3D TV vs 2D in picture quality.

pearsall001

I haven't looked at a buying a TV in over 6yrs so this is all new to me. I've picked up some info from reading on line but it all blurs together after awhile. I'm mainly looking at a 60" set & the Sharp Aquos has tweaked my interest. I've been to a few stores & on two separate occasions a salesman has told me that a 3D TV will have a better picture in standard 2D than it's sibling non 3D model. I'm not really interested in the whole 3D thing but if it is a better picture in 2D I might take that into consideration. I find that hard to believe but then again maybe it is true. And from what I've read there's not a hill of beans difference in the 120 vs 240 refresh rate unless you have superman's eyes. Right or wrong? Anyway my hunt continues. I have to start looking at some plasma's also. My budget is approx. 1,300-1,800. Any suggestions. Also do you think the extended warranties are worth the peace of mind for these TV's. The norm seems to be 1yr from the manuf. which isn't that long.

tommyt21

Your premise is flawed IMO, 2d vs 3d picture quality apples and oranges. The person that said the 3d version is diffrent than the 2d version for 2dviewing is feeding you a bunch of BS.
It should be whats better for me picture wise, Led edge lit vs plasma vs Led back lit. Then you need to look at manufacturer, panel type, model....60/120/240/400/600hz. 3d is just a add on and does not change the picture quality in 2d mode one iota. I currently own a passive 3d tv and love it, however I sacrificed some picture quality by choosing a edge lit TV. Your search should focus on things like Clouding, light bleed, motion blur, artifacts, ect.. these are things to research in buying a new TV.
If it is strictly pic quality your looking for full back lit or plasma display in my opinion

tommyt21

Are you a gamer? That may also make a diffrence in your selection process.

Here is a list of great TV's any of which will most likley smoke your 6 year old sony. I went from my Sony 50inch Grand Wega to my LG LW6500 and have not looked back. The Sony though was a excellent TV and is now in our computer room living its last days with kid cartoons.
http://reviews.cnet.com/best-high-definition-tvs/

Syndil

pearsall001 wrote: »

And from what I've read there's not a hill of beans difference in the 120 vs 240 refresh rate unless you have superman's eyes.

I can confirm this part. I can pick out anything below 80 Hz on my CRT monitor (most people can't), but once it gets to 85 and above, it's all the same. And refresh rate is far less critical with an LCD monitor as the response time of the individual pixels is greater, so the frames blend together.

I'm still pissed that CRT is dead, but I've stockpiled enough Samsung 997DF monitors to last me another decade or so. For TV I threw in the towel and got an LCD, but I regret it.

LCDs are inherently poor displays. Poor black levels, poor contrast. They inflate contrast numbers by quoting dynamic contrast, which is basically the brightness of the screen with the backlight off compared to it at full brightness. When you're watching TV, the backlight will dim or get brighter based on the contents of the scene, but it still can be at only one brightness at a time, unless you get a TV that has dynamic RGB LED backlighting--which is outside of your budget.

CRT is still superior in every measurable way. But if I had it to do all over again, I'd have a plasma TV instead of LCD right now.

pearsall001

tommyt21 wrote: »

Are you a gamer? That may also make a diffrence in your selection process.

Here is a list of great TV's any of which will most likley smoke your 6 year old sony. I went from my Sony 50inch Grand Wega to my LG LW6500 and have not looked back. The Sony though was a excellent TV and is now in our computer room living its last days with kid cartoons.
http://reviews.cnet.com/best-high-definition-tvs/

Nope, I'm not a gamer. And it looks like we had (have) the same Sony...it was superb back in the day & in fact still looks darn good until you get your eyes on the newest TV's out there. Also, my room doesn't have any problem with light (finished basement w/ no window near by). I don't know if that makes a difference in my search though. Thanks for the link & that LG looks very nice! I never looked at any LG yet. They're on my list for sure.

tommyt21

pearsall001 wrote: »

Nope, I'm not a gamer. And it looks like we had (have) the same Sony...it was superb back in the day & in fact still looks darn good until you get your eyes on the newest TV's out there. Also, my room doesn't have any problem with light (finished basement w/ no window near by). I don't know if that makes a difference in my search though. Thanks for the link & that LG looks very nice! I never looked at any LG yet. They're on my list for sure.

