<p>Our New tv is about 3 yrs old now.
46inch sharp bought for $900 through a Friends and family promotion.
It’s lovely but not smart.
We do have a separate tiny Roku box that streams Netflix and lots of other stuff.</p>
<p>Pretty sure our next tv will be smarter still.</p>
<p>Agree that Costco is our go-to for TVs. Love the 3 VIZIO HD TVs we have gotten there over the last 2 years (for different family members, each is still working great), nice picture, sound, and very lightweight (10 pounds) to move and lift. Not quite the cheapest, but close to it. </p>
<p>We also just watch the basic satellite TV/blue ray/dvd</p>
<p>We bought a 37” Vizio LCD TV for our bedroom at Costco. After a couple of years, it was afflicted with probably the PC equivalent of BSOD (blue screen of death). No images just sound. Costco concierge told us our TV model was no longer in stock and exchanged it for another Vizio same size model. Unfortunately, the TV they gave us didn’t have PIP. We didn’t bother to complain about it though. I like PIP though because it allows me to follow an exercise video while I’m watching another TV show. </p>
<p>For the family room, we have a 55” Vizio LCD. It’s about three years old, I think. We bought it on Black Friday at Costco. No problems. For the home theater, we have a front projector with the image diagonal size currently set to 120 inches.</p>
<p>I somewhat disagree about Costco. I priced LG sets (edge lit LED LCD) and found they had older and lesser models than Amazon. For essentially the same price, I got the higher end model. </p>
<p>As for 3D, yes for passive, no for active. I see active 3D, the kind that requires expensive glasses with batteries, as dying. Passive 3D means the TV converts whatever is on screen to 3D and it can show 3D movies from a player if you want. I watch a lot of stuff in 3D. Sports like golf come alive in 3D. The glasses are the throwaway kind you get at the movies and you don’t notice they’re on. </p>
<p>I would think twice about internet services, but internet connectivity is important because the TV will update its software. I find the TV interfaces for stuff like youtube or netflix to be way worse than on my computer. I can easily send signals to the TV from my computer, so I don’t need to worry about the apps and services LG (or others) offer. </p>
<p>We had a 42" Samsung. It broke. I measured and found the new TV’s often have almost no bezel at all. That meant a 47" LG TV took up almost exactly the same space as the old one.</p>
<p>We have a Sony that is mounted above the fireplace. If you are going to mount it on a wall consider hiring someone to do it. It took two guys to mount ours and I believe if my husband and I had done it ourselves we might have dropped it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be strange for one method of showing 3D material to be dying and another method of displaying the same content not be, so I have to disagree with you there.
Also, your definition of passive 3D is incorrect. What you are referring to is real-time 2D to 3D conversion, which both types of 3D TV (passive and active) have the capability to do. It just means that they can take regular 2D TV or movies and convert it to 3D content on the fly. It generally doesn’t look as good as material that is professionally made in 3D, but is certainly better than nothing if you’re going for 3D.</p>
<p>Passive vs active refers to the glasses needed to view 3D content. Active 3D glasses use battery power to actively change the lens for each eye opaque dozens of times a second to show the appropriate eye the correct image. It also requires a signal from the TV to sync the “flickering”. Passive lenses are the ones you receive in theaters and rely on light polarization to show each eye the correct image.</p>
<p>If you buy to hold then you may regret later if you don’t get a smart tv.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I was shopping for a TV at Costco a few weeks ago, I don’t think I saw a single one that wasn’t a “smart” TV (i.e. had internet connectivity and “apps” that allowed access to Netflix, Amazon Video, Youtube, etc.). All the main offerings from the biggies like Samsung, LG, and Vizio now have “smart” features. LG probably has the most developed interface, and Vizio has a much simpler but effective interface. I find myself not using that feature very much, except to stream video from Amazon every once in a while.</p>
<p>If picture quality is your biggest concern, then my very technical (lol) method of selecting one was this:</p>
<p>I walked into every store I could find that sold TVs.</p>
<p>From a distance, I’d scan all the pictures and see which one I thought was most clear and sharp.</p>
<p>I’d wander around from different angles looking at them to see which was most clear and sharp.</p>
<p>In every instance, as I got close enough to see which brand it was, it was Samsung so I got a Samsung. </p>
