CES 2010: 3D Televisions Review

Posted: January 8, 2010
CES 2010: 3D Televisions Review

There’s no denying that 3D TVs have been making the rounds at CES 2010. Kevin Pereira and Alison Haislip tackle new television sets from Samsung, Sony and Panasonic to see what’s in store for those planning on some 3D viewing fun at home.

Samsung C9000 3D LED TV

  • Features full HD, 240 Hz refresh rate and ultra clear display.
  • Super slim design of silver metal and a square stand.
  • 4 HDMI outputs, 2 USBs, 1 Ethernet port.
  • 3D-enabled.
  • Color Touch-screen remote.
  • Price TBD.

Sony Bravia LX Series 60" 3D TV

  • Built in 3D.
  • Comes with 2 pairs of 3D glasses.
  • Monolithic design.
  • Available in 2010 for pre-order.
  • Price TBD.

Panasonic 152" 3D Plasma TV

  • Offers 4K2K resolution (4096 x 2160).
  • Full HD.
  • Employs the same technology that will be used for all of their full HD 3D plasmas.
  • Available in Spring.
  • Price TBD...probably not available anywhere near you.

Comments are Closed

  • HeyUthere

    They keep showing Us these 3d tv's talking about how great the future of 3d movies, television and 3d gaming will be. Its all good and what not but the 3d content isnt much of a concern to me or some of the other people i have chatted with. What i want to know is what can these 3d Television to for me in the now with my 2d gaming experience. I wanna know if it can deliver a better quality in 2d than regular HDTV's can with its 240hz And 6,000,000,000:1.

    Posted: October 5, 2010 3:59 PM
  • UnnecessaryAnonymity

    The concept of 3D scares me, as a gamer that only has use of one eye stereoscopic 3D won't work, I don't want to live in a world where I can't watch Tv/play games/or watch anything without the image looking like its been put through a blender. [Just my 2 cents]

    Posted: January 15, 2010 6:03 AM
  • U.B.C.S

    152 inch eh. how long before the color fades and the tv dies. a year?

    Posted: January 13, 2010 5:50 PM
  • Johkam

    Sorry for the double post.

    Posted: January 11, 2010 2:50 PM
  • Johkam

    Actually i never had a problem like dizzy or sickness so i cant tell if this is the solution to the problem cause i never had a problem,its the ears with the labyrinth and the endolymph and perilymph that can cause dizzy alot more that the eyes,the other fact to determine distance is the size of the object,the possition,the shadows and more.but i dont no other cues than the eyes and the brain to determine distance while you stand still,and in reality if you stand still and see some real action with stuffs happen move very fast can cause you dizzy sometimes,i believe its because the brain takes more information(pictures) in a small amount of time.

    Posted: January 11, 2010 2:49 PM
  • Johkam

    Actually i never had Nausea and sickness so i cant tell if is that the solution of the problem cause i dont have any,but i know that the brain takes more information of pictures than before so its normal if you feel a little dizzy,myself and a lot of people i know never had that problem with 3D,i know that the ears with the labirunth and the endolymph are resposible for the balance and they can cause dizzy more than the eyes,the other fact that the brain use to determine distance is the size of an object i dont know other cues than the eyes and the brain to determine distance you can share with us if you know,but even if you stand still in reality and watch some real action happens fast you can feel dizzy sometimes i believe is cause the brain get alot information of pictures in a small amount of time.

    Posted: January 11, 2010 2:34 PM
  • J_Boolihans

    @Johkam - actually the nausea and motion sickness that the 3-d format causes are due to the fact that stereoscopic vision is only one of many cues that the brain uses to determine distance. When we watch a 3-D movie the brain is processing conflicting informatiion, and we trick ourselves into perceiving objects closer or farther away than their image actually is.

    The 3-D movie/game/porn experience has not yet come close to approximating the way we perceive our real 3-D world. For my money, I prefer to see a movie like Avatar once every 6 months to a year.

