Finally scratched the itch and bought an LG passive 3D set. What a blast!! Even its 2d-3d conversion works really, really well for HD programs or DVDs. Kids are in 7th heaven, and I'm hoarding spare glasses from the movie theater.

Purists dump all over these sets because of lower 3D resolution than sets with active-shutter glasses. I say hogwash.

Now to convince the boss that the family room needs surround sound as well

That's interesting fhw.

You are the absolute first person i know who has bought into the 3D thing and probably one of the few people i've read or heard anything positive about it.

I think the reasons people aren't big on it are pretty clear:

1. The added cost
2. The active shutter glasses-they're cumbersome, need charging, and are incredibly pricey ($100+ per pair) when they inevitably break
3. The limited, gimmicky, (and expensive) software...who really wants to pay $30 for a 40-minute IMAX movie about fish, or yet another copy of Shrek?

I did some homework and waited until the price dropped on the passive-lens sets. Yeah 3d is very gimmicky, but it makes for a hoot watching cartoons. Also looking very forward to trying out the Wii in 3D, but have to spring for some new cables.

I just wish that the industry was focusing on higher resolution (1440P or higher), instead of waisting time on 3D technology.

Feeling dizzy after watching a 3D show is just not fun to me!

I purchased a 3D set a few months back and have absolutely no intention in using its 3D feature. I bought the TV (Samsung PN50C7000) for its 2D performance, and its awesome!

I don't think 3D is going to last much longer!

Yeah, they should skip 1440p and go to 4K. 3D hasn't impressed me so far, but I haven't seen a good example of consumer 3D.

I quite like triple D sets.

I think that 3D will be around a lot longer than people think (or want). I predict that they will get to a decent glasses free 3D before we see things focus elsewhere. I mean, come on, that is starting to border on holograms that look solid, and who wouldn't want their own Holodeck in their house?

I do agree that they should be bumping up the resolution, but most people barely see the benefit of 1080p because their screens are too small. With 3D, no matter what size tv you have, you see the difference (good, bad, or otherwise).

fhw, glad that you are enjoying it.

Glasses-free, holographic projection, with continuous depth, and parallax viewing will be fine. The stuff they're doing now misses on all counts.

It all depends on how you define good. Sure, the video performance on a plasma is going to beat a 3D LED/LCD by almost every measured variable, and resolution drops on a passive 3D set, but...

...having my kids try and grab at fish coming out of the screen, and watching sports and Star Wars in partial 3-D is simply a blast; almost as much "value-added" fun as a kick-arse surround sound.

Be careful with little kids and 3d. It will give them night terrors and
3d it is very bad for developing eyes. Parents need to know these things.

You read that on The Onion or something?

The 3D is bad for developing eyes is pretty much accepted (look for warnings on all 3D products). It'll also throw off depth perception for a bit in most people. In order to view the faked 3D effect you have to unlearn how to focus at specific distances. So it's not a good idea for people who are still learning.

Even the Nintendo 3DS has a disclaimer that it is bad for young, developing eyes...

"But at least I have great eyesight!"

Hey, isn't that Augustus Gloop?

Let's not be so quick to judge. I think he's watching subtitled 1970's French cinema verite.

At least the kid is eating the "generic" chips. Probably saving up for the new flat screen.

This proves TV is bad for the eyes. As for me with one eye, I won't need to spend the extra money.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23VTyLEklFc

I'm holding out for the Holo-deck technology myself!

That and a replicator and no one will probably ever hear from me again.

Or to paraphrase Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove: "A fella could have a pretty good weekend with all that stuff..."

ROFLMFAO!

That actually sounds like me as a child!

I actually did go through a very brief "husky boy" phase pre-puberty... Before I shot up to the slim, fit, 6 foot Adonis that I am now...

But, I was also an active, army playing, fort building, bike riding, girl terrorizing, bottle rocket battling Boy Scout (yes, there was a merit badge for all that,) instead of the typical, passive, fat, t.v watching, video game playing, socially stunted, low attention span, spoiled dullard American brat of today.

Wow. Y'all can tell a lot about someone from some random photo of them on the internet.

I'm not sure if you're being snarky or sincere here.

But, yeah, he's (sadly) pretty representative of today's American typical tween/teen.

I picked up my niece from middle school recently and was shocked to see how many chubby/fat kids there were. It's a sad and unhealthy sign of the times.