LG has great colors but their contrast/pop not as good as some others. A finished basement without light issues, hmmm if I was in your shoes i'd be looking at a Panisonic plasma. Plasma has amazing colors and have very little problems with motion blur. They arn't as bright as LCD but thats no prob because you dont have light issues.. Panisonic makes some of the best plasmas on the market. I would give them a hard look for sure.

PS: I researched getting a new tv for almost 2 years and I came away with one honest fact about TVs. There is no perfect TV! All of them have flaws. It's a judgment call on what you like and what kind of flaws your willing to put up with. There is no one size fits all to tvs. Also becareful the store viewing enviroment is misleading. The TVs are not calibrated and sometimes retailers intentionally feed bad signal or screw with the settings on certain models if their trying to push alternate inventory. Best Buy supposedly got busted for this.

cstmar01

The sales person could of been trying to say that normally tv's that are 3D tend to be better sets then ones that are not. For example you can buy a Panny Plasma VT series which is a 3D set or a Panny Plasma X series something that is only a 720P non 3D. The performance of the VT will be better because its is overall a better TV. Just sounds like he did a poor job of explaining it.

Not to say there are not bad 3D sets, as there are but generally the 3D sets are the middle to higher end of the line and non 3D will be the lower sets by companies.

I personally do not like 3D and have a 3D TV. I bought a Panny VT series and love it. The ST series is nice this year and could be had in a 60 around your price range you are looking at. I still like Plasma the best for colors and their blacklevels.

LED are always too bright in a store display and just hurt my eyes. A lot of people go into a store and see them and like how they "
pop" but the settings are normally wrong and not set up correctly. I have my plasma in the bedroom and feel its more than plenty bright even with my window shades open. Also getting the TV set up with a good cali disc or having someone come and do a full cali will also improve upon the quality of the picture. However if you try and cali a 500 dollar tv it will still look like crap normally compared to a 2000 tv that was cali'd.

polkfarmboy

If you have no light problems then maybe buy a small tv with a really great 3D projector because thats where the magic is. Epson had the new 5010 3d pj that is as bright with the glasses on in regular mode as a normal 2d in its cinema mode. I have buyers remorse from my 3d tv as its a LG plasma but I wish I had gone with the passive technology because its much smoother and the 3D picture is astounding because there is no flicker, this gives the objects a really solid feel unlike the active glasses. LG has the w5600 that can be viewed at best buy and bought way cheaper on amazon

The plus about passive is glasses can be brought home from the cinema (real D) or you can get the fancy glass ones with better color. The negative is that once on 3D mode each lens of the glasses only pic up a 720p image for each eye and smoosh em together for 1080p. If your not a avid gamer then this wont bother you because its not a big deal like the specs indicate, to me it looked incredible

I went to magnolia's huge store in the twin cities and was blown away by a demo on a now dated sharp 3D pj illuminating a black diamond pj screen and it was nothing like my tv at all it was a completely different experiance and way better than the cinema, I highly recomend either passive 3D led like the w5600 LG or the epson 5010 pj

Syndil

I agree passive is the way to go for 3D, but that opens up a whole new can of worms with projector vs. TV. IMO projectors are nice to have for movies but they don't take the place of a TV. As you said he could get a small TV and a projector, but I think that would put him out of his budget. That Epson 5010 is $2700.

piker

Seeing as you have a light-controlled environment, I would recommend you look at the 2011 Plasma's. They are better in picture quality than most LED's. Most importantly, the color tones are realistic, but the even back lighting is huge in my opinion. Check out Panasonic or Samsungs line of plasmas. I honestly haven't found a perfect TV out there for the <$2000 price range though, as I can find a flaw with any set.

