apparently, 32% of statistics are made up...
oh 3d tv? does everything look like jaws 3d on it?
Brits are steering clear of 3D TV, with only one per cent of the population owning such a set already and a further one per cent hoping to acquire one this coming Christmas. And consumers in the rest of Europe aren't much keener on the technology, either. So reveals a survey of European punters conducted online by price …
I thought the joke was 132% of statistics are made up. :)
(The idea being its over 100% ;)
Joking aside, I would love a 3D TV, if someone is going to buy it for me, which is the problem, and one I suspect a lot of people have currently. Unfortunately I can't risk money for new toys at the moment, due to job worries etc...
> money into storylines than gimmicks
You're right. This gimmick de jour is a poor substitute for decent programmes. However, it's the only substitute they've got so we'd better all get used to it.
I just hoping that someone, somewhere is thinking about the next gimmick, which has got to be due in 3 or 4 years, as this one doesn't look like it's setting the retail world alight.
I can safely say it will be a long while before I even get a new TV.
Having demoed 3D TV's in store when I bought my current TV - it looked great for films but children struggled with glasses - one chose to not wear glasses...
I felt as a purchaser it was a bit of a rip off that you only got 2 glasses in the set and the cost of additional ones was exorbitant for what is effectively a gimmick for a few 3D films. At leas the red/blue 3D glasses were cheap. Even the black ones you get at theme parks (i.e. Shrek 4D at Universal) look like they can be cheaply produced.
My new 1080p TV is fine for films, DVDs, and games consoles. I won't be getting a 3D one and I'm sure I'm not the only person thinking this.
I certainly won't be buying one until my current HD TV needs replacing and they're all there is in the shops. Tried a demo of a pricey Panasonic one the other day and just found it nauseating. Give me a decent picture and accompanying plot over some pointless nausea inducing latest-fad crud anytime.
Same thing over here. Saw the 3D thingy at the store shows, yes they look cool, but it isn't a feature I actually need. OTOH my PS3 screams for 1080p, so that was my primary feature when searching for flatscreens.
Of course, I am glad about this 3D fad, as the 3D-deprived flatscreens have dropped to almost 50% their original price, which is what enabled me to buy an HDTV in the first place. Thanks to 3D, my old 17" tube TV has finally retired.
The glasses in use at cinemas or theme parks (black ones, not red and blue) are just simple polarising filters which are easy to make work if you're using actual projectors. When it comes to TVs and screens the only easy way to do it without losing half the resolution is to have 120hz screens and active glasses which black out each lens in turn at the same rate as the TV is switching frames. That's why the part is so expensive
This post has been deleted by its author
Wow, 8 downvotes for saying you are getting a 3D TV. A new low for Commentardery.
I'll be getting one as soon as they become afordable, at the moment they are not (well, for me anyway). Plus it's not long since I bought my 42" LCD.
The main driver behind this tech is going to be video games and not Eastenders as all these morons seem to think.
considering most homes have probably only just bought non-3d tv's in the last couple of years, I'd say 2% by xmas (or up to 6%) was quite an impressive success actually - especially considering the lack of content out there still.
The Reg going for the daily star/NOTW style headlines again then.
Dear Mr TV Manufacturer,
you have just spent the last five years telling us all how CRT's are crap and we simply MUST upgdrade to an LCD/Plasma. A TV is a BIG purchase for a family with (imo) a relativley large amount of income spent on one. You now expect us to throw that all away to get 3d? I don't think so. My LE46 will be staying in my living room for a least a couple more years,
Monty "Couldn't give a toss about 3d" Burns.
...but what were the figures for the same point in HDTV's history? Or maybe DVD?
Prices will come down, and popularity will increase. I doubt it will achieve anything like the mass appeal that HDTV has because it really is just a gimmick, but aren't we still firmly in early-adopter territory anyway?
With the yawnsome variation of 720 and 1080 and pretty poor offering of HD content (alot of UK tv programming is just a bit crap these days) the only point of an HD tele is for gaming.
Add to this that there is no such thing as HD sound,( there's better quality, but no standard..) and the fact that the BBC and Virgin's vary on compression ratios which can give you a pretty poor picture.
3dTV will have mass appeal when it is built into every tv at no extra cost and you don't need glasses.... oh the stuff you watch is like princess laya's help message not water drops floating like avatar.
