[k.jacko]

Hi all,
so been looking at the Panny TX-L47ET5B (passive 3d LED) and the LG 47LM620T, with most folks tending to advise the Panny over the LG.
Now, ideally i wanted a 50-52" tv, but these passive 3D LED TV's seem to jump from 47 to 55, missing out 50, and 55 is beyond my budget.

The other thing i'm thinking is, at bigger sizes wouldn't the lower resolution of passive 3D suffer compared to the 1080p of active 3d?
I watched a 3d demo on the LG 47LM620T and it looked really nice. I then watched the same demo on the 55" version and it looked far more pixelated and grainy. I'm assuming this is down to the lack of HD resolution on passive 3d on such a big screen.
I then watched an active 3d demo on the 47" Sammy, and was very impressed. I wandered off to the sides to check the viewing angles and they didn't seem 'too' bad.

Dilemma
smaller screen and passive 3d?
or
bigger screen and active 3d?

Questions
What constitutes to flicker and crosstalk on active sets? Failing batteries in glasses? slower refresh rate on [cheaper] tv's?

Whichever TV i buy it will be wall mounted across a corner of the room and the viewing distance will likely be anything between 7-13ft with the angles only slightly off perpendicular.

Wouldreally appreciate any input you guys have as i'll be making my decision within the week (i think).

Thanks

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by k.jacko

Questions
What constitutes to flicker and crosstalk on active sets? Failing batteries in glasses? slower refresh rate on [cheaper] tv's?

This is a failing of active technology and can't be resolved by throwing money at the problem - although it's fair to say for cross-talk some active sets are worse than others.

Dilemma
smaller screen and passive 3d?
or
bigger screen and active 3d?

I think this is a good point as in 3D you'll never aware of the polarizing line structure when watching an active set but then again this is confirmed by recommended viewing distances anyway. Don't forget 3D appears stronger at distance so getting up close to a large screen is not always a good idea.

Personally, assuming you'll going to watch a fair bit of 3D, then I'd choose viewing comfort/enjoyment over size of screen any day

[k.jacko]

Thanks Jason,
i'm a little concerned that choosing a smaller size screen will diminise the 'effect' that 3D has, regardless of what format i choose.
In the active demo i had yesterday i saw no flicker or crosstalk at all (from standing about 6ft away), no matter how hard i tried. On a previous demo (on a different set) i saw both and it put me off active 3D tbh. Now though.......i'm just not sure.

Another alternative is to buy a decent 47-50" TV (not even 3D) and then maybe replace my 720p projector with a 1080p 3D one when the time is right.

Still appreciate any and all input before i chuck a grand at a TV though.

[Jason Shouler]

Yes; I don't own one but for the enthusiasts I gather a projector is the preferred method of viewing 3D (presumably based on viewing in ideal cinema room conditions) with passive TVs as 2nd choice (in this case having the adantage that they can be viewed in quite a bright room.)

Don't forget that just because you can't see cross-talk, doesn't mean it's not there (in a subliminal sense) and it can be tested anyway. Flicker is related to light sources extenal to the TV which may mean you have to pull curtains etc once you get an active set home.

Immersion and 3D are confusing ideas since the closer you move to the screen, the weaker the 3D becomes. I thnk everyone who buys 3D TV starts by sitting really close but eventually you get over it

I would certainly agree, assuming you forget the cost anyway, that it's a mistake to buy a passive TV which is too large for the room.

[k.jacko]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

I would certainly agree, assuming you forget the cost anyway, that it's a mistake to buy a passive TV which is too large for the room.

I don't consider it being too large for the room, i just consider it too large for passive 3d due to the lo-res passive has.
A 55" tv running passive 3d will show up much more jaggies/artefacts than a 55" tv running active 3d surely, purely due to the amount and size of the pixels required to fill the same sized screen?

I assume, you mean that the further you sit from the TV the less you see the jaggies of the lo-res passive.

There are some reviews that suggest passive for <42" and active for >42"

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by k.jacko

I don't consider it being too large for the room, i just consider it too large for passive 3d due to the lo-res passive has.

