The introduction of 3D-ready LCD TVs marks a major policy shift for Panasonic. The brand has been a vociferous advocate of plasma tech for 3D, yet now it’s hawking a pair of LED backlit 3D screens, a 32in model and the 37incher featured here. The justification, the company will tell you, is to provide a smaller Active Shutter …
It may well work
lol. £130 for the glasses.. per person. NEXT!
The funny part
These glasses probably cost $10 tops to make. It's just a couple of polarized lenses and a bit of circuitry to wibble them in sync with the TV.
A family of four will have to find.........
............almost half the purchase price of the telly in addition to said price? In other words for an average family the real price of this tv is in fact over £1600? I have no complaints about this review in general (most informative and professional in fact) but I would ask that given you (I assume) take the price into account when you are grading the telly, do you really think that it is worth 80% when the real price for the average punter is in fact almost 50% higher than the manufacturers are claiming/pretending? Or to put it another way, given that it is not, in reality, a 3D TV without the glasses would one really have given it 80% as a 37 inch *2D* telly for which they are charging £1100? I am obliged to say that reviewed as a 2D TV I personally would not have given it more than 70% (max) at that price and no more than the same grade reviewed as a 3D TV *at its real price* of £1620.
I have to say that I am very cynical about the TV producers here, they remind me of the printer manufacturers - "cheap" printer and then they force you to open a major artery every time you buy cartridges! The claimed pricing of 3D TV is IMHO a deeply dishonest exercise.
A family of four will not have to find.
The vast majority of people buying this TV, will not be buying it for 3D - theres too little content available.
Imo the 3D is a gimmick at the moment which seems to be added to every new TV because its very cheap to do so. The expensive bit is the glasses, so they'd be mad to bundle 4 sets of these with the TV, when most people would never use them.
@AC RE:A family of four will not have to find. → #
I do not quite see your point. The fact that there is so little 3D content available is true but merely supplements what I was saying about the manufacturers dishonest presentation and pricing of these TVs. In fact it reinforces my point that the TV *as sold' is in fact a 37 inch *2D* TV significantly overpriced for its quality and specs at £1100. Which in turn reinforces my point that if we evaluated the TV *as advertised* as a *3D* TV an average family *would* have to find £1620 - if one judges the TV against the manufacturers claims for it. Something I believe I made clear in my original posting. Furthermore I said nothing about bundling 4 pairs of these items with the TV - the specs cost too much (the producers fault) and without them (and the almost, in reality, 50% increase in the price if you do get them) the headlining of the TV by the manufacturer as a 3D TV is a dishonest exercise in the marketing of what is in fact (at £1100) an overly expensive 2D telly.
All that money
and they still can't integrate a wifi chipset in there?
(Ah; I see - the 'official' Panasonic dongle is an £80 'optional extra'
The modern version of the £19.99 USB printer cable scam...)
You wouldn't buy a 3D TV unless you wanted 3D - the price difference is significant.. Panasonic do a 2D LED TV under £600. This is their cheapest 3D model.
IMO the reviews should quote the price with 4x glasses.
btw. a year ago when people complained about the price of the glasses the common line was 'they're just new, they'll get cheaper' - then they were £50. Now they're three times the price, and the TV no longer comes with 2 free pairs as was common a year ago - commonly they come with no pairs at all (I was actually looking at 3D TVs only a couple of weeks ago, and none of the TVs I looked at came with glasses). Manufacturers are using them to reduce the 'headline price' of 3D, but the real price is always much, much higher.
has this fad not dead yet!
If you want 3d drama go to the theatre and watch a play. 3d tvs are a pointless piece of fluff
@TonyHoyle re: Why?
A very good question in the context. There is indeed something very "odoriferous" going on in the telly market at the present time (the joke prices for the glasses being a clear indication). My gut feeling is that several if not all of the producers are running a shell game on the punters. The fact that most or all of them appear to be pulling different variations of the same stunt gives me a very bad feeling in my guts. You no doubt remember that several of the major producers got heavily fined by the EU for having engaged in a pricing cartel (Sammy squealed and got let off with a warning)? I am not claiming that they are necessarily doing the same thing here but something is going on that I absolutely do not like the smell of.
Have a known history with the Ad peddler Guide+ I dont see any mention here... have they changed thier ways? or is this just an instant no?
1. 3D with glasses.....not interested.
2. Does it mount/play ISOs of both DVD and Blu-ray images? Well, I'm guessing not, although I admit to not knowing the fact it's not mentioned speaks for itself.
Manufacturers, O will you just bring on the OLED already. You made us wait 20 years for widescreen and the same for hi-def. 3D is landfill fodder, don't make any more.
Why no dual tuner with integrated PVR? A much more useful feature than 3D.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- Netflix swallows yet another bitter pill, inks peering deal with TWC
- Special Report Roll up for El Reg's 3G/4G MONOPOLY DATA PUB CRAWL