Will a 3D TV downgrade 2D TV picture quality in any way at all?

Im looking into getting a new TV, and definetly want a 40" LED TV. Now, looking around I would see them for around £500-600. But I found this and is it worth forking the extra for the 3D tech? I uses Active technology if that makes any difference. Also, will the normal 2D picture be affected in any negative way by having 3D tech in the TV it self?

Any other advice would be great, thanks! :)

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 4, 2018 Views 28 Applies to:

If anything, 2D performance will be better due to the overal higher specs required for 3D. Besides, you're looking at a Sony. They make some of, if not the best consumer LCD displays you can buy. Active 3D tech is a bit more expensive (especially the glasses), but IMHO works better. You have to decide for yourself if it's worth the extra money.

Nope not at all the main thing is to look at the refresh rate.... I have a Vizio 47 inch LED  3d with a 480 refresh rate even if you never use the 3d the 2d is beautiful I also no ghosting at all. But I think that they are not going to make the 480 refresh anymore and are going with 240 so if you have a chance to well worth the money

[quote user="all mitty donky"]

Nope not at all the main thing is to look at the refresh rate.... I have a Vizio 47 inch LED  3d with a 480 refresh rate even if you never use the 3d the 2d is beautiful I also no ghosting at all. But I think that they are not going to make the 480 refresh anymore and are going with 240 so if you have a chance to well worth the money

[/quote]Refresh rate really isn't all that important. A quality set will deal with cadence issues reasonably well regardless of refresh rate. That being said, manufacturers aren't 'going with' 240Hz. LCDs continue to increase this spec. Samsung and Sony's flagship LED displays have a refresh rate of 960Hz.

 

Almost always 3D displays will have better performance than similar 2D set. Although for the price increase to a 3D set you could get better 2D set that might be better. Recently there has been lack of interest 3D support in games development because of the very small penetration of 3D sets because most people already have HD televisions. Also it's not really a standardized feature. Sony seems to be only one left really pushing 3D on PS3 exclusives while the rest of the development community have decided it isn't worth the extra cost to included proper 3D support in games. Personally for gaming or movies I'm waiting for Sony or another company to come out with a Head mounted display to get a really great 3D experience.

where on earth are you getting your info? Microsoft are quite behind 3d. there are alot of new games which are compatible with 3d, not to mention the new update that came just a couple weeks ago even added 3d settings into the console settings itself. It seems my friend you are miss informed.

Well first off here is something. EA joining the S-3D gaming alliance over a year ago. Then just last month they decided to move away from 3D due to small profits. I know this doesn't mean that 3D is a faulty tech, but the fact the publishers can care more about check lists their games must have on a whim. Might get games that have no reason to have 3D other than a checklist of features like games with multiplayer that wasn't needed. Then the polar opposite games that would benefit greatly from 3D support, but no extra funds to implement it correctly. Most people will play around in Black Ops or Crysis 2 in 3d just to see the neat feature and then turn it off to get back to normal 2d gaming at better frame rates and better quality. Right now to enable 3D, games on consoles are rendered at lower resolutions and drop other visual quality features to get the frame rate high enough. Same thing with the 3Ds most people play a game for an hour or so before turning the 3d feature off. It just doesn't seem to be done very well right now on the software side.



I know MS supports 3D and the major licensed game engines have it like Unreal and Cryengine. Other games like Battlefield 3 with Frostbite 2 it seems will only have Stereo 3D on PCs using DX11. Also Rage and Id Tech 5 engine don't seem to have stereoscopic rendering. For Rage the game I can understand why 3D would be left out with the goal of 60FPS on consoles, but can't find Stereo 3D listed anywhere on Tech5 engine specs. Also just type in 3DTV uptake in Google and skim over what the topics of the lastest news articles are. Most of them are on the slow adoption rate in multiple countries.


Just saying it's going to probably take longer than people think for 3D because of all these factors. Just like console players are still waiting to play triple A games in full 1080 HD. Consoles are under powered and like I said the best 3D games so far have been PS3 exclusives with Sony really leading even with the low adoption rate.