I had a 2010 model LG plasma, and got one of the LG W5600's because I was starting to get interested in 3D. I loved the 3D, but I did not care for the 2d PQ. I returned that set within a few days and ended up buying a Samsung PN59D6500 ($1800). It's much better looking, has even backlighting, great viewing angles, and smoother motion. The 3D is a tad bit darker, but the set automatically raises its brightness when viewing 3D content in order to make up for it.

I didn't notice a difference in 3D quality going from either set. The passive tech is a little brighter, and you can get glasses super cheap. There may be less eye strain as well. The more I use the active shutter technology, the more my eyes grow accustomed to it. Active shutter seems a bit smoother to me, but that could just be the plasma in general.

3D projectors are probably the best 3D direction to go, but they are also the most expensive. To get a decent 1080p 3D projector you are looking in the multiple thousands of dollars category.

In closing, I think the salesman did a poor job of explaining the 2D vs 3D. What he likely meant to say is that the 2D panels out are normally older tv's, or lower quality versions compared to the newer, or higher end 3D sets. Since most TV's coming out now are 3DTV's, those newer sets are going to have the best looking panels.

pitdogg2

tommyt21 wrote: »

Your premise is flawed IMO, 2d vs 3d picture quality apples and oranges. The person that said the 3d version is diffrent than the 2d version for 2dviewing is feeding you a bunch of BS.

agree100% In some of the reviews and from what i have seen in person some 3d set have horrible 2d pictures.

tommyt21 wrote: »

if I was in your shoes i'd be looking at a Panisonic plasma. Plasma has amazing colors and have very little problems with motion blur. They arn't as bright as LCD but thats no prob because you dont have light issues.. Panisonic makes some of the best plasmas on the market. I would give them a hard look for sure.

PS: I researched getting a new tv for almost 2 years and I came away with one honest fact about TVs. There is no perfect TV! All of them have flaws. It's a judgment call on what you like and what kind of flaws your willing to put up with. There is no one size fits all to tvs. Also becareful the store viewing enviroment is misleading. The TVs are not calibrated and sometimes retailers intentionally feed bad signal or screw with the settings on certain models if their trying to push alternate inventory. Best Buy supposedly got busted for this.

i also searched for more than 2yrs, and mine came down to 2 sets LG pk550 plasma and Panasonic s25 viera both in 50". I went with the Panny because of the glossy glass on the LG. I loved both but i did not like the fact that i could see everyone in the showroom reflected on the LG screen. The Panny has a softer look with the anti-reflective glass. the BB thing is not just BB a lot of places do it just get ahold of the remote get in the menu and change it up so both are close to the same as you can get(get it off vivid). Also after 200hrs pay a good tech to calibrate the darn thing it is money very well spent. You can look up you model on some of the so called sites that will sopposedly tell you the numbers to set it at but that is just not the same as a tech getting into menus you cannot and be able to and set it as close to 6500K as it will ever get...

shawne1979

I would highly recommend looking at Plasma TVs. They have the best picture quality right now out there, beating out the LED back-lit LCDs in both 2D and 3D performance.

Also, know that 2D and 3D performance are two completely separate things, and one usually does not effect the other. It's a universal truth that almost all the TVs out there will have better 2D performance than 3D performance. This is mainly due to the fact that 3D images are much dimmer than 2D images. I would recommend buying a TV based on the 2D performance over the 3D performance, mainly because 99% of your TV viewing will be in 2D. If you buy a good quality TV though, you will get both great 2D and 3D performance.

Here is a list of the TVs I would highly recommend looking into. They are some of the best plasma TVs out there right now.