You're definitely not alone, costing issues aside, how much use are you going to get from the TV? both Virgin and Sky have 'paid for' extra content channels and some films are starting to appear specificaklly for 3d but who wants to sit and watch the news in 3d?? The exorbitant costs become even greater when you consider that the usage of a 3d mode would most likely be for a small percentage of time in comparison to normal viewing modes.
As an earlier poster correctly mentioned we are also seeing a glut of films made for 3d where the 3d effect is the selling point of choice rather than storyline. The Last airbender was a great one for this "it's awesome in 3d" the advert said as it waxed lyrical about how good 3d was, at the end the viewwer was left in no doubt that the film was 3d without being told a single solitary thing about the film itself........they could have at least said it was $h!t and save your money ;)
3D is only on the higher-end sets, not well supported on Blu-Ray players, has a very poor range of viewing media, and forces the user to adopt glasses that may not be comfortable or convenient for them.
So, it's really not surprising that THIS YEAR, relatively few people are planning a purchase. Especially since (as Anthony Shortland mentions) the collapse of panel prices in the last two years means that many tech-savvy houses have young sets.
I'm ordering a new 3D TV this weekend though. My circumstances are such that a 3D TV purchase makes sense for me at this time.
Twenga didn't poll me.
In the past few years we've had upgrades from CRT to LCD & Plasma screens, analogue to digital terrestrial/cable/satellite, Standard Definition to HD Ready TVs that turn out not to be ready thanks to OFCOM's insistence on a new broadcast format for FreeviewHD. Oh and a recession. Perhaps people are just making do and waiting for a significant technological leap, such as holographic TV, before parting with their cash again?
Test-drove one of these the other day. Unimpressive. The 3D isn't overwhelmingly good, I don't want to have to add another bit of kit (specs) to be able to watch TV, the screen wasn't as big as the fab HD I have now, and it did strike me that this was an enhancement looking for a home. If 3D were the denier cri, then painting and photography would have withered and sculpture would have dominated. But some things are fine as they are. Radio was not overtaken by TV, as radio is better for listening. 2D works fine for watching something. When I want 3D, I'll go outside...
Given the distinct lack of content and excess of padding on many documentaries these days, I treat a lot of them *as* radio, listening to them whilst I'm working on other stuff since fancy (but pointless) screen-time filling graphics and tedious (and useless) "re-enactments" of historical events are completely unnecessary to actually understand and appreciate the actual facts.
3D? Dull, Dull, Dull!
Is there was a way to save energy by turning the TV screen off but still being able to hear the audio? I might then listen to the digital radio stations on FreeView.
Actually, I'd like a device that strips out the adverts, the initial "here's what's we're going to do" bit at the start of a program, the post-advert repeat of what happened and what's coming up and the hammy acting bit at the end. I suspect an hour long program would squeeze down to 30mins.
To be honest, even then it wouldn't be worth watching so I'll go and read a book instead.
Just a warning for anyone put off by a demo - I was underwhelmed by several 3D TV demos, same sort of puppety type of effect as mentioed here.
It was only on the third demo I got it suddenly seemed a lot LOT better.
I've since realised why. The poeple demoing these things don't have the first idea, and hence the first 2 demos were actually just 2D content with the 2D -> 3D mode (which obviously doesn't really work)
Stick some actual 3D content on there, and the difference is night and day. Just worth bearing in mind.
I don't think that they are saying that at all. I think they're saying "That sounds like a good idea", until they try it in the store, find out how awful the whole experience is, and how much it costs. Then they start saying things like "What a load of expensive crap".
as soon as I can get one for no extra financial gouging, without needing geeky looking specs and there's a decent amount of content.
When I watch telly it's mainly iPlayer routed from my PC and it's on while I do something else. I think trying to cook dinner or whatever would be tricky having to put on and take off specs when I glance at the screen. I suppose if I get a blueray player, it would be cool to watch if there was the content, but again, with so many "sony only" and "panasonic only" etc specs, I couldn't have a bunch of mates over to watch with me and bring their own goggles.
Plus, can you imagine the hassle of rooting around to find the telly remote, then the amp/ stereo remote so you can hear it, then the DVD player remote and THEN the glasses?
Anyway, does anyone remember the MAster systems 3d gaming attempt? Very similar tech from what I remember.
(Not that I was polled.)
I think it's just a gimmick. A stunt from the big film companies to try and combat piracy by making a medium that is harder to copy, and to add an extra couple of quid onto cinema ticket prices.
