Avatar 3D $130, Is that typical for 3D?

[21st Hermit]

I'm considering getting a 3D TV and did a search on Amazon for Avatar 3D. Listed at $130 . . . OUCH!!! What about Netflix, Blockbuster?

Is that typical for 3D content? If so, doesn't make sense to me getting a 3D TV.

Your thoughts?

 

[teachsac]

Avatar is exclusive to Panasonic until Feb. 2012. You can get it for free with the purchase of qualifying Panasonic Blu-ray players. It is not available for retail sales, hence why individual sellers can get that price. Exclusivity bites.

S~

 

[21st Hermit]

Avatar is exclusive to Panasonic until Feb. 2012.

That helps, Feb 2012 is not far off.

What about other 3D content, how expensive?

 

[nbt6sas]

I'm considering getting a 3D TV and did a search on Amazon for Avatar 3D. Listed at $130 . . . OUCH!!! What about Netflix, Blockbuster?

Is that typical for 3D content? If so, doesn't make sense to me getting a 3D TV.

Your thoughts?

Personally, I would avoid 3D TVs completely. The Studios are already pushing away 3D and the TV makers are struggling to get a foothold in the Consumer Market. In fact, the latest consumer show saw 3D TV all but disappear. I would invest in a high quality Flat Screen and a Good Blu-Ray and call it a day

 

[teachsac]

The latest consumer show featured 3D from almost all major manufacturers, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, Panasonic, LG, Vizio, Sharp, Sharp/Pioneer Elite, and the list goes on. Most "high quality" flat screen and BD players are all 3D capable.

S~

 

[dfergie]

We will be at CES in a couple months, I highly doubt we see many non 3D capable TV's there ... I'm waiting for February also for Avatar, the factorys are bundling 3D with standard BD & sometimes Dvd & digital copies and charging about $10 more than just the BD (gouging us)right now... figure on at least $10 more for the 3D because of that...

 

[jayn_j]

We will be at CES in a couple months, I highly doubt we see many non 3D capable TV's there ... I'm waiting for February also for Avatar, the factorys are bundling 3D with standard BD & sometimes Dvd & digital copies and charging about $10 more than just the BD (gouging us)right now... figure on at least $10 more for the 3D because of that...

Seems to be pretty much an issue that the capability is free for new TVs, Players and receivers. I don't think it speaks to the success or failure of the format.

Also, the sales of 3D discs may not fully be an indicator either. I have bought a couple of 3D bundles in order to get the digital download. Wasn't available any other way.

(Aside: I am not anti-3D, but I just upgraded 2 systems and am not ready to throw it all away just for 3D.)

 

[TheForce]

If you can do a search on Amazon you should be able to see the huge selection of 3D BD out. The prices range from about $12 to a hundred based on the number of disks in the multi disk sets and the private party sales for exclusives. I've seen Avatar 3D go for $100 on ebay auction. The new releases are coming faster and faster now and I am averaging 3 new releases a month of titles I like. Just got Cars 2 which is a 5 disk set to include 3D, BluRay 2D, Special features in BluRay, DVD, and digital copy. I recall my price was around $24. Prices vary but average is about $30 for the set. Watch out for sales and coupons.

If you are planing on getting started in 3D, be sure to get lots of demos as 3D is special and not everyone can see it without side effects such as headaches. Most of the titles out are quite entertaining in 3D but not all. Good reviews on AVSForum by Ralph Potts.

Don't pay any attention to the Trolls who chase after people interested in adding more entertainment to their lives with 3D who try to convince them 3D is going to die soon. Their agenda is dubious at best. I feel sorry for therm. If you find 3D entertaining, I can assure you a good home system will be even better than what you see in the theater. If you found 3D annoying in the theater, then probably the home experience won't help. Some people just find it irritating and that's OK, 3D, as I said isn't for everyone, just like a PS3 game machine isn't for everyone. One thing is certain, if suddenly these trolls get the government to pass a law outlawing 3D, your investment in it won't be wasted because these 3D systems are superb 2D players and screens.

BTW- the library of 3D content in addition to Blu Ray is growing too with Satellite, cable, and internet content. Blu Ray 3D is the best of breed, however.


If you are into home video, you will be pleased to know that more and more camcorders are being released for shooting 3D content. These can play back 3D video in BluRay like quality direct to your 3D TV.

Next two releases are Spy Kids 4 on Nov 22 and Smurfs on Dec 2. The 3D release titles is growing faster than blu Ray did at the same time period.

 

[yaz96]

You can watch for free on Comcast OnDemand if you have that.

 

[diogen]

3D vs. 2D is not unlike BD vs. DVD: a lot of lemons due to immaturity.
Remember the first BD release of The 5th Element or Traffic?

Given enough horsepower, DVD playback using ffdshow with some filtering
produced a better image than the simple upconvert of the first releases.
The 5th Element DVD was a classic, the BD - a classic f**k-up.

To see how far we've come watch the restored classic The Leopard (1963)
introduced this year at Cannes by Delon and Cardinale.
Things changed over the last 3 years.

So will 3D.
It will get its niche and studios will stop taking shortcuts when publishing in this format.
Give it time.

Diogen.

 

[21st Hermit]

Just got Cars 2 which is a 5 disk set to include 3D, BluRay 2D, Special features in BluRay, DVD, and digital copy.

What is a "digital copy"?

If you are planing on getting started in 3D, be sure to get lots of demos as 3D is special and not everyone can see it without side effects such as headaches.

