3DTVs are getting cheap!

[PalmerTech]

Vizio just put out a 32" model that uses passive glasses (Not active, woo!) for less than $500: http://www.amazon.com/Vizio-E3D320VX-32 ... 821&sr=1-1

I know using a TV as a monitor is super ghetto, but I think I might end up doing just that if I can save enough cash this summer.

Oh, and there is a larger model, too: http://www.amazon.com/Vizio-E3D420VX-42 ... 955&sr=1-1

 

[jleemero]

These are Passive?

Holy flax *Can'tSayThisOnTV* yes. At that price?
*Can'tSayThisOnTV* YES.

So long as the brightness is decent, this is just *Can'tSayThisOnTV*ing great.

 

[Zero]

Pretty Dang sweet, but it'll be awhile before I pick up a new TV. I am thinking about getting a 3D monitor sometime in the near future though.

 

[PalmerTech]

These are Passive?

Holy flux *PLINK* yes. At that price?
*PLINK* YES.

So long as the brightness is decent, this is just Linking great.

The brightness is one of the selling points. Higher than active, by all accounts, and the promo material.

 

[jleemero]

AGH *Can'tSayThisOnTV* YES.
Dangit I DON'T NEED TO BE SPENDING MONEY RIGHT NOW.

But I want to.

YES.
Passive is all I've been waiting for in 3DTVs.
It pissed me off SO MUCH when the first huge batch released were ALL Shutter Glasses.
And they did it because it's so god damned easy of course. Herp Derp take any 120Hz display, run the glasses off the sync line, hurrrr.
I like shutterglasses in a way, but only as a 3D Novelty, the kind of thing I *Can'tSayThisOnTV* with.
I wouldn't dare PAY for 'em, or ANYTHING that uses them.

Passive is really all I've been waiting for.
*Can'tSayThisOnTV* yes.

 

[Basement_Modder]

These are Passive?

Holy flux *PLINK* yes. At that price?
*PLINK* YES.

So long as the brightness is decent, this is just Linking great.

The brightness is one of the selling points. Higher than active, by all accounts, and the promo material.

I love how you keep the word filter on. Only person I ever see who does besides some newer members.

I will probably buy this when I have money again. Getting a job this month, so shouldn't take too long...

 

[Twilight Wolf]

Considering I spent $400 on the 32" Samsung I have now, this sounds like an awesome deal.

Unfortunately I spent that $400 less than two years ago. Too early to upgrade. D:

 

[J.D]

I'm patiently waiting for glasses-free 3DTVs.

 

[vskid3]

I'm standing on the other side of the fence, not able to see 3D, and laughing at everyone that has to bother with it.

 

[J.D]

I'm standing on the other side of the fence, not able to see 3D, and laughing at everyone that has to bother with it.

Do you have one eye or something?

 

[Tchay]

What does passive mean versus active?

I know I could google it, but I'd rather get a practical explanation.

 

[samjc3]

These are Passive?

Holy flux *PLINK* yes. At that price?
*PLINK* YES.

So long as the brightness is decent, this is just Linking great.

The brightness is one of the selling points. Higher than active, by all accounts, and the promo material.

I love how you keep the word filter on. Only person I ever see who does besides some newer members.

I keep the word filter on. Its far more fun that way. I get to read phrases like, "You Linking Sega!" all the time; not just when Jelly posts.

Im with vskid on the 3d. I dislike it strongly.

 

[Twilight Wolf]

Tchay, I think passive 3D is like what they have at movie theaters, where the glasses are basically sunglasses with special lenses and no batteries are required for them to work.

Now, I don't mind 3D, but I have to say it was a refreshing change seeing Hanna last night -- not being in 3D means not having flax thrown at the audience every chance the film got in a cheap attempt at getting a reaction. 3D is neat when used properly, like in Avatar (even if everything else about it was kind of lame), but I find most of the time it's incredibly gimmicky and stupid.

 

[Zero]

That's the fault of the studios not the technology. When used more subtly its nice, but of course when its purposely over exaggerated in movies that don't even need 3D it ends up looking horrible. Besides, you're talking like every single movie is in 3D nowadays, and while there has been a huge increase in 3D movies since Avatar (almost always seems to be one showing at the movies), the overwhelming majority do not use 3D.

 

[Mako321]

Tron Legacy didn't have gimmicky stuff

 

[Zero]

but I also heard it sucked.

 

[XCVG]

I haven't seen a lot of 3D stuff. I tried a 3DTV in a store and there was barely any effect- maybe it was broken or I just can't see it. Played some games using anaglyph drivers and iZ3D drivers, it was fun but looked like crap and I couldn't aim worth a Dang. Briefly tried a 3DS, has a small sweet spot but other than that wasn't able to evaluate much. My impression of 3D is that it's neat, but not a must-have thing. Would I go for a 3D setup if I had the money? Heck yeah! But there are other things I'd rather spend my limited income on.

 

[vskid3]

I'm standing on the other side of the fence, not able to see 3D, and laughing at everyone that has to bother with it.

Do you have one eye or something?

My eyes don't work together to see 3D, I've never been able to. I also lack fine depth perception because of it.

 

[J.D]

Tron Legacy didn't have gimmicky stuff

Really? I watched it in 3D and I thought the 3D effects sucked balls.

but I also heard it sucked.

Jeff Bridges was the only good part of the movie

 

[jleemero]

I'm standing on the other side of the fence, not able to see 3D, and laughing at everyone that has to bother with it.

Do you have one eye or something?

My eyes don't work together to see 3D, I've never been able to. I also lack fine depth perception because of it.

I have flax depth perception, which is why I became such a cigarette for 3D stuff.
Go figure.