There's no model number in the ad but I guessing it's the Samsung PN51E490 51 inch 720p model that's $649. Plasma's are always cheaper in price than LCD's. They are also harder to sell as a lot of people do not like the glare from the glass screen. In a room with very litte sunlight they are fine.MattH. said:In the Target ad this weekend, a 50" Samsung plasma 3D TV was selling for something like $695! I couldn't believe my eyes. (Maybe I dreamed it!)
I didn't buy a Plasma because I was stuck in the '08 days when they were the evil energy-sucking, border-burning "SUV's of home theater", and had to search around to get an online Memorial Day "bargain" on a Panasonic LCD/LED for $895.RolandL said:There's no model number in the ad but I guessing it's the Samsung PN51E490 51 inch 720p model that's $649. Plasma's are always cheaper in price than LCD's. They are also harder to sell as a lot of people do not like the glare from the glass screen. In a room with very litte sunlight they are fine.
I agree. People will wait until they need a new TV (unless they have a lot of disposable wealth). When I upgraded my TV from a DLP to a LCD/LED, I went with a 3D TV. So far, I'm not blown away by 3D on TV; but I am hoping for the release of some golden age 3D flicks. However, I would not have upgraded to 3D if I did not want a better 2D TV than the one I had.EdReedFan20 said:I think there are lots of people that would love to have 3D but already have a perfectly fine HDTV. When it finally comes time to replace their current HDTV, I can see those people upgrading to 3D. It helps that the price of 3D TVs has declined drastically from a few years ago.
You're lucky (except for Sky being Rupert Murdoch, of course. ):Mark Oates said:ICertainly on this side of the puddle, more than 3DBD sales, 3D display sales are being driven by the promise of 3D coverage for sports events and the Jubilee. I believe Sky has been instrumental in pushing 3D adoption here in the UK.
I know what 4K is (and dang, Yellow Submarine and Chitty/Bang look good), but I keep looking at "We're all going to buy 4K sets next year!" and see the delirous excitement between corporations (and not audiences) for SACD, DVD-A, and D-VHS after DVD had first caught on.Mark Oates said:I suspect a hike to 4K resolution will be similar. People will claim their 1080p set gives them satisfactory images, but as 4K displays become the norm more and more people will start to appreciate the higher resolution gives better results for larger displays and eventually everybody will have them. It's not like there isn't a precedent - I remember a little thing called colour being introduced in the 1960s-70s.
Which is also a problem: For years, you couldn't BUY most of the in-demand software that would sell (you can buy the Shrek Trilogy now, of course, but try buying Avatar or Star Wars: E1), unless you committed yourself to buying the hardware. Of one certain brand. And/or extra pairs of glasses--also of one certain brand--whether you needed them or not....And if you did, how many times would you be buying them?dpippel said:The last line of the article says it all - where they should be looking for data indicating adoption or lack thereof is in the sales of 3D software and glasses.
For most of the 3D LCD and Plasma sets that I have sold, the customers paid the extra money for 3D active glasses. The passive 3D sets came with free glasses. It was rare that a customer would buy a 3D set with no 3D glasses purchased.dpippel said:Exactly. People aren't necessarily adopting the technology. Sales of 3D displays have risen because it's practically impossible to buy a mid-range to high-end TV (and increasinglly even an inexpensive set 42" and up) that does NOT have 3D capability. You get it whether you want it or not. The last line of the article says it all - where they should be looking for data indicating adoption or lack thereof is in the sales of 3D software and glasses.
Some of the theaters here in Connecticut offer one day a week where the price is $8 all day for any movie including 3D.Jesse Skeen said:I just got a new 3D set this month as part of a happy accident, where my previous HDTV developed a problem that couldn't be fixed so I got money from the warranty to get a new set. I love it and will buy as much 3D content as I can. (I have however been boycotting 3D movies in theaters because of the extra charges- theater prices are already too high to begin with!)
One thing I don't understand is why don't ALL current Blu-Ray players pass the 3D signal? You still have to look out in order to get a player that can do it; I can see some people getting a new TV then being mad that their player won't support 3D. (This is kind of like how the first generation of DVD players could not output DTS audio signals, but once that became available every player afterwards could.) 3D glasses have got to be easier to get ahold of too. I got two free pairs with my Sharp, and have now been looking for at least one extra pair but you can't just walk into a store and buy them. (I purposely chose active 3D because even though the glasses are more expensive and complex, the picture is MUCH better than passive. I saw 1 of each type of TV in a store showing the same thing and there was no comparison- the passive set looked like my old CRT!)
It would be nice if 3D movie prices dropped a bit too. I overpaid for a few just to have something to watch on my new TV, but in the future I won't buy movies as freely. When Target has the 2D versions of Hugo and Tintin on sale for $20 but the 3D versions are $35, that isn't going to help anything. They should include the 3D version in EVERY package anyways- it looks like the latest Spy Kids movie is not available without a 3D disc, and is priced low too!
And of course I do want more 50s-80s classics in 3D.
Originally Posted by RolandL /t/320892/report-3dtv-sales-rise-despite-consumer-indifference#post_3928455
For most of the 3D LCD and Plasma sets that I have sold, the customers paid the extra money for 3D active glasses. The passive 3D sets came with free glasses. It was rare that a customer would buy a 3D set with no 3D glasses purchased.
Sharp isn't one of the major brands, it's not likely the poster would have found them--RolandL said:You should be able to get 3D glasses from the store you bought them from. We sell them where I work at P. C. Richard & Son.
Most of the 3D sets we sold were Sony, Samsung and LG. Very few requests for Panasonic or Sharp 3D.Ejanss said:Sharp isn't one of the major brands, it's not likely the poster would have found them--
The "big three" of Sony, Panasonic and Samsung have their bundles and separate-glasses at every Best Buy, but the Sharp and Vizio users may have to go online.
Even then a universal-access brand purchased on Amazon might have better quality.