The ultimate gaming experience! opinions please!

LG 47" 1080p 120Hz 3D LED HDTV (47LM6200) : 40" - 49" LED TVs - Future Shop

The above TV is what im saving up for. It is very new and after talking to a future shop rep, he said the 2d-3d conversion is flawless and allows for depth and amazingly popout effect which is well impossible until today. 47in at 2 feet away is pretty big, and if the 3d conversion is as good as he says I will most def be eating ramen noodles this month.

What incite can you guys give me on this TV and Readers as to how it would be for a monitor and if it's the best of the best or is there something better?

 

When it comes to things like this (I.E. t.v. quality), you cannot take anyone's word for it. I mean, sure, they can guide you in the right direction but if you are looking for immersive 2D-3D conversion, it would be best for you to go look at it yourself. I know you currently have a 23" Samsung 3D panel that you feel is not "immersive" enough. How can you compare between the two panels if you do not see the t.v. in person to compare to what you currently have?

 

I would take everything he said with a grain of salt...and personally, I'd wait for people who have more disposable income to buy it so they can provide proper reviews ~ and of course, see it in person.

 

You are amazing! I am very lucky to have NBRs most intelligent users respond to my topics!

tomorrow I am going to futureshop to see it in action!

I will post back to tell you guys if it's as good as he said.

 

I havent seen a consumer oriented 3d display to date that wasnt a gimmick.

 

A 47 inch TV running 3D from two feet away? In three years, you won't be able to see it through the thickest Coke-bottle glasses. However, if you're willing to sacrifice forty years of vision for a little boost in game immersion today, go ahead.

 

Agreed, in your other thread, you were saying about how you feel 32" are useless because you have to move your head to see the full picture. Now you're talking about a 47"?! Not practical at all.

 

Go multi monitor it adds a lot of depth and immersion and it doesn't rely on gimmicks or give you headaches and stuff.

There is no way to convert 2d to 3d, it has to be done at the game engine level to be proper. Anything else is just going to be attempted by some sort of display algorithm, and while probably gimmicky at best for normal tv and movies, once you try to apply it to the sophisticated contents of games I bet it gets really bad.

 

well im off to the store to check it out!

COOLBLUE I know I said 32 in was to big but im thinking of a dual use for it now, put on a movie then lay on the couch and watch the show!

Vicious, I tried 2d-3d before and its pretty ok just not really impressive. tridef side by side or AMDHD3D has incredible depth and can have stuff popout and crysis isnt designed for 3d. its all about the hardware and software. The true 3d content is the best but some software rivals it for 2d games, and I would imagine its only a matter of time until they succeed with movies the same way they have with games, and thats why im checking out the new lg as its new technology. you never know.

ps.

My gut feeling is that the sales rep was lying or exagerating, but you never know!

 

Are you willing to spend $1500 to follow up on a..."you never know"? I highly suggest you go into a store and check out the displays and see if any have that immersive 3D experience you are looking for. No sales rep will tell you the truth better than your own two eyes.

 

thats what I meant. I did go to the store and check it out!

Opinion: 2 types of LGs with passive tech, 1 samsung active tech.
old lg looked amazing with true 3d content, new lgs were more money and had pretty good 2d-3d conversion. It did not popout like the rep said, so he lied which was a big disapoint, however the depth was amazing. it still looked 3d and had great depth. The rep I talked to said LG is coming out with a new version very soon that has depth control that is set to 10 and will go up to 20. it could be effective or it could be useless, im my experience changing depth did not produce a better 3d effect but the LGs could actually work, you never know!

verdict: Not what I wanted, expensive, I will have to wait until LGs new tv comes out and check it out in person. If the new Lg does not have better depth or popout with 2d content I may just wait until 3d tech evolves until it does.

 

I just got back from Best Buy and was interested in seeing if the 3D conversion was really that good on this TV. No, it is not any better than anything else available today. When comparing a Football (American) game, the Samsung/Panasonic Plasma's did a much better job converting a 2D image into a 3D image. The depth was much more prevalent and the overall picture just looked sharper.