Firstly, you need to realize that most active and passive displays are technically Full HD displays meaning they are able to display all 1080 lines in 3D mode. However, mainly due to the polariser and reduced bandwidth (when watching blu-rays) then I agree that passive displays can have a perceived lower resolution.

This of course links up with size of screen and viewing distance and explains why minimum recommended viewing distance for active sets are nearer than passive.

The point I'm making is that buying (say) a 55" passive set is a really dumb thing to do if you can't (say) sit more than 8' away - because you'd always be aware of the polariser and there'd be nothing you could do about it. Obviously, in a big room then you just sit further way and since the 3D effect would be stronger then this makes a lot of sense anyway. All of this is aside from how bad SD channels are going to look - although I have to admit I hardly watch anything but HD these days.

There are some reviews that suggest passive for <42" and active for >42"

This is nonsense as size of screen is related to viewing distance and always has been.

I have a 47" early passive, which is great, but wouldn't want to move to a 55" as my room is too small.

[k.jacko]

Thanks Jason, wasn't aware of the viewing distance differences between passive and active.
I guess the distance does make sense, screen res quality only tends to be seen close-up after all.
Passive still appeals due to the wider angles and ability to watch during daylight without the need to darken the room. Or is that a myth too.
Far too much cloudy information going around for my liking.
So, looks like i'm still torn between the Panny TX-L47ET5B at £900 and the LG LM47620T at £780.
What would you go for? Or would you choose a different set?

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by k.jacko

Passive still appeals due to the wider angles and ability to watch during daylight without the need to darken the room. Or is that a myth too.

It's no myth although be aware that passive only has a wide viewing angle on the horizontal so it's very important to mount at eye height rather than say high on the wall. In fact you can often notice the narrow vertical viewing angle of passive just by standing up - although hardly a big issue when you consider the number of films you watch on your feet

Far too much cloudy information going around for my liking.

Indeed and much of it from old misinformed web pages which haven't been updated - and even some mischievous deliberate misinformation

So, looks like i'm still torn between the Panny TX-L47ET5B at £900 and the LG LM47620T at £780.
What would you go for? Or would you choose a different set?

Sorry, can't help on this as a bit out of touch on the modern passive ranges but I'm sure someone will offer an opinion

[soksy]

Originally Posted by k.jacko

Thanks Jason, wasn't aware of the viewing distance differences between passive and active.
I guess the distance does make sense, screen res quality only tends to be seen close-up after all.
Passive still appeals due to the wider angles and ability to watch during daylight without the need to darken the room. Or is that a myth too.
Far too much cloudy information going around for my liking.
So, looks like i'm still torn between the Panny TX-L47ET5B at £900 and the LG LM47620T at £780.
What would you go for? Or would you choose a different set?

hi,i am torn between these two TVs also,which one did you get?and why.

cheers soksy

[k.jacko]

Hi, I've had the panny for about 3 weeks now and really like it.not even felt the need to tinker with the settings much so far.
Part of me wishes I'd looked more closely at the lm760mt as it's a gorgeous looking set, but it's 200 sheets more than the panny.

[soksy]

Originally Posted by k.jacko

Hi, I've had the panny for about 3 weeks now and really like it.not even felt the need to tinker with the settings much so far.
Part of me wishes I'd looked more closely at the lm760mt as it's a gorgeous looking set, but it's 200 sheets more than the panny.

thanks for the reply,can you adjust the depth of 3d as you can in the lg,does the built in wifi work OK.
cheers soksy

[derek500]

Originally Posted by soksy

thanks for the reply,can you adjust the depth of 3d as you can in the lg.

On my LG, the depth adjustment can only be used on 2d > 3d, which I never use.

[soksy]

Originally Posted by derek500

On my LG, the depth adjustment can only be used on 2d > 3d, which I never use.

thank you for the reply,just been on to richer sounds,panny down to £699.95
none in stock at my local,have been told it has been discontinued
cheers soksy

[k.jacko]

WHAAT!?!?!? For the 47", surely not????
Got mine for £899 and that was after they dropped it £50 whilst i deliberated.