I've yet to see any 3D film that justified the extra ticket price or the mild annoyance of the glasses. Even the much-vaunted Avatar caused only a slight amusement in this cynical viewer.
And as for the idea of having to don a pair of specs (on top of the corrective pair I sometimes wear anyway) to watch TV in my own living room, and of having to sit in the right place to get the best effect: don't get me started.
Well, assuming you're talking about 3D *TV*, as the article is, and not the cinema, the piracy angle is a common misconception.
3D source media is no more difficult to copy than any other source media - most 3D video formats are simply fat 2D formats usually by either doubling the frame rate or doubling the resolution. However, you can happily send a 3D signal on bog standard 1080p, by either halving the frame rate to 30Hz, or halving the horizontal or vertical resolution. You can store 3D video or images on pretty much any current format - you could store 3D on VHS tapes if you wanted to.
As far as the glasses go, yeah, they're not ideal - you don't have to be in exactly the right place with them, as they ensure the right image gets into the right eye. I would suspect that 3D TV without glasses is a long way away yet - they can make it work for small screens, such as the screen tech that Nintendo have bought, but that technology does not scale up. The ideal screen size for that type of 3D display is similar to the width in between your eyes.
It's also worth mentioning, but because the TV is a standard TV, and the technology is within the glasses themselves, it means that down the line I can potentially upgrade my experience (removing ghosting, etc.) by replacing a £60 pair of glasses, rather than the £2,500 screen.
To be fair, if you would only be using it to view films, and are not also interested in 3D gaming, yeah - you're not missing out on much really. I'd say 80% of the time my TV spends in 3D mode is probably running PS3 games right now.
The thing I find most amusing is that people I know have come round, with the opinion that 3DTV is probably a gimmick, then complained that not enough of the films or games made stuff jump out in your face! Deep down I think some of us want to see gimmicky things, but in actual fact the effect is used quite subtely and with a certain amount of restraint. Motorstorm 3D is fantastic, it really looks like your TV is a 3D box, with the land stretching away inside it, rather than just a single wobbly layer all up in your face, like the 3D of old.
Gimmick or not, 3D capability in TVs is here to stay, and it's probably only a matter of time before it becomes a standard feature. I too think that 2% by the end of the year is a fantastic adoption rate - that's 1.2 million people, and it's only been vaguely affordable for a few short months, really.
For me 3d TV would irritate the S*&t out of me, I wear glasses, so would either have to have special glasses made, or wear two pairs/clip-ons. I also don't actually watch TV all the time either, I do stuff, check the mail, make a meal, work. So unless I can do that whilst wearing silly specs, why would I want one.
Mind you I do know some couch potato who really do treat the TV like a cinema, so they will probably be the 1%, the other 5% are probably people who just want to say they have one and can't admit it was a crap idea to go out and buy one.
I'll buy 3D when it's holographic, and you don't need special additives. I can see why gamers would want it though, never managed to make coffee whilst playing doom, yes I still do play it now and then.
Why? Because in case they haven't noticed, we're in a middle of a recession, everybody's just bought new TVs for the latest "in thing" (HD) and now they want us to spunk thousands more on new sets that typically don't have anywhere near as good a picture qualtiy as the sets we've just bought and have lots of inconvenient problems with them... i.e. very little content, no real standards in place and the content that there is out there is either the ghastly "throw things at the viewer" type or the hacked up "more 3D than real life" abortion that is Sky Sports 3D.
Our broadcast systems are still suffering with the con whereby the move to Digital gave us lots of channels all with piss poor picture quality (due to the limited bandwidth available to each channel and the cost of it from the suppliers let alone the politics that are involved). Then the broadcasters launched HD where, without adding much extra capacity did the bandwidth come from? By lowering the bit rate of the SD channels and thereby making the difference more marked than it should be - same old trick that was performed with CD and the poor quality plastics that suddenly started being used in vinyl records.
Now we have 3D channels into the mix where something also has to give due to the bandwidth restrictions... either other channels, the refresh rate of the frames, or the quality of the frames/audio. Stiched up? bet we are!
Sky isn't about to launch lots more satellites to provide more broadcast bandwidth right now - due to economic their play is likely to have to be Internet supplied content as it's the only real way they can compete in the long term.
