Six 3D TVs compared

David Katzmaier
Senior editor June 30, 2010 (updated on: February 16, 2011)

Despite consumer reluctance to embrace 3D TV, the feature is, in our opinion, here to stay. So which current TV does it best?

Before we answer that, one caveat: all of the sets below are last year's models. In 2011 a slew of new 3D TVs will hit the market, and we expect performance improvements, different glasses, and many other tweaks across the board. If you're shopping in the high end and can afford to wait, definitely do so. But if you're looking for a deal on a 2010 TV, now's the time.

At CNET, we've had the chance to review and directly compare nine 3D TVs so far, and six of the most interesting are detailed below. The other three, in case you're wondering, are the LG 47LX9500 (excluded for poor 3D quality and no adjustability); the Panasonic TC-P50GT25 (the step-down to the TC-PVT25, with flawed 3D quality); and the Samsung PN50C7000 (excluded since it's the step-down to the PNC8000 with nearly identical 3D quality).

Among the six we chose, the three plasmas (listed first) won the 3D battle with the three LCDs. Their 3D presentations evinced the least "crosstalk": the ghostly doubled images around 3D objects onscreen. Between the plasmas we noticed a couple of color-related issues on the Panasonic that we didn't see on the Samsung PNC8000 or the LG PX950 (the latter has THX 3D certification), but they're nitpicks and balanced by the Panasonic's superior black levels, making it the best TV overall when we consider 2D performance.

Among the three LCDs, the Sony HX909 came in behind the plasmas but still evinced less crosstalk overall than the Samsung UNC8000. Unlike on the other TVs, the Sony's crosstalk worsened and the 3D effect fell apart when the image was seen from off-angle. The Sony also showed minor flicker in some scenes.

The third LCD and our most recent review is Vizio's passive model, the XVT3D650SV, which is only available in a 65-inch size. Like other passive sets coming later in 2011, its 3D image delivers half the resolution of active systems and did look a bit softer, as well as more artifact-prone. On the plus side, its image was brighter and of course the glasses were more expensive. Read the full review and our in-depth comparison between the Panasonic and the Vizio for more.

Vizio's featherweight glasses were also the most comfortable of the bunch, although they were a tighter fit over prescription lenses (the TV will also work with many passive specs used in theatrical 3D, such as Real D's glasses). Among the active glasses, we liked Sony's best from a comfort standpoint, and they shut out peripheral vision better than the others. Samsung's were the lightest, and LG's have the advantage of being rechargeable via USB. Panasonic's glasses are both the ugliest and least comfortable, in our opinion, but they're by no means a deal breaker. All of the glasses are proprietary, so the Sony glasses won't work with Panasonic TVs, for example.

All of these 3D TVs caused some mild disorientation when we first donned the glasses, but it tended to disappear after a few moments with good 3D content. Sony, Samsung, and LG have 2D-to-3D conversion engines as well, and when we tried those, our disorientation escalated to nausea at times, especially when we dialed up the 3D effect.

Check out the individual reviews below for more information on both 2D and 3D picture quality, and see our newly updated 3D TV FAQ for more on crosstalk, headaches, passive vs. active, and everything else you want to know about the topic.