Samsung vs LG 3D LED TV review (gaming included)

[GosuGadget]

Very nice video. I used to own a Samsung ( broke down in 2010 after two years of use) and the gaming issues was the same prob I seen in this video, too damn dark. I will do a review on the LG 55LM9600 soon, you should check it out.

[viper368]

Nice review, but it would have been nice if you had mentioned what model # TV's were being reviewed. I like the LG & it would be helpful to know what model # it is.

[trancetrippin]

What about the lag in LG when playing games? I read alot of reviews sayin that it has a lag even when on gaming mode, how noticable is it? Specially for seriouse gamers

I am thinking between lg lw6500 or a panasonic gt30, which do u recomend for SD,HD and gaming?

[1SmartMofo]

Great review! I personally feel active 3D is the most annoying thing that could ever happen to 3D. If 3DTV dies, it will be because of active shutter tech. It's already gotten a bad reputation as being a gimmick. But once people start playing games like Stardust, Motor Storm, KillZone and Crisis in 3D, people will understand it has great potential. I'm disappointed that MW3 left it out. Yet, I understand, it really didn't add much to Black Ops like it did the other games I mentioned.

[TheTyrox7]

and your a fucking retard and you just made me cancel buying a samsung tv..

[luischo7591]

the best are Lg sound abd technology

[beejor]

To me, active 3D is like staring into a fluorescent light; the flicker causes me eyestrain and headaches. Passive 3D has a darker picture but my eyes and head don't hurt at all. The cheap, light, batteryless glasses are also a plus. The resolution debate is dumb since 540p to each eye at once vs. 1080p to one eye at a time is effectively the same. Active 3D also cuts the refresh rate in half since it has to black out one eye every frame.

[Urbandropbear]

I've never seen a 3D tv irl, but do you have the option of turning 3D off if your not in the mood, and have it still run at 1080p?

[3DTVMANGJ]

@Urbandropbear

Yes all 3D TVs generally make excellent 2D TVs.

[linck7up]

i seen the passive CoD on xbox the other day its grate

[GrandmasterBBC]

Ok, interesting. Please tell me how to achieve 1080p using my Wii on my HD TV? That's what I thought. Also, where is the mention of the resolution halving using passive technology? I am not shooting down passive systems. In fact, I think the results you get vs the price of active tech is quite good. I guess what I am trying to say here is that your review sucks it.

[3DTVMANGJ]

@GrandmasterBBC

Actually Cinema 3D has been certified 1080p by both TUV and Intertek. I would actually make the argument that active TVs show you less as your total vision is reduced to one eye and thus your brain can't process the full image. This is a very common argument. I think your argument has very little weight when you look at how the brain process images. This is just an honest review of the over all technologies but because only one major brand makes passive TVs we used that brand.

[brewcitybroker]

@3DTVMANGJ That is correct- the people that argue Active technology are really arguing for industry leaders (or those thought to be - Samsung/Sony) . To be honest in a lot of ways they have the best technology, but missed the boat on 3D- those glasses - are expensive, heavy, give you a headache, etc. They try and say Passive is not "true" 3D like their's - it's BS- they both look great in ideal conditions- Passive is just the better option. Not even close.

[girlsdrinkfeck]

Good review ,i ordered a LG based TV few days ago , 42 inch for £450 with wifi/iviewer capabilitys etc and usb record ,uses LGs latest 3d passive panel but the brand is " cello " a british TV company but its ~£200 cheaper than LGs of same specifcation :) and apaprently has good reviews, ill post back to see how it goes ,not a fan of active ,the glasses r clunky ,heavy ,runs out of energy ,too much glitches, expensive

[TheAmjo90]

Having owned both an active samsung and a passive lg and passive vizio i can honestly tell you 3d picture quality still looks pretty hd unless you are looking at the 65" vizio. In fact id say imho that the passive ones look better than some active sets ive seen

[TheAmjo90]

@2615863 i had the vizio e3d470vx for a brief time before returning it to get an the lg 47lw5600. The picture quality of the vizio was outstanding but the build quality was lacking. Id say go lg if you were looking for the 47" model. But the good thing about the vizio is it comes in 32, 42, and 47 inch models

[jason854656]

hey i have a question, so if i buy a 3d blu ray player will it only work on an active 3d tv or can it work on both ?

[3DTVMANGJ]

@jason854656 It will work on Either TV both those TVs are using the same brand and model of 3D blu ray player.

[jason854656]

@3DTVMANGJ oh ok cool thanks! i was planning on buying a passive 3d tv but wasn't sure if something like a ps3 would work on it

[lpchris85]

back lighting doesnt matter when the highest brightness mode causes your black levels to go to shit. any person that uses their TV is vivid mode not only sacrifices picture quality but also lowers the life span of their set.