If I were saving up for a 3D gaming display, I would look elsewhere.

 

yea some people just plain lie about it. 2d-3d conversion is neat but not exactly mind blowing.

jrwingate I had a samsung and the 3d was good but the LG is better in everyway

 

Did you own every Samsung model or just one in particular. The reason I ask is because Samsung manufacturers multiple 3D panels just like every display manufacturer. Some of the best 3D images I've seen are on the HIGH END Samsung flagship models, especially the Plasma's. Both LG and Samsung use different 3D technologies. Both of which have pro's and con's. The biggest con of Active 3D is ghosting. Active 3D also requires expensive glasses. Obviously, the biggest con of Passive is the inability to display 3D content in full HD. Another major con is the way Passive technology is implemented, it hurts the every day 2D image. Personally, I don't watch enough 3D to even care about the 3D picture. However, there is no way I would ever want 3D technology hurting my 2D picture which is why I will not purchase any set using Passive 3D technology.

 

Hi JR

Obviously I have not owned all of them! "Another major con is the way Passive technology is implemented, it hurts the every day 2D image" can you explain please

So your saying when a 1080p LED is on 2d mode its image quality is hurt by something that is turned off? thats like saying my room is brighter with the lights turned off!

Edit. JR thanks for your post btw it can help others that are reading that have not seen the TVs in action! and your right about 99 percent of the things you said except im confused about image quality being affected in 2d mode not attacking just curious as im considering buying an LG.

also what do you think of this deal : http://accessories.dell.com/sna/pro...l.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=A5135157

 

The 2D picture is affected due to the circularly polarized light filters built into the display. These light filters are obviously needed to create the 3D image and have gotten better with the second generation passive models. The normal consumer would never even know.

The only thing I can relate this polarizing filter to is a matte type display. The filter placed over the display not only polarizes external light sources but also light sources that are produced by the display itself. This polarization of light causes a reduction in contrast and color.

The two filters mentioned above are completely different however, both polarize light. I just couldn't think of anything else to compare it to.

Sorry I even mentioned anything. You probably would have never noticed any reduction in 2D picture quality. Now that thought may always be in the back of your head.

 

damn bro!

Thanks for that!

Im thinking of getting the 42in version for 800. And now im not sure?

 

All that matters is that you like the picture. If you like it then go for it. Personally, I think your $800 is better spent on a low end/middle of the road Plasma.

 

Iv'e read alot now and I dont think I can go plasma for gaming or as a monitor. They have too many issues physically like burn in and degradation of the P element. Like one guy said he was watching CNN and the logo burnt into his screen after 6 months and he only watched it 4 hours a day. So why do people recommend plasma 2d? Isnt having the Z axis a big deal???? and isnt having a stable picture method more important than Hz??

 

Like jrwingate6 said, the TV you linked is a passive 3D TV, you can't view 3D images in full HD, and with active 3D TV's the ghosting is a slight problem but from my own personal experience it only lasts a few minutes. I have the Sony KDL46NX810 240Hz LED 3D TV and the ghosting when watching 3D content is minor, when the glasses fully sync up with the transmitter I dont see any ghosting, but I can't speak for other 3D TV's because this is what I personally have.

 

Thanks for your Input as im still shopping and debating!

I picked out the samsung 51in plasma 3d tv or the lg 42 in passive 3d tv.

I will go back to futureshop and compare them again!


What I saw was the samsung had better resolution and better depth in normal 3d. What I liked about the passive 3d was my eyes were not strained and the brightness was great also the 2d-3d conversion offered depth and the samsung kinda looked deeper but not really, extremely hard to think the conversion looked 3d.

so:

pros: better 2d-3d
brighter
less chance of burn in
easy on the eyes aka hassle free
cons: lower resolution 3d
less depth with native 3d content
smaller screen size aka more expensive

since they are both the same price how the heck would one decide which one to get as each has major pros over the other. Im thinking what good is resolution if the screen is dim as heck in 3d, and what good is 3d if it hurts your brain and eyes, and what good is 3d when the conversion is no good(not much native 3d content exists). Im leaning towards the LG for the brightness and the 2d-3d conversion. what do you think?