<p>This was before the smart TVs came out. I recently picked up a blue ray player for about $140 that provides all the smart functionality and the kids use it a lot for streaming. If the difference in price between a smart TV and a dumb one is more than that, it may be more worth it to get the separate item. </p>
<p>When I was buying a new dishwasher once, I told a salesman that I didn’t need bells and whistles, I just needed it to work and he honestly said “The more bells and whistles, the more there is to break down” and I tend to agree with that so having separate (connected) devices to do different jobs is ok with me.</p>
<p>Display TVs in stores are usually adjusted to a torch brightness setting. The TVs are not always at their optimum display setting while in the showroom.</p>
<p>I don’t care about the definitions of 3D. I know as a consumer that I can watch any 2D programs on my TV in 3D wearing cheap disposable glasses. </p>
<p>What I called “active” is the kind where you need expensive glasses. I note that ESPN is killing its 3D channel - which I could watch but rarely bothered with. And the 3D experience in movies has not spread beyond “premium” versions of animated movies and a relative handful of action films.</p>
<p>Why? Because of the glasses in part but also because watching converted 2D programming is pretty good. Many technologies that are “better” lose to ones that are “pretty good” because the attributes that go along with “pretty good” make them “better” to consumers. </p>
<p>About the only thing I’m truly spoiled about is blu-ray. Once you get used to watching blu-ray dvds, it’s a disappointment to watch worse.</p>
<p>3D TV will be on the way out. Survey said that 10% of the audiences had headaches watching 3D TV and the comments were that no TV program will survive with 10% audiences got sick watching it. Just imaging a family of 4 who had one person cannot watching a TV… Do you think that family will buy it?</p>
<p>^
Our TV has 3D. But my 14 year old gets headaches watching 3D and my husband had lazy eye when he was young and they operated on his eye so he can’t see 3D at all. So only 3 of us can watch 3D in our family. Needless to say we don’t use the 3D feature very often however we did buy it.</p>
<p>Exactly. That’s why the ability to convert 2D into 3D is useful; it’s there when you want it and requires nothing more than pushing a button and cheap glasses. But the “actual” 3D, however you describe it, is simply not what people want now.</p>
<p>What I do is watch a show I like in 3D so I can see much better how the characters/actors really look and how the sets feel. Then when I watch in 2D my brain remembers that. </p>
<p>And it really adds tremendously to golf or baseball.</p>
<p>I will not buy a 3D television - I don’t get sick, but I find it irritating.</p>
<p>Is 3D tv basically the same as the 3D movies they play in theaters? I’ve seen a couple 3D movies in theaters and didn’t think they were worth seeing in 3D at all, I assumed televisions were the same… I didn’t realize people were actually buying 3D tvs for their homes.</p>
<p>I have a 3D TV–passive, which is similar to the movie theater version. The glasses for movie theaters can be used with passive home 3D. I don’t think people buy TVs with the intent of getting 3D. I think, as was the case with me, you look for a TV with certain other features and find it comes with 3D for the same or not much added cost, and you say why not. Same with the built-in browser. </p>
<p>For people of a certain age, it is weird to see the TV updating its software, and telling you to have to wait for it to reboot.</p>
<p>I have enough trouble finding the TV’s remote control, I don’t want to be wrangling 3D glasses too!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s perfectly fine - but other people reading this thread about buying a TV might, and they should get accurate information if possible, which is why I corrected you. No need to be defensive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Passive 3D is exactly the same (in fact, you can take the glasses from the theater and use them on your passive 3D TV) - active 3D gives you the same effect but with different glasses. Of course it’s not exactly like the experience in the theaters - the screen is obviously smaller so you don’t get as immersive an experience with the 3D because it takes up less of your field of vision, etc. If the effect doesn’t do it for you in the theaters, it probably won’t in a home TV set. As others have pointed out, most of the larger and higher end screens these days have 3D included, so you’ll have it if you want it and if you don’t, just don’t use it.</p>
<p>H loves to have all the latest toys, so he bought a 66" 3D TV from Costco. In the beginning, he & kids watched the handful of movies we have in 3D. I can’t be bothered with the glasses.</p>