The Right TV for 3D Gaming (1 Viewer)

[Morgan Jolley]

I'm sort of in the market for a 3DTV. I'm not looking for the absolutely best TV or the biggest TV, but something that will be more than good enough for the price and size. My current TV is a 42" LCD and wasn't the top of the line when I bought it but I've been more than happy with it. I'm looking for something that is bigger (probably start at 46 or 47 inches) and does 3D. That said, I'm mostly interested in people's thoughts on passive vs. active glasses. Personally, I'd like the cheapness and convenience of passive glasses but I'm not sure the TVs are quite there yet, plus there's really only 2 options (LG or Vizio). I have checked out the passive and active setups in stores and, frankly, prefer the passive ones primarily because there is no crosstalk at all. Picture brightness, exact vs. perceived resolution, etc. don't matter to me all that much. Again, this is a set I'll use primarily for 3D gaming (I never buy movies on DVD or Bluray and don't think I have 3D coming down the line on cable). So what are your thoughts?

 

[Sam Posten]

Samsung or Sony with active shutter. Done.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Why the active shutter? Honestly, seeing only 540p in each eye (with passive 3D tech that exists now) isn't that big of a deal to me. That said, if they're going to have a better TV (e.g. one that is 2160p so that each eye can see 1080p with passive) then I'll go for that. In trying a passive and active TV today, I saw the only issue with the passive was that the demo video was lame. The active had a lot of crosstalk when looking at more static images (like menus) and didn't seem to be any different from the passive, except that the set and glasses cost more. also, the active glasses are always uncomfortable. EDIT: I should also throw out that I'm unwilling to spend more than $2000 on this, with the cost of extra glasses (probably 4 to 6 pairs) and an HDMI cable included. I don't need the top-of-the-line display (my current TV is a Dynex and I've been very happy with it for the last 3 years). I just want something that will do more than good enough 3D solely for gaming.

 

[dmiller68]

I would look at the Panasonic ST, meets your budget and does 1080p to each eye. I game on mine a lot with no issues.


Panasonic uses Full-HD Frame Sequential technology to create its 3D images. Images recorded in 1920 x 1080 pixels for both the right-eye and the left-eye alternately flash on the screen at the ultra-high rate of 120 frames per second. When you view the screen through active-shutter glasses that open and close each lens in sync with the alternating images, you see breathtaking FULL HD 3D pictures with stunning power and realism.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I'm not big on plasma sets (deeper contrast and colors is offset by plasma lifespan and burn-in, to me) and I'm honestly more intrigued by passive glasses. The LG set I looked at does 120 Hz to each eye but only sends every other horizontal line to each eye, coming to a 540p per eye but I didn't really notice a difference between that and the Sony active shutter set I looked at. Just curious, what games do you play on your set?

 

[TheBat]

I second the motion about the panasonic 3d. its top notch. I got the panasonic gt25 from last year. it does the 3d for games just fine after you do the 100 break in. Jacob

 

[dmiller68]

I have only played COD: Black Ops in 3D and it takes a little getting use to. Other then that I think I have played pretty much any other type out there... I put in a ton a gaming time my xbox id is dmiller68. I own a gamer site so I do a fair amount of gaming as you can imagine.

So 600,000 - 1,000,000 hours lifespan is too short? Burn-in is not an issue anymore.


These are not your fathers Plasmas.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I have a friend who got a 55" Samsung 3D plasma about 6 months ago and it has burn in problems. He's kind of an idiot with it, but still. I don't play Call of Duty and I'd probably play mostly on my PS3 (where there's a lot of 3D games). Is there any reason why active glasses would be better than passive? Does anyone here have experience with both? I played MotorStorm on an active Sony set today and it was good but the ghosting/crosstalk in menus was awful and the 3D didn't seem much different/better than the passive set with a demo video I looked at.

 

[Edwin-S]

It's obvious that you favour passive glasses, so what is the point of asking for opinions regarding active vs passive? If a half-rez 3D picture doesn't bother you then just go with the technology you favour. So far, everyone that has responded has touted active glasses. I have a Samsung 3D set that uses active glasses. After watching certain theatrical features with passive glasses and then watching them again, at home, with active glasses I have to say that the active glasses are better. However, given that you think they have too much "crosstalk", I'd say buy whatever makes you happy. In my case, a half-rez picture with passive glasses is a deal killer. I'd never buy any set that couldn't deliver full 1080p images to each eye.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

So is that the difference? The half-resolution to each eye? I'm debating between getting something right now or waiting for there to be a set that does full 1080p to each eye (either by halving a 2060 screen or some other method). Either way, the convenience/cost of passive glasses is far too attractive for me to overlook it. Also, Edwin, you said "after watching certain theatrical features" you prefer active versus passive. The thing is, movie theaters show films at full resolution so I'm not sure the comparison is really fair. I've seen a couple movies in 3D at theaters and I've also played around a little with active and passive sets in a store and the experience is pretty different for a variety of reasons.