 

With the way TV technology has come, is burn in still even an issue with plasmas? I thought it was a non issue at this point.

 

It's still an issue, if you leave a very bright image fixed for a long time. If you play RTS games like Starcraft 2 you might get a burn in after many hours playing consecutively.

I own a plasma 51 incher and have enabled the Pixel Shift feature and that helps in preventing burn in. Also I try not to play RTS games or anything with a fixed UI image for too long in a consecutive manner.

 

Burn in and Image retention are two different things. Actually, any panel is subject to burn in, it's just easier to achieve on Plasma type panels. Image retention is much more common and it goes away within a couple minutes/hours of watching something else. Burn in is there for ever. It does not go away and is very rare with today's Plasma technology. New Plasma TV's have built in technology such as pixel shift and screen time out. Every 3-5 minutes, the pixels will shift so the same pixel is never providing the same color for a long period of time. I watch ESPN for a couple hours almost every day. Pixel shift technology has kept my panel from retaining the letters ESPN since they are always present in the same place. Screen time out works when you pause a game or a movie. If the display detects no movement in picture, the display will turn off about 5 minutes after detecting no movement. It is exactly how your screen time out on your computer works.

I see you want to use this display as a computer monitor and I'm sorry, I should have caught that before. I do not recommend a Plasma to use as a computer monitor. I thought you were only using the TV for gaming and Movie watching.

 

Guess what?

LG has a new cinema 3d line up and you can get the 47in one for 1000 at dell.com/ca. It uses a brandnew technology that delays one frame for a period of time and uses a technique that circularly polarizes light. It produces the best 3D effect out of any other technology. It has improved 2d-3d using the same technique to give the image true depth and popout effect.

Read this and note the people reviewing it hate 3D alot but read what their opinion is on this TV!

LG 47LM6700 3D LED LCD HDTV Review - TelevisionInfo.com

edit and the disadvantage of half resolution has been removed it runs at full 1080p!!

 

Id stick with PC monitors, 3 of them.

Then later on do real 3d at the gpu level if you want to do 3d and so you can do surround 3d the most immersive 3d possible.


The only thing I would consider otherwise is projectors and a curved wall setup.

 

Same here man. If I still used a desktop, I would without a doubt have a 3 monitor set up consisting of 20-23in. IPS panels. You really can't get any more immersive than that. Not to mention, it is great for multitasking.

 

modern consumer 3d on 3 monitors is the just a wide format of the same gimmicky consumer 3d everyone else has.

"the most immersive 3d possible" requires technology that isn't available at the consumer level.

 

masterchef: do you understand what 3D is? have you ever seen through your eyes and said this vision is a gimmick? If you have well says enough!

edit.

I'm curious what did you or do you expect from 3D besides the Z axis? your a very confusing person

edit I understand now!! my right eye is a gimmick? fantastic genius

 

If its not available, then it would be the most immersive possible

Its like saying that the worlds fastest car is not the worlds fastest car because if you strap 15 rockets to a different car (not available to the consumer market) its faster.

Its real 3d though where the game engine has certain elements in 3d and you use shutter glasses or a monitor capable of doing it without the glasses. The point is its made for 3d and controlled from within the game. The 2D --> 3D stuff being talked about here is just fake and not customized for the game and will never come close.

I am not a fan of 3D by any means but I do love 3x monitors to fill my full vision and yes its awesome for multitasking. When I do live streams I use all 3 monitors all the time.

 

vicious do people dislike 3D because they are used to 2D? do these people realize what there world would be like in 2d if we only had one eye? it doesnt make sense, can you tell me why these people think what they think?

