TV & Home Theater

[patrickxaviar]

Actually it is not only Samsung 3D TV which gives headache to most of 3D viewers but also all active glasses based 3D TV gives headache. LG scores high when it comes to comfort as it uses passive 3D glasses. Since passive glasses don't have any electric material so these are comfortable to wear.

[Jimmienomam]

They don't give headaches to "most". You're overstating to make passive look better.

[rwillen]

---

patrickxaviar wrote:

Actually it is not only Samsung 3D TV which gives headache to most of 3D viewers but also all active glasses based 3D TV gives headache. LG scores high when it comes to comfort as it uses passive 3D glasses. Since passive glasses don't have any electric material so these are comfortable to wear.

---

My panasonic glasses wiegh less than an ounce, not that heavy at all. Besides, the headaches and nausea that some people suffer with 3D are caused by motion sickness or possible eye disorders, not the weight of the glasses.

[jack58]

---

patrickxaviar wrote:

Actually it is not only Samsung 3D TV which gives headache to most of 3D viewers but also all active glasses based 3D TV gives headache. LG scores high when it comes to comfort as it uses passive 3D glasses. Since passive glasses don't have any electric material so these are comfortable to wear.

---

That "most" comment is a bunch of crock!

YOU are one of few complaining and with only one post.

My samsung glasses are very light and confortable to use.

I bet "most" will agree with that...

[pinkzroxor]

I say LG. They've got much better color and details in images. It also uses passive 3D, which I think is just a better 3D in general.

As for Samsung, I have to say their image quality is quite disappointing and I'm not a fan of active 3D.. It's costly and ineffective

[rwillen]

---

pinkzroxor wrote:
I say LG. They've got much better color and details in images. It also uses passive 3D, which I think is just a better 3D in general.

As for Samsung, I have to say their image quality is quite disappointing and I'm not a fan of active 3D.. It's costly and ineffective

---

Do you mean better color accuracy when measured with a colorimeter or better color to your eye? They're two completely different things.

And how is Active 3D ineffective?

[pinkzroxor]

I don’t think any viewers care what the colorimeter says about the TV's color. If the TV looks good to their eyes then it's good. I say it's ineffective because I've experienced the batteries running out in the middle of the movie a few times. And I think the flickering isn't quite necessary in 3D technology..

[clamberlution]

I'm sorry congrats for knowing TV price ranges, they were pretty accurate, however samsung battery powered glasses retail for 19.99 and rechargeable for 69.99 so 75-100 is false.

[clamberlution]

yes battery free glasses that show an image at half 1080p resolution, and if you think you got ra*ed by samsung just wait until you see a price tag on one of those OLEDs. Expect to find yourself back up in that $10k TV bracket again.

[clamberlution]

Sorry your sources are irrelevant. The first one is a review based on matte finish. The second is not based on image quality but more 'bang for your buck'. Even in the article it goes on and on about the samsung having better color and contrast. The third article is based on the smart feature which is unrelated. Then your last source which is an overall rating again that bases ranking on a 'bang for your buck' scale.