I live in a very nice, upscale suburban neighborhood. Plenty of kids live around here. I never see them outside playing. I do see them walking home after being dropped off from the school bus, texting on their phones.

It seems like they stay inside more, playing video games and eating unhealthy fast/junk food. Not all of them, but too many in my opinion.

When I was in school in the 70's, you very rarely ever saw more than a few fat kids around.

I feel for those who have weight problems, I really do, but it pisses me off to see children start out so unhealthy. Check the stats for Americans (kids and adults) and you will see an alarming increase in obesity and all the problems attendant thereto.

I love being a couch potato! And as a grumpy old git, I've earned the right to veg occasionally...

Seriously though, cutting funding for P.E. is a terrible idea as is feeding children unhealthy food. Unfortunately, if you're poor, your options are pretty limited though...

Is there still that Presidential fitness thingie like back in the bad old days? If not, there should be.

Of course, we have the wars to get some of them in shape, but that has pretty dire consequences for everyone involved...

Yeppers.

Just don't lose sleep over obese people. It's their choice.

How much of that is due to parents being paranoid about child molesters and freaks out in the neighborhood? I know when I was growing (in Korea) I did things that I would **NEVER EVER** let my kids do. Not because there were less child molesters back then, it just wasn't published all over the Internet/Cable News/Facebook/Google+ etc.etc.etc.

Just last week in Brooklyn, a kid was killed while walking 8 blocks from day camp. He was hacked into pieces and disposed all over the place. Friday was the last day the parents walked with the kid, and the following Monday was his first solo walk home. After reading that, you *have* to pause as a parent.

So it's not just about lazy kids. It's about lazy parents too. I supervise my kids while they play outside (I'm like secret service, scanning all over the place for danger). But they do play outside. Not all parents are willing to do the very basic... So it's a bigger problem than just "fat kids"

And don't even get me started on the GINORMOUS portions they serve in here in the states. It's grotesque.

Does any of this bring us around to the topic of "helicopter parenting?"

I have some friends that I can actually see driving their kids insane.

And one can still see children playing in the streets..... of communities like mine that are not upscale, where no one can afford the time away from work to be a soccer mom, there are few "programs," and folks do not have $$ for dance, pottery workshop, drama, karate, piano, or BMX lessons and their requisite gear.

See! It's just like so many places that "World Music" comes from. Trust me, there IS world music in my hood...every sunny Saturday when our neighbor runs a free carwash collective for all 63 of his cousins.

I think they only BBQ what they've killed themselves.

The kids do not really have much choice in the matter. They are picking up these bad choices from their parents and will be much worse off than their parents. Rather than their parents being overweight from 30 or 40 on, they may be that way for most of their life.

So then we get to the parents. This unhealthy lifestyle is a choice for many middle to upper middle class folks, so I'm not really losing sleep over those people. But, families that are more towards the poverty level, do not have a choice. Unhealthy food is much less expensive, comparing calorie to calorie, than healthier food. Compare the price of chips, soda, fast food, and unhealthy cuts of meat to vegetables and fruit. Vegetables and fruit are usually much more expensive. This leaves the folks closer to the poverty level with very little choice. They are simply trying to get the most amount of food (in terms of calories) for their money.



Anyways, back to the original topic. I'm really not happy that 3D is being pushed so hard on consumers, that really don't want it in general. Even the passive glasses, give me a splitting headache after about an hour of viewing. So I don't see myself buying a display with 3D, or even using the feature if is there.

A feature that I would much prefer for projectors, is a good implementation of a LED lamp. This is still a really expensive feature. Also, most of the projectors with this kind of lamp, still have poor contrast ratio. The nice thing about having an LED lamp, though is that the picture does not change as the lamp ages and the owner may not even have to change lamps at all for the life of the projector. But, rather than competition bringing better technology (to get better contrast ratios) and better prices with LED based projectors, we get 3D which most people don't really want.

My opine wasn't intended to blame children or absolve parents at all.

The highlighted text is what I was referring to. I read it as the empathy was for obese adults (first clause), because I deduced the second clause as describing what aforementioned adults could become if they are "children starting out so unhealthy".

You're spot on. Parents most definitely bear responsibility for their children's diet. But if the child grows up to be a ponderous adult that isn't doing anything to lower their weight, it's their choice.

not always a choice.