I have a 36" CRT with Dish satellite DVR. Have avoided LCD until now because of the power draw, I live Off-the-Grid on 3-KWH per day. My only 3D experience was Avatar Imax, no headache.

One thing is certain, if suddenly these trolls get the government to pass a law outlawing 3D, your investment in it won't be wasted because these 3D systems are superb 2D players and screens.

I'm consider the LG 47LW5300 $799 on BF. Rave reviews on both Amazon and Walmart, also by forum member jvc.

I have two different DVD copies of Avatar, I find the story more compelling than I remember the 3D effects, but I see little downside and appears to future proof the purchase. Also just got a new Panasonic superzoom that has some 3D, albeit one lens and my video editing software claims 3D, even had red/blue glasses in the box, talk about a headache. I realize most 3D uses polarized or active shutter glasses, not red/blue.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

 

[jayn_j]

What is a "digital copy"?


I have a 36" CRT with Dish satellite DVR. Have avoided LCD until now because of the power draw, I live Off-the-Grid on 3-KWH per day. My only 3D experience was Avatar Imax, no headache.

Digital copy allows you to download a copy of the movie for tablets or portable devices (phones and ipods)

The CRT statement makes no sense. An LCD, especially one with LED backlight draws significantly less current.

 

[21st Hermit]

Digital copy allows you to download a copy of the movie for tablets or portable devices (phones and ipods)

Thanks.

The CRT statement makes no sense. An LCD, especially one with LED backlight draws significantly less current.

My 36" CRT draws 87 watts by test, Kill-A-Watt. I've seen many an LCD in the 200-300 watt range. Indeed, some LED-LCD's beat the 87 watts, but not all. You'll notice the LG 3D link I provided is a LED. Still trying to figure out its power draw, LG lists 135 watts, the Energy Star PDF suggests 62 watts.

 

[tnsprin]

That helps, Feb 2012 is not far off.

What about other 3D content, how expensive?

Or if you need a 3d Blu-ray player, you could just buy a Panasonic. The cheapest Panasonic 3d Player eligible is commonly at or below the price you listed. I suspect the person selling is just trying to get back the price of the player.

 

[TheForce]

Thanks.

My 36" CRT draws 87 watts by test, Kill-A-Watt. I've seen many an LCD in the 200-300 watt range. Indeed, some LED-LCD's beat the 87 watts, but not all. You'll notice the LG 3D link I provided is a LED. Still trying to figure out its power draw, LG lists 135 watts, the Energy Star PDF suggests 62 watts.

Care to state what model your 87 watt 36" CRT is? Sony WEGA 36" is rated at 280 watts when on, 1 watt in standby. ( Sony KV 36HS510 - 36" WEGA CRT TV - 1080i)

My 32" Vizio 3D draws 64 watts in run and <1w in standby.

 

[21st Hermit]

Its made by Phillips and I bought it over 10 years ago. As you know 36" CRTs are immoveable mountains, so I'm not inclined to dig it out of its corner to read the nameplate.

But, good news, had breakfast with a friend this morning, he mentioned his giant projection set is dying. I offered him this 36" if he'd haul it. That was the last piece of the puzzle getting an LCD. If I think of it, I'll read and record the model when that happens next month.

 

[21st Hermit]

Care to state what model your 87 watt 36" CRT is?

It was easier to take a pic than to figure out what was relevant while it was in the bed of the truck.

As a double check, I used the digital meter on my inverted. My batteries run at a nominal 24 VDC and when I turned on the 36" TV the meter bumped 2.9 amps. That would not have included the idle power which IIRC was 5 watts.

 

[TheForce]

5 watts is about right to keep an IR receiver powered for the remote control so you can turn it on by the remote. As I figured your 87 watts is not correct. That model is rated as 240 watt nominal and probably would meter out at about 200-220 watts if you used a proper watt meter or even an amprobe AC meter and AC voltmeter on the hot leg of the power. 175-250 watts is in line with the state of the art technology for that era of TV's circa 1998. Models in the 21" to 25" of the 70's were about 350 watts.

Enjoy your new state of the art LCD.

 

[21st Hermit]

5 watts is about right to keep an IR receiver powered for the remote control so you can turn it on by the remote. As I figured your 87 watts is not correct.

Based on what. I have two separate reading from different sources in the 75-87 watt range.

That model is rated as 240 watt nominal and probably would meter out at about 200-220 watts if you used a proper watt meter or even an amprobe AC meter and AC voltmeter on the hot leg of the power.

From where did you get that number of 240? You certainly aren't naive enough to use the nameplate 2 amps x 120 volts??? That 2 amp number is the nominal max draw including surge. What is your definition of a "proper watt-meter" I used a Kill-A-Watt P4400 to get the 87 watt number. Certainly not a laboratory grade instrument, but likely +/- 5% of the actual value.

175-250 watts is in line with the state of the art technology for that era of TV's circa 1998. Models in the 21" to 25" of the 70's were about 350 watts.

You're of the 1000 expert opinions, one test, I did two, trumps 1000-experts every day.

I stand by my 87 watt number.

 

[tripod]

I'm considering getting a 3D TV and did a search on Amazon for Avatar 3D. Listed at $130 . . . OUCH!!! What about Netflix, Blockbuster?

Is that typical for 3D content? If so, doesn't make sense to me getting a 3D TV.

Your thoughts?

Last I looked Avatar $175.00 then a waiting-notification list.Imports for $20.