In theory Virgin Media has the infrastructure in place, albeit with costly upgrades to a lot of kit required but good chunks of this can be accounted for in the steady churn of consumer units that only have a few years operational reliability in them anyway (this isn't a dig at VM, it's normal for kit). VM's strength is that they own the deployment infrastructure therefore it can be upgraded to suit their requirements - shame about their weaknesses... the problems still caused by multiple "competing" companies being merged and their still atrocious customer support... and their regular spats with Sky.
Freeview has much cheaper infrastructure upgrade potential however due to the piecemeal way the standards were flung out there and the short sighted initial vision consumers are left with poorly performing kit that's practically obsolete by the time it arrives. Couple this with advert blighted EPGs and it's not a nice environment for the end consumer.
someone mentioned they would buy one if it was without glasses ...
form a distance, it would work if you were a hammerhead shark and your eyes were seriously far apart :D
then the telly would have to track all the other hammerhead sharks in the room and soomewhat emit light at different freq/angle for these ppl too :D
The only way 3D TV will work is by making the glasses seriously cheap, not requiring any power. So for the rainy sunday afternoon, one can get the family aund a good 3D film.
It would be nice to think that people would reject 3D TV based on technological criteria (the need for glasses, the infinitesimal amount of 3D programming available).
Unfortunately, once again a tech is accepted/rejected purely on financial considerations.
That said, I always found highly laughable that they launch 3D TV now, when HD TV has just begun to make real traction on the market and Blu-Ray is only just starting to actually sell.
Like so many other techniques available to film makers, 3d is a waste of time if it doesn't contribute something worthwhile to telling a decent story. To date all the movies produced in 3d are little more than glorified ads for 3d itself, and I think it'll take a bit more than a big name director to come up with something that makes it worth wearing a pair of uncomfortable specs for two hours.
These OLED's when they start to sale them to us are suppose to be so thin that the TV will look like a sheet of glass when its switched off; Well there you go just add umpteen sheets in a sandwich and BINGO 3D TV with out the glasses, and you can still watch 2D on the top most layer
Or modify a Dyson and shoot laser light off the dust particles to get the fuzzy Star wars look Hush The Great Leader is about to address his people
Sound good? Nope, thought not. 3d only benefits a certain portion of tv programming such as action movies, pixar movies and maybe wildlife programs. The Hairy bikers 3d, eastenders 3d, the weakest link 3d. None of those genres benefit and thus make the purchase of a 3d tv unnecessary.
I'm somewhat interested in 3D but I hate the flickering of active shutter lenses. When they start making screens capable of outputting a polarised image so I can use passive glasses I might become more interested.
Ideally however I'd want to see screens using technology similar to the Nintendo 3DS where glasses are not necessary. I don't know if that's possible, but that's what I'd probably be willing to spend money on, assuming the support is there in terms of games and films that use it.
When I first saw a 3D movie with the polarised glasses, I was impressed. I wondered how long before you got lots of 3D content. Hell with polarised content you could even get printed content. Just wear some contact lenses, and you could add a whole new depth to your world. I wouldnt mind a 3d desktop Cool...
The tech is there, the content is not...
Only enthusiats will shell out for something, when the content is so poor. Go down to you local shops and see the range on Blueray vs DVD. I've got an awsome blueray setup... 3D yeah, when I finally have to replace what ive got now... But there would need to be content. I guess come back in 10-15 years
Shit presented in 1080p 3-D Super-Whammo-Vision is still shit.
Movies with no plot but lots of effects? Shit.
Most TV content? Shit.
Sequel number 5 or 6 in a well-worn, tried and tested, utterly, utterly safe-as-houses profitable gaming franchise? Expensive, unoriginal, gold-plated shit with a cherry on top.
Make it worth my while to upgrade, and I'll certainly consider it. Keep on producing uninspiring content which needs techno-jazzing just to make it worth a second glance and the old 4:3 glass tube CRT stays right where it is until it finally craps out and I'm forced to replace it.
...........for the simple reason that the producers have only now just _begun_ to bring really good 2D picture quality into price categories that ordinary mortals can afford. My lady and I do not have kids, do not run a car and we are both reasonably well paid "white collar professionals" (and we do not have a particularly big mortgage). All the same when we laid out £2000 for our 55" Sammy it was not exactly an impulse purchase - the old eyes watered a bit I can tell you! My point being that the manufacturers have only really begun bringing decent picture quality and a big screen within reach of "the masses" and now they are trying to punt a very dubious take on 3D imaging, charge a premium for it, assume that content will just materialise AND they are hoping the punters will be enthused! Sorry any memo I sent them would read something like "tell your people to ring my people when you can produce a genuine holographic tv and a price I can at least pretend to afford".
