i am looking at a lg5300 55 inch lcd-led tv with 3d passive glasses and was wondering if anyone knows anything about this or any other 3d tv. any comments are great.
3d tv
- Thread starter fieldsken1
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Another vote for Sharp. Samsung is also a very good manufacturer, and their warranty support was smooth as silk when I had a bright spot form in my 61" a couple months after buying it. OTOH, I would still wait a while until 3d tech is a little more refined. It's far beyond what it was even a year ago, so I see it only getting better at this point. Granted if you jump now and 3D ends up going down the tubes again, you've still got a good image for 2D movies and gaming.
The wife and I are keeping our eyes open for when Sharp releases the 3D variant of their 80" Aquos and will make our choice to either jump or wait based on its release price. TV prices are supposed to plummet this year so we're thinking maybe in the fall timeframe, depending on our budget for "fun" stuff as opposed to stuff actually needed for the house.
The wife and I are keeping our eyes open for when Sharp releases the 3D variant of their 80" Aquos and will make our choice to either jump or wait based on its release price. TV prices are supposed to plummet this year so we're thinking maybe in the fall timeframe, depending on our budget for "fun" stuff as opposed to stuff actually needed for the house.
Don't have a lot experience with the Sony's. But have all ways had a good experience with Samsung in general. Sight unseen, I would probably pull the trigger on the Samsung over a Sony.
Me too.
I post this from the Sharp-san factory in Yaita, Japan.
The LGs have been a bit more reflective than I prefer. If you're putting it in a room where you can pull the curtains, it's not a big deal. I cannot. I have high windows in my house with no blinds. Samsung for me so far.
My company is responsible for about 80% or so of all the 3D content being produced that is shot in native 3D and NOT post converted. So this huge resurgence of 3D is partially my fault 
3D is only expanding. Love it or hate it. The only reason 3D hasn't become more prolific is because there isn't ENOUGH 3D content yet. We are working on that. most of the 3D movies and 3D broadcasts are from our equipment or production.
There is also technology we are working on that will be the standard for shooting 3D and 2D but we are still about two years from it being ready.
The reason 3D failed in the past was because:
- it sucked
- poor distribution
- lack of content
- no standardization
- lack of technology
- availability of acquisition gear
We've changed all of that. Woohoo!
So as far as choice of 3D tvs? I have only seen a few consumer 3D sets and they are ok at best. All the ones we use in the professional world is absolutely incredible. But cost upwards of 10k up to about 25k.
The biggest issue with consumer grade 3D tvs has always been the proliferation of active glasses. These suck ass and are going the way of the dinosaur very quickly. Lack of a standard has always meant its demise was near.
Passive glasses are currently the way to go as they all use the standard circular polarizers. Linear polarizers aren't used anymore.
I was just at CES and FINALLY the big push for auto-stereoscopic has come around. Auto Stereo requires no glasses at all and some of the better sets require no specific seating position and the better ones still do not require facial tracking in order to give the best picture. This is great for two or three people. But have a group over to watch the Super Bowl and it is a huge sack of fail.
3D is only expanding. Love it or hate it. The only reason 3D hasn't become more prolific is because there isn't ENOUGH 3D content yet. We are working on that. most of the 3D movies and 3D broadcasts are from our equipment or production.
There is also technology we are working on that will be the standard for shooting 3D and 2D but we are still about two years from it being ready.
The reason 3D failed in the past was because:
- it sucked
- poor distribution
- lack of content
- no standardization
- lack of technology
- availability of acquisition gear
We've changed all of that. Woohoo!
So as far as choice of 3D tvs? I have only seen a few consumer 3D sets and they are ok at best. All the ones we use in the professional world is absolutely incredible. But cost upwards of 10k up to about 25k.
The biggest issue with consumer grade 3D tvs has always been the proliferation of active glasses. These suck ass and are going the way of the dinosaur very quickly. Lack of a standard has always meant its demise was near.
Passive glasses are currently the way to go as they all use the standard circular polarizers. Linear polarizers aren't used anymore.
I was just at CES and FINALLY the big push for auto-stereoscopic has come around. Auto Stereo requires no glasses at all and some of the better sets require no specific seating position and the better ones still do not require facial tracking in order to give the best picture. This is great for two or three people. But have a group over to watch the Super Bowl and it is a huge sack of fail.
My company is responsible for about 80% or so of all the 3D content being produced that is shot in native 3D and NOT post converted. So this huge resurgence of 3D is partially my fault
3D is only expanding. Love it or hate it. The only reason 3D hasn't become more prolific is because there isn't ENOUGH 3D content yet. We are working on that. most of the 3D movies and 3D broadcasts are from our equipment or production.
There is also technology we are working on that will be the standard for shooting 3D and 2D but we are still about two years from it being ready.
The reason 3D failed in the past was because:
- it sucked
- poor distribution
- lack of content
- no standardization
- lack of technology
- availability of acquisition gear
We've changed all of that. Woohoo!
So as far as choice of 3D tvs? I have only seen a few consumer 3D sets and they are ok at best. All the ones we use in the professional world is absolutely incredible. But cost upwards of 10k up to about 25k.
The biggest issue with consumer grade 3D tvs has always been the proliferation of active glasses. These suck ass and are going the way of the dinosaur very quickly. Lack of a standard has always meant its demise was near.
Passive glasses are currently the way to go as they all use the standard circular polarizers. Linear polarizers aren't used anymore.
I was just at CES and FINALLY the big push for auto-stereoscopic has come around. Auto Stereo requires no glasses at all and some of the better sets require no specific seating position and the better ones still do not require facial tracking in order to give the best picture. This is great for two or three people. But have a group over to watch the Super Bowl and it is a huge sack of fail.
Interesting perspective on the whole consumer 3D market. With Auto Stereo TVs, will field of view be an issue with 2D content? If it looks like Auto Stereo will be the way to go once that technology is refined a bit more, I'd much rather wait and have one of those TVs instead of having to deal with active or passive glasses.
I got a LG 55 led 3d for christmas. Different model though. It came with 4 passive glasses. They are much nicer than those expensive, heavy active glasses. I only used it once for 3d and it was very little 3d but I got it mainly for daily 2d viewing. It is bright and not reflective in my white room with 3 large windows, a patio door and 2 interior passageways. I also have led can lights shining down on it.
I won't worry about 3D until they figure out a way to make it work without glasses. There isn't enough content at this point to even consider spending extra money on it IMO, but most of the displays you would buy today have the technology built in anyways.