 

It's just not available in the consumer market. It's more like saying that the fastest consumer car that you can drive on the street is the fastest car possible. Not only are there much faster cars, but I also read "most X possible" to mean "most X feasible" or "most X imaginable", but maybe you didn't mean it that way.

 

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. I expect a few things out of a 3D display, I'll detail them shortly.
4. sarcasm, whatever

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. explanation below

-----

Short lesson on 3d:

The human visual system has the capacity to perceive and sense depth. How does this work? You might guess that our ability to perceive depth has to do with the fact that we have two eyes. Well, you don't have the complete picture yet.

There are many visual factors that give us depth perception. Notice that if you close one eye, you still perceive the world in 3D. The world does not suddenly turn 2D. Your brain is responsible for the image that you perceive, not your eyes.

Most of the visual factors that influence our ability to see in 3D are related to occlusion (objects obstructing our vision of other objects), perspective (parallel lines converging to a point in the distance), lighting and shading detail, and motion.

Stereopsis is the visual depth cue we get when our retinas get slightly different images and our brain intelligently puts them together. A major requirement for any technology to exploit this brain phenomenon effectively is that our eyes need to have the proper images as input so we perceive the depth correctly. Our current implementations are not great at approximating this. We project a stereoscopic image that implies specific depth information, but we display that image on a flat surface that has no specific information about the position of our head relative to the screen. We end up with conflicting information regarding the 3D positions of objects in the scene, and it ends up looking wrong.

Meanwhile, we've also traded some combination or color depth, resolution, frame rate, or performance to achieve this effect.

Calling games that are rendered on a 2D display "2D games" is misleading. Stereopsis isn't even close to the final remaining optical depth cue. There are other cues that depend on either one or both eyes that are still important and are still not accommodated in "3D" displays.

Forward progress is great, but it's sort of like having a preference for good 2D games in the early days of 3D games, when 3D games clearly had the potential for better immersion, but the implementation wasn't great and came with significant compromises.

---

What I expect out of a 3D display at a minimum is that it should know the position of my head relative to the screen. Without this information, it's not possible to generate a consistent (correct) 3D image. That would be a start.

 

I have nothing to say to you. NBR would ban me if I told you

 

I doubt that anything I've said merits you telling me anything ban-worthy. I presume that you are agitated based on the sarcasm earlier and are holding your tongue from being rude. If that's the case, I'm satisfied with that result.

Regardless, there is good information in my previous post, I hope someone learned something about how depth perception works, and how current 3D display technology works.

 

well I didnt read your post.

I tried 3D gimmick and what I saw was a fish popout 3 feet, and if this isn't amazing then you must have...and it's ok bro I know alot of ........ so if you don't think having a image popout 3-4feet is amzing then keep it too yourself and understand that intelligent people like the z axis. z axis=big change to intelligent people, z axis to joe schmoe=no diff

 

It's not like I have some hatred for people who enjoy stereoscopic effect on modern 3D sets. I do acknowledge that you can perceive depth with this tech that you cannot without the stereoscopic effect. I just find it gimmicky myself, because I find that it doesn't work very well, and that the compromises to quality overall outweigh the depth effect. I do not appreciate the "intelligent my way, retarded your way" nonsense. That is no longer a discussion. If you just want to drag the discussion down, you aren't helping anyone.

 

Whether someone likes 3D or not, NOBODY today is purchasing a high end TV that isn't 3D. Like it or not, you are buying a 3D TV. Personally, 3D was cool for the first month. I haven't used it in over 6 months but that isn't to say I don't like it. It just has to be the right kind of movie/show for me to enjoy it. I really can't wait for ESPN to start broadcasting Monday Night Football in 3D. The depth of field (no pun intended) should add to the viewing experience.

 

In my honest opinion Stereo 3d the way it is now is a nice FEATURE to use once in a while.

It's not the NEXT STEP the way that it is now, but it is certainly something that I never experienced before and I am glad to have experienced.