Major downer is lack of content. With the manufacturers all bidding for exclusivity on 3D movies, and the studio's lapping up the cash it means that although those with a nice brand new panasonic TV will get avatar 3D, those with any other manufacturers TV will have to wait.
With only 5 or 6 real 3D movies out there the only other content is spots. Sky do broadcast one 3D channel for 12-18 hrs a day (lotta repeats) unfortunatly you have to pay for every channel they boardcast if you wish to get the 3D chennel, the for good measure they then charge pay per view on top of the monthly cost for certain 3D broadcasts (complete rip off).
You mean TV isn't in 3D already?
Stone the crows, for all these years, I thought the picture I was viewing was 3D all along!
For some unknown reason, my brain was fooled into seeing the picture in 3D, managing to construct, through some clever brainy shenanigans, the 2D image into 3D in me old noggin.
You can keep this decades version of 3D - I'm still pissed that VR never made it past the starting post, mainly due to nausea inducing blocky visuals and clunky headsets.
Wake me up when we've got 3D that lives up to the sci-fi tales - maybe something like the "Room of informational illusions", or perhaps something from the city of Diaspar (the city and the stars) - until that time, 3D TV is nothing short of a very expensive gimmick.
but the staggering price and the excruciatingly small amount of non-anaglyph 3D films available is a massive deterrant.
I do have a pair of Zeiss Cinemizer LCD video glasses that do 'true' colour 3D and I've watched a few films in 3D on them but they're not exactly HD resolution or convenient or nice to wear for very long, especially as the optics are sub-par (yes, crap optics on a Zeiss product, who'da thunk it)
I bought myself a lovely 50" 1080p TV a few years ago and it looks great.
Personally I like having my TV on whilst I'm on my PC, or doing whatever I want around my living room. I don't want to have to wear expensive glasses, or buy expensive sets of glasses in case I invite some friends over. I don't have any need for what is a weak gimmick. If I had holographic images in my front room I'd be interested, but I really don't see the value in chucking down a fortune for a new TV that gives me something that I don't want.
I admit I enjoy sometimes switching on the 3D on my PC and playing some games that way, but current consoles aren't capable of rendering top-quality games in 3D whilst smooth (regardless of what any fanbois will tell you).
So 3DTV in it's current incarnation.....no thanks!
1. Cost is stupidly prohibitive, and then you have to buy glasses that aren't compatible with other systems.
2. Most live TV content is crap - imagine watching Retard-Factor in 3D, brrr...and can you see yourself watching that pretentious tit Adam-SkyNews-Boulton rotating his iPad in 3D?
3. Tired of crap gimmicks to sell the same old product - I admit, this time around hearing Star Wars would be revamped actually made me say 'meh' instead of being interested.
4. Abuse - imagine if adverts all started pumping out in 3D, or those silly in-programme adverts starting swirling around whilst you're trying to watch a show.
5. Upgrade Apathy - I have a relatively new 50" plasma 1080p TV...and UK programming doesn't show above 720p as it is...I've been told about alot of 'fantastic HD programming' that still hasn't even reached what I consider to be true HD yet - and now you want me to pay for 3D? HAH!
My god, what an awful and depressing thought! And yet you've probably identified the most likely use of 3D on our TV channels - adverts!
I record the TV shows I like and watch them later so that I can skip the adverts. But those annoying logos and in-programme messages are unstoppable and becoming more and more intrusive.
What's the surprise? A decade ago they were making us buy computers every six to eight months, now they are doing it with mobile phones, and they think they can do it TVs too... not interested.
Secondly... how many times did you write Europe/Europeans in the article? We don't have to compare everything with "the rest of Europe".
Anyway, sick yer 3D, especially the stupid glasses.
I am not interested ever in getting 3D tv or even 3D cimima its useles fuzzy picture even with glases. The shows on tv i dont think have improved much recently in fact mainly gone down hill so more reason not to buy.
maybe the fact I am blind in one eye may also influance the decition.
mines the one wuth the eye patch in the pocket.