    Posted: January 11, 2010 9:59 AM
  • Johkam

    i dont understand the problem with the glass you put them on only if you want to watch a movie play a game in 3D,its like saying i dont want to use my eyes to see something but only my brain,maybe its a little bit of a problem but for me the effect is so cool and i dont mind to wear glass if there is no other way.

    Posted: January 10, 2010 6:28 PM
  • slimmer

    I'm not a Wii fan because I dont want to move around when i play vid games and I dont want stuff flying at me when I watch a movie.

    Posted: January 10, 2010 5:00 PM
  • slimmer

    The whole 3D hype is Vaporware, just give me a decent 22"-24" 120hz-240hz that looks great without the glasses and doesn't ghost (which is what I've heard the bigger ones do).

    Posted: January 10, 2010 4:58 PM
  • Blue_Vortex

    so exactly how is the 3D tv different from the 2D tv if you still need the glasses, I mean honestly the whole 3D thing seems like it would make more sense if Cable/Dish started to broadcast in 3D and you just got a pair 3D glasses.
    I say we can't consider it 3D until you don't need the glasses to watch it.

    Posted: January 10, 2010 11:41 AM
  • xRAINx

    lmao nuggz 3d porn huh. were all talkin about 3d games and movies and your thinkin about porn lol. but yes im on the same page as u approach with caution.

    Posted: January 10, 2010 11:27 AM
  • nuggz503

    3D porn? ... I'll approach it cautiously.

    Posted: January 10, 2010 8:48 AM
  • Johkam

    About the dizzy and the sick i believe its not a side effect of the tecchology is because the 3D takes you inside the movie like you watching the things and facts happen live,so if a camera moves for the top of a building it normal to get you dizzy,cause imagine someone move you fast from the top of the building to the ground in reality of course you will get dizzy,so its in the hand of the director if you will get dizzy or not cause the frames you get in to your brain with 3D is the same 2 frames you get in reality(one for each eye).

    Posted: January 10, 2010 6:25 AM
  • dantastic4

    I have to agree with rerat.3d in the public's eyes just is'nt there right now.I think until were not getting headaces from the experience and we no longer need glasses fine ,but right now with the current economic climate. I just don't see people running out to buy a 42'$9000.00 3D TV.

    Posted: January 9, 2010 11:28 PM
  • KnuxSonic

    3D seems cool but they have got to find a way to ditch the glasses. Not only are they ugly, they can be uncomfortable especially if you already wear regular glasses.

    It's one thing to wear them for 1.5 to 2 hours watching a movie, but to expect someone to wear them every time they turn on their TV is not a standard I look forward to.

    Posted: January 9, 2010 10:42 PM
  • pingerdinger

    how is the average person supposed to afford this? Plus im sure a lot of people r gonna feel guilty wearing glasses

    Posted: January 9, 2010 9:10 PM
  • rerat

    I'm sorry but I think a 3D tv is kind of dumb... Just my two pennies. I don't just say that because 3D movies make me dizzy and sick, but because I think this whole 3D thing is just a fad for now. 3D is cool & all but it takes away from a lot of things in a movie if you ask me.

    Posted: January 9, 2010 8:07 PM
  • SteveKB

    ew a plasma D: bad for your eyes... or atleast worse :P

    Posted: January 9, 2010 6:21 PM
  • swordgoatz

    I think the guys (and gal) on the Feedback this week (check it out) are in denial. In 5 years, everybody will have 3D TV's. I saw an NVIDIA 3D gaming demo at PAX this past year, and it actually works really well, especially for FPS. Personally, I can't wait to play Madden or MLB the show on a 3D TV. Can you imagine a reboot of Shadow of the Colossus in 3D? I just feel like gaming companies will have a much easier time incorporating 3D than they are having with motion control. It just seems like it would be more intuitive for them.

    Posted: January 9, 2010 12:48 PM