[wushuliu]

3-D is such a gimmick, along with the '120/240hz' nonsense. I mean who wants to watch a movie that looks like a daytime soap opera (Hz gimmick) in poorly done 3-D? (aka anything that James Cameron wasn't involved in).

I'll take a cheaper regular plasma any day.

[acresm22]

Yes, the 3-d capability is no selling point for me either. I was just pointing out the feature set on this TV.
Do you know of a better deal for a 55" Pan plasma at the moment?

[roscoeiii]

3-D is such a gimmick, along with the '120/240hz' nonsense. I mean who wants to watch a movie that looks like a daytime soap opera (Hz gimmick) in poorly done 3-D? (aka anything that James Cameron wasn't involved in).

I'll take a cheaper regular plasma any day.

But from what I understand, 3D TVs have better picture quality in 2D.

[Gopher]

But from what I understand, 3D TVs have better picture quality in 2D.

Funny you say that--a videophile friend of mine was explaining to me the opposite the other day as he went on a tirade condemning 3D televisions.   

[mcgsxr]

I was told that the 3D capable TV's have a better processor (even for 2D) when I was recently in the market.

I bought the U50 60 inch anyway.  I also own a VT30 55 inch.  I cannot side by side (!) compare them, but am in no way unhappy with the U50 in 2D.

The VT30 does seem to have a better display (even in 2D, which is 98% of the viewing we do), but given the gap in $, I imagine there is more to it.

[acresm22]

I was hesitant at first to buy a 3-D capable plasma, but if you read the cnet review of the U55 it's rather obvious the 2-D pq isn't compromised one bit by the set's 3-D capability. They rave about the U55's 2-D pq...not so much the 3-D pq.
This was also confirmed by a friend who works for Runco/Planar....3-D capability doesn't compromise the 2-D pq.