Home / News / Surround Sound System News / LG Gives UK Launch to 3D TV & Blu-ray Player

LG Gives UK Launch to 3D TV & Blu-ray Player

Gordon Kelly


LG Gives UK Launch to 3D TV & Blu-ray Player

3D TVs are coming, whether you like it or not (I still couldn't give a monkey's), and LG is the latest company to bring its kit to the UK market.

The products it hopes will warm us to this tech are its flagship 47in and 55in LX9900 LED backlit '3D Ready' TVs and the 'BX580', a Blu-ray player which meets the disc's recently accepted 3D standards.

Like all 3D TVs that will hit the UK, the LX9900 streams alternate 1080p images to each eye and the viewer is required to wear glasses to get the effect. Concerns over the motion blur that often plagues 3D will be dealt with courtesy of LG's proprietary 400Hz 'TruMotion' tech and you'll also find built-in FreeView HD, a whopping 10,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio (yes, these figures are starting to get silly now) plus integrated Bluetooth, USB (DivX, Mp3, Jpeg, but no MKV playback) and 4x HDMI 1.4 ports.

As with most LG TVs these days, the LX9000 line is also unnervingly thin at just 3.16cm deep, while web kicks can be attained courtesy of Netcast - LG's widget service that brings YouTube, Accu Weather and Picasa integration amongst others.

As for the BX580, other than its 3D chops, it also brings HDMI 1.4 connectivity (which could be critical with its ability to share an web connection over multiple devices in a home cinema setup) along with WiFi, external HDD playback, Gracenote music recognition, USB (same format support as the LX9900s) and also the Netcast service.

No pricing or exact release dates were given at this stage, but we shouldn't be waiting long. That said, expect to pay a significant premium - regardless of manufacturer - and remember to take into account the cost of 3D glasses for each viewer which will come in at circa £100 a pair from most companies. So, as with all first generation technology who wants to be first...?




March 11, 2010, 12:45 am

No, what we need to remember is that The Hurt Locker won best picture and we don't need it in 3D. If content is good enough it can carry itself in good old RegularVision. To hell with 3D.


March 11, 2010, 4:35 am

3D glasses = £100 a pair?



March 11, 2010, 7:52 am

@GoldenGuy - yep and rightly so, it's a vastly superior movie to Avatar imho.

@FreQ - they are packed full of tech. They aren't the same basic plastic specs you get in the cinema. They are, however, only compatible with TVs from the same manufacturer... :s

gareth edwards

March 11, 2010, 1:50 pm

Hmm, another technology hot on the heels of another technology (1080p) that was hot on the heels of another technology (720) that was going to be the best. You can see why consumers get buyers fatigue.

I don't hate the idea of 3D tv but I wonder how practical it is in a small form factor. I mean, the cinema 3D experience is now superb but really only truly works when the screen fills your full view. Sit too far back and the magic is lost, sit right at the front and you suffer a broken neck, there's the sweet spot in the middle where it's just right though and there's the problem. Who is going to have a living room with space enough for a tv large enough to ensure you get this optimal experience? It's the same problem with M$'s NATAL, great if you live in a house with enough space to swing an Elk, poor for normal people in normal houses.

And then there's the cost of glasses. For a chap on his own, fine. For a family of 5 or 6! That's the price of another TV. Big costs. I think the market for this particular technology may just not be ready and perhaps by the time it is we'll have holographic tech that will do away with the lot all together.



March 11, 2010, 2:49 pm

£100 is only for active shutter glasses I think. I thought LG were using a polarised system like in the cinema. I remember the Skysports 3D event used LG TV's I think, and I thought everyone was wearing just sort of flimsy polarised glasses rather than full electronic active shutters. A whole pub full of £100 glasses doesnt seem particularly viable.


March 11, 2010, 4:17 pm

well £100 pounds for glasses isnt bad if you can afford the telly at £6000


March 12, 2010, 1:07 am

I agreed with Gordon on the issue over 3D. So far, it's left me thinking what all the fuss and hype is all about.

Maybe if 3D was introduced hand-in-hand with Super HD, then it maybe a worthwhile upgrade, but at the moment there are too many downsides (glasses on glasses, the cost of glasses, washed out colours and the lack of totally immersing 3D throughout content)!

What's worrying for the industry, is that most people, although not taking up Blu-ray initially, expressed an interest, when say prices of players and discs fall to DVD levels. In contrast, even the normal early adopters and technology enthusiasts appear to be deeply divided by 3D. It maybe one area where the cinema might benefit from consumer indifference?

Almost everyone I know, who has some sort of home cinema setup, say they prefer the sound and picture quality of their systems to that of the average cinema. Obviously IMAX and other superior cinemas are met with much more enthusiasm. Maybe people will prefer to watch 3D in high quality cinemas as opposed to investing in 3D equipment at home? There won't be the 3D content in serious quantity for most to justify high cost upgrades. Blu-ray did have an advantage, whereby content would look better on Blu-ray compared to DVD, so anything filmed could migrate from DVD to Blu-ray.


March 12, 2010, 9:57 pm

@Gordon and Golden Guy - drinks on me, guys! 3D adds purely novelty value if the underlying production values, such as story, acting etc. are weak, and if they are strong enough, as in THE HURT LOCKER, then 3D is superfluous. I am an avid cinemagoer and resent being asked to pay extra and wear glasses, over my glasses, for an experience I don't particularly want. The only 3D film that has worked for me is FINAL DESTINATION 4, because the makers knew exactly what the audience wanted and delivered an extra dimension in spades. AVATAR is a horrible film in any dimension, ALICE IN WONDERLAND works just as well without it, as do and will almost all others.

What also concerns me is that as someone looking for a new and suitably mega flatscreen TV I will be forced to buy one that is 3D or 3D capable, thus being charged extra for something I neither need nor want.

comments powered by Disqus