The only difference I see with HD is it's a brighter picture. Perhaps a bit more color and depth. I still have no use for a TV over 32" and the one I have now is smaller than that. Around here they charge an extra $40 for HD.

There was a report published on a site that I really should have bookmarked. The report said depending on how big the room the TV is in and where you sit to view it you may not see the benefits of HD. In my situation HD would not work according to that report. I'll have to look for that site.

It was about just the distance from the TV if I recall. Be that as it may I'm happy with what I have.

Speaking as an industry expert here, I have to agree with the Frogboy on this. 8D

Passive 3d is definitely the way to go when watching movies, until (many years into the future) we don't need them. There're are very solid technical reasons why it is the technology used in movie theaters.  Also, the glasses are the same as used in RealD theaters so it's very cheap to have a lot of friends/family over to watch at home whereas that is just not affordable/practical with expensive active glasses.

I am less sure on playing games, since active glasses will be going to 120hz per eye (240hz for the tv) and higher, and that will induce even less eyestrain than the RealD solution (which is 24 frames per second per eye, showing each frame 3 times to reduce LCD fading/lag).  Theoretically that should give better one-to-one eye-hand coordination and therefore reduce brain fatigue and eyestrain.

But that's only a consideration for games, as currently all movies (except Imax) are being shot at 24 fps per eye.  So, Passive FTW.

3D isn't going anywhere.  All CGI animated movies (Pixar, etc.) are natively 3d by design.  We've just been unable to view their third dimension until now.  Expect all CGI anmated movies to be 3d from now on, period.

Similarly, now that the technology's difficulties are getting ironed out (i.e. brightness, sharpness, crappy conversions) more and more top drawer directors are turning to 3d from here on out.  Namely, James Cameron and now Ridley Scott will not be making any movies not in 3d anymore.

Hell, we can thank 3d for finally forcing Michael Bay to shoot action like it's a film not a commercial.  While it doesn't help his narrative weaknesses any, it sure does make his action sequences a helluva lot easier to follow.  And for that, we can be grateful.  8P

It's up to the buyer to beware, however, as there is a LOT of crap 3d out there...just as there are a lot of crap movies. 

I thought for a moment that you'll tell us about secret '8D' technology your company is working on;)

I'm not in the 3D tv much. Thank you guys for stating plainly which is better. All I could find  in the net were sponsored (this way or another) articles.

As for 3D movies. I think it's a nice addition if the movie is made for 3D. And I don't mean the technology but the whole camera work and directing. I was having a lots of fun watching Avatar but I was bored and annoyed what watching PotC4 "No sea battle in the first 3D movie about pirates? No "Patriot" like cannon balls, no braking masts or ramming ships. Instead I got nice little chase on the streets of London (?) Lovely.

As for HD - it is different. The people are ugly in HD.. all the freckles and moles and imperfections. Of course you need big screen to see it. It smaller ones it's just another crispy, sharp picture. And I think this is the way the technology is going. Resolution and FPS. AFAIR Peter Jackson wanted  to film Hobbit with 60 FPS. Resolution and FPS together delivers smooth and clear picture and I guess that's what it is all about. 

On the other hand. 2 major steps back in A/V - LCD screens and non HD digital television. They now still can't make LCD screen that have constant lighting on the whole surface. That's just preposterous! After all this years. And DTV? The standards of coding are awfull. This is something a computer users know as early DivX. Of course the advantage of saving frequency is unquestionable but the quality suffers.

OLED TVs (coming very soon) solve the true blacks issue since they are light emitting.  8)

I was reading about OLED about 2,3 years ago and then they were also 'very soon' True black isn't a problem for me. True black, true gray, true blue on every friggin pixel - this is the issue. In other words - I'll believe if I see one and to be precise - if I can afford one, put it in my apartment and watch it for about 6 months:)

Yes, it was a terrible post conversion done in Romania by the same team that did the vfx...just to save money and get international kickbacks etc.

I really think the biggest problem with state of the art homecinema 3D is that the resolution is cut to the half. Additionally some user are really sensitive to so called motion- or cybersickness. For that people 3D isn't a good experience at all. There even is a problem if sometimes producers experiment too much with the virtual camera distance and you get a headache from that.

But when everything is done correctly I think its great. For sure some new UI concepts for gaming should be developed but if the content is 3D and you spend real efford in making it good there should be some benefit (I don't think just making it 3D will make it better I think that doesn't work). The problem is that 3D is much more complex so its really hard to make your product really good .

The question passive or active 3D I think for Home or better say non proffessional use passive is much better.

1. no heavy glasses

2. no problem with sync

3. glasses are really cheap

4. and if you plan to extend the 3D with motion capturing (like VR installations do) you don't have the problem that consumer stuff don't send out the sync for the IR tracking propperly .

I personally think the state of the art autostereoscopic displays like mentioned are really crape. They are only for one person not moving in front of the screen or you can watch with several people but have a really bad resolution. Unfortunatly I don't see good quality 3D without glasses in the near future but I would appreciate it.