There's a lot of hype around at present over 3D TV. I'm not convinced it'll be as big a seller as the manufacturers are claiming — but we'll definitely test some when they're in the market and there's something 3D to watch on them. My thinking is that it'll be attractive to some people because they will watch a lot of movies and there'll be some titles (such as UP or Avatar) that will work best in this format. However, I think most of us will still be watching sport and the news in 2D for some time to come.
The other thing that is causing some confusion is the insistence by some manufacturers that 200Hz TVs are better than 100Hz TVs. There's no doubt that 100Hz is capable of delivering a smoother image for sport ,etc, than 50Hz — we've seen it in the lab and there's a logic to the technical explanations. The technical explanation is that by adding more interpolated frames objects moving from one part of the screen to another will appear to move smoothly. This is true for 100Hz, but the human eye and brain can only process so much information at a time. That's why we see motion that is made up of lots of still images appearing one after another as slow as 24 images per second.
However, 200Hz is not proven for me yet. We've not actually tested a 200Hz model and the demonstrations I've seen aren't convincing. Nor have I seen any evidence that the extra frames made possible by 200Hz technology will be an improvement. However, there may be a need for a better processor to handle 200Hz and that alone could result in a better picture.
The jury is still out for me until we've got a 200Hz TV in the lab to make a comparison.