Samsung PN59D7000
Samsung PN59D8000
Panasonic TCP55GT30

Hope this helps.

mrbiron

I've been researching and visiting stores for the past month looking into a plasma for my basement. Too my eyes, the Panasonic GT30 series is one of the best pictures out there and is currently in your sweet spot price wise. If i were you, i'd consider this line to add to your short list. The screen, the thickness, the picture...all top notch!

I'm perplexed with this 3D is better than 2D crap. I hope this fad dies along with iPhones and Facebook!

IMHO of course

tommyt21

I think there is a worse fad than 3d that TV manufactures should elminate and thats thin TV's!!!! I dont give a rats @#$ that my tv is a half an inch thick! They should be strictly concentrating on quality of the picture instead of BS " look at how thin this tv is". Drives me nuts!!

PS: Now that I have a Passive 3d TV, I actually prefer watching in 3d. However if your not interested in 3d I would either go Panisonic plasma or Sony full array backlit LED.

shawne1979

Besides the TV models I recommended above, if you have the money to spare I would just recommend going with the Panasonic TCP55VT30.

The VT30 series is essentially the best quality image out there for below $4000. I have the model size above that, the TCP65VT30 and it is absolutely incredible. You can look up reviews on multiple sites and they'll all tell you the same thing, that the VT30 series has the best image quality out there right now. Also, Panasonic Plasma TVs are incredibly reliable. They've been in the plasma business for a while now and know what they are doing.

The problem is the TCP55VT30 is around $2000, so you'd have to go outside your budget. I already recommended the GT30 series though, and there is very little difference in picture quality between the VT30 and GT30 series. The VT has slightly better black levels and color levels.

Glowrdr

I've also heard (and read) the whole "3D tv's display some of the best 2D pictures" from quite a few places. It makes sense to me, that if the TV is capable of displaying 3D, there has to be some additional components. Even though you may not take advantage of it, the power is still there with the upgraded boards/chipsets. Think of a dual core PC compared to a single. Even if you disabled one of the cores, there are likely some hidden advantages based on the updated board.

This probably isn't a rule to live by, but I think it falls right along with the "heavier AVR's are better" catagory. For the most part, it's probably true - but do your homework first.

Glowrdr

You should also consider a 3D model if you're interested in getting top-of-the-line picture quality with your 2D movies and TV shows too. Since displaying 3D video requires a sophisticated, very fast, very responsive TV screen, 3D TVs boast some of the best 2D pictures out there. (From Crutchfield)

Actually, we had to boost the performance of our conventional 2D displays as much as possible to achieve high-quality 3D images. We poured our utmost efforts into developing new technologies that would further raise the image quality of our 2D displays, and then applied them in order to create the ultimate combination of technologies for 3DTV (From Panasonic's site, speaking about the Vierra line)

So yeah, it sounds like the technology had to improve somewhat to make the 3d. The benefits to this are able to trickle down to the 2d sets.

tommyt21

Marketing BS. Even in the crutchfield statement it appears that their stating that generaly 3d tvs have excellent 2d pics because of the requirments for 3d displays. However they fail to make a comparison of a 3d model and the exact same model that only has 2d. Thats an apples to apples comparison.The craziest part is they all use the same freaking panels in each comparable model. If I have a model xyz tv and I also have model xyz 3d they use mostly all of the same components. There have been 2d tvs out on the market that can have the 3d activated through the service menu. i agree with an earlier statment that the only reason 3d tvs may have appear to have the edge in 2d is only because 3d typically only exsists on the higher up the food chain models. If you spent $2000 pick any 3d model at that price point you will find just as good 2d set or better at that same price point.

SRTer

Glowrdr wrote: »

I've also heard (and read) the whole "3D tv's display some of the best 2D pictures" from quite a few places. It makes sense to me, that if the TV is capable of displaying 3D, there has to be some additional components. Even though you may not take advantage of it, the power is still there with the upgraded boards/chipsets. Think of a dual core PC compared to a single. Even if you disabled one of the cores, there are likely some hidden advantages based on the updated board.