The state of 3d technology right now and how it is implemented in our games/movies is not the way of the future, but once again a nice feature that isn't in any way something revolutionary.

It certainly holds value to the viewer, regardless of level of appreciation, and therefore is not a Gimmick.

 

I'm just waiting on straight up holographic images. Can you imagine watching a movie and feeling like you are part of it. Or playing a game and having the environment surround you. Does anyone have a guess when technology will get to this point? Will it get here before we die?

 

Than there is people like me that can't watch 3D as I get headaches from it.

 

Here is what I mean by Holographic.

You have the unit displaying the holographs set up in the middle of your room. It then projects images all around you and not just in front of you. For instance, your watching Nightmare on Elm Street and all of a sudden Freddie Krugers appears to your left and proceeds to walk behind your seated position. You would have to turn around to see what he was up to next.

The Holographic images will not be coming from a screen, they will be coming from some type of unit mounted in the middle of your ceiling. I really can't wait until technology reaches this point and I am going to estimate, we will all get to experience this in about 20 years.

 

normally things are improbable! well things like this!

However isn't what your suggesting completely impossible? holograms made up of what? if your thinking light then its impossible to do this, matter then it might be possible but your idea is not too far off from a Magic Carpet you know, like Science has its limits dude!

edit what your suggesting might be possible in 10 years!

watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EndNwMBEiVU

 

Im not sure if this is the right thread but someone mentioned that lcds and plasmas are the same when it comes to burn in. well after some research I found out it's literally impossible for LCDs to have burn in, and the people claiming they can have burn in know nothing about how LCDs work.

'LCD displays do not have burn in issues. The backlight passes through “twisting” crystals which are a hard material not subject to etching."

that quote says it all.

 

Yes, you are 100% correct in that LCD's are immune to Burn In. Remember what I told you a couple pages back? Burn In and Image Retention are two different phenomenons.

LCD's are not subject to Burn In but those of us who deal with different displays quite often know that LCD's are not immune to Image Retention. With LCD's, it's often called "Image Sticking".

It is the result of their susceptibility to polarization of the liquid crystals inside the LCD display panel when a static image remains displayed on the screen for too long. This results in parasitic charge (polarization) build-up within individual pixels and sub-pixels at the liquid crystal level in the LCD panel; it affects the display optical properties as it prevents the crystals from returning fully to their normal 'relaxed' state upon deactivation.

More specifically, the result is a 'retained pixel charge'.

 

interesting!

I have a LCD display on my laptop and its been on non stop for 6 months with the windows start menu and bar in the same spot!

So what your saying is that if you leave your LCD on for years and years you might get image retention?

edit: I must be lucky with my crystals, I looked up image persistence on wikipedia and it says it can be fixed by simply turning off the display!

Im kinda curious why this is an issue? it isn't exactly a big deal to turn off your LCD at night when you sleep! and dont most people do that anyway? so how is something like this relevent with normal usage?

 

One would have to define normal usage. If your normal usage includes watching large amounts of letter boxed content or standard definition 4:3 content then yes, Image Sticking is very much possible on any LCD. Below is an example of a Sony LCD who's owner watched a lot of standard definition content on. The line where the image ends on 4:3 content is clearly visible. The line faded somewhat after the owner ran JSScreenfix but it was still very much visible.


With today's panels requiring much less power, Image Burn/Image Sticking is almost nearly impossible in both LCD's and Plasma's. Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? Probably Not. Below is a link from one of the most reputable sources in the business. They try to cause Image Burn on two modern Plasma panels but were unsuccessful even after displaying a static image for 10 hours straight. It just doesn't happen often anymore. Don't believe the rumors you hear form others regarding image burn on Plasma's as they are likely uneducated when it comes to the subject. Like I've said numerous times before, they are likely confusing Image Retention with Image Burn. Image Retention goes away within minutes.

Plasma TV “Burn-In”: Fact or Myth? | HD Guru