Are 3D sets best for 2D viewing?

andrew markwort

Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
157
Points
185
Age
64
I realise that on this particular part of the forum this will sound like heresy, but I'm really not all that bothered about 3D TV. Don't get me wrong - if you like it, that's great, but it personally doesn't grab me.

However, my question is this. Given all the extra grunt that is required to produce a good 3D image, does this mean that 3D sets will be the best at producing 2D pictures? Or is it the case that the best 2D sets take a different technological route and produce better pictures?

I'm toying with getting a new set in another few months and wonder whether it's worth getting a 3D set if it will give me a better 2D picture and just have the 3D as icing on the cake.
 
I think Yes too.

I bought a C750 primarily becasue it's an excellent 2D TV with a great picture and ultra-low lag for PS3 gaming. 3D was a bonus, and as we're in 1st Gen 3D, I'm not expecting that much from it in that regard. (It actually gives me a headache anyway.)

I expect the extra processing grunt contribute a lot to the virtually non-existant lag in Game mode.
 
I am utterly blown away by my PS50C7000.

Using the settings for the US PN50XXX set posted elsewhere on this site, I get far better results than any other set I have seen, anywhere, ever.

I'd go as far as to say that on better source material, 2D has an almost 3D depth to it without the 2D-3D feature running.

Even the Mrs loves this TV :eek:
 
Many thanks folks.

Any particular recommendations, please? I don't want to go above about 42 inches.
 
if you want LCD, Sony 40HX803 or Samsung 40C8000. If you want to save some money, Samsung 40C750

Not sure if there is a plasma at that size yet, but Panasonic are supposed to be bringing a smaller version of their VT25 this year.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom