Fortunately for you and I the answer to that question was a residing NO. The subtle 3D used in Avengers Assemble adds to the action, all 2 hours and 20 minutes of it and after about the first 5 minutes you forget that you are wearing 3D glasses, that's always a good sign with any 3D film. Like I said the effect was quite subtle in that there were very few jump out of the screen moments but the added depth was very welcome. It was also noticable how 3D had been thought off whilst shots were planned. There wasn't a huge amount of dodgy camera work and shaking was kept to a minimum. It was this that killed the latest Transformers movie for me. Technically speaking I didn't notice any crosstalk throughout Avengers Assemble. The only downside I would say is that the final battle sequence could have been a little bit more 3D orientated. There was a tendancy to move shot a bit too often which never seems to work well with these 3D action flicks.

Overall then Avengers Assemble is one of the best movies I've seen in the past couple of years. It does exactly what it says on the tin, is full on action with plenty of humour from start to finish. The 3D for the most part is used extremely cleverly and unlike so many 3D releases it does add to the film. In fact the 3D in Avengers Assemble has reignited my faith in Hollywoods ability to get 3D right. If you were the same as me and had become sick to the back teeth with mediocre headache inducing 3D at the cinema then I'd suggest you give Avengers Assemble a go. Whilst it's not ground breaking like Avatar it should at least give you confidence that 3D can work again.

From the opening shots showing the road heading towards Bray Hill on the famous Isle of Man TT course you know you're going to be in for a 3D treat with this film. The 3D effect throughout is flawless, I've watched it on both Active and Passive 3D TVs and I'm yet to find any crosstalk, even on those highly prone text overlays, the 3D is perfect. Sure there are some very corny effects in there and top of that list has to be the lorry seen where the text slides towards the viewer as a support is moved but who really cares? It's all done so well, so smoothly that rather than thinking "that's corny film making" you are left with a gut feeling off "that's some nice 3D". The onboard racing shots work OK but the best of the 3D action is from the side of the road, having been there in real life I can say that the feeling of being on the hedge is real.

What makes TT3D Closer To The Edge even better is the fact that it is all live action, there are no special effect sequences. We all know that 3D works really well in a live sports scenario and this documentary style sports film allows the 3D to work in the background without any fuss but still adding incredibly to the immersive experience of the film. A movie that is very much worth watching as well. You'll experience real life drama, disapointment and even death all surrounded by the beautiful scenery of the Isle of Man. As a film it works, as a documentary it works, as a piece of 3D for your new 3D television it is unrivaled having just enough poppy out bits with flawless depth added to each scene. I wish I could pick out some bad points but I'm struggling, at a push I might say that in some parts the 3D effect could perhaps be deeper but that's just being very very picky.

If you own a 3D TV you have to own TT3D Closer To The Edge, I can't recommend it highly enough.

Buy TT3D Closer To The Edge

What makes this figure eben more astounding is that the survey in question was being run from a website dedicated to 3D television, this one, www.best3d.tv in fact. For 48% of the people who visit this site to say they are fed up with 3D content then there's got to be something up.

Why Are So Many People Turned Off By 3D?

I think the survey results speak for themselves in regard to why people are fed up. 37% of respondents have had enough of the current craze for post processed 3D, whilst only 11% were against all 3D. What this tells us is that people want to watch 3D that works, where programs and films use the technology from the start and where 3D is an integral part of the production process, not some sort of half assed after thought.

The answer is simple, we need more good quality 3D productions. We need more Avatars! We need less Clash Of The Titans! The good news is I've spent the last couple of months buying up all sorts of 3D films and in amongst the rubbish I've found one or two gems that should really help people fall back in love with 3D. In fact I've found the best 3D film I've ever seen, I look forward to sharing it with you.

Full Survey Results

3D At The Cinema, More Please or No Thanks?

More Please, it adds so much to the experience (52%, 59 Votes)

No Thanks, unless you go Avatar stylee and do the 3D properly! (37%, 42 Votes)

No Thanks, it was a nice fad whilst it lasted but I've had enough (11%, 13 Votes)

Not only does this 42" LCD 3D set cost so little money but its performance is also seeing some great ratings. I can't say from personal experience because I haven't seen one yet but if the early opinions are anything to go by then this set is going to provide an excellent introduction to the 3D TV for those on a budget. You still get the basics live a freeview tuner, decent 2D Picture but it's the Passive 3D and 4 sets of free glasses that will set this TV apart from other budget sets. Is this the first edging towards the mainstream for 3D TVs. I have a feeling that it just might be.

Check It Out For Yourself, A 42 Inch 3D TV For Less Than £400

You'd have to wonder why anybody who runs a 3D TV website would go out and choose to buy a 3D TV that isn't the best around wouldn't you? To put it simply, Philips image processing is the best I've ever seen, by a long way, plus with the addition of ambilight this makes the PFL7666T a far superior television to the LG LW650. It produces the best HD 2D television picture of ANY television (yes that includes £3000+ Samsungs and Panasonic plasmas) that I've ever had the pleasure to view. I am yet to find a better television for watching Blurays. But at its heart it is using the same Passive 3D display as the LG and when viewing 3D content, whilst no worse than the best 3D picture I've ever seen it is also no better. When things are a tie like that I think you have to give credit to the original so I still rate the LG 650 as the best 3D picture I've seen. Does that make sense? Good, now on to the good things about the Philips 42 PFL7666t/12

PFL7666 Good Points

1. Image Processing Options/ Picture Quality - There are plenty of them and they make a real difference to the picture quality. As a previous Philips owner I'm a massive fan of their motion smoothing technology, it produces the least judder of any of the motion processing technologies out there. It may take some playing with but the rewards are huge, just ask if you want to know the full set of settings I'm usings for day to day TV.

2. Ambilight - Just a gimmick? Not really, in a suitably dark room it makes a difference. Combined with the image quality (have I mentioned how good the picture is on this TV?) the set produces an experience that leaves AV fans with a smile on their face.

3. Looks - It looks a stunner, the brushed metal finish looks so much better than the plastic black look that has been so popular over recent years.

4. Easy 3D - Philips name for Passive 3D, it's the same basic tech that LG use in their Cinema 3D TVs and the resultant 3D is stunningly clear, coloured and flicker free. Passive 3D will win the war against Active 3D for the simple reason that with a bad source the passive sets (including this one) do a MUCH better job of producing something that is watchable. Where active sets stutter, get crosstalky and give you a headache passive sets just get on with it. The 3D the 42PFL7666/12 produces is just as good as our favourite LG LW650.

PFL7666 Bad Points

1. Sound Quality - It seems to be a problem with all of these ultra thin modern sets. Are they all incapable of producing decent sound? I've connected mine up to a Panasonic 3D Surround Sound Bluray player which solves the problem 100%.

2. Game Mode - Straight out of the box the game mode of this television is shocking. The picture is so bad I thought it must be a joke. Why have so much awesome image processing power then leave people with that rubbish? The good news is this is a TV with huge picture options and it's not difficult to find settings that make your Xbox/Paystation experience a whole lot more enjoyable.

3. Only 2 Sets off 3D Glasses - This is some of that infamous Philips tightness! Come on now, these things must cost about 10p to produce, if LG can include 6 pairs Philips should be able to do better than 2.

Would I Buy A Philips 42PFL7666t (Again)?

Yes I would. It does everything you'd exepct of a modern LED TV. You have the standard Freeview HD tuner, enough connections to satisfy 99.9% of AV nuts, built in wireless for streaming TV services and a whole lot more. The picture quality is unrivaled and it uses what I think is the best 3D TV technology around (all be it a little later and more expensive than LG). Because I'm using it as a second TV in a conservatory the 42 inch is fine, however if it was to be a main TV I think the 47 would be better and the price is next to no difference. That being said the only thing that would stop my buying a Philips PFL7666 TV again is the fact they are so hard to get hold off, they seem to sell out as fast as Philips can make them! Just try getting hold of one in the USA.

Find The Best Price For A Philips PFL7666T TV In The UK

Passive 3D TV - Top 3 Tips

1. Distance Matters - With an Active 3D TV it doesn't matter how close you get to the set, in fact with some the 3D seems to get better the closer you get but this isn't true for Passive 3D. If a manufacturer has a minimum distance to sit away from the set then do yourself a favour and stick to it. The problem is that the interlacing causes the pixel grid to become visible if you sit too close, totally spoiling the image quality never mind the 3D effect. For example with my 42" passive 3D TV anything closer than about 2 metres spoils the picture.

2. Height Matters - Thinking of wall mounting your Passive 3D TV? Great but please keep in mind that the 3D effect is only visible in quite a narrow range of view (compared to active 3D TVs). The biggest problem is with vertical alignment and if you mount your TV too high you'll find that you lose the 3D effect. From experience I wouldn't want to go more than 8 inches above or below eye level in an ideal world.

3. Light STILL Matters - One of the great advantages that passive 3D has over active 3D is that you can still watch 3D television in daylight! This is great becuase with Active you need to shut out as many light sources as possible or you're in for a world of hurt. But don't let this make you believe that light doesn't matter. I'm yet to see a single Passive 3D TV that doesn't have a highly reflective screen, it's just something synonomous with modern TVs in general. You'll still get the best from your passive 3D TV if you can keep the lighting low and consistent.

Gears of War 3 In 3D

Lets have a look at some of the pro's and con's:-

Good Points

- They give you a 3D depth slider so that you can adjust the level of 3D to your particluar 3D TV, why all 3D games don't have this is beyond me. It means the level of cross-talk you want to put up with is up to you.

- The depth is "real". The 3rd person nature of the Gears of War games lends itself to 3D far better than first person shooters like Call of Duty games of Halo CE Anniversary. Th 3D effect even on the lowest setting is very much there and in your face.

- The frame rate holds up remarkably well, there are no problems with aiming wih the 3D mode activated and yo're just as likely to headshot somebody with a long shot as you are in normal 2D mode.

- The best HUD I've seen in a 3D game to date. Sometimes when games switch to 3D any static display items look massively out of place as well as very cross-talky. This doesn't happen in Gears of War 3 and the ammo counters and health indicator doesn't detract from the 3D one bit.

Bad Points

- The first thing you'll notice is that the resolution and graphics detail takes a massive hit. The graphics go from being real looking to almost cartoony in nature. If you've ever played Resident Evil on the Wii then you'll know what to expect.

- Camera shake can make you feel sick. The Gears of War gameplay is suited to runnng around ducking and diving out of cover. The camera shake when running is particularly noticable in 3D mode and is enough for even the strongest stomach to start to turn. It might have been wise for the pogrammers to turn down that effect when in 3D.

- One that affects every X-Box 360 3D game, achievements. You're fully involved in your 3D game when all of a sudden you're greeted by a massive, blury, horribly out of place acheivement icon taking up half your screen and making you think your eyes have gone funny.

Would I Play Gears of War 3 in 3D or 2D?

I guess it depends on how long you're planning on playing it. For an hours blast through the single player campaign then the 3D mode does add to the gameplay and experience. For much longer than that I think you may struggle with the camera shake and the same with the more frantic action of online play. For the final word, I've now completed the single player campaign in full in both 2D and 3D and I can honestly say I enjoyed playing it in 3D better.

Enjoy what is probably the best 3D shooter on the market,
buy your copy of Gears of War 3

I'm not sure if she would have got used to these changes over time but I don't think so. Tight shots make up a lot of TV programs(especially in the age of HD) and to suddenly lose them all does make a big difference. The liklihood is that production quality will get better over time and the 3D we see will improve to include closer shots without cross-talk but until then I don't think we'll be seeing large numbers of normal TV programs shown in 3D, best to stick to nature documentaries and live sports (in which it excels) for now.

The BBC do deserve a massive pat on the back though, as a demonstration in producing clear 3D it was superb, even more importantly it should highlight to other broadcasters that there's no need to lump all there 3D content under the Sky 3D banner, ANY channel is capable of showing 3D content.

To be honest it had been extremely close all the way along until the last month but I would say that for certainly the first 6 weeks Active 3D had the edge. However this hasn't lasted and the final result shows passive 3D with 49% of the votes (149), active 3D with 35% (106) and people who couldn't see any difference accounting for the other 16% (48).

Why Do People Prefer Passive 3D?

I'm going to offer up a guess here and say that I think LG's latest range of passive Cinema 3D TVs may have something to do with it. In terms of family friendly easy of use, not to mention coming with so many glasses these sets have been a god send to the family wanting 3D TV for their home. Obviously you can't sniff at their 3D performance either, they are my current favourite 3D TV in terms of the 3D delivered to the viewer.

I also believe that lately people have started to turn away from Active 3D and not just because of the quality of passive. Samsung and LG have been hit hard this year with complaints about active 3D glasses. The most common complaints have been about syncing issues (where the glasses dip out of 3D for a moment) and jumping brightness levels. I still own an LG PX990 and of the 4 sets of 3D glasses I have 1 is prone to the syncing problem if not 100% fully charged. These glasses are still massively expensive (even at under £60) so it's no wonder people are unhappy, especially if they are buying muliple pairs.

So there you have it, Passive 3D wins the day in our survey. What do you think though, do you agree that passive 3D is better? Do you have an opinion on why I think passive came out on top?

At this point I'd have liked to have been able to take you through some of the stand out 3D bits in Thor, "wow that bit at xx minutes was great", "you've got to see the flames at blah blah blah etc"...but I can't. I can't because I gave up after 30 minutes, twice! My first attempt to watch Thor in 3D was a total disaster, I thought my glasses were broken the cross-talk was that bad. After 5 minutes I'd had enough and pulled out another pair, double checked their charge level (fine), made sure there were no obstructions between the glasses and the infrared on my LG PX990 (both those things can make a difference). I was straight in front of the TV at an ideal distance but the picture was still unwatchable. So I chucked in Step Up 3D just to make sure there wasn't a problem with my setup, there wasn't. It's post processed crap of the highest level, it had my head spinning and before the film had even got going I'd given up.

On Sunday I dragged the 3D Blu-ray around to a friend’s house to try it on his passive LW650. It made no difference. In post processing they appear to have separated the left and right eyes to such a degree that you're just not going to get a good effect. There are several bits that are just about watchable but the majority of the film is either totally flat or so blurred with cross-talk it makes your head hurt.

The real shame in all this is that I did get around to watching the film in 2D and it's a really good modern action flick. Much like the latest Transformers film anybody forced to only see this in 3D is going to think it's a bad film, which it's not. It didn't need the 3D, it wrecked it, please please please take note Hollywood Producers. Either do 3D properly and film in 3D from the get go or forget about it. I always thought Clash of the Titans in 3D was as bad as it was going to get but it looks like I was wrong, it's getting worse not better!

So Thor in short, one of the best comic book to movie tie-ins I've seen in a long time but 3D that makes Pirahna 3D appear watchable. Don't say you haven't been warned. You can pick up the Triple Disc Version of Thor (including 3D, Blu-ray, DVD and Digital Copy) from Amazon.