reason I'm buying a new TV is because most of them are now being made with much skinnier frames than before. I'm moving up to a 46 that will actually be an inch shorter and and inch narrower than the 40 it is replacing, so design does matter. It also helps that they are much skinnier now than they used to be.

 

Hehehe. Yes, I showed her that. Or I tried.

And if any of us are willing to wait 1.75 more years, we'll be able to buy version one of the new and incredible Apple iTV's for $$$$$$ + about $120/month service to include the addition to our already expensive monthly iPhone charges.

 

The best place to get advice on HT is avsforum. You won't get the kind of misinformation that one would expect to get here. Before spending thousands of $$ - do some reading there. I'll be happy to answer any questions there.

I got a 3D projector a couple of months back - and it has been fabulous.