I was in Costco yesterday evening and the footy was on in 3d on a big Samsung set. (I think it was live - but as I'm not a footy fan I don't actually know)
I tried the glasses (over the top of my varifocals) and moved back and forth a bit until it formed an image similar to that which I see on my normal LCD TV - I say similar because I couldn't get it as sharp!
What's the point if it's all going to be blurred (even WITH the magic goggles)?
"48 per cent of UK respondents said they would like a 3D TV"
I expect that's the figure the 3D band-wagon will look at and to them it's just about convincing punters to buy.
A more interesting question is on what basis so many think they would like a 3D TV - Is that simply because it sounds like a good idea in principle rather than judged on 3D TV viewing experience? I suspect so and the 3D band-wagon will ultimately be greatly disappointed by real demand, The Next Big Thing (TM) turning out to be a damp squib.
I recall being in favour of 'the internet accessible on a phone', but then we got W@P, which wasn't at all how I expected it to be. Nor how most expected judging by its short lived life.
I can't stand eastenders (insert most terrestial TV normal day to day program of choice), why would I want to watch it in HD, and now I get the possible options of a future where I can watch it in 3D?
It's for the odd film which as has been said is a 'fad', adding nothing to a plot other than a visual treat (allegedly) Never seen the appeal. Certainly not enough to pay the costs of owning one.
but the experiance is. Ive got a 3d telly, mainly for games, and some of them are amazing. Wipeout is quite amazing, the depth actually improved my times from my last 2d play of it. A move game called tumble (think scifi jenga) is vastly improved by playing in 3D and yes i look like an extra from a bad romanian scifi film with my glasses and led wand: but its a great game, even the wife likes it.
On the film front its not there yet, but with any new format there is always a lack of content at the start. The one thing that annoys the bejesus out of me is the exclusivity of certain titles, its as if they are trying to kill the new format.
And for those saying the glasses would annoy you; your not going top be wearing them everytime you watch telly, easties will never be in 3d. Its for the big blockbusters, documenteries, and pron.
Anyhoo, i loves mine, and cant wait to play Gran Turismo 5 in glorius 3D!
that my 6 year old Pioneer plasma is absolutely fine. I really cannot justify getting rid of it. I've seen a few demos of 3D tv, didn't like the cheap £1000 models but some of the more expensive ones in plasma are stunning.
Two issues I've got with it is that they only come with 2 glasses, how about 4 for a normal average family ;-)
And then the fact you need glasses at all, non-glasses technology is right around the corner available on game consoles and phones already. That combined with my current plasma being just fine I can't see a compelling argument to upgrade at this moment in time.
Aside from the debatable thrust of the article (only 600,000 people buying quite new technology in a recession = failure of said tech...?), 3D's certainly of no interest to me.
To labour other posters' point, it's certainly not as high a priority as improving the quality of TV content. Most of the time when my TV's on it's either showing DVDs or something on one of the eternal-repeats channels like Dave, something from way back. New stuff just tends to be either unwatchable 'reality' tat or, at best, just meh. This may be due to falling standards, or I may just be getting old. Or both.
And to be honest, I don't see there's much point in pushing the next big thing in image quality anyway while all films are currently being made in Hollywood's new monochrome of orange and teal.
3D looks nothing like actual 3D, you know like the world is, instead you get a 2D image with the odd item looking like it's suspended in front of the screen.
I remember watching Avatar at the pictures, it did look very pretty but the sensation of having my eyes pulled out of my head by the glasses was a bit much to bear. After I watched the film again on BD in 2D, the visuals were much sharper you could see loads of extra detail that had been lost with the 3D process, enjoyed the film so much more for it.
Other than for computer games I just can't see that it brings any benefit to film or TV.
...I have movie nights, you know, rent a movie people come over inhabit the sofas and watch a movie, consume copious amounts of beer...
you (generic company) want me to buy 600 squids worth of glasses? fuck you (generic company)
oh. and don't get me started on the crappy upscaling/upsampling for non-HD content to 3D.
Do you remember 3D cinema? Yeah, we used to call it the theatre
Just bought a TV in the last few weeks with a budget of about a grand and we went for something with a better picture quality over 3D. Why? Because there's hardly any 3D content yet, HD is only just starting to dribble through to Joe Public so it's going to be a while till 3D makes it through. All 3D I've seen (cinema and shop demo) you have to wear stupid glasses and the edges are always fuzzy when you concentrate on them. And once you notice you can't stop watching those fuzzy edges so I'll let the early adopters iron out the bugs.