# 3D or not to 3D? that is the question!



## HDJeff (Sep 24, 2012)

I am putting together my home theater system for my new apartment. I need everything and the idea of 3D in my living room sounds like fun. 

I do not know enough about what equipment I would need and about 3D in general. So I would like to know if anyone has experience with these systems and if they are worth the time and money v. entertainment value.
Thanks


----------



## 86eldel68-deactivated (Nov 30, 2010)

You need:
- a 3D-capable media/BD player;
- an AVR that can pass 3D content through to your display; and
- a 3D-capable display* (TV, PJ).

(*The larger the display, the more immersive the 3D experience.)

Here are a couple of older articles that offer a bit more information:
4 Things That Could Keep 3-D TV Out of Your Living Room
How 3-D Television Works

Lots of people who have 3D seem to enjoy it. I don't have 3D, I don't see a need for and I have no desire to upgrade to it. YMMV, of course.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Keep in mind that in order for everyone to enjoy 3D in your room you must have glasses for each person and you cant be to far off centre or the effect is somewhat lost.


----------



## phillihp23 (Mar 14, 2012)

HDJeff said:


> So I would like to know if anyone has experience with these systems and if they are worth the time and money v. entertainment value.
> Thanks


Cost wise, 3D Players and Receivers can be had without great expense. Easily get them both for around $300-$400 dollars. 3D TV's and Projectors you will pay more for....and of course the larger they are the more they cost. 

I enjoy the 3D experience, its like a bonus. Wouldn't want to watch it all the time though.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

For me, 3D is a pass. The glasses issue is a stumbling block for me... Besides that the effect doesn't always make me feel well by the end of a movie.

This is not to say that folks don't like it. If I were you, I'd spend sometime watching it before I invested the extra coin in being able to run it in my home. ;-)


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

Great comments thus far!

Keep in mind that 3D is better enjoyed on a larger screen. With that in mind, projectors do a better job but you'll pay a premium for a projector system. Most projector systems are active 3D (see below).

Passive 3D is better than active but at present, it's limited to half 1080 resolution (540 lines of vertical resolution) in all but a few sets, and LED/LCD rather than Plasma (the latter gives a better picture). There is no flicker with passive (which may have something to do with the uncomfortable feel some people get with active 3D), and the glasses are very low cost compared to active eyewear.

3D quality will vary with source material. Blu-Ray is a good media for 3D, but different methods of creating the 3D on that media lead to varying quality. 3D can be native or computer generated (post-created 3D). Generally, the former is considerably better. Avatar is a benchmark for good 3D and was shot in native 3D. When you watch a demo, be aware of this.

Lastly, keep in mind that any 3D display is quite capable of 2D as well, and you aren't making any sacrifices in the 2D image by going 3D. 3D just introduces a cost factor in the display.


----------



## HDJeff (Sep 24, 2012)

Thanks for all of your input, lots of good info to consider. I put the 3D purchase on the back burner to let the technology catch up a bit for home use. and for the larger screens to hopefully come down in price a bit. 

A side note: I had not been really sold on the 3D idea because I had not seen any good content except at Disney world and Radio City Music Hall( in the Christmas spectacular). Both situations were site specific and include live and other stuff. And it was those two big hitters. 
But recently I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and was unexpectedly blown away with the 3D visuals. So, it enthused my interest again.
Again, thanks for the input.


----------



## ticopowell (Jan 3, 2013)

FWIW, My friend had a passive visio 3D tv, and it worked great until his kid decided it was dirty, so she washed it with water... besides the point, He really liked the 3D, but he doesn't think that it is worth it for his next TV. I watched it, and it was better than the active 3D glasses, but I still didn't like it and I kept having to look away for a moment or else my eyes would hurt. So make sure you can watch a while before you spend the big bucks.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

We have 3d capability, it works fine, in fact better than expected.
60" Samsung 8000 series LED.
We very seldom use the 3d, but on occasion we will break out the glasses and watch something.
If paying for 3d capability will cost you inches off the display, I would choose the bigger screen size over getting 3d.
If you don't have to give up anything to have it, why not get it ?


----------