[2615863]

I saw a vizio that has passive glassses , is it the same as the Lg basically??c Really want to buy it but not sure

[makeme708]

tHE FACT IS, THE ACTIVE SHOW A FULL hd PICTURE, AND THE PASSIVE DOES NOT, ALSO THE PASSIVE SHOWS RES LINES AND JAGGY EDGES, WHILE THE ACTIVE DOES NOT, ALSO SAMSUNG NOW HAS RECHARGABLE GLASSES, AND LINKED VIA BLU-TOOTH. ALSO HE SAYS THE SAMSUNG IS KIND OF DARK, WELL JUST BY LOOKING AT THE VIDEO I SEE THAT IT IS DARK, MAYBE BRIGHTEN IT UP ABIT, IT'S LIKE HE HAS THE SAMSUNG DARK TO DICREDIT IT, TO TIP THE FAVOR IN LG'S FAVOR, THE TRUTH IS ACTIVE IS BETTER.

[iluvticeolnitties]

@makeme708 Ok...mr. samsung rep. Look at all your posts. You need to stop cocksmoking for Samsung. He clearly states both TVs are at the highest brightness settings. Samsung is known for weak back lighting anyways.

[SuperGrowPlants]

@makeme708 to each his own. the price difference is insane and passive is badass either way. i say passive and i've tried both.

[Dargonic]

The reviewer was also incorrect in one aspect with the 3D glasses blacking out. Only Active LCD glasses black out. Active Plasma glasses do not. You can lay down on your side and watch stuff in 3D on plasmas.

[iluvticeolnitties]

@Dargonic How was the reviewer incorrect when he didn't mention plasma? This review is just a simple LCD vs LCD review.

[Dargonic]

@iluvticeolnitties If it was a review of LCD vs LCD it should have been tagged as LCD Active vs LCD Passive. By using the tag of Active vs Passive like what is in the top left corner of the video it can lead people to think that some of the issues displayed in this review with Active LCD are a problem with Active glasses in general which it is not.

[iluvticeolnitties]

@Dargonic well I'm guessing your a pretty knowledgeable guy. If the date of the video is June 20, 2011, i doubt anybody would do a 3D plasma review when there are LED types popping up everywhere. 

[lpchris85]

@iluvticeolnitties Gotta disagree here. When comparing a high performance LED set and a high performance Plasma set, the plasmas are still considered by industry reviewers as still superior in regards to picture quality, 3D performance, and price. Claiming "we are in year 2011 and don't need old plasma tech anymore" is just ignorant. Don't be fooled by LED marketing. Also, I still stand by the claim that you have half vertical resolution in passive 3D. Look for yourself and see.

[iluvticeolnitties]

@lpchris85 This video is reviewing an LED vs another LED. Why bring plasma into the picture. I'm sure there are other videos that compare plasmas. As far as the resolution, I go to best buy maybe 5 times a month and always check out their 3D TVs The resolution looks the same if not better than the samsung's. If you disagree, why dont you file a lawsuit against LG for making false claims/advertising.

[lpchris85]

@iluvticeolnitties I bring up the point of plasma (like another commenter did as well) because the reviewer stated that active 3D will "go blank" when laying down. Another commenter, as well as myself bring up plasma because it disproves his claim. The truth must be said to even the argument. As far the resolution, each eye gets 1920x540, making it possible for 1080p. however, like interlacing, it introduces temporal compression, introducing artifacts into the image not in active.

[iluvticeolnitties]

How was the reviewer incorrect when he didn't mention plasma? This review is just a simple LCD vs LCD review.

[girlsdrinkfeck]

@iluvticeolnitties thoguht its a active vs passive review ?

[lpchris85]

the reviewer was incorrect when he stated that both active and passive are able to show a 1080P image. Passive has half the vertical resolution of active, therefore not 1080P. I myself have active 3D for the reason on best picture quality.

the cost factor will not be as big in the future, as Samsung just dropped the price of their active glasses by 2/3, from $150 to $50, making it easier to afford. I anticipate that the competition (panasonic, Sony) will also do this very soon.

[iluvticeolnitties]

@lpchris85 Actually, you're incorrect. Passive 3D TVs deliver 540p to each eye however the image shown to each eye are in alternating pixel alignments. Meaning when you view with both eyes, you'll get 1080p. This was actually debated for a while but LG's passive 3D TV IS 1080p.

[iluvticeolnitties]

I have an LG LW6500, 65" and it looks better than the LG model you have there lol. The Samsung is pretty shitty anyways. Nice video. You should have shown a more intense game, like COD.