This probably isn't a rule to live by, but I think it falls right along with the "heavier AVR's are better" catagory. For the most part, it's probably true - but do your homework first.

This seems to be true, I bought the Samsung D7000 59 inch. It is truly the best out of the box tv I have ever brought home.

tonyb

Phil, HT mag this month has some best tv's in different price catagories, also good explanations of the varying technologies pro's and cons. They also do a nice side by side comparo to the Sharp elite and a Pioneer Kuro.

pearsall001

Great info guys!!!! Thanx!! I went to my local BB & took at a look a few sets & the ones that really grabbed my attention were the Panny Plasmas...dang they sure are pretty. Now which one...the 55"VT30 or the 60"GT30. I'm swaying more towards the GT30 due to it's 60" vs the 55" VT. The VT series is Panny's top of the line but from what I can gather the GT is really, really close. I like the idea of the bigger screen though. Decisions, decisions.

chumlie

+ 2 on the 60inch gt30. you will not be sorry.

tonyb

Isn't Ted's motto "go big or go home" ?

My vote is the 60 incher.

Gadabout

I just bought the GT30 60" inch. I did like the picture from the VT30, but I choose size over the VT30's superb picture quality. I don't know what my decision would have been if they offered the VT30 in a 60" model. The GT30 is about what I was willing to spend on the new TV, and going with the 65" VT would have broke the bank.

Originally, I figured I would just get the S30 model (non 3D). I'm not really interested in 3D movies. Once I got my eyes on the sets, I knew that wasn't going to be an option. While the GT was more expensive, it was almost a night and day comparison for picture quality.

As a side note:
The VT30 comes with one pair of glasses and is wifi ready
The GT30 comes wifi ready, and looks great
The ST30 is the basic 3D TV, but very close in picture quality to the GT30 but is in a plainer skin
The S30 is the very basic TV (no 3D)

If you do go with a Panny 3D Plasma, when you get your glasses try and get the Gen 3 glasses. They seem to let in less light and are a bit more comfortable. None of the glasses are cheap.

Scott

F1nut

pearsall001 wrote: »

Great info guys!!!! Thanx!! I went to my local BB & took at a look a few sets & the ones that really grabbed my attention were the Panny Plasmas...dang they sure are pretty. Now which one...the 55"VT30 or the 60"GT30. I'm swaying more towards the GT30 due to it's 60" vs the 55" VT. The VT series is Panny's top of the line but from what I can gather the GT is really, really close. I like the idea of the bigger screen though. Decisions, decisions.

You're right, they are really, really close. You can't go wrong with either one.

polkfarmboy

Bigger is best when doing 3D. I saw a sharp with the 4 color pixels at BB in 70 inch for 3K but decided on a smaller 3D TV till I wait it out for the 3D pj's to get there act together in the brightness dep. Right now the epson is the winner for that but the dynamic iris and frame interpolation are not available in 3D mode so I might wait until the benQ 7000 hits the shelf.

I think if you wait it out till after the CES is over this jan then all the new sets your looking at will be replaced by next years models. This means your going to be in for a bigger discount on what your currently considering at the moment. Another thing thats going to hammer this years prices down further is the crop of 2K 4K set thats coming out so you may want to rub some antihistamines on that trigger finger of yours to stop it from itching

jbooker82

polkfarmboy wrote: »

Another thing thats going to hammer this years prices down further is the crop of 2K 4K set thats coming out so you may want to rub some antihistamines on that trigger finger of yours to stop it from itching

Dont for get a avr that will pass 4k too.

jbooker82

It would be nice to go in to a store that had all tv's displaying the same content, and properly ISF calibrated. That way the MFG's color setting's are not figured in to your tv purchase. Then you can see the real difference's or lack of. It wouldn't surprise me if MFG's even had their lower end tv's set a little off to help you justify buying a higher end model.